Which are the first settler of Europe?

#1
Hello everybody.
I am new in this forum.
I would like to know your opinion about the first race and language of Europe.
Who is the oldest europian? Was he borned in Balcan ? Since I find many difficulties beleiving totally the indo-europian theory, would anyone of you have a better one?
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2007
9,098
Canada
#2
What do you mean, you have a hard time believing the Indo-European theory?

They are definately not the first settlers of Europe. The IE theory is that they arrived in Europe at some point, not really all that long ago in the entire history of human habitation of Europe - only about 5500 years ago. Europe was definately inhabited by earlier peoples, and the theory is NOT that they are the first arrivals. Moreover, the IE theory doesn't necessarily mean that all that many people even entered Europe - it's simply that the language spread. There could have been a great deal of movement, or almost none at all, for this to happen.

The first "settlers" to Europe would have been Neanderthals, and they were quickly followed up by early homo sapiens known as Cro-Magnons - about 30 or 40 thousand years ago. To put this in perspective, the earliest linguistic groups in the world that we are able to identify are groups like the Sumerians and Harappans, who are only about 6 thousand years ago. Going back 30-40 thousand years, there's no way we can possibly know what language they spoke. All we know of them is their tools, some cave paintings, and that they had things like weaving and flaked stone.
 
#3
What do you mean, you have a hard time believing the Indo-European theory?

They are definately not the first settlers of Europe. The IE theory is that they arrived in Europe at some point, not really all that long ago in the entire history of human habitation of Europe - only about 5500 years ago. Europe was definately inhabited by earlier peoples, and the theory is NOT that they are the first arrivals. Moreover, the IE theory doesn't necessarily mean that all that many people even entered Europe - it's simply that the language spread. There could have been a great deal of movement, or almost none at all, for this to happen.

The first "settlers" to Europe would have been Neanderthals, and they were quickly followed up by early homo sapiens known as Cro-Magnons - about 30 or 40 thousand years ago. To put this in perspective, the earliest linguistic groups in the world that we are able to identify are groups like the Sumerians and Harappans, who are only about 6 thousand years ago. Going back 30-40 thousand years, there's no way we can possibly know what language they spoke. All we know of them is their tools, some cave paintings, and that they had things like weaving and flaked stone.
Thank you but:
I am aware of Darwin theory.
I am aware of Cromagnons skull, which was a fake one(assembly of a upper part a human skull with a jaw of a monkey.
I am aware of Neanderthal skull which was a monkey one.
I am even aware of "indoeuropians" theory which gives answer to nothing.
So I am not talking biologically but racially.

My question is : Do we have any nation today which derives directly or with light mixtures from pre-indoeuropian races like for ex. Basques or pelasgians or whoever else whose these "indoeuropians" found in Europe before them.
And also these pre-indoeuropians were a white race as well ?
 

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#4
Is there a nation today which derives directly or with light mixtures from pre-indoeuropian races? Finland, perhaps, depending on how light a mixture you reckon to be "light." Certainly the Finns were in Europe no later than the Indo-europeans.
 
Oct 2007
366
Southern Vermont
#5
Well "racially", pre-indoeuropean probably makes up the majority of the gene pool in Europe. As Edgewaters said, the Indo-European theory provides an explanation for the similarity in many European and central-eastern languages, not the genetic make-up of these countries.

Also I question where you derive your conclusions regarding hominid fossils. Though 19th century archaeology was plagued by forgeries, there have been many modern excavations of neanderthal and cro-magnon fossils that are nearly beyond doubt.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2007
308
#6
The Indo-European theory, like the Theory of Evolution, is supported by a huge field of evidence. Iranian, Indian, and European languages are all on the same broad tree of languages. How else would you explain the similiarities?
 
Jul 2007
9,098
Canada
#7
My question is : Do we have any nation today which derives directly or with light mixtures from pre-indoeuropian races like for ex. Basques or pelasgians or whoever else whose these "indoeuropians" found in Europe before them.
The genetic makeup of Europe was mostly determined in the upper Paleolithic and early Neolithic, long before the arrival of PIE. Subsequent movements have added small amounts of genetic material, but the foundation and majority of it comes from the upper Pal. era, and seems to have arrived via the Middle East. Those are the most widespread genes, sort of a common foundation on top of which the others rest.

Some groups, such as the Basques, show lower concentrations of the additional genetic materials and higher concentrations of "original" haplotypes thought to have arrived in the Paleolithic and Neolithic.

In Gough's Cave - in Somerset, England - a skeleton was discovered and dated to 7150 BC. Mitochondrial DNA belonged to haplogroup U, which is thought to be characteristic of Neolithic farmers moving out of the Middle East and into Europe. 20 individuals from the nearest village submitted genetic material for testing. Out of those 20 people, "Cheddar Man" had 2 exact matches, probable direct maternal descendants, and one other close match. After 9000 years he still had some family in the local village ... that gives you an idea of the stability of populations despite thousands of years of population influxes.

And also these pre-indoeuropians were a white race as well ?
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "white". Are Turks white? How about Slavics? What about Portuguese or Greeks?

Groups in the areas most strongly identified with the earliest haplotypes - groups like the Cornish and the Basques - tend not to really fit the "white" stereotype - but between that and Asiatic or African, I guess they fall closest to "white". Hitler wouldn't have picked them as blue-eyed Supermen, though (mind you, he kinda looked the type himself). They tend to be short, dark haired, dark eyed, and a bit swarthy.

Basques:

http://www.okerrak.com/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=463

http://www.okerrak.com/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=486

http://www.okerrak.com/index.php?q=gallery&g2_itemId=510

You can see the same sort of look in the British Isles in folks like Ian McShane, Vinnie Jones, Steve Kerrigan, Jim Lauchlan, etc. I used to wonder about this alot when I was younger, because I'm very stereotypically Celtic-looking (red hair, very fair skin etc) but both my mother and father, who are Welsh, I always thought they looked sort of ... Italian or Spanish or even Middle Eastern or something. They're both a bit swarthy, short, and have wavy dark hair.
 
Last edited:

Lucius

Forum Staff
Jan 2007
16,363
Nebraska
#8
The Kartvelebi (Grunskayans, or Georgians. I better stick to "Georgians" so as not to confuse the English-speakers) have been in Europe (and Asia) since the Stone Age.

Christianity became the state religion around 337. They reckoned themselves to be the descendants of Kartlos, the great grandson of the Biblical Japheth (Noah - Japheth - Gomer - Togarmah - Kartlos). Unless I'm mistaken, in racial mythology, being descended from Japheth makes one white (well, you know, depending upon whom else a person is descended from). In any case, I think it's fair to say that their culture is as "European" as any other, and always has been. I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that the Indo-Europeans "found" the Georgians north of the Caucus Mountains. It would be more accurate to say that the ancient Georgians "found" the Indo-europeans moving in from the north. Perhaps the ancient Georgians "found" humans living north of the Caucasus mountains when they moved in. If that was the case, then THOSE people would be candidates for being among the "original" Europeans.

boreans, what is the indo-european theory anyway? I'm not sure I've ever heard of it except in a linguistic context, that is, that certain languages are descended from an ancient indo-european proto-language. This idea is no longer regard as a theory. It has been accepted as fact, even if there might still be some disagreement about the inclusion of this or that language. I don't think any serious scholar has ever stated that the speakers of a indo-european proto-language were the "original" inhabitants of that western Asian peninsula we call Europe.

I think it's geographically obvious that the first human baby born in what we call Europe would have been born either not too far west of present day Istanbul, or close to the shore of the Black Sea (or the Caspian Sea) not too far north of either end of the watershed divide of the Caucasus mountains. Perhaps southern Spain? Perhaps one of the islands of the Aegean Sea off the coast of Turkey? I don't think it's possible to know.
 
Last edited: