Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 55 of 115 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765105 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,375 of 2862

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #1351
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    456

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Here i quote Eric Hamp from his "The Expansion of the Indo-European Languages: An Indo-Europeanist’s Evolving View" (2013) (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp239_indo_european_languages.pdf) paper.
    "
    Helleno-Armenians (= Pontic Indo-Europeans): south and east of Kurgan [northeastcoast of the Black Sea and its hinterlands]
    1. Via Batoumi and the southern Black Sea coast (Armenians left behind after Batoumi).
    2. Greeks enter Aegean and Peloponnesus from Asia Minor, Cyprus via Pamphylia. Troyis a barrier to further migration directly west or to the northwest. So first the preCypriots and then other groups of pre-Hellenics are turned south at this point. Thepre-Cypriots continue south to Pamphyllia and ultimately Cyprus, the other groupscross the Aegean (Myceneans first).
    3. Mycenean Greeks were in Thebes and Thessaly before the Aeolians; Myceneans werethe first Greeks on Crete.
    "

    Therefore he does suggest that linguistically affiliated pre-Cypriots settled Cyprus around the same time proto-Greeks settled on the Greek mainland. And he seemingly also suggests the same pre-Cypriot presence for Pamphylia if i understand correctly. The ABC is purely for categorization, not really chronological since he refers to all regions at once in his 2nd point. I don't know how he comes to these conclusions bearing in mind that at the very least archaeology contradicts all these. To me it seems more as conjecture rather than a hypothesis. I also have a problem with his 3rd point bearing in mind that Mycenaeans were not one people but diverse with Ionians and Aeolians, it is merely a collective name we have contemporarily assigned for a certain kind of people, namely the ones that participated in the Mycenaean civilization.

    You write, "
    Could these have been Greeks? Phrygians? Armenians? The first two seem more likely based on the geography.".
    I believe they could be Palaic IEs as the quote suggests. But it would be interesting to know based on what evidence the Hittites are excluded.

    I personally exclude Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian because of the genetic absence of steppe ancestry in the region during the approximate time of 2000 BCE, as this following paper suggests, namely "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia" (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/science.aar7711.full_.pdf), and we know that both Greeks and Armenians had it.

  2. #1352
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post

    No they weren't, but many of them did eventually absorb what we would historically and broadly consider Scythian people. My understanding of the broader Scythian term corresponds to the Eastern-Iranian speaking steppe people from the Classical/Hellenistic periods. And in the end, if you don't like broader terminology, does this mean we should also cease calling the Germanic sub-groups such as the Germans, Norwegians, Danes, etc., as Germanic? Or maybe we should question why did the eastern nations began generalizing the Greeks with a name originally belonging to the Ionians (the first Greek sub-group they came into contact with), such as Yunani, Yunan, Yawan, etc.. In the end, generalization is only natural, and the existence/use of it doesn't mean we disregard the variations between each of the respective sub-groups.
    The term Scythian was used for many nomadic or seminomadic people irrespective of linguistics affiliations, especially after late antiquity. Originally, though, for a population in S. Ukraine, maybe Srubnaya related but I'm not sure without more Iron Age and later samples (because the accounts seem to imply movements at a relatively late date)

    You can write 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic', for groups you think they were 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic'.
    There is no reason to call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe' because:
    = The term Scythian is an exonym, originally used for a population likely not that closely related to Ossetians.
    = There are disagreements about how close Ossetian is to other 'Eastern Iranian' languages.

    But, I would understand it if someone consistently used it for 'Eastern Iranian' speakers but you used it for the Achaei and Heniochi of Strabo, groups that are placed in a NWC speaking area (I don't know if someone can support an Iranic affiliation). Certainly they are presented as culturally different from Scythians proper, apart from the different mythological origins of the account.

    The linguistic affiliation of Afanasievo is uncertain and with samples from actual Tocharians I think that this hypothesis will be refuted. Either way, they are more likely to have R1a than R1b in significant frequencies and most likely J2, with a South of Caspian through Tajikistan / Kyrgyzstan route possible.

