Are Georgians and Armenians Europeans?

[Osip]

Anyone remember my gift from the Tbilisi State Library? It can come in handy.

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

The British mixed with Persians and Turks? Where part of the Persian empire and a Middle Eastern political player with a centre in the Middle East?
I dont think so.

The Persians were all over the place at some point, it doesn't mean that the lands they've conquered got any significant Persian influence. They were merely rulers of those nations and collected taxes, as many rulers of the time did. Alexander conquered all the way to India, it doesn't make India Greek.

Romania and Macedonia were also under Persian rule at one time, we cannot talk of a Persian influence there.


Besides, the Scythians and Sarmatians who had an important influence on Eastern (and even Western) European peoples were also of Iranian stock, at least linguistically, for all we know. "Persian" and "Iranian" at the time meant something different than what they mean today.

The Hallstatt culture f.e. was fully European no matter what. The culture can change, but the Indoeuropean base and the racial mixture not.

But obviously the Iranian culture and peoples are clearly of an Indo-European 'base', scientifically speaking.

A Heathen Europe would is thinkable and was a reality in the past, a Muslim can never be since this culture is totally foreign to Europe. Even Christianity was at the beginning, but was then adapted to the European customs to some degree.

Actually, Islam had its high times too, and would probably have evolved into a European synthesis had it remained in Iberia, or had moved even further. The Muslims, the Moors, were not largely of North African stock, but native Europeans who had converted Islam. It's impossible to build scenarios in full certaintly, but if the "Renaissance" of Islam had lived on and have given way to its own Enlightenment, it would have been at a different place than it is now.

Judaism could never have such a transformation, on the other hand, as it had always been an ethnic faith.

I simply wanted to say that a Christian background is necessary to be identified as European in the narrower sense, though you must not be a believer now. Its about the cultural past at least.

That I agree, to a point, as Europe internalized Christianity and also transformed it into a new thing, certainly much different compared to its starting point as a breakaway Jewish sect. What I'm saying is though, that Christianity, by itself wasn't European; it was transformed into something European. Any other faith that is not based on ethnicity (such as Hinduism or Judaism) could have undergone the same process.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

This may be interesting for a split.

Reformed Christianism as in ..?

Two possibilities occur to me. One, reformed as it arrived to Europe and as it was modelled to the European thought and spirit? or as in the Lutheran and Calvinist reforms?

Indeed. And that makes it both fragile and unique.

The medieval Christian Church, even the Roman one, was an adaptation of Christian beliefs to European needs, at least if its about those things, which would have been unbearable for any logical thinking and "real policy" oriented people of that time.

The Luthern reform would have brought the optimum of the Christian belief for Europeans, in the form like it was practised until ~ 1950.
Unfortunately the Lutheran church is now one of the worst religious influences on Northern Europeans because of its destructive Neo-Christian beliefs.

[Exeter]

I think that most Armenians fit in the Caucasian Type (probably the same as Lundman's Mtebid, a type common in Georgia) and the Asia Minor Type (same as Armenoid?).

The Pontus type look like some Greeks.

I think that Armenians would be seen as more assimilable if it could be proven they are predominantly of the Pontus and the Caspian type.

Originally Posted by Osip

Anyone remember my gift from the Tbilisi State Library? It can come in handy.

[Osip]

The Caucasian type is probobly Mtebid, but Mtebid is a mountain type ("Mtebid"- mountain), and you'll find most of them more north, if you ever go to Svanetia and run in to a shepherd, he'll be Mtebid, I bet.
The more flat-land living types are of a more Armenoid carechteristic(spelling), because they haven't been up in the mountains and never adapted to the cold climate. That's it. I've heard Mtebids are tall as well, also an adaption-thing.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

The Persians were all over the place at some point, it doesn't mean that the lands they've conquered got any significant Persian influence. They were merely rulers of those nations and collected taxes, as many rulers of the time did. Alexander conquered all the way to India, it doesn't make India Greek.

Romania and Macedonia were also under Persian rule at one time, we cannot talk of a Persian influence there.

Thats all more or less true, but the difference is that the European parts never adopted such an amount of oriental culture like the Armenians did and they were of course not in the centre of the ME-culture and for such a long time in this sphere of influence.

Besides, the Scythians and Sarmatians who had an important influence on Eastern (and even Western) European peoples were also of Iranian stock, at least linguistically, for all we know. "Persian" and "Iranian" at the time meant something different than what they mean today.

Sure, but the European Iranians didnt mixed with ME the same way as the Persian did even from the beginning of their settlement.

But obviously the Iranian culture and peoples are clearly of an Indo-European 'base', scientifically speaking.

Yes, sorry, I should have been precise like in all other paragraphs and shoud have wrote "European Indoeuropeans".

Actually, Islam had its high times too, and would probably have evolved into a European synthesis had it remained in Iberia, or had moved even further. The Muslims, the Moors, were not largely of North African stock, but native Europeans who had converted Islam. It's impossible to build scenarios in full certaintly, but if the "Renaissance" of Islam had lived on and have given way to its own Enlightenment, it would have been at a different place than it is now.

We cannot know, but one things seems clear to me, such an influence would have destroyed the border between North Africa and the ME even at this time and therefore endangered Europe biologically even then.

That I agree, to a point, as Europe internalized Christianity and also transformed it into a new thing, certainly much different compared to its starting point as a breakaway Jewish sect. What I'm saying is though, that Christianity, by itself wasn't European; it was transformed into something European. Any other faith that is not based on ethnicity (such as Hinduism or Judaism) could have undergone the same process.

Sure, religion is part of the culture and culture "should work" for the people too, if not its just a superstitious fallacy.

[Exeter]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

A Georgian from the highlands of Svaneti

If I have understood it right Svanetis are indeed quite fair, often with light eyes and reddish brown hair. The ones I have seen (only pictures) had long and narrow faces and noses.

Maybe Osip can provide some pictures of these people.

That's stereotyping obviously, but hairiness is common in that region.

They are certainly a hirsute bunch, as are many Greeks, some Turks, Iranians, and so forth. Orientalids/Arabids are not though. It's of course more visible when the hair is very dark. I have seen a lot of hirsute Irishmen (e.g. Irish-American Alec Baldwin) too.

She does have an Armenian/Pontid type now, but for one thing we know, she's had a major nose job and cheek implants or some sort of operation on the cheekbones.

You make a good point there. I had forgotten about her plastic surgeries.

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Osip

The Caucasian type is probobly Mtebid, but Mtebid is a mountain type ("Mtebid"- mountain), and you'll find most of them more north, if you ever go to Svanetia and run in to a shepherd, he'll be Mtebid, I bet.
The more flat-land living types are of a more Armenoid carechteristic(spelling), because they haven't been up in the mountains and never adapted to the cold climate. That's it. I've heard Mtebids are tall as well, also an adaption-thing.

Typical Armenids are a civilisation type, a type for the urban social environment and agglomerations or at least sedentary farmer-merchant way of living, whereas Dinarids and Mtebids are healthy rural types, herder-warriors and mobile farmer-warriors, more like the Nordid specialisation.

So I think you should consider the long term social specialisation of every type as well since the Armenids are the product of the longest specialisation to the sedentary lifestyle in agglomerations in particular in the region which was undergone this process for the longest time without too much other selective forces which would have balanced it out in a better way.

[Osip]

Originally Posted by Agrippa

Typical Armenids are a civilisation type, a type for the urban social environment and agglomerations or at least sedentary farmer-merchant way of living, whereas Dinarids and Mtebids are healthy rural types, herder-warriors and mobile farmer-warriors, more like the Nordid specialisation.

So I think you should consider the long term social specialisation of every type as well since the Armenids are the product of the longest specialisation to the sedentary lifestyle in agglomerations in particular in the region which was undergone this process for the longest time without too much other selective forces which would have balanced it out in a better way.

Well it's true. Dinarids and Mtebids (almost the same anyway) has been having another lifestyle up in the hills, sort of. When I was in Austria (the Alps), I remembered seeing more Dinarids (and Alpinids) than on the North German flatland (Holstein).

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Exeter

If I have understood it right Svanetis are indeed quite fair, often with light eyes and reddish brown hair. The ones I have seen (only pictures) had long and narrow faces and noses.

Svanetis, I think, would fall between the Mtebid and Pontid type. Abkhazeti, traditionally a region of Georgia, now Abkhazia by its own right, is mainly Pontid -in fact even Atlantid in appearence but I would call them Pontids, due to geographical location. Svaneti are closer to Abazas and Kabardians, who are invariably of the Pontid, Northern Pontid and the "Caucasian" type, in Osip's chart.

Osip is also right about the mountain type vs. the plains type. Plains people also mixed more with the other types as opposed to the more secluded highlanders. There is a lot of Greek and Genoese influence in the eastern coast of the Black Sea, for example, where is now Abkhazia and the Krasnodar Krai (historically Ubykh/Circassian land.)

have seen a lot of hirsute Irishmen (e.g. Irish-American Alec Baldwin) too.

Oh, god, yes! Arec Bardwin. (it was a "Team America: World Police" joke)

You make a good point there. I had forgotten about her plastic surgeries.

This is a photo of her from the 60s, but I'm not sure if this is her completely unaltered look:


She did, and in fact still does, have those type of eyes I most identify with Armenians: large, oval shaped and deep set.

[Agrippa]

Dinarids are the European (oftentimes mobile) warriors of the mountains, Nordids, Atlantids and Atlantomediterranids of the flat land.
Specialisations in competition to the basic European types (Cromagnid, robust Nordid/Bruenn) with the mobile-active strategy.

Thats at least my interpretation...

(Extreme) Alpinids and Baltids represent the trends of Alpinisation and Baltisation which is the result of adaption from H-G way of living to the low energy, sedentary farmer existence without steps in between.

Armenids are the result of adaptation to civilisation with all steps in between and the final result, the typical urban type of man in every respect...

[Osip]

To the examples then:
Caucasian warriors who defended the nothern Caucasus against the Germans, here on the Victory parade 1945 on the Red Square, Moscow.

[Exeter]

I simply compared the Christianity I have seen practised among Assyrians and the Protestantism (but a large percentage are actually more agnostic than anything else) in Northern Europe. I didn't think of the Lutheran reforms. I see that as a way of a Germanic development.

Even Catholics are "watered" down, which I guess people like Milesian are against.

Was the Old Testament not translated into Greek from Aramaic? But I don't think any extant Aramaic copies have been found.

I think that all monotheistic religions believe in similar values in their original form, but that more libertarian reforms have taken place in parts of Europe. Protestants wanted to purify Christianity to its original form but what they accomplished was perhaps more indifferent followers.

Unlike most of Continental Europe, Scandinavia and England have better escaped Catholicism. There has been a Germanic suspicion of central power. USA was early on also very German and Anglo-Saxon. They set up a decentralised system.

It all depends how much the religion influence the mentality and temperament of a people. In true Christianity women are controlled and they cannot dress like a free Dutch or Swedish woman in summer time (I'm not saying that one way is better than the other). Just compare old Ireland or Sicily with Protestant countries. I don't think it's a coincidence that Christianity may have different roles based on where and by whom it's practised, and that it's not interpreted in the same way in all socities. I think that the mentality of a people has a great influence on their view of the official religion.

Christianity alone will not magically change the temparement of people. There were a lot of Palestinian Christians around a 100 years ago. Are we led to believe that those Palestinians had much else than that in common with Christian Swedes?

Originally Posted by Mynydd

This may be interesting for a split.

Reformed Christianism as in ..?

Two possibilities occur to me. One, reformed as it arrived to Europe and as it was modelled to the European thought and spirit? or as in the Lutheran and Calvinist reforms?

[Agrippa]

Interesting picture. Robust Alpinoids and Pontids seem to be quite good represented.

If I speak about warriors, I didnt mean modern warrior specialisation since a 140 cm dwarf could kill 100 optimal Bronce Age warrior types with a machine gun or grenade now.

I think the last scene in "The Last Samurai" shows why modern wars are rather contraselective and shouldnt be taken into consideration in the same way, though in special units the Nordid, Cromagnid and Dinarid types are usually far better represented than the other variants.
They seem to be the better fighters both if its about their mental and physical characteristics.

If you think about the important time frame, you should rather have hammer-axe and later sword swinging and spear throwing-bow shooting and with lances stabbing men in mind.
The advantage of pure strength wasnt as important as in the H-G time, but range, endurance, speed and disciplined personalities were even more important. You find a similar selection in certain sports.

You have to think about Morella la Vella in Spain in which the first bow was depicted on stone or the Mesolithic spearheads.
The Indoeuropean battle axe or the spear bundle.
The typical way of fighting was bands and the heroism of individuals was important for winning a battle which could decide about the survival of all group members, at least the male ones.

Fully equipped mass armies or further specialisations in warfare already changed things somewhat since the physical and mental superiority of individuals alone couldnt decide a "battle" (most of the time rather a skirmish) any longer.
Even worse, the warrior elite had higher losses oftentimes but lower reproductive rates especially in the sedentary farmer-urban civilisations. The merchant won versus the warrior and clan man oftentimes, not just biologically, but culturally too.
But its not good for a culture and people to be too much like a merchant...

A warrior can stop making war if he's intelligent and disciplined, but a merchant will always be one and will even sell his own future without making any sacrifice for the group...
Thats at least how I see it if I compare warrior-heroic cultures and groups with the "dealer culture"...

If we speak about that, Christianity was a protective force against too much influence of this merchant culture either...

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

Actually, Islam had its high times too, and would probably have evolved into a European synthesis had it remained in Iberia, or had moved even further. The Muslims, the Moors, were not largely of North African stock, but native Europeans who had converted Islam.

As a matter of fact, it did evolve into some kind of European synthesis to an extent. How the Andalusis adopted and practiced the Islamic religion, and the culture that they evolved around this new society was different to all other parts of the Islamic Empire.

This has been much analyzed in the last decades by Arabists (scholars of the Arabic/Islamic language, culture and history, not "pro-Arabics" or "pro-Muslims).

Most interesting, it has also been used as an argument by the group of neo-conversos (new converse, the old times muladis) in modern Andalucia, with the object of presenting Islam not as a foreign and invading religion, but as a religion native to the al-Andalus.

One of their [I think that many] sites on the internet is http://webislam.com/ (in Castilian Spanish).

To support this view, they use mostly the text "La Revolución Islámica en Occidente" (The Islamic Revolution in the West), by Javier Olagüe (http://webislam.com/?idn=739). However this may be true, I understand that the text goes beyond the real facts and into distortion and speculation. The book was written in 1974, and from what I've heard, parts of it have been refuted by other historian[s].

Other assertions such as "the battles of Guadalete, Covadonga and Poitiers were mere bruises" seem to be correct (at least for Covadonga and Poitiers; Guadalete is a different matter of study).
Other parts like depicting the Islam as a source of civilization are wrong, and they are false propaganda attached to true facts. These have been well refuted by many other scholars in numerous occasion.

This said, I would like to call the attention on it all (the islamicization in the past and the present), and issue a big warning: the times of decadence that we are living in Europe fully coincide with the decline in the Christian spirit in Europe (Christian here, speaking of the West, as in Catholic, since other "Christianisms" I consider them as early tools to provoke this situation). If the peoples of Europe lose their point of reference for their European spirituality, many will sooner or later look for spiritual guidance to other point of reference, alien to Europe. Namely Islam.

Whoever wants to see in this the words of a staunch Spanish Catholic, please look again at my profile. While I am Catholic by culture, I am sincerely Agnostic by belief (or, rather, because of a number of doubts).

So keep playing to deceptive heathenisms and baseless accusations of judeo-christianism on the Church. And enjoy the results a few years down the line.

It's impossible to build scenarios in full certaintly, but if the "Renaissance" of Islam had lived on and have given way to its own Enlightenment, it would have been at a different place than it is now.

An "enlightenment" of Islam is a contradiction, and a "renaissance" only possible if taking going to the etymology of the word (a "revival" or "to born again") and as synonymous of "a new expansion".

Authors like the Arabist Prof. Serafín Fanjul have consistently proved that the civilized Islam is a delusion.

Judaism could never have such a transformation, on the other hand, as it had always been an ethnic faith.

Agreed. And now that you mention it, I know of a few other [neo-]ethnic faiths..

That I agree, to a point, as Europe internalized Christianity and also transformed it into a new thing, certainly much different compared to its starting point as a breakaway Jewish sect.

Different to the point that it is in its essence anti-judaic and a repository of the traditions and values of Europe.

What I'm saying is though, that Christianity, by itself wasn't European; it was transformed into something European.

Its principles and spirituality are those of the peoples of Europe. Therefore it is nothing but European. And it is Universal because that is the soul of the Europeans.

Any other faith that is not based on ethnicity (such as Hinduism or Judaism) could have undergone the same process.

And then it could have just as well been named Christianity.

[Yago]

I see. Protestantism as an ethnic religion. Great. Let me think.. which other religion can we point as ethnic?

Originally Posted by Exeter

I simply compared the Christianity I have seen practised among Assyrians and the Protestantism (but a large percentage are actually more agnostic than anything else) in Northern Europe. I didn't think of the Lutheran reforms. I see that as a way of a Germanic development.

I'm rather tired today and I'll be even more tired in the coming days. But please, remind me to come back to discuss about this issue over the weekend.

Even Catholics are "watered" down, which I guess people like Milesian are against.

The Church, as is, is on decline (and so is Europe after losing its spiritual point of reference as I have discussed on another thread). I don't mean what exactly you mean by "watered down". However, see the newly elected Pope because there may be hope in that German[ic].

Was the Old Testament not translated into Greek from Aramaic? But I don't think any extant Aramaic copies have been found.

Didn't Protestantism "reform" Christianism by going back to the Old Testament?

I think that all monotheistic religions believe in similar values in their original form, but that more libertarian reforms have taken place in parts of Europe.

Libertarian, yes, as in decadent.

Protestants wanted to purify Christianity to its original form but what they accomplished was perhaps more indifferent followers.

And yet, there is a strong argument for stating that what they did was to Judify Christianity. As I said, please remind me to come back to this issue over the weekend.

Unlike most of Continental Europe, Scandinavia and England have better escaped Catholicism.

Escaped? See above.

There has been a Germanic suspicion of central power.

Sounds like that you have an ethno-religious agenda to spread. Are you sure that you are Germanic and not Jewish (or something else)?

USA was early on also very German and Anglo-Saxon. They set up a decentralised system.

USA was founded upon the basis of a Calvinist Neo-Judaism, and pure Judaism.

In true Christianity women are controlled and they cannot dress like a free Dutch or Swedish woman in summer time

Just a few lines above you've said that Protestantism "purified" Christianity, and under that assumption Protestantism would be a pure form (i.e. a true form) of Christianity. What's the game here?

Just compare old Ireland or Sicily with Protestant countries.

What about comparing Austria and Bavaria instead of Ireland and Sicily? I'm seeing the cards that you are playing with.

[Agrippa]

Didn't Protestantism "reform" Christianism by going back to the Old Testament?

I think its of great importance, CRUCIAL to distinguish the main forms of Protestantism, mainly Lutherans from Calvinists.
Whereas Calvinists let themselves influence by the old testament and Jewish traditions, over a merchant spirit which is comparable to the Jewish way of thinking and their predestination idea is a catastrophy as well, Luther and Melanchthon were different.

Luther even called the old testament the Jewish testament of the vengeful god. Lutherans were the best way of living Christianity for the folk until it was changed by the influence of New Christian beliefs (mainly after the 1950's). Without having such strict dogmas and structures like the Catholic church it was great for the development of a modern but group oriented state like you can see it in the Germanic North and Germany, but once under pressure and influenced from outside, without the protecting and living society, it must have been vulnerable.
That happened after the 2 world war and changed this church to its worst, but before that, it was the best you can make out of Christianity in a symbiosis of people, state and religion without harming, but strengthen each other.

[Yago]

Wasn't Luther who told the Jews that, since he had reformed Christianism to the old scriptures, there was no longer a reason for them not to convert? And then, when they refused, he turned anti-jewish?

[Agrippa]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Wasn't Luther who told the Jews that, since he had reformed Christianism to the old scriptures, there was no longer a reason for them not to convert? And then, when they refused, he turned anti-jewish?

If you want he gave them a chance if they want to better and being European Christians, since he was no racist, but when he saw that they were incorrigible from his perspective, he was very harsh with them and looked at them more critically which of course furthered his kind of Christian Antijudaism.

What he did was to translate the bible to German, but for his dogmatic only the New Testament was important, whereas he mostly disregarded the old.

Like you can see in American Calvinists, they did the opposite.

[Yago]

I wouldn't equal Lutheranism to Calvinism. But still..