Viking rune stone with dromedary

a reply to: Hanslune

Still, bjarnebjorn do have a point; Aryans emigrated from India according to the ancient text. If the Aryans are the blonds of Northern Europe is still not proven though. But note this curious fact; Northern Europeans with blonde hair has traditionally been called Aryans by other peoples.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Hanslune

Still, bjarnebjorn do have a point; Aryans emigrated from India according to the ancient text. If the Aryans are the blonds of Northern Europe is still not proven though. But note this curious fact; Northern Europeans with blonde hair has traditionally been called Aryans by other peoples.

-MM

It is my understanding that the Aryans or more correctly the Indo-Europeans came from a location in central Asia and moved into India, Persia and Europe.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
The Aryans were not blonde. They were dark haired caucasian (and this is where the term comes from) people who lived in Anatolia (Turkey) and the Russian -stans... if I recall correctly the documentary I saw was excavating Aryan/Indo-European sites in Turkmenistan/Kyrgistan or thereabouts and they found archaeological proof of things in the Rig Veda, ie. horse sacrifices, fire/water temples, cooking ovens with separated chambers for the fire and the meat (because meat was not allowed to be directly in the fire, or it would go to the gods!)

There was only one tribe of Aryans (Persians) described as having light (red) hair by Herodotus. The Germanians. They migrated to Europe. At one point all of europe had black or red hair. The Scandinavians (natives for at least 10,000 years) brought the blonde genes.

The only people in history who claimed Aryans were blonde would be the nazis, and wrongly so. But then again they said it was the ideal, not history. So who knows.

a reply to: bjarneorn

I'd love you to come back and answer some of the questions posed as a result of your post as despite appearances, i am genuinely interested.

With regard to what you say about Egil talking of angels in Sweden i'm puzzelled, maybe i'm forgetting something simple but i've read Egil's saga many many times - are you referring to Ljot the Pale by any chance? I really cant place your comment in my knowledge of the Saga so some help would be appreciated.

As for him being able to easily create the Evil Eye, this is a common motif in legends and not exclusive to Scandinavia or China, and his likely suffering from Paget's Disease easily explains his description and many symptoms and moods.

As to a Character fighting a ghost, which one in which story or saga? There were Celtic cross-overs with the Norse and their Sagas (for example characters with Gaelic/Norse names, such as Kjartan, and their settlements in The Hebrides etc, but you no doubt know all of this) so calling a ghost "Glamur" could easily be the use of the Celtic term Glamor (sp?) for an enchantment.

Please clarify, it's an interesting discussion and i'm keen to learn more from what you have written.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
And there is the cross on Nazi symbols and royal badges.

The Vikings - Veeking - some say, are descendant from the Phoenicians. They have been traveling the globe long before 1000 yrs ago.

So would these red haired people perhaps be related to the Tuatha Dé Danann, and or the red haired people that practiced buddhism in the Kushan Empire?

What if one of these Legendary Emperors of ancient China was of the same stock, and decided for some reason to settle in Scandinavia, sounds almost plausible to me but I'm not exactly a scholar on the subject.

And bjarneorn, do you have any sources for your claim that they burned all the ancient writing in Denmark?

I'm actually Swedish, with some minor sami heritage, there is a certain I guess mongoloid look to them, even among the general population, you can see quite clearly slightly slanted eyes. I actually look more like a sami than most modern samis these days, at times I have been mistaken for a foreigner myself.

But I'm too much of a layman to be able to understand DNA so I'm asking if there's a genetic connection between Sami and mongoloid populations? I thought I heard there wasn't but I can't remember.

Either way, very interesting stuff.


EDIT:

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
And there is the cross on Nazi symbols and royal badges.

The Vikings - Veeking - some say, are descendant from the Phoenicians. They have been traveling the globe long before 1000 yrs ago.

That is another equally intriguing theory I've read about, the ships look so similar. There's even people talking about the Tribe of Dan.

I was listening to some guy on Coast to Coast I think and he was talking about how americans in the 19th century found all kinds of evidence for Egyptians having been in the Grand Canyon, he went on about how the Mormons were making the same claims. There's so many aspects to history that could have been overlooked or just undiscovered altogether. I personally believe all kinds of different ancient peoples travelled over the Atlantic..

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

If you believe in the Tuatha as factual beings as described in the Mythological Cycle, then it is unfortunately logical that you should also believe that they now reside in fairy mounds in much diminished form.

The Tuatha are not historical beings and though it grieves me to say so, CuChullain could not turn around in his skin and it's also very unlikely that Oisin travelled to The Land of The Young.

I had to tell my seven year old the other day that he would probably never develop full on superpowers like shooting laser beams from his eyes and unpowered flight.

Thanks for bringing that back.

Why would that boggle your mind? I come from nordic ancestry. Looking at the history of various Nordic/Viking groups, they travelled far and wide.

For example, they were mercenaries and or bodyguards for both Popes in Rome as well as a variety of groups in Constantinople/Istanbul. The Viking tribe the Rus is said to have formed the first Russian city, Kiev. Given that the Vikings were in the Mediterranean, why would it be outlandish that they saw North African dromaderies?

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
I found this picture from 1922 of Gökstenen - a Swedish runestone from the district of Härad. What is funny is that it clearly depicts a dromedary, which is a desert animal native to northern Africa and far awy from Northern Europe. Somewhere in our forgotten past a Viking lord saw a dromedary on one of his travels and decided to conmemorate it in this stone 1,000+ years ago - my mind boggles.

Gökstenen rune stone (photo taken in 1922):

Magnification:

Runic inscription Gökstenen (Sö 327) on boulder in Härad dated from about the year 1,000 CE. The images on the boulder are from the Old Norse Sigurd Saga. The meaning of the runes is uncertain and difficult to interpret. The interpretation by Säve says: "Iasio raised the stone, by himself, in memory of Thuar, father Slodes, and Brand, his father...(carved the runes) Iurar in Kaum".

Source

-MM

From the Caucasus and north of Iran to be exact. The word Iran is derived from the same root. However, the Aryan invasion into south Asia has been called into question. Having said that, there is a language of families that are related that all seem to have a linguistic root in the same region north of Iran: Ancient Hebrew, Greek (or is it Latin), and Sanskrit, which would support the migration east, west, and south theory.

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Hanslune

Still, bjarnebjorn do have a point; Aryans emigrated from India according to the ancient text. If the Aryans are the blonds of Northern Europe is still not proven though. But note this curious fact; Northern Europeans with blonde hair has traditionally been called Aryans by other peoples.

-MM

It is my understanding that the Aryans or more correctly the Indo-Europeans came from a location in central Asia and moved into India, Persia and Europe.

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: Hanslune

Still, bjarnebjorn do have a point; Aryans emigrated from India according to the ancient text. If the Aryans are the blonds of Northern Europe is still not proven though. But note this curious fact; Northern Europeans with blonde hair has traditionally been called Aryans by other peoples.

-MM

You have it reversed completely. The so called "Aryan invasion" theory, which is now in question in anthropology, posits the Aryans invading India, NOT Aryans coming from India. The Aryans were said to come from the same region north of Iran and or Turkey, going south into parts of the Middle East, west into perhaps southern Europe, and east into South Asia. Hinduism for example according to the Aryan invasion theorists was brought to India by the Aryans.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: SweetKarma

It is fascinating. Vikings are perhaps the original sea explorers and more complex than sometimes portrayed in MSM.

A good account here.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...

They were not the original sea explorers. The oldest ones that we know were the Phoenicians, emanating out of modern day Lebanon up to 2500-3000 years ago. They spread out from there.

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The Vikings were the first gonzo reporters, predating Hunter S Thompson by thousands of years. They'd load up on boats, eat some questionable mushrooms, and tour the deserts and oceans of the world. Then they'd go back home and write about it.

Fear and Boating Lost Valhalla

Lol, love it. "Fear and Boating Lost Valhalla." Brilliant my friend. It seems those genes got passed on to me somewhere along the line as an experimental Viking descendant/CAlifornia flower child/world explorer.

What does that even mean?

I hope that you do know that the Nords and Vikings migrated from Denmark/Sweden/Norway to Iceland, not the other way around? You do know that Iceland was settled along the way to Greenland and northern Canada by the Vikings? Even if some Icelander came back and made some runes, that simply means some people of Viking/Nordic stock came back and wrote some stuff there. The Icelanders WERE Vikings or whatever you want to call them...

originally posted by: bjarneorn
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Like "most" of classic nordic history, as known today. It's a fake ... a lot of the "runes" that are written in sweden and norway, were written by icelanders that lived there during the middle ages. A lot of other writings, such as in New Foundland, were done by swedish immigrants in the US/Canada.

First, the runes are a writing that isn't carved in stone. But in wood ... that is why the letters are the way they are ... it's "knife used to carve wood" type of writing. So, any carving in stone ... is likely to be a fake. The same applies to the shapes that were used to decorate the wood. It refers to the "worm" guarding "middle earth", or China. The Chinese dragon.

Especially if the writing is citing any sagas, since these sagas are "german" sagas ... it should be understood, that "german" people invaded Scandinavia, and they were the real Vikings ... not the "norse". Most of the so called "norse" were merchants. Their ships were not longships, but juntas ... similar to a chinese junta. While the long ships, had roman/greek shape, mixed with the chinese dragon.

The "true" reason, behind the migration ... was "german" invasion to Scandinavia. Pushing for dominance, in post-roman Europe, the previous inhabitants fled. Although participating in some "viking" raids, they were not "the vikings". An example, Egils saga "skalla" Grimssonar, talks about Angels in Sweden (germans), while he himself is "black" haired, and short. He has dark brows, that can easily create an evil eye ... something you'll see in Japanese/Chinese paintings.

Also, in Icelandic history ... a famous "character" in it, is fighting a "Ghost". This "ghost" is called Glamur. The story itself, is post civil war writing, done by post migrant people. The word "glamur" is not the characters name, but is a description of his LOOKS. It's an "asian" look ... and the story is a "demonizing" story of "asian" looking characters.

If you think these Viking sagas, are some tale of glory and beauty ... then your wrong. Those are just post-era edited version, by Christian priests, that represented the "the dominant" people of Europe. The "truth" is quite different ...

a reply to: skalla

Well, you'd be surprised.. There are more things in heaven and earth, Skalla, than are dreamt of in your philosophies..

I've seen things, and even communicated with 'things'.. my ancestors came from the land of magic and sorcery, the noaidi lineage in my blood.

Thanks for the answer though.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

First good name TLG,

So tell us what things were you communicating with and what did they have to say?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I am aware of the Phoenicians though when I said Vikings (seeing as they are being called this on this thread) I mean the oldest of the European civilizations, the ancient settlers in Northern Europe.

There are 1 million year old human footprint fossils found in the UK. Humans that were around that far back populating Europe and their progeny being those now called Scandinavian.

The oldest human blood type is Type A, Scandinavia has a high amount of Type A, as do the Sami, who are believed to have survived during the last ice age in small areas of Scandinavia.

My opinion is that such peoples were around a very long time in Europe and only some were 'Viking' ie raiders, most were farmers and travelled the seas, absorbing peoples.

Hence the accounts of all the red haired mummies etc and white, light haired, blue eyed Ancient Egyptians. Perhaps those and Phoenicians shared a common ancestor, perhaps multiregional theory could explain it.

I should add I do not believe OOA theory.

a reply to: Hanslune

Not for you to know, like I would reveal my highly personal experiences just like that, yeah right.

Just saying, that's where I'm coming from with on this subject.

You should know Finland is a country known for its sorcery and magic, been that way for thousands of years.

Ah okay. I guess we shouldn't focus all history on Europe though, as your original post implied. I am open to the idea that many groups travelled farther than conventional history allows, including the Egyptians and Phoenicians. They had that guy who sailed an Egyptian reed boat from Egypt to the Americas to prove that it could be done. What is the OOA theory? Does that mean "out of Africa?" You do know that there is a small group of humans from Africa from which it seems virtually all humans descend from, from Africa? The so-called "mitochondrial Eve." The researchers noted that it seems as if there was more variety before that but some evolutionary or catastrophic bottleneck may have reduced the population to that group.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I am aware of the Phoenicians though when I said Vikings (seeing as they are being called this on this thread) I mean the oldest of the European civilizations, the ancient settlers in Northern Europe.

There are 1 million year old human footprint fossils found in the UK. Humans that were around that far back populating Europe and their progeny being those now called Scandinavian.

The oldest human blood type is Type A, Scandinavia has a high amount of Type A, as do the Sami, who are believed to have survived during the last ice age in small areas of Scandinavia.

My opinion is that such peoples were around a very long time in Europe and only some were 'Viking' ie raiders, most were farmers and travelled the seas, absorbing peoples.

Hence the accounts of all the red haired mummies etc and white light haired Egyptians. Perhaps those and Phoenicians shared a common ancestor, perhaps multiregional theory could explain it.

I should add I do not believe OOA theory.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I know about history and anthropology and I am not ignorant, therefore I don't focus just on Europe, the comment I made was a 'perhaps' and based on European 'Vikings'.

OOA is out of Africa and if you read about it some more you will find many anthropologists do not believe it either. Multi region is another theory that might answer more questions. MtEve could be explained in many ways and even if it was a common ancestor, it doesn't mean in any way the place or origin of humanity. There could be far older fossils with other pictures.

The fossil record is too scant for such presumptions and given that there are new finds that contradicts it's theory, chances are there will be many more and another clearer picture will emerge.

I have written about and posted links about OOA and Multi region theories on other threads on ATS and I won't say more of it on this thread for preventing thread drift and keeping on topic.

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
Hence the accounts of all the red haired mummies etc and white, light haired, blue eyed Ancient Egyptians. Perhaps those and Phoenicians shared a common ancestor, perhaps multiregional theory could explain it.

The Egyptians were not light haired or blue eyed. I studied this in depth a few years ago when I believed it.

There is a christian white supremacist movement promoting the idea that the 'chosen people' were white and one evidence they claim for this is egyptian carvings showing what they claim is blonde hair. Considering that it is completely rounded it looks far more like a golden helmet. All other egyptian motifs show them with black haired and light brown skin.