  3. #1353
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    To my understanding, it is J2 that is normally associated with Kura-Araxes, or at least Hurrians, but I could be wrong.

    Anyway, I know that there was an attempt to link the Etruscans and possibly the Eteocypriots to the Hurrians as well. I think people just want to bundle everybody together because it's easier to understand. I'm not saying that this is right or good though.



    Okay. But are you talking about Pre-Proto-Indo-European (i.e. Indo-Hittite) or are you talking about Proto-Indo-European? The former seems to have been native to the South Caucasus. The latter seems to have been a mix of the former+EEHGs. Not all Indo-European groups came from the latter though, at least the Anatolians may not have (Reich asserts that they didn't, Damgaard also asserts that they didn't). The term Proto-Indo-European really should be changed to something like "Early Modern Indo-European" or "Steppe Indo-European" and the Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans (AKA Indo-Hittites) should be re-christened "Proto-Indo-Europeans".

    The problem with this is that it could be pushed back further, which means the terms would have to change/be reapplied yet again. If Laroche and Bomhard/Fornet are correct, the Hurro-Urartians were Indo-Europeans who broke off before the Anatolians. So the Indo-Hittites+Hurro-Urartians would be the real "Proto-Indo-Europeans". The Indo-Hittites would have to be renamed something like "Hattio-Indo-Europeans".

    Honestly, I think that PIE will be reapplied to the South Caucasus and the Yamnaya/Steppe derived groups (i.e. most/all surviving IE dialects) will be termed something like "Steppe-Indo-Europeans" at some point in the next few decades.
    I don't understand what Reich really believes. So my view is pre-PIE in a culture like Chatalhoyuk, late PIE in a culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't think that is necassarily correct, but for pre-PIE works better than the 'South of Caucasus' theory. South of Caucasus, where?

    The Kelti in Strabo are presented as a population familar with agriculture, making cheese from milk etc., and the 'men of Britain' as partly similar, partly more 'simple' and 'barbaric'.

    According to the account of Dionysius of Halikarnassus, Tyrrhenians took their name for being the first to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' in Italy and he compares these structures to those Mossynoeci were making in Anatolia.

    I don't think that agriculturalists were making stilt houses. Did 'steppe pastoralists' do? We certainly know that in Central Europe they existed, afaik, from 5000 BC.

  4. #1354
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    456

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    You write, "The term Scythian was used for many nomadic or seminomadic people irrespective of linguistics affiliations, especially after late antiquity. Originally, though, for a population in S. Ukraine, maybe Srubnaya related but I'm not sure without more Iron Age and later samples (because the accounts seem to imply movements at a relatively late date)".
    What is late antiquity, and does it correspond to what i wrote? The broader Scythian designation is mainly assigned to Iranian speaking people of the steppes, if not altogether. I am not referring to later groups which might have been associated with Scythians because they had absorbed some of them.

    You write, "
    You can write 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic', for groups you think they were 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic'.
    There is no reason to call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe' because:
    = The term Scythian is an exonym, originally used for a population likely not that closely related to Ossetians.
    = There are disagreements about how close Ossetian is to other 'Eastern Iranian' languages.
    ".
    The Ossetians descend from the Alans, a Sarmatian tribe. The Sarmatians were part of the Iranian steppe peoples, among whom were also Scythians and Saka. These are also grouped together as "East Iranians". The fact the Scythian name has been generalized in order to designate all of these groups doesn't bother me at all, they were all related after all. If you don't want to use it, it's your right to do so. LOL, what are we keep discussing?

    You write, "But, I would understand it if someone consistently used it for 'Eastern Iranian' speakers but you used it for the Achaei and Heniochi of Strabo, groups that are placed in a NWC speaking area (I don't know if someone can support an Iranic affiliation). Certainly they are presented as culturally different from Scythians proper, apart from the different mythological origins of the account.".
    Actually i didn't mention Heniochi, you did. And second, Strabo doesn't elaborate on their linguistic affiliations in order to exclude them from being considered in the broader sense as Scythians. The NWC element of the area is essentially the Circassians (Adygei) people, who as a side note in the 19th century were largely displaced. Circassians (Adygei) as previously mentioned seem to descend from one of the numerous peoples that are mentioned in the area by Strabo, namely the Cercetae. And last, i am not really absolute about their (Achaei and Heniochi) affiliations. They could be Greek, Scythian, Caucasian, or a mix of them.

    You write, "
    The linguistic affiliation of Afanasievo is uncertain and with samples from actual Tocharians I think that this hypothesis will be refuted. Either way, they are more likely to have R1a than R1b in significant frequencies and most likely J2, with a South of Caspian through Tajikistan / Kyrgyzstan route possible.".
    The problem with this is who can be considered actual Tocharian (or proto-Tocharian), and not be confused with later Indo-Iranian migrations who surely reached the area? Last, i also believe we will find J2 among them, as well as R1b, but i am referring to proto-Tocharians.

  5. #1355
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Scythians 'in the broadest sense' did not exist or they existed as much as 'East Asians' or 'Europeans' exist today.

    You use the term Sarmatian as if it is something concrete, while that does not seem to be the case. For example, Herodotus uses it for a population east of Don, later Tacitus for a population that borders 'Germania' (east of Vistula).

    I personally believe the first part of their name (sar-) is from the reconstructed root ǵʰelh₃ and therefore cognate with Sanskrit hari, Lithuanian zalias etc., which is consistent with the ancient accounts. (or Iron сырх but I am not sure what is the accepted etymology of that word)

    And on the internet you may see maps like the following that are not based on anything other than modern myths build on ancient inconsistent accounts, which afaik though, do not place Sarmatians there but both east and west of that area.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythi...hia_100_BC.png

    If you want a parallel, calling a modern ethnic group Scythian or Sarmatian 'tribe' is like calling Albanians an 'Illyrian tribe'.

  6. #1356
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,140


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    To get back to the paper, Davidski just keeps on keeping on with the disinformation and blatant and perhaps wilful ignorance of the findings of academic papers when they don't agree with his agenda.

    "Minoans derive from a later stream of Anatolian ancestry than EEF does, with more CHG and Levant-related input, that's why they're so different from LBK, Iberian farmers, etc. Take a look at any decent PCA of West Eurasia."

    NO, THAT IS ALL INCORRECT.

    I don't know who this person is from anthrogenica who responded to set the record straight, but at least he or she reads papers and reports their findings honestly.

    "EEF was admixed with WHG making it different from Barcin farmers. Minoans were a mix of Anatolian farmers and something Caucasus rich. No Levantine admixture was detected as for the original paper.


    We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region (Extended Data Fig. 7). [...] Other proposed migrations, such as settlement by Egyptian or Phoenician colonists, are not discernible in our data, as there is no measurable Levantine or African influence in the Minoans and Mycenaeans, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the cultures of the Aegean were seeded by migrants from the old civilizations of these regions.

    [...]

    The Mycenaeans settled all of mainland Greece up to Thessaly, and throughout the Aegean islands. There is evidence of extensive Mycenaean acculturation in Western Anatolia, Italy and Cyprus and trading relations with Egypt and the Near East. The Mycenaeans were literate and used for accounting purposes a syllabic script, Linear B, written in an early form of the Greek. They introduced this script into Crete after they occupied the island."



    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  7. #1357
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Thanks for the links. The reason I suspected it might not be Palaic is because the ware originally came for the NW. So either all Anatolians came from the NW (which I know is a popular theory) and/or the Palaics were a later wave of Anatolian migration from the NW. Bogazkoy is really close to Alaca (which, you will recall, is the site of early 2300 BCE Indo-European tombs, which Macqueen asserts are not Hittite). To me, it sounds like Macqueen was suggesting that somebody went from NW (probably from Europe originally?) into central Anatolia, and then backtracked closer to Lydia. Then again, these could all be waves of different people migrating and not necessarily connected to one another directly. I was theorizing that Greeks or Phrygians would be a good fit for this migration, theoretically, but not knowing how the wares are connected to later wares (like ceramics found in Crete) makes this difficult.

  8. #1358
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    I don't understand what Reich really believes. So my view is pre-PIE in a culture like Chatalhoyuk, late PIE in a culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't think that is necassarily correct, but for pre-PIE works better than the 'South of Caucasus' theory. South of Caucasus, where?
    To my understanding, Reich believes that Pre-PIE were located in modern Armenia or northern Iran (this region, with Georgia and Azerbaijan, is called the South Caucasus). From there, some of the Pre-PIE moved directly west and became the Anatolians (i.e. Hittites, Luwians, etc) and others moved north into the Steppes, where they mixed with EEHGs, and became Yamnaya (PIE).

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    The Kelti in Strabo are presented as a population familar with agriculture, making cheese from milk etc., and the 'men of Britain' as partly similar, partly more 'simple' and 'barbaric'.

    According to the account of Dionysius of Halikarnassus, Tyrrhenians took their name for being the first to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' in Italy and he compares these structures to those Mossynoeci were making in Anatolia.

    I don't think that agriculturalists were making stilt houses. Did 'steppe pastoralists' do? We certainly know that in Central Europe they existed, afaik, from 5000 BC.
    Houses on stilts could be constructed because they live close to a flood plain (I'm not saying that any of these populations lived on the coast, I'm just speculating).

    Lemnian was spoken on Lemnos in the Aegean. Perhaps the Tyrrhenians came from the east originally, and/or the Mossynoeci were a Tyrrhenian tribe who stayed behind and/or ventured further east.

  9. #1359
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    To get back to the paper, Davidski just keeps on keeping on with the disinformation and blatant and perhaps wilful ignorance of the findings of academic papers when they don't agree with his agenda.

    "Minoans derive from a later stream of Anatolian ancestry than EEF does, with more CHG and Levant-related input, that's why they're so different from LBK, Iberian farmers, etc. Take a look at any decent PCA of West Eurasia."

    NO, THAT IS ALL INCORRECT.

    I don't know who this person is from anthrogenica who responded to set the record straight, but at least he or she reads papers and reports their findings honestly.

    "EEF was admixed with WHG making it different from Barcin farmers. Minoans were a mix of Anatolian farmers and something Caucasus rich. No Levantine admixture was detected as for the original paper.


    We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region (Extended Data Fig. 7). [...] Other proposed migrations, such as settlement by Egyptian or Phoenician colonists, are not discernible in our data, as there is no measurable Levantine or African influence in the Minoans and Mycenaeans, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the cultures of the Aegean were seeded by migrants from the old civilizations of these regions.

    [...]

    The Mycenaeans settled all of mainland Greece up to Thessaly, and throughout the Aegean islands. There is evidence of extensive Mycenaean acculturation in Western Anatolia, Italy and Cyprus and trading relations with Egypt and the Near East. The Mycenaeans were literate and used for accounting purposes a syllabic script, Linear B, written in an early form of the Greek. They introduced this script into Crete after they occupied the island."

    It's going to be fascinating when they decipher the Minoan scripts. Any guesses about what they might find?

  10. #1360
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    ''No Levant admixture would be detected in the first paper.'' The original Levantines/North Africans were similar to the original Anatolians like pre historic Anatolians.

    And it's only that the origins of E3b actually comes from the Levant not North Africa that people come to that conclusion.

  11. #1361
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    It's going to be fascinating when they decipher the Minoan scripts. Any guesses about what they might find?
    Linear A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_A



  12. #1362
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Yes. Thanks. But I'm curious what people here think are the most likely connections to other languages. I'm interested in the personal favorite theories of people here. The Caucasian and Anatolian ancestry makes me suspect it was either an Indo-European language or a Hattic language.

  13. #1363
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Yes. Thanks. But I'm curious what people here think are the most likely connections to other languages. I'm interested in the personal favorite theories of people here. The Caucasian and Anatolian ancestry makes me suspect it was either an Indo-European language or a Hattic language.
    Well that's just relative yes the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc and I think you mean Hurranian not Hattic. Also no who came before them ( although it's not European ) is the Phoenicians and before then the ancient Egyptians. There are a few threads online about the common similarities between old Phoenician languages and Ancient Greek similarities the ancient Greeks were the first to use vowels. I am a bit confused as to what you're asking for, do you mean ancient European languages or where they came from or who inspired them?

  14. #1364
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Well that's just relative yes the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc and I think you mean Hurranian not Hattic. Also no who came before them ( although it's not European ) is the Phoenicians and before then the ancient Egyptians. There are a few threads online about the common similarities between old Phoenician languages and Ancient Greek similarities the ancient Greeks were the first to use vowels. I am a bit confused as to what you're asking for, do you mean ancient European languages or where they came from or who inspired them?
    No, I mean Hattic (not Hittite!)--the pre-Indo-European, pre-Hittite people of Asia Minor. Hurrians were further east in northern Iraq/eastern Asia Minor at that time. Hattians were in what is now central Turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians. The Hittites imposed themselves on the Hattians, and then the Hurrians imposed themselves on the Hittites.

    Minoans did not come from the ancient Egyptians.

    Phoenician is similar to Greek because the Greeks likely settled in what is now Lebanon (see a few posts back). Philistines were likely of Greco-Mycenaean origin. The Sea Peoples also could have had a Greek component.

    What I am asking is what language/language group people in this thread think the Minoan language (Linear A, etc) belonged to. There is speculation it was Anatolian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Semitic, etc.

    And no, the majority of Indo-European languages did not come from Greece. Greek, Macedonian, Thracian, and likely Phrygian all had a presence in Greece though early on. There are no theories that suggest that Anatolian languages came from Greece (besides maybe passing through a bit of it). If Reich is correct, then the Anatolians migrated directly from what is now Armenia/northern Iran. Damgaard seems to suggest this too. There is a theory that Armenian passed through Greece too, but I lean more toward the Caucasus route for Armenian migration.
    Last edited by tyuiopman; 22-08-19 at 19:44. Reason: typo

  15. #1365
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,769

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    in the past year or so, there has been a clear theory that Luwian was the main language in anatolia and it lasted to circa 600BC
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...r_18_Means_God

    Until the Phrygian "Thracian " invasion of anatolia , luwian was not challenged in anatolia

    Check the net and in tools select past year...........you will get more info
    Fathers mtdna ... T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna ... T1a1e
    Sons mtdna ... K1a4p
    Mum paternal line ... R1b-S8172
    Grandmum paternal side ... I1-Y33791
    Wife paternal line ... R1a-Z282

  16. #1366
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    in the past year or so, there has been a clear theory that Luwian was the main language in anatolia and it lasted to circa 600BC
    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...r_18_Means_God

    Until the Phrygian "Thracian " invasion of anatolia , luwian was not challenged in anatolia

    Check the net and in tools select past year...........you will get more info
    Yes. The Minoan/Luwian connection was suggested like 60 years ago. But it's controversial and there are problems with it.

    We also have no reason to believe that the Phrygians=Thracian. There are some researchers that believe they migrated to Asia Minor from the Steppes. They could have been Thracian, but we have no real, direct evidence of this, and the Phrygian language appears to have been closest to Greek, so make of that what you will. They could have split off from the Greeks in the Balkans or they could have split off from the Greeks in Asia Minor. Other than this, we don't know enough about their language or material culture to be more certain of anything at this time.

  17. #1367
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,769

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Yes. The Minoan/Luwian connection was suggested like 60 years ago. But it's controversial and there are problems with it.

    We also have no reason to believe that the Phrygians=Thracian. There are some researchers that believe they migrated to Asia Minor from the Steppes. They could have been Thracian, but we have no real, direct evidence of this, and the Phrygian language appears to have been closest to Greek, so make of that what you will. They could have split off from the Greeks in the Balkans or they could have split off from the Greeks in Asia Minor. Other than this, we don't know enough about their language or material culture to be more certain of anything at this time.
    next to Palaic language on the west have been thracian tribes since the bronze-age ( not including the Troas lands ) , so a ancient thraki language has been in anatolia for a long time although only a minor group
    carian, lydian, lycian etc seem to be all branches of Luwic language tree

  18. #1368
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,140


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    ''No Levant admixture would be detected in the first paper.'' The original Levantines/North Africans were similar to the original Anatolians like pre historic Anatolians.

    And it's only that the origins of E3b actually comes from the Levant not North Africa that people come to that conclusion.
    Actually, while they shared some ancestry, it's well established that the Levantine Neolithic is quite different from the Anatolian Neolithic, which is likewise different from Iran Neolithic. There was additional admixture later on.

  19. #1369
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    No, I mean Hattic (not Hittite!)--the pre-Indo-European, pre-Hittite people of Asia Minor. Hurrians were further east in northern Iraq/eastern Asia Minor at that time. Hattians were in what is now central Turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians. The Hittites imposed themselves on the Hattians, and then the Hurrians imposed themselves on the Hittites.

    Minoans did not come from the ancient Egyptians.

    Phoenician is similar to Greek because the Greeks likely settled in what is now Lebanon (see a few posts back). Philistines were likely of Greco-Mycenaean origin. The Sea Peoples also could have had a Greek component.

    What I am asking is what language/language group people in this thread think the Minoan language (Linear A, etc) belonged to. There is speculation it was Anatolian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Semitic, etc.

    And no, the majority of Indo-European languages did not come from Greece. Greek, Macedonian, Thracian, and likely Phrygian all had a presence in Greece though early on. There are no theories that suggest that Anatolian languages came from Greece (besides maybe passing through a bit of it). If Reich is correct, then the Anatolians migrated directly from what is now Armenia/northern Iran. Damgaard seems to suggest this too. There is a theory that Armenian passed through Greece too, but I lean more toward the Caucasus route for Armenian migration.
    Hurranians were in Armenian Anatolia that's it. Hittities were more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians I have heard of Hattian but i don't know who they were or what they did.

    I am talking about how the ancient Greek alphabet was a offshoot of the Phoenician one. It has nothing to do with the ancient Lebanese Syrians Palestinians or modern ones who have various mixes according to settlement. The original people of the Levant were Anatolians, the are literally the original Anatolian in the racial sense just think ''native Near Eastern''. The Greek and Roman genetic impact came later although the Greek genetic impact to the Levant post dating the Anatolian impact isn't that far behind.

    And I didn't say that the Indo European languages only came from Greece either. I am talking about the early alphabets including vowels coming supposedly from the ancient Greeks likely Minoans Mycenaean etc. Before then it was the Phoenicians before then the Egyptians probably the Incas Indo is just a Greek word meaning ''Native to'' so Indo European can either mean native to Europe racially or linguistically. There is a language tree online, see if you can find it.

    And no certainly they were not the only people to speak the Indo European languages Armenians Indians Persians etc all spoke Indo languages.

  20. #1370
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    next to Palaic language on the west have been thracian tribes since the bronze-age ( not including the Troas lands ) , so a ancient thraki language has been in anatolia for a long time although only a minor group
    carian, lydian, lycian etc seem to be all branches of Luwic language tree
    You're right. Bithynia. But we still don't know if Phrygian was Thracian or from which direction they migrated from. Again, modern consensus seems to support a Greek-Phrygian relationship.

    Lydian was likely not Luwic, but the rest you mentioned probably were.

  21. #1371
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Hurranians were in Armenian Anatolia that's it. Hittities were more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians I have heard of Hattian but i don't know who they were or what they did.

    I am talking about how the ancient Greek alphabet was a offshoot of the Phoenician one. It has nothing to do with the ancient Lebanese Syrians Palestinians or modern ones who have various mixes according to settlement. The original people of the Levant were Anatolians, the are literally the original Anatolian in the racial sense just think ''native Near Eastern''. The Greek and Roman genetic impact came later although the Greek genetic impact to the Levant post dating the Anatolian impact isn't that far behind.

    And I didn't say that the Indo European languages only came from Greece either. I am talking about the early alphabets including vowels coming supposedly from the ancient Greeks likely Minoans Mycenaean etc. Before then it was the Phoenicians before then the Egyptians probably the Incas Indo is just a Greek word meaning ''Native to'' so Indo European can either mean native to Europe racially or linguistically. There is a language tree online, see if you can find it.

    And no certainly they were not the only people to speak the Indo European languages Armenians Indians Persians etc all spoke Indo languages.
    I'm sorry, you seem to be really confused. Firstly, I don't know what you mean by Hittites being more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians. They had contacts with Semitic speakers, yes. And yes, they expanded into central, southern, and maybe even eastern Turkey, at the height of their empire (they had the largest Anatolian IE domain).

    Hurrians were not only in "Anatolian Armenia". The oldest attestations of Hurrian were from northern Syria (Urkesh) but the language was definitely spoken in Iraq (Mitanni), and also texts have been found in southern (Tell Hariri) and western (Latakia) Syria, and in Babylon. Hurrian may have been spoken even further south too.

    I'm not talking about alphabets. I'm talking about languages and cultures. Most European/Middle Eastern alphabets come from the Phoenician alphabet, directly or indirectly.

    The rest of what you're saying is confusing to me, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, no offense. We do not seem to be talking about the same things.

  22. #1372
    Regular Member torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,769

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - SK1480
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    You're right. Bithynia. But we still don't know if Phrygian was Thracian or from which direction they migrated from. Again, modern consensus seems to support a Greek-Phrygian relationship.

    Lydian was likely not Luwic, but the rest you mentioned probably were.
    I think these ancient Greeks in the bronze-age had far less lands than what Greece has now...........we know lemnos, samothrace islands where Thracian and it seems that greek thessally was "barbaric" / macedonian or others, greek thrace province today was always ancient thracian lands with their own navies...............not even epirotes and all their 14 tribes in NW greece was not noted as Greek............my point is that we give too much a Greek association in ancient times, basically because they had the main scholars of ancient times in that area.

    There is no association of Phrygian people with Greeks .........the last we here about Phyrgians is that they where fighting a long war in anatolia against the lydians circa 500BC

  23. #1373
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Actually, while they shared some ancestry, it's well established that the Levantine Neolithic is quite different from the Anatolian Neolithic, which is likewise different from Iran Neolithic. There was additional admixture later on.
    To both populations respectively but in the general sense there is a common Near Eastern impact.

  24. #1374
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    I'm sorry, you seem to be really confused. Firstly, I don't know what you mean by Hittites being more Semitic and Eastern than other Anatolians. They had contacts with Semitic speakers, yes. And yes, they expanded into central, southern, and maybe even eastern Turkey, at the height of their empire (they had the largest Anatolian IE domain).

    Hurrians were not only in "Anatolian Armenia". The oldest attestations of Hurrian were from northern Syria (Urkesh) but the language was definitely spoken in Iraq (Mitanni), and also texts have been found in southern (Tell Hariri) and western (Latakia) Syria, and in Babylon. Hurrian may have been spoken even further south too.

    I'm not talking about alphabets. I'm talking about languages and cultures. Most European/Middle Eastern alphabets come from the Phoenician alphabet, directly or indirectly.

    The rest of what you're saying is confusing to me, and I'm not sure what you're trying to say, no offense. We do not seem to be talking about the same things.
    Probably Hurrian were in North Syria yes.

    Yes and like I told you the ancient Greeks didn't necessarily language but the first alphabet, you said it was just Greeks having the first language and listed people who were similar to Greeks racially no i don't think they had the first IE language it was just the first alphabet ( with vowels )

    As for the other stuff those people spoke IE languages. Do you know what a IE language actually means? It means linguistically their language corresponds to what people define as a Indo European language. Nothing to do with race whatsoever. In fact even those ethnicities probably spoke IE languages before the Greeks. Get what I am saying?

  25. #1375
    Regular Member Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    711

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Don't confuse IE languages with IE or PIE races totally different ballgame.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •