So where do you consider Europe?

[Skandi]

I was wondering, when reading the title of this section, what you would consider "Europe" for this context.

To put it another way (if my awful use of English has confused you) what areas do you consider racially compatible? How far South, East and West do you go?

[Arrow Cross]

To put it simply, we have seas to the north, west and south, and just draw a line to the east along the Ural and through the Caucasus. Exclude Turkey. :p

[Beorn]

This gives an almost perfect summary of what Europe is.

33

http://www.greece-map.net/europe/europe-map.gif

The Turkish can go swing.

[Æmeric]

Those areas that are Caucasian by race & (historically) Christian are Europe, though there are some areas in Europe, like Albania & Bosnia, that are Muslim & there are Chrisitan areas outside of Europe - Armenia & Georgia - that are more Middle Eastern. During the early Medieval era, Asian Minor & Constantinople were European, now they are not. Most of the Iberian peninsula was Moorish & Muslin during the same era, part of the North African political & cultural realm but it is now European. The boundaries of what is & isn't Europe shifts over time, because Europe in a geographic sense isn't a continent but the western end of Eurasia. Europe has alway been a racial & cultural sphere, which could explain why Europeans were so successful at transplanting their cultures in other parts of the World from 1492 to circa 1950.

As for racial compatibility: The Protestants & Catholics of Northern Ireland are racial compatible. Yet they do not get along because of "Tribalism". The only way there will be peace in Northern Ireland is if one group is expelled or rendered irrelevent demographically - probably the Protestants - or if the difference between the two tribes is suppressed in a multicultural (actually monoculture) EU or Global Union. In other words take away their tribal identities.

[Lenny]

AEmeric is exactly right: "Europe" extends exactly as far as Christianity does/did in the western part of the giant Eurasian landmass. (This is more of historical shorthand than some kind of religious pronouncement...I am definitely not in favor of pan-Christianism. You could include local paganisms in the old times too, I guess, but it's best to keep things simple).

The whole of Anatolia WAS European well through the 1000sAD. It was gradually deEuropeanized with the Seljuk-Turk takeover. [Constantinople didn't fall till 1453, but its empire was gone long before]. Similar shifts of the boundary constantly occur. Kosovo was lost to Europe recently in a similar manner.



Racial-compatibility is another thing entirely. There are many millions of native Europeans that are not compatible with a country like Sweden, for example. I would get just as sore if I were to hear about Greeks in Sweden as if I were to hear about Turks. Greeks are Europeans and Turks not (by the above definition), and I certainly favor Greeks over Turks in their own countries, but both are very foreign to Sweden's racial stock. If either one "married in", they would be a detriment.

[Loyalist]

There is a distinction between what is geographically European, and what is culturally, ethnically, and racially European. There are certain nations which, while indisputably located within the recognized continent of Europe, possess inhabitants who have massive amounts of input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and even Negroes. That said, only nations falling within the North-Western European spectrum can truly identify as European through all of the criteria I have specified.

[Skandi]

I think that Loyalist sums up my position well I would probably place my eastern edge further over than him, but I do think that the definition of European in this context is not the same as the Geological plate definition of Europe

[Arrow Cross]

No offense, but as of today, North-Western European countries probably have a lot more input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and Negroes than the majority of Eastern European ones. ;)

[Vulpix]

You mean from immigration, right?


No offense, but as of today, North-Western European countries probably have a lot more input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and Negroes than the majority of Eastern European ones. ;)

[Arrow Cross]

You mean from immigration, right?
But of course, what else? That's the irony in the whole thing.

[Vulpix]

Just to make things clearer for all :tongue.

:pout:


But of course, what else? That's the irony in the whole thing.

[Skandi]

Just incase my post asn't as clear as I would have liked when I said further over I meant further east, I would include parts of Russia as well.

[Sigurd]

No offense, but as of today, North-Western European countries probably have a lot more input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and Negroes than the majority of Eastern European ones. ;)

Japan, as probably the world's most homogenous developed nation, has even less foreign racials than any of the European countries. Your rationale, please? :tongue

[Arrow Cross]

Japan, as probably the world's most homogenous developed nation, has even less foreign racials than any of the European countries. Your rationale, please? :tongue
I was objecting to this:

There are certain nations which, while indisputably located within the recognized continent of Europe, possess inhabitants who have massive amounts of input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and even Negroes.
Is Japan within the indisputably recognized continent of Europe? :confused:

[Exiled]

Europe is north of the Mediterranean Sea, west of the Urals, east of the Atlantic Ocean, and south of the North Pole. While not all Whites live in Europe; Europe is best understood to be the area where a diverse number of peoples have originated. There are also peoples in other regions of the world who are equally Caucasoid, but who are not European.

[Berrocscir]

Personally, although I have an attachment to Europe as a collection of culturally similar peoples, and as an idea or spiritual homeland, I don't think of it as a unified entity, politically.

I have no problem with the geographical definations given here though, excluding Turkey

[Beorn]

Off topic, but with all this Turkey bashing I thought it absolutely vital I imparted this great link to a Facebook site which is actually quite funny.

Shame I can't read Greek or Turkish :(

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1149031204&ref=profile#/group.php?gid=28103438044&ref=mf

[TheGreatest]

No offense, but as of today, North-Western European countries probably have a lot more input from Moors, Jews, Turks, Mongols, and Negroes than the majority of Eastern European ones. ;)


Ya damn straight! We Negros control the UK! :thumb001:
Whitey keep erasing history, yo! They got no history so they take our own! :mad:

William the Conqueror? No! Whitey keep taking our people! Washington the Conqueror was born in Detroit and he conquered England in 1087. We Negros been living in the UK since the beginning of time!



But then the light times came... Our Greatest Scientist, Dr. Yakub, with an IQ of 50000, invented the White Man.


But the White Man soon rebelled. He raped our women. Stole our technology. And before we knew it, we lost the war and got exiled to Afreeakkka! Since then we've been living in stone huts, washing ourselves in piss and migrating to your countries to collect welfare. :(


Ya know the Black Irish? Well they beez Black!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakub




Seriously though, how can the British have more Mongol blood than the Eastern Europeans? Russians in particular are a good example of this, a lot of Russians have strong Uralic and Eastern Phenotypical Traits, since most of them descend from Tatars and Mongols who were Russified in the 19/20C

[Atlas]

How do I consider Europe ? In term of white population, from Dublin to Vladivostok, but geographicaly, from Dublin to Moscow.

Turkey is out of course.

[Vargtand]

Well I would consider that which is now considered to be Europe, excluding Scandinavia, we are Scandinavians. Unique

[Svarog]

http://www.fotorola.com/uploads/9b7b2b5efb.gif

[Inese]

The green area is Europe for me!!

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/euriv.gif

It is only geographical my view there are some regions in the area with people who i think they are a little or more less european !!:coffee: The border regions of Europe in east and south east have bad influence of non european people.

[Vargtand]

http://z.about.com/d/ancienthistory/1/0/D/N/2/roman_empire_395.jpg

What I consider europa (the colour)
Naturally exclude africa and asia...

[Äike]

The blue, light blue, dark green and red parts are Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Location-Europe-UNsubregions%2C_Kosovo_as_part_of_Serbia.png

[Lenny]

The blue, light blue, dark green and red parts are Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Location-Europe-UNsubregions%2C_Kosovo_as_part_of_Serbia.png

I see they made a point in that map to include MALTA as part of Europe.

Malta is closer to Africa than Europe and speaks a Semitic language, and the people are quite dark.


BTW- That map filename is really strange: "Location-Europe-UNsubregions%2C_Kosovo_as_part_of_Serbia.png" :confused:

[Útrám]

Where the maps says it is, excluding the oriental territories of Asiatic Russia and Turkey.

[Tabiti]

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/euriv.gif


This is Europe geographically and racially, imo. Of course there are whites in Eastern regions of Russia and the pure Persian minority in Iran as well, but geographically they are in Asia.
Armenia and Georgia seem to be borderline, but they fit better in Europe than in Asia according to me. At least better than Israel and Turkey!

[Psychonaut]

Tand the pure Persian minority in Iran as well

Eh? Purebred Persians are certainly Indo-European, but not European, as they've never historically dwelt in Europe

[Sarmata]

Eh? Purebred Persians are certainly Indo-European, but not European, as they've never historically dwelt in Europe

I think that Purebread Persians doesn't existed now, maybe The Parsees are relative similar group to original Persians but rather culturally than racially ...And yes historically Indo-Iranians had their participations in Europe. We can find cultural, and I'm sure that also Indo-Iranic(Scythian, Sarmatian) contribution to European Gene-pool as well in the West like in the East of Europe.

[Lenny]

Eh? Purebred Persians are certainly Indo-European, but not European, as they've never historically dwelt in Europe
Well the whole point of this thread is that the concept of Europe is fluid. In a spiritual sense I think it's fair to say that the european-looking Persians of today ARE (racially)"European". There are millions of people in Iran that are lighter than millions of people in southern-Italy.

[The Lawspeaker]

The green area is Europe for me!!

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/euriv.gif

It is only geographical my view there are some regions in the area with people who i think they are a little or more less european !!:coffee: The border regions of Europe in east and south east have bad influence of non european people.
Same for me. Minus the Caucasus region as those people are Asian in culture as well. The Armenians for instance seem to have been influenced by the Persian culture and Azerbaijan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijan) which also is visible on this map is a Muslim country.

For the rest I can agree with this map.

[Gooding]

Interesting question.Geographically, I consider Europe to begin up North with the island of Iceland, then a couple of Scandinavian archipelagoes until you fly southward and hit the Republic of Ireland, fly north to Northern Ireland, whence begins the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland..fly west to mainland Scotland and south to England, skip west to Wales and south to Cornwall, then leap over the sea to France, fly west to Spain and Portugal,then hop up North back through France to the Kingdom of Belgium, then North to the Kingdom of the Netherlands, east to Germany, bear south to Switzerland, Liechtenstein and Austria, go further to Tyrol, then Italy, east of Italy you have the Balkan states, culminating in Greece and east of the Aegean you've got Cyprus..fly west to Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, north up through Germany to Denmark, north to Norway and east to Sweden, a little more east to Finland, south to the Baltic Republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.Go due east for Poland, Belarus, a little southward for Ukraine and Russia is on the eastern frontier. Heading back home, go northwest a bit and you'll see Slovakia and the Czech Republic, bear southeast one more time to see Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria and zip through the Northern European Plain and dip south to Malta for free food and lodging at Bryn's family's place!:D:P

[Psychonaut]

Well, this lovely red area is what I consider to be Europe's heart. Everything else radiates from there, and the further away from its influence a region is, the less European it is. :P

http://www.ilike2learn.com/ilike2learn/Continent%20Maps/Country%20Maps/Europe/France.gif

[Electronic God-Man]

Well, this lovely red area is what I consider to be Europe's heart. Everything else radiates from there, and the further away from its influence a region is, the less European it is. :P

http://www.ilike2learn.com/ilike2learn/Continent%20Maps/Country%20Maps/Europe/France.gif

Well, on a serious note, I remember a post by Agrippa back on Skadi about the "European core", which I found interesting. I think it has some relevance here in the thread generally. Much like Psy's post above, it proposes a European core where "European-ness" radiates outwards.

I'm just going to quote Agrippa here.


From the Frankish centre was a certain way of living spread to many parts of Europe, mainly were Western colonists were present.
Not just by normal settlers, but by the church, to be precise, by monks, also.

Just think about the clearing and settlements of the Zisterzienser and the clerical reforms of Cluny.

In the end we see that certain family structures persisted beyond this cultural border.
Best visible in names. In the early medieval age the Western farmer was nothing, he lost even his clan and bloodline structure, only the Christian or better Catholic moral was in charge.
Most people in the West have names of their job, of their place or something like that wereas traditional European societies were patrillinear and had the names of a male ancestor.
Thats true both Scots, Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans. Just think about -son, -ic, etc.

This means the West had no longer the traditional family structure, could be used in different places, was not bound to a family and mainly loyal to the state or in the early times the church.
Thats in my opinion even today a reason because traditional societies tend to be more corrupt, because they have more loyalty to everything else but the state.

The Hajnal line is the obvious border for this early European division.

I would say that the Turks and Mongols had a very strong impact, but even as important or more important was that they came much later in the sphere of influence of this "Frankish centre" (Northern France, Benelux states and Northwestern Germany) which adopted first new social structures, farming, technology, burgess and farmer rights etc...

There is in Europe, to this day, the "banana", the centre of Europe which is more "developed" than the rest. This part of Europe goes from the "Frankish centre" to Northern Italy.
Even today most production and industry of the European Union is concentrated there.
This region was under total control of the Empire, had a surviving Roman-antique tradition and under control of the Catholic church with a very high density of churches, monasteries and medieval cities.

Certain structures in Europe are older than the 1000 years.

But of course, thats no excuse or something fixed, but so far it never changed since this region was developed.
Even before the 2nd world war, ever you go further away from this centre, you will see on all demographic and economic charts the difference to other regions.
Not to forget that this region is now one of the most densely populated of the world. (Just think about Northern France, Benelux and North West Germany)

Region under the influence of this Frankish centre like Great Britain or Scandinavia developed much faster than regions outside of this sphere of influence.

Here are some good links with further information, first for the Hajnal line:

http://dmo.econ.msu.ru/Data/mitterauer.html


To the "banana":
"Between the industrial and the fifty years younger post-industrial map, there is a striking simularity. The central core has moved westwards on its eastern flank, with the postwar system of industrial socialsism in Eastern Europe, and eastwards on its western side, taking some notice of the decline of the old industrial heartland of the English Northwest. The RECLUS/DATAR "urban tissue" map [so heißt die auf der Folie wiedergegebene Karte] gives the most thoroughly researched formulation of the EC "banana", the bent, drawn-out economic and cultural centre region stretching from Lombarday and Milan to the Greater London area. The basic stretch of the "banana" is the medieval city belt of Europe, along the North-South trade routes from Germany to Italy, with a bend towards the modern imperial City of London."

"The European backbone is characterized by weak centre formation and a strong network of cities. It runs North-South along old trade routes, gridging the cultural divides between Latin and Germanic Europe, between Catholic and Protestant Europe. From the Hanseatic cities on the Baltic, downthrough the Rhineland, what is now the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxemburg, old Lothringa, Switzerland, across the Alps down onto the Italian peninsula. By and large, the city belt corresponds to the short lived Kingdom of Lothar of the Treaty of Verdun, 843."
http://ig.cs.tu-berlin.de/oldstatic/...014/index_html

To this Agrippa added some pictures to show the effects of this "European core" or "banana" that are still with us today. And you can easily see the pattern of the "banana" stretching from England through the Benelux countries, down the Rhine and over into Northern Italy.

European pollution map.
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=60799&d=1149117915

European Light Pollution
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1806&d=1242709734

European Population Density
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=60800&d=1149118026

You can find Agrippa's full post here (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=40331&highlight=banana) (if you are not banned from Skadi).

EDIT: I thought I had mentioned it at Skadi but doesn't look like it...It is interesting to also note that most immigrants to America in colonial times came from exactly this area described with the exception of Northern Italy (there are probably good reasons for its exclusion). Most old-stock Americans will find that their ancestors came mainly from England (particularly East Anglia), the Benelux countries (New Amsterdam with all its Dutch and Flemings/Walloons), and the PA Germans (Rhineland). These areas were the most densely populated back then too. Lots of strife in these regions drove out lots of people to seek better lives elsewhere.

[Psychonaut]

Much like Psy's post above, it proposes a European core where "European-ness" radiates outwards.

I was only halfway joking. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to say that Charlemagne really is the father of (Western) Europe.

[Treffie]

Eh? Purebred Persians are certainly Indo-European, but not European, as they've never historically dwelt in Europe


Unless you include the Jassics of Hungary :thumb001:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassic_people

[Tabiti]

We are taking about Europeans, not Europeids:)

[Ulex]

Well I would consider that which is now considered to be Europe, excluding Scandinavia, we are Scandinavians. Unique
I absolutely agree. We derive from a single tribe, which was later divided in three. It is my opinion that the reunification of the three Scandinavian tribes is of utmost importance, if we are to survive as a people.

You see, the reasoning behind this thread, to define Europe territorically, is illogic, if we can't define our people. Modern nationalism tries to define its borders in a biological sense more than in a territorial sense. Nations are characterized by their people, and if there are no people in the sense of "volk", there will be no nations. No Europe, no Scandinavia.

Not long ago the ideology of national socialism was the only one to claim that borders should be defined by the racial composition of the people. Traditional nationalism, however, which was invented when Europe was still more or less ethnically clean, advocated that borders were only a matter of territory.

Today a new sense of nationalism is arising, and it is a combination of the two mentioned above. It is free from the dogmas of the Third Reich, and yet it recognizes the biological understanding of the term "people".

In this sense, I am afraid that we are nolonger able to define what is Europe, and what is not.

[Rhobot]

Jasz and Ossetians are definitely European, and have been for a long time. There may well have been Iranic speakers in the Hungarian Plain in the Early Iron Age, and the Romans settled many Alan/Sarmatian mercenaries along their northern and western frontiers (Britain and Gaul).
Georgians and Armenians are what I would call quasi-European; there is Persian influence in their culture but in many ways (especially religion) they have more in common with southeastern Europeans than with their Muslim neighbors. (Belloc's saying "'The faith is Europe, and Europe is the faith" comes to mind here.) As for Azerbaijan, it is hardly more European than Iran; Azeris are Turkic-speaking Shia Muslims.

[Tony]

In my opinion Europe as a cultural concept came gradually into existence only in the early Medieval times , in opposition to the Arabo-Islamic world hence Europe and Christendom was actually seen as synonyms , before that the main geographical concept in use was the Mediterranean and its Greco-Roman civilization , at that time people didn't even think of themselves as "white" or "European" , just Mediterranean i.e. Roman , to make it short , then came the Arabs who brought a new alien civilization , who mixed interaccialy a lot , who broke for ever the unity of Mare ******* and the new Christian concept of Europe starts slowly to replace it.

I've to add also that Athenians when successfully fighting off the Persians thought of themselves as "western" (very broad term here...) democratic , free etc while the Persians were perceived as oriental , "asian" and a folk inclined to dictatorships...
this is to say that perhaps an idea of Europe might have been born in the western man well earlier and even regardless the latter Mediterranean unity brought by the Romans...

In regard to where to draw the lines I'd go with the classic geographical boundaries , Gibraltar , Istanbul , the Urals and the Caucasus , that's the geographical Europe to me.*

From an ethnically point of view in the past I would have stuck to the core , say the area north of the Rome-Madrid line and west of the Helsinki-Budapest segment but since we're flooded with immigrants this has became useless...
the Easter part of the continent is pretty blurred , the more East you the more exotic look you will find , there's a clear difference even between Kiev and Astrachan.

*edit addendum=I've to say I love a lot the landscape of Asia Minor , it's really looks like its Balkan neighbour , it snows , there's a lot of lakes , river , mountains and forests , it's a pity we lost this treasure to Turks.

[Æmeric]

http://www.ceibs.edu/ase/images/europe.gif

How do you define Europe? What is in, what is out? For example, is Iceland European or not? It does not lie on the Eurasian continental shelf. It is just as close to Greenland (North America) as it is to Europe. Why should it not be considered the first New Euroland having only been settled in the 9th century. What about the Canary Islands just off the coast of Northwest Africa, European? Russia? Thrace & Armenia? Share your opinions.

[Nationalitist]

I agree with Errigal from Stirpes.


I would say Europe is the cultural area of the Roman Empire which was maintained and expanded on by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The regions permanently lost to Islam (the Maghreb, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor) obviously are no longer part of Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/ba/Roman_Empire_map.svg/535px-Roman_Empire_map.svg.png


The Nordic countries are bit of a special case. It seems as if Roman or Orthodox Christianity did not really sink right down into their cultures. Hilaire Belloc said the same is true of Germany and he may be partly right. I think he was writing out of anger just after the First World War and to counter all the pro-Germanic thinking in England which grew up under Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's influence. I just read his Europe and the Faith a month ago and found it quite interesting. It is more of a long editorial than a well-balanced history, but it is worth looking at.

[The Lawspeaker]

Exactly what's on the map minus the overseas colonial possessions, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania and Turkey, but with Switzerland, Norway, Iceland, the Faeroe's and the Balkans (and Cyprus).
Europa proper is also without the Balkans but with Greece (the classical culture).

The Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores are to be considered "colonial possessions" but since there are no more indigenous peoples and completely colonized by Spain and Portugal they have become overseas European (like the U.S, Canada etc) as well.

[Nodens]

I think this question requires a disclaimer of sorts:

1) The fact that you do/don't like a given group has no bearing on their status as European.

2) The fact that a given group is considered European does not mean that you have to accept mass immigration from their country into yours.

3) "Europe" cannot be defined solely in terms of language, culture, history, geography or genetics. It requires a holistic definition taking multiple factors into account.

[Æmeric]

http://www.comp-archaeology.org/EuropeMapCAWEB.gif
That might not have been the best map to use in the first post, apparently a EU map.

[Æmeric]

I think this question requires a disclaimer of sorts:

1) The fact that you do/don't like a given group has no bearing on their status as European.
I wasn't talking about likes or dislikes. Though some people might take it into account with periphery groups, e.g. Russians or Armenians.

2) The fact that a given group is considered European does not mean that you have to accept mass immigration from their country into yours. The thread has nothing to do with immigration or intra-European migration


3) "Europe" cannot be defined solely in terms of language, culture, history, geography or genetics. It requires a holistic definition taking multiple factors into account.

You forgot to mention race.

[Nodens]

You forgot to mention race.

I said genetics, but I can see the point.

With the others, I've seen a clear tendency on Nationalist type fora to base their views on personal/national bias rather than objective criteria (e.g. current posters on Skadi have a tendency to base their ethnic classification systems almost entirely off of WWII politics).

[Poltergeist]

There are no "objective" criteria for nationhood.

[Liffrea]

I think Europe is more an idea than it is a geographical fact, in reality it’s not really a continent, it’s a peninsula of the Eurasian landmass.

Racially there is a perceptible genetic fault line running from the Pyrenees across the Alps and into south-eastern Europe. I think it fair to say there are, broadly, northern and southern European racial groups, but there is also a barrier along the Mediterranean as well, however we can’t really say that Europe’s racial barrier ends at Gibraltar or the Bosphorus, quite clearly there are people of western Eurasian (Europoid) morphology in the Near East and Northern Africa.

Culturally the “pillars” if you like of European (more to the point Western European/Western civilisation) have been Graeco-Roman civilisation, Germanic culture, Christianity, renaissance and enlightenment.

Linguistically Europe has been defined as the western edge of the Indo-European languages.

I think it’s going to be an obvious combination of the above, taken case by case. France, Germany, England, Italy, Spain, Greece would be considered European by most definitions, Iceland on the edge would be as well, Turkey would not, Russia is debatable.

[Nodens]

There are no "objective" criteria for nationhood.

There are objective ways to measure genetic distance and semi-objective ways to measure linguistic distance. Culture is a bit harder to measure, but once linguistic and genetic lineage has been established, it becomes clearer.

Edit: And the question wasn't about nationhood, unless you consider Europe a nation.

[Loddfafner]

Threads merged.

[Æmeric]

Actually there is one more thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=873) on the same topic.:ranger:

[Atlantic Islander]

The Canary Islands, Madeira and the Azores are to be considered "colonial possessions" but since there are no more indigenous peoples and completely colonized by Spain and Portugal they have become overseas European (like the U.S, Canada etc) as well.

Just a small correction, the Azores never had an indigenous population, the islands were uninhabited when found.