I found this article originally posted by ScythKing on the old AE forums while scouring google.
Racial Type of Original Indo-Europeans
Author: T.V. Gamkrelidze, V.V. Ivanov
T.V. Gamkrelidze, V.V. Ivanov, 1995, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin - New York
pp. 847-849
12.8.1. The diffusion of the ancient Southwest Asian physical type in western Asia and Europe as a reflection of ethnic blending
The non-Indo-European linguistic substrata of the autochthonous populations of ancient Europe facilitated the graduate differentiation of the Ancient European dialects and the rise of the separate Celtic, Italic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic linguistic groups. Contacts among these languages would still have been possible, with consequent formation of shared lexical isoglosses reflected in the diagram of dialect differentiation at level 6 (see I.7, Fig. 3 and I.7.5 above).
The trajectory proposed here for migrations of the Indo-Europeans from a center in Southwest Asia to new territories in Eurasia, and for their contacts with speakers of other languages, correlates to some extent with the physical anthropological picture of migrations and racial blending in western Europe (see Map 3). There is an eastern Mediterranean, Balkan-Caucasian area of racial formation centered in Asia Minor (Alekseev 1974:224-25). In this area we can distinguish a Southwest Asian population group, widely attested in monuments in Southwest Asia (Luschan 1911, Bunak 1927, Field 1961). This physical type is characterized by marked brachycephaly, intensified development of facial and body hair, and a distinctive nose form (depicted, for example, in Hittite reliefs). It is typical of the tribes who were in contact with the ancient Near Eastern area, including the southern Caucasus, Asia Minor, and northern Iran, at a certain chronological level (Abduselisvili, 1966). From this area it spread with some changes to Afghanistan (in particular Nuristan: Herrlick 1937) and northern India (the so-called Indo-Afghan race: Devec 1967). It is related to the Bronze Age population of Central Asia and the contemporary Pamir-Fergana type (Alekseev 1974:222-23). The eastern Mediterranean type is also represented in Europe, where it blends with the earlier types - northern, southern and central-eastern, the latter with Mongoloid admixture - which represent the original population (Alekseev 1974: 225-41).
Our claim that the Proto-Indo-European speakers were of the Mediterranean racial type conflicts with the traditional view of the Indo-Europeans as fair-haired, blue-eyed, and dolichocephalic, a view drawn from the literary texts of the ancient Indo-European languages (cf. Lelekov 1982). There is a certain idealization of light skin and fair hair in the the Old Indic and Greek traditions (e.g., Indra is characterized as fari, ha'ri-), but this indicates that fair coloring was rare and phenotypically marked among the early Indo-Europeans; it cannot be interpreted as some kind of memory of the of the typical physical features of their ancestors who spoke Proto-Indo-European. There is special sympoblic significance for the color white in various early Indo-European traditions, and it is connected with early Indo-European social organization, but there is no basis in regarding it as based on hair or skin color.
The assumption that the Indo-Europeans were blue-eyed found some currency when northern Europe was regarded as the original Proto-Indo-European homeland, but placing the homeland in Southwest Asia changes the physical type that must be assumed. The migrations of the early Indo-European speakers and their interactions with local populations in their new territories would eventually have brought about fundamental changes in their physical type. Such interaction must be assumed for northern Europe, where the Ancient European languages were super-imposed on the local non-Indo-European languages in prehistoric times. The speakers of the ancient European languages could have been a dark-eyed population which was assimilated by the indigenous population. The outcome would have depended on the relative numbers of the indigenous and immigrant population. The child of a dark-eyed and a light-eyed parent will be phenotypically dark-eyed but heterozygous, carrying a gene for light eyes which may become overt in the next generation if the gene for dark eyes is lost. Thus a pre-Indo-European population with light eye color, as in northern Europe, could have remained predominantly light-eyed even after being conquered by a dark-eyed population and adopting their language.
I found this article originally posted by ScythKing on the old AE forums while scouring google.
Racial Type of Original Indo-Europeans
Author: T.V. Gamkrelidze, V.V. Ivanov
T.V. Gamkrelidze, V.V. Ivanov, 1995, Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin - New York
pp. 847-849
12.8.1. The diffusion of the ancient Southwest Asian physical type in western Asia and Europe as a reflection of ethnic blending
The non-Indo-European linguistic substrata of the autochthonous populations of ancient Europe facilitated the graduate differentiation of the Ancient European dialects and the rise of the separate Celtic, Italic, Illyrian, Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic linguistic groups. Contacts among these languages would still have been possible, with consequent formation of shared lexical isoglosses reflected in the diagram of dialect differentiation at level 6 (see I.7, Fig. 3 and I.7.5 above).
The trajectory proposed here for migrations of the Indo-Europeans from a center in Southwest Asia to new territories in Eurasia, and for their contacts with speakers of other languages, correlates to some extent with the physical anthropological picture of migrations and racial blending in western Europe (see Map 3). There is an eastern Mediterranean, Balkan-Caucasian area of racial formation centered in Asia Minor (Alekseev 1974:224-25). In this area we can distinguish a Southwest Asian population group, widely attested in monuments in Southwest Asia (Luschan 1911, Bunak 1927, Field 1961). This physical type is characterized by marked brachycephaly, intensified development of facial and body hair, and a distinctive nose form (depicted, for example, in Hittite reliefs). It is typical of the tribes who were in contact with the ancient Near Eastern area, including the southern Caucasus, Asia Minor, and northern Iran, at a certain chronological level (Abduselisvili, 1966). From this area it spread with some changes to Afghanistan (in particular Nuristan: Herrlick 1937) and northern India (the so-called Indo-Afghan race: Devec 1967). It is related to the Bronze Age population of Central Asia and the contemporary Pamir-Fergana type (Alekseev 1974:222-23). The eastern Mediterranean type is also represented in Europe, where it blends with the earlier types - northern, southern and central-eastern, the latter with Mongoloid admixture - which represent the original population (Alekseev 1974: 225-41).
Our claim that the Proto-Indo-European speakers were of the Mediterranean racial type conflicts with the traditional view of the Indo-Europeans as fair-haired, blue-eyed, and dolichocephalic, a view drawn from the literary texts of the ancient Indo-European languages (cf. Lelekov 1982). There is a certain idealization of light skin and fair hair in the the Old Indic and Greek traditions (e.g., Indra is characterized as fari, ha'ri-), but this indicates that fair coloring was rare and phenotypically marked among the early Indo-Europeans; it cannot be interpreted as some kind of memory of the of the typical physical features of their ancestors who spoke Proto-Indo-European. There is special sympoblic significance for the color white in various early Indo-European traditions, and it is connected with early Indo-European social organization, but there is no basis in regarding it as based on hair or skin color.
The assumption that the Indo-Europeans were blue-eyed found some currency when northern Europe was regarded as the original Proto-Indo-European homeland, but placing the homeland in Southwest Asia changes the physical type that must be assumed. The migrations of the early Indo-European speakers and their interactions with local populations in their new territories would eventually have brought about fundamental changes in their physical type. Such interaction must be assumed for northern Europe, where the Ancient European languages were super-imposed on the local non-Indo-European languages in prehistoric times. The speakers of the ancient European languages could have been a dark-eyed population which was assimilated by the indigenous population. The outcome would have depended on the relative numbers of the indigenous and immigrant population. The child of a dark-eyed and a light-eyed parent will be phenotypically dark-eyed but heterozygous, carrying a gene for light eyes which may become overt in the next generation if the gene for dark eyes is lost. Thus a pre-Indo-European population with light eye color, as in northern Europe, could have remained predominantly light-eyed even after being conquered by a dark-eyed population and adopting their language.
Since PIEs were living in Anatolia,I can surely claim that they were od Mediterranean origin like most of modern Turks,Iranians and to some extent Greeks.
The problem with both an origin in Anatolia and Armenia, is that the earliest attested peoples in these regions did not even speak IE languages. The land that the Hittites first possessed, was itself, named after a people who spoke a language, Hattian, which was not IE. In Armenia, the first attested language was a Hurrian dialect. We know that the Hurrians expanded far and wide from a region to the north of Mesopotamia. We have found their presence in northern Mesopotamia and northwestern Iran, and later we find their presence in Syria and southern Turkey. The two non-IE languages, Hattian and Hurrian were neighbors to each other.
Western Anatolia could still be considered a candidate for an IE homeland, since the trajectory of Neolithic culture seems to have originated from there. Part of the problem is that among the earliest of IE words, that for "horse", there were no horses until much later. The very name "Asia" may have come from the Luwian word "assuwa" which meant "horse". The same problem exists for Greece. The horse did not appear there until about 1900 BC. The earliest evidence for the domesticated horse was the Pontic steppe, about 4000 BC. The other problem is that while the early Neolithic may have originated from Anatolia, later cultures, especially those based on a pastoral/agricultural mix originated on the Pontic steppe and made their way into Anatolia through the Balkans. The physical culture of the western Anatolian Luwians could be traced to late Neolithic cultures from the Balkans. In the historical period, the Greeks were aware of migrations of Thracians, Phrygians, and Celts crossing into Anatolia from the Balkans.
The problem with both an origin in Anatolia and Armenia, is that the earliest attested peoples in these regions did not even speak IE languages. The land that the Hittites first possessed, was itself, named after a people who spoke a language, Hattian, which was not IE. In Armenia, the first attested language was a Hurrian dialect. We know that the Hurrians expanded far and wide from a region to the north of Mesopotamia. We have found their presence in northern Mesopotamia and northwestern Iran, and later we find their presence in Syria and southern Turkey. The two non-IE languages, Hattian and Hurrian were neighbors to each other.
Western Anatolia could still be considered a candidate for an IE homeland, since the trajectory of Neolithic culture seems to have originated from there. Part of the problem is that among the earliest of IE words, that for "horse", there were no horses until much later. The very name "Asia" may have come from the Luwian word "assuwa" which meant "horse". The same problem exists for Greece. The horse did not appear there until about 1900 BC. The earliest evidence for the domesticated horse was the Pontic steppe, about 4000 BC. The other problem is that while the early Neolithic may have originated from Anatolia, later cultures, especially those based on a pastoral/agricultural mix originated on the Pontic steppe and made their way into Anatolia through the Balkans. The physical culture of the western Anatolian Luwians could be traced to late Neolithic cultures from the Balkans. In the historical period, the Greeks were aware of migrations of Thracians, Phrygians, and Celts crossing into Anatolia from the Balkans.
How about a fusion culture, developed from an Anatolian neolithic and Pontic steppe "Cro-Magnon" culture, as the proto-Indo-Europeans? The origination point would be in the Pontic steppe. There is some evidence for this and it seems to fit everything the best.
IEs didn't bring much genes into the peoples they invaded, at least
that's what I think. The "mediterranean" phenotype expansion the
article talks about is much more likely to have happened in the times
of Neolithic expansion... but those weren't IE-speakers for what we can
tell: none of the earliest Neolithic civilization of which we can
identify language: Sumer, Elam, Egypt, Indus, Crete was IE-speaker at
all.
The risk here is to fall in falacious argumentations of the type: snow
is white, the Moon is white, so the Moon is full of snow. Or in other
words: Iranians speak IE, Iranians are Mediterranean (?), so IEs were
Mediterranean.
In fact original IEs were, in my opinion, probably Mongoloid or that
type of intermediate Mongoloid-Caucasoid that some call Turanian, not
Nordic or East-Baltic. The presence of some degree of epicanthic fold
in Northern and Eastern European populations (quite rare in Western and
Mediterranean Europe) most probably came with IE (and Uralic)
migrations.
Once Western (and also Eastern) IEs got mixed with European Natives in
Eastern Europe their appearence must have changed to that of Russians
and Ukranians, as the IE blood was always a small fraction, even in
that early stage.
If my theory is wrong, then maybe primitive proto-IEs were after all Russian blondes and the Mongoloid traces come only from Uralo-Altaic transference.
In fact original IEs were, in my opinion, probably Mongoloid or that type of intermediate Mongoloid-Caucasoid that some call Turanian, not Nordic or East-Baltic. The presence of some degree of epicanthic fold in Northern and Eastern European populations (quite rare in Western and Mediterranean Europe) most probably came with IE (and Uralic) migrations.
Those pseudo-"Mongoloid" traits you talk abuot are just "Cro-Magnon" Upper Paleolithic European traits.
In fact original IEs were, in my
opinion, probably Mongoloid or that type of intermediate
Mongoloid-Caucasoid that some call Turanian, not Nordic or East-Baltic.
The presence of some degree of epicanthic fold
in Northern and Eastern European populations (quite rare in Western and
Mediterranean Europe) most probably came with IE (and Uralic)
migrations.
Those pseudo-"Mongoloid" traits you talk abuot are just "Cro-Magnon" Upper Paleolithic European traits.
How do you know? I only mentioned epicanthic fold wich is something
that can't be tracked in bones. Anyhow, the most likely purest
descendants of Upper Paleolithic peoples in easter and western Europe
are Caucasic peoples and Basques respectively, none of them
particularly "Mongoloid-looking".
I don't discard a priori that
such traits could be already in native Paleolithic population but,
considering that Western Europeans are a good surviving not too mixed
sample of those natives, this doesn't seem likely.
How do you know? I only mentioned epicanthic fold wich is something that can't be tracked in bones. Anyhow, the most likely purest descendants of Upper Paleolithic peoples in easter and western Europe are Caucasic peoples and Basques respectively, none of them particularly "Mongoloid-looking".
I don't discard a priori that such traits could be already in native Paleolithic population but, considering that Western Europeans are a good surviving not too mixed sample of those natives, this doesn't seem likely.
Those traits you talk of, which is associated with northern Europeans, are indeed attributed to "Cro-Magnons", Upper Paleolithic Europeans. You can check up on this yourself, or when I have time, I can find you sources. Actually, there are already sources on my forum in the link below.
The Basques, it seems, are not that Upper Paleolithic, and nor the Caucasus. The Basques are pre-Indo-Europeans though.
There are many theories over there but one seems pretty solid: Basques
are direct descendants (along with others) of Magdalenian
hunter-gatherers. Recent fossil DNA testing seems to confirm it (not
from Solutreans, not from Gravetians but specifically from
Magdalenians).
(This while could seem a little odd, actually would
confirm my guess that Basque language evolved initially north of the
mountains, as in fact seems that Magdalenian developed in Dordogne. My
logic is the following: ipar/ibar=north and ibar=river; hego=south and
hego=wing, igo=high - adapting very well to the geography of
Aquitaine/Gascony, that shares the Basque genetic pool better than any
other region, including Dordogne).
Instead nobody can claim so far with authority that epicanthic fold was
already in Paleolithic European population. One can guess or speculate
about it but that's all. I actually think that the base of European
genetic pool is native but from possibly several somehow diferent
groups, while a significant part would be from Neolithic Near Easterns
and/or Aegeans that came since the 6th milennium and only a minor part
would come from IE migrations, being more dense in Eastern and Northern
Europe (precisely where the epicanthic fold is more common). This is
why I think that original IEs could well have a good dose of Mongoloid
blood and aspect, what would be confirmed somehow with the Central
Asian ultimate origin of the original proto-IE nation.
Please note that most of the descriptions of IE phenotype point out their unusual tallness that perhaps was correlated with the diet consisted of meat. I belive that Celtic phenotype is closest to the primary look of early IE.
Please note that most of the descriptions of IE phenotype
point out their unusual tallness that perhaps was correlated with
the diet consisted of meat. I belive that Celtic phenotype is closest
to the primary look of early IE.
Celtics are a very mixed population, whose main feature is/was their
Western European aboriginal stock (pre-IE). We can't say that any of
European or Asian peoples are representative of a prototype that got
lost in the very first migration of these peoples over other much more
numerous populations of farmers. There's nothing close to an IE race,
only IE languages. If anywhere we should look at the likely original
areas where those peoples came from: Eastern Europe and/or Central
Asia. Maybe Russians and Ukrainians resemble how Western IEs were,
maybe Khazaks do, even if the now speak Turk.
There's always that wrong concept that migration/invasion means change
of population. In fact in most cases the genetic apportation of the
invaders is small, while the linguistic and cultural one is much
larger. Latin American colonization would be a good example, IE
speaking Africa a more extreme example, North American, Australian or
Argentinan colonizations very bad ones.
All that is right (accordingly cultural and liguistic influences), however mummies of Lou Lan might be considered as a cue and Scythian excavations as well. Germans, Slavs, Celts, Budini, White Huns of Procopius, Dinling, Alans etc. have similar portrait in various sources, fair skin and hair (or red), tallnes, good posture. Even now we're still able to discriminate (in terms of cognitive sesnse) "we" vs. "them". Looking on the pictures from Ossetia or Kurdistan I see faces similar to those I deal with here in Poland however I know that cultural gap exist between us.
All that is right (accordingly cultural and liguistic influences), however mummies of Lou Lan might be considered as a cue and Scythian excavations as well. Germans, Slavs, Celts, Budini, White Huns of Procopius, Dinling, Alans etc. have similar portrait in various sources, fair skin and hair (or red), tallnes, good posture. Even now we're still able to discriminate (in terms of cognitive sesnse) "we" vs. "them". Looking on the pictures from Ossetia or Kurdistan I see faces similar to those I deal with here in Poland however I know that cultural gap exist between us.
That's a good point - I spotted the similarity of certain Kurds to certain Eastern Euros as a kid, long before I read up on any of this stuff.
Looking on the pictures from Ossetia or Kurdistan I see faces similar to those I deal with here in Poland however I know that cultural gap exist between us.
That's a good point - I spotted the similarity of certain Kurds to certain Eastern Euros as a kid, long before I read up on any of this stuff.
So you are claiming that Kurds and Eastern Europeans are related.
How Kurds look like Eastern Europeans? If so people who call theselves Kurd in Turkey are not Kurds......
You are claiming that Kurds are living for thousands years in Mesepotamia. Do you think biologically it is possible to have an Eastern European look in Mesopotamia?
All Caucasians look much alike each other. This has probably not much
to do with IE migrations but with earlier connections (Paleolithic and
Neolithic). You look at Syrians or Tunisians and they seem Italians or
Spaniards but yet ones speak a Semitic tongue and have never spoken a
IE one (except maybe during Greek or Roman domination) and the others
speak a IE language and have never or almost spoken a Semitic one.
Also you look at Indians and Iranians and they don't look too much like
each other, yet their languages are rather closely related inside the
IE tree.
I think that the base populations of large parts of the Near East and
Eastern Europe, including the Caucasus Mountains are related since
Paleolithic times... but it's difficult to say with certainty.
All Caucasians look much alike each other. This has probably not much to do with IE migrations but with earlier connections (Paleolithic and Neolithic). You look at Syrians or Tunisians and they seem Italians or Spaniards but yet ones speak a Semitic tongue and have never spoken a IE one (except maybe during Greek or Roman domination) and the others speak a IE language and have never or almost spoken a Semitic one.
Well fysically they dont look like eachother so closely. I bet you neve rsaw a Tunusian or syrian
No I am not. Kurds have a very varied look I was pointing out my observation, it came to mind because of what Rava said.
Alans (ossetians) are descended from Sarmatians (Sar matae : upper Medes). The Kurds have a big Median genetic influence and the Sarmatians were widespread in Eastern Europe.
Now I am making a relation. Sorry if it bothers you.
Originally posted by Alparslan
Originally posted by Zagros
Originally posted by Rava
Looking on the pictures from Ossetia or Kurdistan I see faces similar to those I deal with here in Poland however I know that cultural gap exist between us.
That's a good point - I spotted the similarity of certain Kurds to certain Eastern Euros as a kid, long before I read up on any of this stuff.
So you are claiming that Kurds and Eastern Europeans are related.
How Kurds look like Eastern Europeans? If so people who call theselves Kurd in Turkey are not Kurds......
You are claiming that Kurds are living for thousands years in Mesepotamia. Do you think biologically it is possible to have an Eastern European look in Mesopotamia?
Herodotus was intriqued hearing of people wearing the Medes' dress. I share this interest why median "spaka" - a dog, sounds nearly identical like "sobaka" in slavic.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum