World History And Anthropology: READER RESPONSE: Prove the Germanics were from central asia The Ancient Greeks were black, world history and anthropology ~~~~

Sunday, 23 February 2014

READER RESPONSE: Prove the Germanics were from central asia

While I am looking at more examples on the internet it does relate to something I mentioned before. In stealing the black history of Europe, the white people claiming falsely a european history have erased much of their own true central asian history. Hence it is quiet common to find articles where it states "Germanics were in (insert northern european place here) as early 1ad/1bc etc." With no background histroy on how they got there or WHERE they arrived from.  One is simply to take for granted that they popped out of thin air.

What is known with certainty is that they are indo-europeans and thus come from central Asia at some point. And they were not the first indo europeans (italics and dorians) but late indo-europeans arrival. They had no writing and most central asians did not but the archaeological evidence shows thet are from the steppes not european in origin.

Also in dealing the germanics they had no collective identity and arrived at seperate times in europe. some like the alani are straight from central asia with clearly traceable roots.

"ALANS, an ancient Iranian tribe of the northern (Scythian, Saka, Sarmatian, Massagete) group, known to classical writers from the first centuries A.D."

Any the proof enough is all the indo-europeans come from central asia otherwise I'd have to go through every single of the hundreds of tribe but I'll go through a few

"The Alans who were a group of Sarmatian tribes according to the Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus "Nearly all the Alani are men of great stature and beauty, their hair is somewhat yellow, their eyes are frighteningly fierce"

The Sarmatians were indeed from central asia like the Alans(a subgroup of them). Who spread into east europe with a large series of tribes which basically filled up non-roman east europe and central asia and would go on to become the later "germanic tribes"

According to Pliny, Scythian rule once extended as far as Germany. Jordanes supports this hypothesis by telling us on the one hand that he was familiar with the Geography of Ptolemy, which includes the entire Balto-Slavic territory in Sarmatia, and on the other that this same region was Scythia. By "Sarmatia", Jordanes means only the Aryan territory. The Sarmatians were, therefore, a sub-group of the broader Scythian peoples.

Hence we know the Germanics were indeed Asians because they arouse  out of these Sarmatian and Scynthian tribes (related) of Asia.

Tacitus' De Origine et situ Germanorum
"All Germania is divided from Gaul, Raetia, and Pannonia by the Rhine and Danube rivers; from the Sarmatians and the Dacians by shared fear and mountains. The Ocean laps the rest, embracing wide bays and enormous stretches of islands. Just recently, we learned about certain tribes and kings, whom war brought to light."

"Eastern Romans continued to speak conventionally of "Scythians" to designate Germanic tribes and confederations or mounted Eurasian nomadic barbarians in general"
"The Germani are the West most branch of the Asian Scythian tribes..."
see Zosimus, Historia Nova, 1.23 & 1.28, also Zonaras, Epitome historiarum, book 12. Also the title "Scythika" of the lost work of the 3rd-century Greek historian Dexippus who narrated the Germanic invasions of his age

"The Sarmatians (including the Alans and finally the Ossetians) counted as Scythians in the broadest sense of the word – as speakers of Northeast Iranian languages,[55] and are considered mostly of Indo-Iranian descent"

Iranian like their buddies the alani, central asians
Bernard S. Bachrach, A History of the Alans in the West, from their first appearance in the sources of classical antiquity through the early Middle Ages, University of Minnesota Press, 1973 ISBN 0-8166-0678-1

The Carolingian kings of the Franks traced Merovingian ancestry to the Germanic tribe of the Sicambri(another germanic tribee). Gregory of Tours documents in his History of the Franks that when Clovis was baptised, he was referred to as a Sicamber with the words "Mitis depone colla, Sicamber, adora quod incendisti, incendi quod adorasti."'. The Chronicle of Fredegar in turn reveals that the Franks believed the Sicambri to be a tribe of Scythian or Cimmerian descent, who had changed their name to Franks in honour of their chieftain Franco in 11 BC.

"Based on such accounts of Scythian founders of certain Germanic as well as Celtic tribes, British historiography in the British Empire period such as Sharon Turner in his History of the Anglo-Saxons, made them the ancestors of the Anglo-Saxons."

In otherwords you can see there is a clear pattern of germanic tribes indivudally showing up as Scynthians and Sarmatians (cimmerians)

" Indo-European peoples migrated out of Central Asia in the third millennium BC... Their language broke down into dialects that can be divided into twelve branches, ten of which contain surviving languages...Germanic

"The ancient Greeks considered the Goths to be Scythians.
Jordanes: History of the Goths & History of the Goths: Hunter

"Both Tacitus and Jordanes placed the origin of the Goths in Asia according to Klinger. This is supported by observations and texts in the Nordic. The ancient Scandinavian Goths are not the ones that brought the Gothic script to the Nordic areas, this script was introduced during the Medieval with the Christians.

Samuel Klinger (1952): “The Goths in England: A Study in Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Thought”

Thomas Myers travelled in the Nordic countries and after that wrote the book “Modern geography: Sweden and Norway” (1822). He wrote that the Goths, who originally sprung from the regions east of the Caspian Sea, are a more noble race than their northern neighbours.


"In the 1830-1850s, researchers thought that the Indo-Europeans had come from Central Asia, then considered the “forge of peoples”. This concept relied on historical data about regular waves of migration by the Sarmatians and Turkic-Mongolian tribes of Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Khazars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Tatars, Kalmyks and others from Central Asian steppes to Europe over the last two millennia. The Russian and English colonization of Central Asia that began at that point further fuelled European interest in Central Asia."
Ukraine One People's history Sturu P. 234

Then when white eurocentricks decided to steal black history they decided to make a phony theory about africans turning white in hot nations of europe like greece and italy and spain.

"For Herodotus, the Scythians were outlandish barbarians living north of the Black Sea in what are now Moldova and Ukraine."
—Michael Kulikowski, Rome's Gothic Wars from the Third Century to Alaric, pg. 14

"Yet one more nation entered Sarmatia from the West, the nation which brought about the fall if not the absolute annihilation of the Greek colonies on the mainland.  The Goths, appear in the Steppes early in the third century A.D. and by 238 ad already receive a stipend from the empire"

Scythians and Greeks : a survey of ancient history and archaeology on the north coast of the Euxine from the Danube to the Caucasus

Hence while it is true later in history the germanics moved into north east and north central europe they did it after coming from the west of sarmatia or from central asia

"The general view is that both agricultural and nomad Scythians were Iranian[central asians]. There can be no doubt that up to the coming of the Goths and later the Huns, the Euxine steppes were chiefly inhabited by an Iranian population...."
ibid 37

What is ironic about being asked to prove the Germanics are from central Asia is the the scandinavian people largely admit they are migrants and that the native non-white asiatic sami,laplanders and uralic asians lived in these north countries before they ever showed up. The white Germanic people are basically the last ones to enter Europe in the AD period which is why any discussion of them from eurocentrick encyclopedia's usually start with the Goths in 2 ad or 1 bc. Yet when you look you can find these countries being inhabited back from a much further date and no explanation is ever given for these two blatantly contradicting views. Original whites of North Europe, no history written before contact with the multiracial romans and greeks (although the original greeks and romans were black by the time the whites showed up in north europe it'd be more accurate to call them multiracial than just black). Show up out of nowhere as if it was the first place inhabited. But archaeological evidence shows first inhabitants were black, latter asiatic admixtures, and whites were the last ones to show up and they were central asian mixed. It is important to note that most of the modern day whites are offspring from germanic and slavs and have very little to do with the earliest groups of the ancient white dorians in greece and italics who were largely ethinically cleanse by the slavs and germanics or breed out of existence. This is why ancient europeans often carry genes not existent in modern europeans like la barna man and otzi.

Now lets take a look at what a source like britannica claims about germanics
"The origins of the Germanic peoples are obscure. During the late Bronze Age, they are believed to have inhabited southern Sweden, the Danish peninsula, and northern Germany between the Ems River on the west, the Oder River on the east, and the Harz Mountains on the south."

In otherwords, they don't know. And if they don't know, then it'd be dumb to argue they come from europe when there is no proof, which is why they don't know. They just can't accept that they are central asians because then they can't steal black history any more. And then they'd also have to stop looking down on the Iranians who they hate, but the Iranians might actually be closer to real white people than the white central asians aka so called Europeans.

"Recent genetic studies have concluded that humans arrived in the region 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, making the region one of the oldest known sites of human habitation. The archaeological evidence of population in this region is sparse, whereas evidence of human habitation in Africa and Australia prior to that of Central Asia is well-known. Some studies have also identified this region as the likeliest source of the populations who later inhabited Europe, Siberia, and North America."

 According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the northwest of the region is also considered to be the source of the root of the Indo-European languages."

"'Aryan' expansion
Dr Wells and his colleagues believe that their work also traces the expansion of the Indo-Iranian people known as the Kurgan civilisation, or more popularly Aryans.

Central Asia is revealed to be an important reservoir of genetic diversity, and the source of at least three waves of migration
Research paper
"We have a diagnostic Indo-Iranian marker," he said, referring to one of the Y-chromosome mutations.
This marker shows the progress of the 'Aryans' into India and beyond. These Indo-Iranians spoke a language which is believed to be the forerunner of many modern tongues.
Some people living high in the mountain valleys of Central Asia still speak a form of Sogdian - the oldest living Indo-Iranian tongue.
The study also shows how successful emigrants from Central Asia were able to spread their language further than their genes.
DNA samples from Iran show far fewer Indo-Iranian markers in the west of the country, despite an Indo-Iranian language being dominant across the region."

 The report on the genetic study of Central Asians

Long story short some objective scientist are dropping the lie left over from the age of scientific racism and white central asian-european supremacy that white people fell from the sky into northern Europe.

On the issue of slavs it is already largely and readily admitted they come from Asia as well, and they compromise the majority of non-westnern europe or East and central europe.

The Slavs were nomadic peoples from the Eurasian steppes, the grasslands stretching
from modern Hungary into central Asia. Between 400 and 600, Slavic communities
settled in Eastern Europe between the Baltic Sea and the Balkans. These communities
were multi-ethnic with each one linked by language and custom. From this initial
migration, the Slavs would eventually break into three main groups in Eastern Europe:
Polish Slavs in the north, Balkan Slavs in the south, and Russian Slavs in the east.
Before this occurred, however, Slavic communities fell under attack by another people
from the steppes: the Avars. Known for their horsemanship, the Avars conquered many
of the Slavs residing in Eastern Europe. Those Slavs who escaped conquest, either
through fleeing south or putting up successful resistance, collaborated with their would- be conquerors. Joint Slav and Avar forces marauded south of the Danube, settling in
modern Croatia and Serbia, and pressed in on Byzantine holdings. By 600, these
combined forces had taken many Byzantine lands from the Danube to Greece as the
Byzantines fled to safety elsewhere in the Empire."

"Prior to becoming known to the Roman world, Slavic-speaking tribes were part of the many multi-ethnic confederacies of Eurasia – such as the Sarmatian, Hun and Gothic empires."
Velentin Sedov: Slavs in Middle Ages
Now Recall that the Goths are already Germanics so when they speak the truth about the Slavs they have to admit the Germanics are asians too.

Florinsky describes the melting pot of the Steppes from the time of these previous historians onward:

"When the Greeks colonized the area north of the Black Sea about 700 B.C. they found Scythians with whom they traded. These Scythians disappeared and Sarmatians took their place; they were followed by Goths, and then in turn the Huns, Avars, Khazars, Magyars, Sclavs, and then Turks and Tatars from the seemingly inexhaustible spawning ground of humanity in Eastern Asia."*
Florinsky, Michael T.; Russia--A History and an Interpretation; MacMillan Co., New York, 1953, pg. 5.

Hence the modern white populations of Europe are truly central asians


  1. >>Hence the modern white populations of Europe are truly central asians <<

    Yeah, autosomally, or on uniparental clades? Swedes, Norwegians, Icelanders, Bosniaks, and Sardinians are all high in Y haplogroup I-M170 ....wheres M170 been within the last 30,000 years? or I-M253 for that matter? or even I-M438?

    Secondly, in a previous reply of of mine, I had already brought up the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses, which you failed to address.

    >>They just can't accept that they are central asians because then they can't steal black history any more. And then they'd also have to stop looking down on the Iranians who they hate<<

    Same old conspiracy theories again. I ask a simple question, and you post 2 pages of so called "proof". That is not academic argumentation, that is troll flooding.

    Why dont you FLOOD message board forums, history forums? and since theres plenty of brainless fools on there, they might venerate you as some kind of a god for all the "proof" and longwinded "facts" you provide

    1. Modern white Europeans are central asian in origin.
      the most common haplogroups of the Finns are N1c (61%), I (29%), R1a (5%) and R1b (3.5%).
      (N3=312/536), Lappalainen, T; Koivumäki, S; Salmela, E; Huoponen, K; Sistonen, P; Savontaus, M. L.; Lahermo, P (2006). "Regional differences among the Finns: A Y-chromosomal perspective". Gene 376 (2): 207–15. doi:10.1016/j.gene.2006.03.004. PMID 16644145.

      It arose in southeast Asia 19.4±4.8 ky years ago, and then migrated in a counter-clockwise path from modern day regions of Mongolia and northern China to as far as northeastern Europe Rootsi, 2006.

      The Kurgan hypothesis only confirms what I say, it says indo-europeans arrive from central eurasia into europe in the timeline I give.

      You can't accept the historical records, it is your problem not mine.


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.