sea peoples

It could very well be possible that the root word from which Serb was derived was common among IE peoples. “Tuath” or “Teuton”, referring more or less to tribe. “Arya”-type based words referring to “the people” or “us”, etc. do occur with relative frequency across the IE board. “Ser” or “Shar” could well be a similar thing. The latter two may even hearken back to “Arya”-type words.
Shardana, who are held by many to have come from Sardinia, fought for the Egyptians.

assumption about link between Shardana and Sardinia is made and used by many authors, however only reason stated by authors is that it sounds similar.... (btw. lake in Egypt named after "sea people" is Serbonian bog or Sirbonis)

word Serb might be derived from some commonly used word and be widespread tribal name of different people, but point is not in tribal name Serb only, but also in haplogroup I spread correlating with spread of "sea peoples" ....

Sardinians are also haplogroup I, but point is also that Egyptian sources talk (in context of "sea peoples" attack) also about mass settlement of people coming from north with oxes and wagons, and I somehow cannot imagine underwater tunnel from Sardinia to Egypt....

in fact, I would say "sea people" are very likely related to later Sabaeans/Sheba and Palestines, perhaps with Syrians as well.

Question is where did they spread from. Seneca gives clear clue about that by stating that the Red sea Serians, the ones of Serica in silk rich north west China, the ones among Dacians and near Danube, and the ones in Caspian mountains (where we find Serboi tribe) are the same people... together with haplogroup I trace this pinpoints to proto-Serb tribe which seems to have been both brave / warlike and merchant nation...

as for Palestinians, my guess is that they origin from Pelasgues which are pre-hellenic inhabitants of Greece and Balkan...

btw. words Teuton and Aria are not really widespread among IE tribal names...
those words were only widespread after recently being misused in nazi-propaganda
 
perhaps you do not trust Seneca...
so, let's see where Seres come from according to Jordanes

This land, I say,--namely, Scythia, stretching far and spreading wide,--has on the east the Seres, a race that dwelt at the very beginning of their history on the shore of the Caspian Sea. On the west are the Germans and the river Vistula; on the arctic side, namely the north, it is surrounded by Ocean; on the south by Persis, Albania, Hiberia, Pontus and the farthest channel of the Ister, which is called the Danube all the way from mouth to source. (32)
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/jordgeti.html

Jordanes - origin and deeds of Goths


Seres thus origin from shores of Caspian sea (which is where Serboi lived)

difference is that Seneca lives in period 1 BC – 65 AD
while Jordanes lives in 6th century

thus, in time between Seneca and Jordanes information about Seres shrinked from being the same as Serians of Red sea, the ones of Caspian mountains and the ones among Dacians and near Danube, to originating from shores of Caspian sea...

Pliny (23 AD – August 25, 79) quotes Aristotle that there are also Seres who live above mount Athos ( in Greece) who live up to 140 years...

Howbeit, Aristotle writeth, That these Pygmæans live in hollow caves & holes under the ground. For all other matters he reporteth the same that all the rest. Isogonus saith, that certaine Indians named Cyrni, live a hundred and fortie yeeres. The like he thinketh of the Æthhyopian Macrobij, and the Seres: as also of them that dwel upon the mount Athos: and of these last rehearsed, the reason verily is rendered to be thus, because they feed of vipers flesh, and therfore is it that neither lice breed in their heads, nor any other vermine in their cloths, for to hurt and annoy their bodies.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny7.html

thus, Pliny talks about some of Seres living in Balkans... same author talks about Seres in Caspian highlands and quotes Agripa's definition of Caspian area and nations living there

Agrippa in bounding out and limiting the circuit of the Caspian sea, and the regions coasting upon it, togither with them Armenia both the greater and the lesse, namely Eastward with the Ocean of the Seres, Westward with the mountains of Caucasus, on the South side with the hill Taurus, and finally on the North with the Scithian Ocean, hath written,
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/holland/pliny6.html

in fact regarding the Seres who live upon mount Athos it is the best to research which people populated the area...

