The Dorians couldn't have been related to Hallstatt because they were first a Greek-speaking people, and second their dialect is the one most akin to proto-Greek. And again, there is not even a Celtic substrate in the Greek language.
I have seen the Eupedia article, still though i don't see how what it writes is even academically corroborated. If i sat down and discussed with the person who wrote that article he would immediately change his mind. Don't treat Eupedia articles as a bible. There are many errors in what he writes, such for example that Mycenaeans came in Greece during 1,650 BCE and that Dorians came from central Europe (1,500 kilometres away) during 1,200 BCE. Of course there is no serious Indo-Europeanist who would agree with those notions for either Mycenaean Greeks or Dorian Greeks. It is baseless linguistically, archaeologically, and even mythologically for that matter. Plus it is extremely and ignorantly hypothetical bearing in mind that when he/she wrote this there were no Dorian samples available, and even now only one exists from a preliminary presentation, and he wasn't E-V13.
Maciamo or not, these are still ignorant and short-sighted quotes. I have read a few comments of Maciamo in the past relating to Armenians and i liked some of his hypotheses (i believe he is Armenian after all and would probably know more of his ethnic group), but that doesn't make these other quotes any more accurate. Also, who are those other scholars and what credentials do they have? Also, how do they relate them? There is not a single person who has actually studied ancient Greek and is a specialist in it that would claim that a people speaking a very conservative Greek dialect (a distinct Greek dialect), such as the Dorians, would be living for centuries outside their Greek linguistic cluster within a sea of Celtic speakers and other linguistic groups without having inherited at the very least a considerable substrate from these other languages. And then again, based on that very ignorant notion, where would the proto-Greek region be? Again, in central Europe?
I know that paper by heart. Where does the Lazaridis paper corroborate anything of what you have been promoting or suggesting? Do you understand what it says above?
The paper suggests based on its findings that "Proto-Greek speakers formed the southern wing of a steppe intrusion of Indo-European speakers." (verbatim), pertaining to Europe. And bear in mind this is just from a genetic approach, that also happens to corroborate what i had written to you in this post three months ago. I mean everything ties in perfectly, whether it is genetics, linguistics, archaeology, mythology. Everything is in sync with the hypothesis for the proto-Greek region being in north-western Greece, out of which there were sporadic migrations towards central and southern Greece, initially with who were to become the Achaeans (Mycenaeans), and then the Dorians, with their conservative dialect further corroborating that they must have resided within the proto-Greek region (Pindus mountain range approximately) and having preserved many of the archaisms that had already been lost in other southern dialects.
Not just Vučedol. In fact, the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex (also known as Sălcuța-Krivodol-Bubanj and its subsequent Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq) and the Četina phenomenon are more likely in terms of the Graeco-Phrygian ancestors. Especially the Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq complex.
First of all, the very genetic paper that this thread is based on shows that autosomally those Minoan samples have none of the steppe component that is present among the Mycenaean Greek samples. That same steppe component also indicates the arrival of steppe Indo-Europeans and is what essentially differentiates the Mycenaeans from the Minoans. Exactly, there is no indication of Mycenaean presence on Crete prior of 1,450 BCE, and even then it was probably because they found the Minoan civilization at a weak point, namely after the eruption of the Thera volcano. Then there are also cultural and religious differences that set them apart, but i don't see the reason to expand on something you can easily find on the internet by your own. Also, i don't understand why you would bring this last analogy to me. Did i ever claim that Mycenaeans are Minoans because they adopted certain elements from them? Again, i don't understand what point you are trying to make or what's the objection.
Don't tell me what the Lazaridis paper says again. Explain to me how does it corroborate the notions you are promoting, because it obviously doesn't. You don't even understand the simple English that the paper is conveying.
This thread has been viewed 1169844 times.
