According to the "Eastern Homeland theory" 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. The Slavs emerged from obscurity when the westward movement of Germans in the 5th and 6th centuries A.D. (thought to be in conjunction with the movement of peoples from Siberia and Eastern Europe: Huns, and later Avars and Bulgars): started the great migration of the Slavs, who settled the lands abandoned by Germanic tribes fleeing the Huns and their allies. They moved westward into the country between the Oder and the Elbe-Saale line; southward into Bohemia, Moravia, much of present day Austria, the Pannonian plain and the Balkans; and northward along the upper Dnieper river. Perhaps some Slavs migrated with the movement of the Vandals to Iberia and north Africa.
The Huns were a nomadic pastoral people from Eastern Asia, they invaded Europe in about 370 A.D. and created an enormous empire; which reached as far west as Germany. They were possibly the descendants of the Xiongnu who had been northern neighbors of China three hundred years before. Note: the so-called "White Huns" had no direct connection with the European Huns of Attila, these White tribes deliberately called themselves Huns, in order to frighten their enemies.
The Thawb (Arab Robes) Emblematic of Arab culture, is not Arab at all. The original Arabs, like the Egyptians, Berbers, Mesopotamian's, Elamites/Persians: had Black skin, they did not need the Head to Toe protection from the Sun, that the Thawb affords. It is not known who invented the Thawb, but it is known that even though the Turks once ruled from Baghdad, they hated to go there because of the hot climate and burning Sunshine. Being that the original Turks were a very pale skinned people who needed protection from the Sun, it is likely that they invented the Thawb.
The last remaining Whites in Asia, the Turks (before admixture with indigenous Black Anatolians, they were originally Albinos too), were chased out of Asia by the yellow Mongols. Little is known about the origins of the Turkic peoples, and much of their history even up to the time of the Mongol conquests in the 10th–13th A.D. is shrouded in obscurity. Chinese documents of the 6th century A.D. refer to the empire of the T'u-chüeh as consisting of two parts, the northern and western Turks. This empire submitted to the nominal suzerainty of the Chinese T'ang dynasty in the 7th century, but the northern Turks regained their independence in 682 and retained it until 744 A.D. The Orhon inscriptions, the oldest known Turkic records (8th century A.D.), refer to this empire and particularly to the confederation of Turkic tribes known as the Oguz; to the Uighur, who lived along the Selenga River (in present-day Mongolia); and to the Kyrgyz, who lived along the Yenisey River (in north-central Russia).
"On coming to Argos Danaus claimed the kingdom against Gelanor, the son of Sthenelas. Many plausible arguments were brought forward by both parties, and those of Sthenelas were considered as fair as those of his opponent; so the people, who were sitting in judgment, put off, they say, the decision to the following day. At dawn a wolf fell upon a herd of oxen that was pasturing before the wall, and attacked and fought with the bull that was the leader of the herd. It occurred to the Argives that Gelanor was like the bull and Danaus like the wolf, for as the wolf will not live with men, so Danaus up to that time had not lived with them. It was because the wolf overcame the bull that Danaus won the kingdom. Accordingly, believing that Apollo had brought the wolf on the herd, he founded a sanctuary of Apollo Lycius."
A specific haplogroup R1a1 defined by the M17 ( marker) of the (see: for nomenclature) is associated by some with the Kurgan culture. The haplogroup R1a1 is currently found in central and western Asia, India, and in Slavic populations of Eastern Europe, but it is not very common in some countries of Western Europe ( France, or some parts of Great Britain) (see ). However, 23.6% of Norwegians, 18.4% of Swedes, 16.5% of Danes, 11% of Saami share this lineage ().
Ornella Semino et al. (see ) identify haplotype Eu18 (R1b in modern terminology (see for nomenclature) (prevalent in western Europe, especially ) and Eu19 (most prevalent in Poland, Ukraine, Hungary and the Russia as descended from an expansion from the Iberian peninsula following the last period (20,000 to 13,000 years ago), and link the spread of Eu19 (which is also observed in Pakistan, India and central Asia) to the Kurgan expansion.
There has always been a controversy regarding whether Sanskrit was the original language, as some feel, or whether there was what has been called a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language that was the start of all other languages, which is now said to have disappeared. So let us take a look at this. First of all let us face the fact that Sanskrit is the language that composes what has been recognized as the earliest texts on the planet, such as the and the other . Secondly, it is also known that it was an oral tradition long before it became a written language. This was because the great sage Vysadeva, who compiled the main portions of the Vedic literature, could foretell that the memory of mankind would soon be greatly reduced, compared to what it had been. So there would be a need for the texts to be in written form. Thirdly, the sophistication of the language, its grammar, syntax, and so on, was highly developed. So it had to have been in existence for some time, long before most other languages, or even any other language that appeared later on, all of which were far less developed than Sanskrit. So, how could there have been a Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language that was the basis of forming Sanskrit that had to have been almost as sophisticated as Sanskrit that is said to no longer exist? SANSKRIT AND THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE ISSUE So how did the idea come about that there must be a Proto-Indo-European language that was the origin of Sanskrit, Greek and Latin? It all started when certain researchers started to see similarities between the main languages, such as Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Presently, there are 439 languages and dialects, of which half is considered belonging to the Indo-Aryan subbranch. Twelve languages and their derivatives are considered to be Indo-European, including Spanish, English, Portuguese, Russian, German, French, Italian, Hindi, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, and Urdu. And most of the languages in India are known derivatives of Sanskrit. It was as early as 1583 when Thomas Stephens, an English Jesuit missionary in Goa started to recognize similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. Then in 1585, Filippo Sassetti, an Italian merchant who had traveled to India, also wrote about various similarities. Next was the Dutch scholar Marcus Zuerius van Boxhorn, in 1647, who noted the similarities among these languages, including Dutch, Albanian, Greek, Latin, Persian, Slavic, Celtic and Baltic languages. He was the one who first proposed that they must all derive from a common source language, which he called Scythian. Then in the late 1760s Gaston Coeurdoux made observations of the same type, with a study of Sanskrit, Latin and Greek. There were others who had done the same thing. However, none of these men aroused much notice in their research. It was in 1786 when Sir William Jones started giving talks about the similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and Latin, along with Celtic, Gothic and Persian languages, and suggested that there was a relationship between them. That is when people started to take notice. It was in 1813 when Thomas Young first coined the phrase "Indo-European" to describe this relationship and family of languages, which then became the standard "scientific" term. Then it was Franz Bopp who produced a study of these languages, called Comparative Grammar between 1833 and 1852, that seemed to verify this relational theory. This was the beginning of the Indo-European studies as part of an academic curriculum. This went further to August Schleicher’s Compendium in 1861, and then Karl Brugmann’s Grundriss in the 1880s. From there it went further into what can be called modern Indo-European studies. We could explain how various languages are considered part of a family or group and subgroups, or branches and subbranches, through genetic identification, or what can be called shared innovations, or their structure and phonology, or what is called their evolutionary history. But we won’t indulge in all this analysis. In any case, we now have the "Indo-European Family" of languages, which is a study of the commonalities of numerous languages, rather than the attempt to try to understand what was the original or "Proto-Indo-European" language, or the seed from which all other languages began, starting with Sanskrit, Greek and Latin. So this is the difference when you begin talking about Indo-European language: Are you talking about the "family," in which case you could certainly be talking about many languages, or are you talking about what could be the original, or at least the search for the original seed language of all others? In the latter case, such a language still has not yet been identified, and maybe never will. WHERE WAS THE ORIGIN OF THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGE?
The falsity of White history begins and ends with their desire to hide their true nature; that being that they are derived from Albinos. Their efforts to make all peoples of historical significance White, would appear to be their effort to make themselves the "New Normal" i. e. "See everybody important was White, therefore White is good - the best even!" This fabricated concept of themselves, is obviously so satisfying, and so ingrained, that it has become delusional. Even today, there are many Whites who refuse to believe that the ancient Egyptians, and the other original civilizations as well, were Black people! This in spite of the countless evidences to the contrary: Egypt IS in Africa, there are countless statues and paintings which clearly show them to be Black people. Even scientific studies of ancient Egyptian Bones and Mummy tissue, like this one: , Does not satisfy them. Whites will still doggedly point to artifacts from the periods of Greek and Roman rule and say: See, these are the "Real Egyptians". Of course, there is absolutely no reason why a reasonably intelligent human being, would ever think that the ancient Egyptians were White people, but then again, reason and intelligent thought, have nothing to do with this: This is about a "Need" to believe. This persistence in thinking, is then clearly not intellectual, put rather purely emotional.
The Kurgan scenario is widely accepted as one of the leading answers to the question of Indo-European origins, but its status remains speculative. The main alternative suggestion is the theory of , postulating an Urheimat, and the spread of the Indo-European languages as a result of the spread of . This view implies a significantly higher age of the (ca. 10,000 years as opposed to ca. 6,000 years), and among linguists finds rather less support than the Kurgan theory, on grounds of , and because there are some difficulties in correlating the geographical distribution of the Indo-European branches with the advance of agriculture.