Herodotus tells us that Pelasgians from the island of Lemnos populated the peninsula, then called Acte or Akte. (Herodotus, VII:22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos

in fact, this is the clue about non-Dorian I2a2 in Greece that is found in Lesbos area, that I was puzzled with in http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362463&postcount=48

it comes from Pelasgians, that is from Seres !!

btw. regarding Palestines whom I think to origin from Pelasgians

The Greek toponym Palestini (Παλαιστίνη), with which the Arabic Filastin (فلسطين) is cognate, first occurs in the work of the Greek historian Herodotus, active in the middle of the 5th century BCE, where it denotes generally[22] the coastal land from Phoenicia down to Egypt.[23][24] Herodotus also employs the term as an ethnonym, as when he speaks of the 'Syrians of Palestine' or 'Palestinian-Syrians',[25] an ethnically amorphous group he distinguishes from the Phoenicians referring to the Aramaeic Samaritans led by Sanbalat and appointed by the Persian kings and the Arabs in Jerusalem referred to also by Ezra (the Bible).[26] The word bears comparison to a congeries of ethnonyms in Semitic languages, Ancient Egyptian Plst or flst, Assyrian as Palastu, and the Hebraic as Plishtim, the latter term used in the Bible to signify the Philistines.[27]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_people

all this is in accordance with spread of haplogroup I along sea coasts of Levant and than into west part of Saudi Arabia peninsula.
I think it is very likely that we can attribute this spread to "sea peoples" who mixed with local populations giving Syrians, Syrrians of Palestine (or Palestines), and Sabaeans/Sheba

I.png


timeline:
- around 1175 BC spread of "sea people" brings down many previous kingdoms in Asia minor and Levant... Egyptian sources record it is not just a military contest, but a massive settlement wave...
it is known that in Egypt, the Serbonian bog or Sirbonis is named after "sea peoples"
- Queen of Sheba born somewhere in 10th century
- Kingdom of Saba appears in history records between 9th century BCE and CE 275
- During the second millennium BCE, Syria was occupied successively by Canaanites, Phoenicians, and Arameans as part of the general disruptions associated with the Sea Peoples; the Phoenicians settled along the coastline of these area as well as in the west (Now Lebanon & The current Syrian coast), in the area already known for its cedars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Syria
- Palestines (name first recorded in 5th century BC for Syrians of Palestine)
- in 1st century AD Seneca states that Serians of Red sea (clearly about kingdom of Saba), Serians of Caspian highlands (around the times when tribe Serboi recorded there), Serians in Europe (near Danube and amongst Dacians) and Serians in far east producing silk (clear reference to Seres and land of Serica) are all the same people..

obviously Syrians are not mentioned among Serians in 1st century AD... in fact, area of Syria is part of Phoenicia before, during and after the period of "sea peoples", and Phoenicians were likely carriers of J2 haplogroup mostly
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showpost.php?p=362384&postcount=78

I am curious whether I in Levant is in fact I2a1, which would explain its spread in north Africa and south west Europe as related to Phoenicians... at the moment I expect it is more likely I2a2 or I2*...
 
Last edited:
The term invasion is used generally in the literature concerning the period to mean the documented attacks implying a local or unspecified origin. An origin outside the Aegean also has been proposed, as in this example by Michael Grant: "There was a gigantic series of migratory waves, extending all the way from the Danube valley to the plains of China."[55]
Such a comprehensive movement is associated with more than one people or culture; instead, a "disturbance" happens, according to Finley:[56]
A large-scale movement of people is indicated ... the original centre of disturbance was in the Carpatho-Danubian region of Europe. ... It appears ... to have been ... pushing in different directions at different times.
If different times are allowed on the Danube, they are not in the Aegean: "all this destruction must be dated to the same period about 1200."[56]
The following movements are compressed by Finley into the 1200 BC window: the Dorian Invasion, the attacks of the Sea Peoples, the formation of Philistine kingdoms in the Levant and the fall of the Hittite Empire, when in fact, those events required at least a few hundred years.
The archaeological evidence is treated in the same way. Robert Drews[57] presents a map showing the destruction sites of 47 fortified major settlements, which he terms "Major Sites Destroyed in the Catastrophe". They are concentrated in the Levant, with some in Greece and Anatolia. The questions of dates and agents of destruction remain for the most part unanswered in detail, without which no single catastrophe or related catastrophes can be postulated beyond the level of pure speculation.
The invaders, that is, the replacement cultures at those sites, apparently made no attempt to retain the cities' wealth but instead built new settlements of a materially simpler cultural and less complex economic level atop the ruins. For example, no one appropriated the palace and rich stores at Pylos, but all were burned up, and the successors (whomever they were) moved in over the ruins with plain pottery and simple goods. This demonstrates a cultural discontinuity.
Whether all the discontinuities were sufficiently contemporaneous to warrant a theory of great waves of invasion another question. Ethnic identities from the Danube and beyond are in short supply in the records.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples#cite_ref-54
 
btw. words Teuton and Aria are not really widespread among IE tribal names...
those words were only widespread after recently being misused in nazi-propaganda


Well, this one isn't too hard to put away quickly. The two words mentioned above, their use to described one's clan, and their cognates are relatively common among IE peoples. The fact that Nazis and others made wildly exaggerated claims doesn't negate that at all. One problem that we see since the Nazis were swept from power (Thankfully so) is a knee-jerk reaction the other way - trying to paste over the whole IE migration thing and attributing what happened to cultural diffusion or other people altogether.


How Yes or Know, I am suspecting that I "rub you the wrong way". I like the discussions , but I try to add my points in manner that is as non-confrontational as possible. If I fail in this, please let me know


At this point, without marshalling all kinds of data, I will submit that the displaced Achaeans are the most likely candidates for most of the Sea Peoples. Perhaps you will be able to swing me over to your side at some point.
 
Well, this one isn't too hard to put away quickly. The two words mentioned above, their use to described one's clan, and their cognates are relatively common among IE peoples.

as far as I know there was single Teuton tribe in history and single Aryan tribe as well... if you know more tribes that carried name Teuton and Aryan please identify them...

only Aryans in history were the ones in ancient times in India...

Teuton tribe is Germanic tribe known from historical records of 1st and 2nd century AD, it is gone from history after participating in zig-zag conquest together with Cimbri

220px-Cimbrians_and_Teutons_invasions.svg.png


sometimes the term is used to denote Germanic tribes in general, same as name derived from Suebi is used in Slavic countries for Germans...
but there were no zillion tribes named alike to Teutons, there was only that single tribe.. so, no, the tribal name was not widespread among IE folk...



How Yes or Know, I am suspecting that I "rub you the wrong way". I like the discussions , but I try to add my points in manner that is as non-confrontational as possible. If I fail in this, please let me know
no, I tend to be somewhat aggressive in discussions... do not take that seriously... that's merely a style of expression issue...

At this point, without marshalling all kinds of data, I will submit that the displaced Achaeans are the most likely candidates for most of the Sea Peoples. Perhaps you will be able to swing me over to your side at some point.
movement of sea peoples is about more than single tribe... general direction of movement is from north towards south....so it is quite possible that there were Achaeans there as well...what confuses me the most is overlapping of the timeline of sea peoples conquest with Trojan war...and overlapping of some names among sea peoples with tribes that lost in Trojan war (Pelast/Pelasgues, Tjekker / Teucri (Troyans), Lukka (Lycians)...)
 
Ok How Yes or No, good to hear that we are Ok. Let’s refer to you as being enthusiastic, not aggressive.

Firstly, I am aware that Aryans were a subgroup of Iranians peoples who in turn are a subgroup of IE peoples. So, for the record, I am not a 19th century racial theorist.

On the word Tuath- it refers to clan or tribe and is seen to my knowledge in the West.
Root word “Teuta” finds its way into German with Deutsch, Teutonic, Theod. North Germanic with Tysk.. Italian with Tedesco. Latin Tribus. Irish Tuath. Lithuanian Tauto.
The latter may be from German Baltic colonization.

The root word “Ar” or “Aryo” is frequent in Iranian tongues. (Mentioned in Avesta, by Darius I, etc.) Some hold that it finds its way in to Irish “Eire” or “aire”/ Greek ”Aristos” or possibly “harma”/ Latin “ordo” I come across many meanings given such as referring to skillfully, or assembling or both. The Aryans (the group that went to India) seemed to have used it mostly to mean “us” .Various explanations given include that it referred to chariots (like “harma” and/or that those who used the vehicles were distinct or considered themselves nobles. Thus the apparent use to refer to "us".

I don’t want this to set off a chain reaction. Help and input are welcomed, though. Can Marianne or Iapodos help with the Greek? The gross abuses of the formerly mentioned 19th century guys and even worse Nazis, in my opinion, caused a knee-jerk reaction that resulted in wholesome and honest inquiries or ideas being cast aside.

My whole (and only) point in bringing it up was the mentioning by How Yes or No of so many peoples/tribes with names containing “er’ or “ar” in the earlier post. I only desired to share a possibility, not stomp all over someone’s work. It looked too good to be coincidence. I fear that often these posts get 'off track". If one doesn't think that shardana, seres, serians, siraces, serboi, serbs, sarbans, or sherden, may contain a common denominator root word then that is OK. I never intended to prove anything, just to offer up a thought after reading your post.

Like I said, I am open to hear of possible alternatives for displaced Achaeans when we speak of "Sea Peoples". I am fully aware that they were not one tribe. My point there had been that they were likely the greatest component.
 
Last edited:
On the word Tuath- it refers to clan or tribe and is seen to my knowledge in the West.
Root word “Teuta” finds its way into German with Deutsch, Teutonic, Theod. North Germanic with Tysk.. Italian with Tedesco. Latin Tribus. Irish Tuath. Lithuanian Tauto.
The latter may be from German Baltic colonization.
similarly, Slavic people use name derived from Suebi for Germans (Svabe), besides the official name that describes Germans as mute / not speaking people (Nemci)

this says that main Germanic tribe in contact with people from whom Slavs origin are Suebi, while for Italians, Irish?, and Balts those are Teutons...
but the name has clear single source...

so, with your examples, you actually enforce my argument instead of weaking it...

what I claimed is that all those names origin from single tribe and was used for people originating from that tribe later on, with some generalization to related tribes... in this case clear origin is Germanic Teuton tribe who is attested in history in 1st and 2nd century AD.

my argument is that there never existed many or even multiple tribes of unrelated origin carrying Teuton name to use that as an argument to claim that all tribes with Serb-like tribal names are probably unrelated... As I said Seneca made clear relation between tribes carrying Serb-alike names, spread of haplogroup I (I2?) indicates relation as well...




The root word “Ar” or “Aryo” is frequent in Iranian tongues. (Mentioned in Avesta, by Darius I, etc.) Some hold that it finds its way in to Irish “Eire” or “aire”/ Greek ”Aristos” or possibly “harma”/ Latin “ordo” I come across many meanings given such as referring to skillfully, or assembling or both. The Aryans (the group that went to India) seemed to have used it mostly to mean “us” .Various explanations given include that it referred to chariots (like “harma” and/or that those who used the vehicles were distinct or considered themselves nobles. Thus the apparent use to refer to "us".

yes, but that is much later in history than Aryans...
Aryan was identical with Iranian, and all IE people were Iranian (from Iran) in origin (if you go long enough in past)
again, there is a clear common source of the name...


If one doesn't think that shardana, seres, serians, siraces, serboi, serbs, sarbans, or sherden, may contain a common denominator root word then that is OK. I never intended to prove anything, just to offer up a thought after reading your post.
it is possible that some of those tribal names are unrelated... however, I see strong indication that they are related in writings of Seneca and in trail of haplogroup I...

Sherdana might indeed be related to proto-Sardinians, but they are I2a1 haplogroup and thus show distant (currently estimated to time 10 000 years before present) common origin with proto-Serbs who are I2a2, which indicates that tribal name origins from same source...

stretch of haplogroup I (most likely I2 and I believe I2a2) down the Levant and into west part of Arabian peninsula coincides with spread of tribal names Syrian/ Sabaeans/Sheba/Saba
while in Egypt lake named after "Sea peoples" is Serbonian bog... this is very strong indication for my claims...

stretch of haplogroup I in arc from India to China coincides with spread of tribal names Sarbans and Seres... Now, Seneca claims that Serians of Serica (Seres), Serians of red sea (Sabaeans), Serians of Caspian mountains (Serboi) and Serians of Europe (proto-Serbs?) are same people....

this, all together, is too much facts pointing into same direction to be discarded as coincidence...


Like I said, I am open to hear of possible alternatives for displaced Achaeans when we speak of "Sea Peoples". I am fully aware that they were not one tribe. My point there had been that they were likely the greatest component.

What I said is that Achaeans might have been (and in fact are likely to have been) one of the sea peoples (namely Akwesh/Ekwesh), but that sea peoples seems to has been about several (perhaps culturally unrelated) big tribes or proto-nations. I easily can guess that among them were Achaeans as Akwesh, Lycians as Lukka, Pelasgues as Pelast and probabbly proto-Serb related tribes as Sherdana... Sherdana are related to sea attacks, but I claim that those were attacks over Red sea whose controllers later became Sheba /Sabeans
position of those people coincides with spread of haplogroup I in west part of Arabian peninsula....

I am intrigued with possibility that Dorian Greeks and Pelasgues might have been also related to haplogroup I2a2 as proto-Serbs...


however, I have problems to imagine epic Troyan war next to Hittite state while it seems to me (correct me if I am wrong) that neither Hittite were mentioned by Homer, nor Trojan war, as epic monumental 10 year long battle, was mentioned in historical records of the Hittite which was strongest nearby country and which is according to chronology supposed to have collapsed few years after Troyan war and leaving some historical records from the times preceding its collapse... that is puzzling for me... so, I think that something might be wrong with dating or location of Troyan war... perhaps with location... as most often used dating seems to correlate well with mention of total eclipse of sun in story of travel of Odysseus (or Ulysses) after the Troyan war...

btw. there is in fact a Mexican philogogist Roberto Salinas Price who argues that actual Troy was in Hercegovina on Neretva river and that Homer's work was not originally made in Greek but in proto-Slavic languages

in fact, Homer was blind person who was singing epic songs... same cultural phenomena of blind people travelling and earning for living by singing epic poems about historic events (texts of songs are transferred from one generation to next) we have much later among Serbs...

e.g. Serbian epic poems were in fact written down by Vuk Karadzic (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuk_Stefanović_Karadžić - inventor of Serbian 100% phonetic alphabet) who collected and written down lot of Serbian epic & lyric songs, stories, fairy tales and riddles, after hearing them from number of blind guslars (gulse is instrument explained here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gusle) , one of them being Filip Visnjic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filip_Višnjić

I do wonder if there was such a cultural phenomena among modern Greeks of blind people earning for living by travelling and telling epic songs about history events? It may as well be the case that this cultural phenomena origin from Greeks or other native inhabitants of Balkans, and was spread among Serbs only after settling in Balkans
 
Last edited:
OK I am very confused now. What exactly was I supposedly trying to weaken with your argument? I was trying to add or share possibilities, not prove you wrong.

The only true difference in what I was saying was that Achaean Greeks are a strong possibility for the Sea Peoples. It appears to go against whatever you may be "driving at", so I will refrain from further comments. Note though, that many historians do believe this to be likely.

The only thing that I will need to refute is your position on the Iranian peoples as you reversed part of the equation. We both agree where the Aryans were a subgroup of Iranians. You reversed, though, their relationship with other IE peoples.
Indo-Iranian, Celto-Italic (possibly Germanic with them or separate), Thraco-Cimmerian, Balto-Slavic, Hellenic, and possibly Illyrian are major groups that developed out of the Proto IE language group. To what extent they are ethnically tied is of course for DNA to decide.
So, Iranian peoples developed out of the Proto-IE people, linguistic group, or both just like the other groups mentioned here. They are not the base group themselves. You appeared to have the Iranian group as the base group with other IE major groups developing out of Iranian. That is backwards.
 
One last thought for How Yes or No; Is it possible that your positions are based on an assumption or belief that Slavic peoples were in the Balkans in ancient/classical times?
That may explain your apparent intentions. If this is correct, then maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread on that topic so that we can discuss that point directly as opposed to going around in circles. If I guessed wrongly here, then I apologize.
 
OK I am very confused now. What exactly was I supposedly trying to weaken with your argument? I was trying to add or share possibilities, not prove you wrong.

you wanted to use argument of wide spread names Aryans and Teutons to show that unrelated people may carry same tribal names, and that thus all Serb-like names are probably unrelated. My point is that there is clear single source of Teuton name, and clear single source of Aryan name.

The only true difference in what I was saying was that Achaean Greeks are a strong possibility for the Sea Peoples. It appears to go against whatever you may be "driving at", so I will refrain from further comments. Note though, that many historians do believe this to be likely.
oh, but if you have read carefully, you would see that I believe that as well, but not for all "sea peoples". For Akwesh only...


The only thing that I will need to refute is your position on the Iranian peoples as you reversed part of the equation. We both agree where the Aryans were a subgroup of Iranians. You reversed, though, their relationship with other IE peoples.
origin of the word is the same Iran = Aryan


Indo-Iranian, Celto-Italic (possibly Germanic with them or separate), Thraco-Cimmerian, Balto-Slavic, Hellenic, and possibly Illyrian are major groups that developed out of the Proto IE language group. To what extent they are ethnically tied is of course for DNA to decide.
yes, but that is pure purpose of this part of forum and this thread... to look into genetics in order to investigate different scenarios for distant history...
if you want to leave it to professional genetic scientists, than I suggest you to ask from admins to close whole genetics part of this forum... or to forbid people (Maciamo the admin being one of them) to try to put hypothesis about interpretation of genetic data in context of history events...

So, Iranian peoples developed out of the Proto-IE people, linguistic group, or both just like the other groups mentioned here. They are not the base group themselves. You appeared to have the Iranian group as the base group with other IE major groups developing out of Iranian. That is backwards.
I do not talk about linguistic there.... PIE is just side effect of the spread of people...
all people origin from Africa...
to Europe (that was under ice during all ice ages) they came mostly via Iran and from Iran...

One last thought for How Yes or No; Is it possible that your positions are based on an assumption or belief that Slavic peoples were in the Balkans in ancient/classical times?
That may explain your apparent intentions. If this is correct, then maybe it would be a good idea to start a thread on that topic so that we can discuss that point directly as opposed to going around in circles. If I guessed wrongly here, then I apologize.

that is not my assumption, but it is not unlikely at all...
we know that Balkan tribes Thracians and Dacians were satem speaking people... now, satem speaking people in Europe of today are only Slavs, Balts and Albanians, and further you go in past more those people are the same... thus a claim (that I didnot make) that proto-Slavs lived in Balkan is not that far-fetched fantasy as you might think...

btw. here is nice link about Troy being in fact in Herzegovina
http://www.homer.com.mx/index.html
 
I did not try to make any widespread argument. I only suggested that the frequency of "er" and "ar" in tribal names may not have been coincidence.

I told you I am out of the game on this subject as it went nowhere.

I agree that Achaean were not the only Sea Peoples. I only held that they were the largest group.

Let’s not get into lecturing on IE people, IE speaking people, etc. I have little problem asking questions of those who have a lot to add but I would stick to asking you about Haplogroups as they appear to be your strongpoint.

It looks like we have found your purpose. I'll tell you what - I will back off for now and within two weeks or so I will start a thread on locations of Proto-Slavs and Slavs if you have not done so already.
 
I agree that Achaean were not the only Sea Peoples. I only held that they were the largest group.
why do you think that?
any proof for that claim, or any indication why you believe that was the case?

It looks like we have found your purpose. I'll tell you what - I will back off for now and within two weeks or so I will start a thread on locations of Proto-Slavs and Slavs if you have not done so already.

nope, I think that you have problem of trying to look at distant history through the eyes of cultures and languages existing today...

I do not even claim that proto-Serbs were the same as proto-Slavic people...
I just pinpoint to the obvious - to the fact that spread of haplogroup I and especially I2 correlates with spread of Serb-like tribal names...

as for culture and linguistics, in some parts of haplgorup I2 history, they might have even been Greek related... e.g. in Caucasus, Siraces (thought to be the same as Serboi) are considered most Hellenic or hellenized of all Sarmatians.

my posts are not about culture and linguistics, but about correlation between spread of tribal names and genetics...it is not about culture and language as those are for most nations rather recently obtained and prone to change easily...

to help you understand how absurd is it to speak of distant past (e.g. 12th century BC or around 3150 years before present which is when "sea peoples" conquest happened) in terms of language groups existing today, I will just remind you that
today, latin America, Spain, Portugal, France, Italy and Romania talk with languages that are derived from a language that was 2500 years ago probably spoken only around small village called Rome...

I believe that the same or very alike tribal names very often pinpoint to the same genetic origin....in my opinion, a tribe can gradually change its language, but I believe that tribal names are core of tribes identity and that some primary tribal names tend to be preserved through thousands of years or even tens of thousands of years...
 
I am not seeing this to be much in the way of discussion. How about a call for mercy? Give it to me straight and summarize it - What is your opinion
of the R1a and R1b1b2 theories and maps of which I have seen a lot of here? And which group is I2 in your opinion?

Maybe you could explain succinctly what your opinion is on what groups mixed to form the Germans that we know today or what groups mixed in the Balkans to from the Serbs. I am at a loss trying to understand why using the timing of historical events is wrong for me but fine for you.

I get the feeling that you may have an axe to grind against much of what is presented here in this forum. Do you really doubt that I am able to break out books, write down citations, and fire off a mega-long response on the Achaeans? I hope not, because if you did, then what would be the use? Obviously I would be a dolt or naive at best in your eyes to start.
If I wanted to amass a load of data, wouldn't I be better off doing that to prepare for a big college paper?


I'm out. I will start a thread on Slavic origins to invite discussion in around two weeks unless I see one started already.

 
Yep, some of us don't like "how yes no" methodology, and we had disagreements in the past. I had described his method as solving history with a machine gun, but sometimes one can get the target right with it too, right? I guess with time, and genetic testing of ancient peoples, we will know where he was right or not. I admire his passion for history and a good argument. Straight to the point but always in civilized manner. Even if I don't agree, I always read his posts, at least for the amusement and the passion.....oh, the passion.
I'm waiting for Regulus posts about Slavic origin.
Later guys. :)
 
I am not seeing this to be much in the way of discussion. How about a call for mercy?

Sorry, but that's the way I defend my arguments. I did warn you that I tend to be somewhat aggressive (sharp might be better word) in the way of expressing my attitudes.

Give it to me straight and summarize it - What is your opinion of the R1a and R1b1b2 theories and maps of which I have seen a lot of here?

In context of this thread, I argue that they were not related to movements of sea peoples...
reason is that trace of haplogroup I goes along coast line in direction of sea peoples movement, while R1a in area seems not correlated with I, and R1b does not show traces of spread along coastline of Levant towards west parts of Saudi Arabia...



I.png


300px-Distribution_Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.svg


R1a.png


R1b.png



And which group is I2 in your opinion?
the reason I talk about I2 is that there is one thing about I2 and its succesor clades (I2a*, I2a1, I2a2, I2b) - their locations are never random but always very strategically chosen - they seem to occupy main trade roots..
.
e,g, if you look at I2* all group memebers at

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ymap

you can see clearly several strategically placed clusters of I2* stretching accross the area:
1) line from Sicily to Benelux and Denmark
2) area around Black sea (including Thracia and north part of Asia minor) and lines from from Black sea towards Baltic sea and towards Caspian sea
3) Crete
4) Brittany and Britain
5) northwest China


Maybe you could explain succinctly what your opinion is on what groups mixed to form the Germans that we know today or what groups mixed in the Balkans to from the Serbs. I am at a loss trying to understand why using the timing of historical events is wrong for me but fine for you.

sure, but not on this topic...

Do you really doubt that I am able to break out books, write down citations, and fire off a mega-long response on the Achaeans? I hope not, because if you did, then what would be the use? Obviously I would be a dolt or naive at best in your eyes to start.

right...
it is only naive and dolt (retarded) people (like me I guess) who bother to find evidence for their claims about history in writings of ancient historians...
 
The root word “Ar” or “Aryo” is frequent in Iranian tongues. (Mentioned in Avesta, by Darius I, etc.) Some hold that it finds its way in to Irish “Eire” or “aire”/ Greek ”Aristos” or possibly “harma”/ Latin “ordo” I come across many meanings given such as referring to skillfully, or assembling or both. The Aryans (the group that went to India) seemed to have used it mostly to mean “us” .Various explanations given include that it referred to chariots (like “harma” and/or that those who used the vehicles were distinct or considered themselves nobles. Thus the apparent use to refer to "us".


Well, I know that the old name for Afghanistan is Ariana.
There are still people in Afghanistan (Hazara) that speak Farsi.
The correct name for Iran is Persia, what is derived from Farsi. (The language of Persia)

The name Iran is based on the wrong idea that all Persians are "Arians".
Propaganda from the time Adolf Hitler spoke about the Arians as the master race.
People in Persia bought that bullshit, and named their country Iran.
Which in fact would mean.. "Land or the Arians".

While Aghanistan had that name.. Ariana.
But was changed into Afghanistan when the Pashtun took over the power in the country.
 
Actually you are reasonably correct about the name of modern-day Iran.

We know that it had gone by the name of Persia for a long time and that that same name kept rising up, especially after it had shaken off foreign rule. Why not, its a good name.

The modern name of the nation-state of Iran seems to have come from a desire to draw a closer connection to the original IE group of Iranians, not the Aryans themselves. It may also have been to shake off the mental picture that much of the world would equate the new state. They likely did not want to remind anyone the 19th century state that was backward, corrupt, and subject to foreign rule. They hoped that it would convey the idea of a new modern state that was connected to its oldest roots.

They did not buy into anything as far as I know. If they did, I would think that they would have named themselves Ariana or something of that sort since the whole Aryan name was the subject of insane overuse and abuse. The misuse still causes people to be confused. I once spent a half and hour explaining to someone how the "Arian" of Christian heresy had less than nothing to do with the Aryan group. The guy somehow truly thought that since many German tribes were Arian Christians it was because they were "Arians" Try doing into crazy detail about Arius starting that heresy, and then switching gears and explaining that Germans and Aryans are not the same thing.

I had heard that Farsi was still spoken in parts of Afghanistan, but did know how many there were.
 
I will read that post. For the record, though, I was never doing an Aryan discussion. I was trying from the beginning to talk with you about your topic. The little comments that I made while doing so kept getting progressively magnified. That was not what I wanted, so I will avoid using that word or any remotely-related word in the future.
 
I will read that post. For the record, though, I was never doing an Aryan discussion. I was trying from the beginning to talk with you about your topic. The little comments that I made while doing so kept getting progressively magnified. That was not what I wanted, so I will avoid using that word or any remotely-related word in the future.
that's ok Regulus... but please stop trying to talk about what you think is my purpose, whether this or that word or way of telling is ok with me... just focus on topic and not on me...
 

This thread has been viewed 135469 times.

Back
Top