Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 55 of 65 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,375 of 1613

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #1351
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    I have checked this paper out a while ago and the Susan area has 20% of haplogroup T
    It is to do with IIRC, also part of Medes, Parthians and North-Cuacusus people ( eg Balkar ) as well as Kura-Axes
    you should also find R-V88 as part of it

    maybe we need to check ......who are the Kurds
    Kurds are linguistically NW Iranians. Maybe originally from eastern Iran who migrated to southwestern Iran and then moved north with the Persians or Medes.

    I think that the original Kurdish speakers were the Mards (Amardi/Mardi) of southeastern Lake Van and/or the Kyrtis and/or Cadusii. I think it's unlikely that the Karduchoi were related to Kurds as, up until very recently (and in some cases, still are), Kurds were primarily nomadic and the Karduchoi, according to Xenophon, were very urban and wealthy. The Mards (which I believe means "warriors"), Kyrtis, and Cadusii were fierce mountain warriors of the northern Zagros.

    Modern Kurds are primarily Iranicized natives with some Iranians. Their Y-DNA breakdown reflects this. J2 could be from Hurro-Urartians and Armenized/Hellenized/Arabicized Hurro-Urartians (and possibly Anatolians). R1b would be from Armenians. R1a would be from Indo-Iranians (i.e. this would, at least partially, represent the original speakers of Kurdish). J1 would probably be from Caucasians or Mesopotamian Semitic cultures. E could be from anybody.

    http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2014/...a-part-xi.html

    In other words, Kurds are mostly Iranicized Anatolians/Caucasians/Middle Easterners, although some (about 10%) are of Indo-Iranian stock.

  2. #1352
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,173
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,173, Level: 21
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 377
    Overall activity: 82.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    You write, "Which would correspond to the mainland coastal Achaeans (Ahhiyawans) and could correspond to the Hiyawans (which is why I was asking about these names earlier as Hiyawa sounds similar to Haya/Hayo to me, but I guess that that's probably just a coincidence). As you know know, the Hiyawans were in Quwe (Cilicia). So it seems very possible that there were some Mycenaeans that migrated to the eastern Mediterranean coast--Cilicia, where they were called "Hiyawans" by the Hittites, and Lebanon/Israel, where they were called "Palestim" (Philistines) by the Jews.".
    Well, in regards to the names addressing the Greeks they were multiple. For example, back in 1946, a bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription was found in Karatepe of Cilicia. The inscription is dated to the 8th century BCE, and the person speaking in it, ’-z-t-w-d (Phoenician) / Azatiwada (Luwian), professes to be king of the d-n-n-y-m (Phoenician) / Hiyawa (Luwian), and describes his dynasty as "the house of M-p-š (Phoenician) / Muksa (Luwian)". Apparently, he is a descendant of Mopsus. The relationship between the earlier form Muksa, preserved in Luwian transmission, and the later form M-p-š / Mopsos, preserved in Phoenician transmission, is indicative of the evolution of Greek labiovelars and can hardly be explained otherwise. The Phoenician name of the people recalls one of the Homeric names of the Greeks, "Danaoi" with the -m plural, whereas the Luwian name Hiyawa probably goes back to Hittite Ahhiyā(wa), which is, according to most interpretations another Homeric name of the Greeks, the "Achaeans", or relates to a Mycenaean Greek settlement in Asia Minor. All these fall in line with the mythology which speaks of Mopsus leading the settlement and having been the founder of a royal house with a domain upon the coastal plains of Pamphylia and Cilicia. Keep in mind as well that it is around the Bronze Age collapse that we begin seeing a spike of Mycenaean pottery in the region of southern Anatolia.


    As for their migration, they seem to be part of the broader Sea Peoples phenomenon. Which brings us to another huge subject. The Trojan War, Odysseus' journeys, Sea Peoples invasions/plunder, etc., seem to be very much correlated with the whole Epic Cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle, which includes the Iliad and the Odyssey, but most of which is lost today, only small fragments exist. The Trojan war was not only the Iliad; the Iliad describes events of 50 days of the 10-year war. The war raged all over the place until it reached the events in the Iliad. Also, most of the Greek heroes of the war wandered after the city fell and didn't return; well what could a wandering army of hundreds of warships be doing i wonder. The navies of the peoples of the Trojan war is like the elephant in the room of the whole Sea Peoples mystery. In Odyssey's Book/Rhapsody 4 it shows Menelaus sharing the following, "Menelaus overheard him and said, "No one, my sons, can hold his own with Jove, for his house and everything about him is immortal; but among mortal men—well there may be another who has as much wealth as I have, or there may not; but at all events I have travelled much and have undergone much hardship, for it was nearly eight years before I could get home with my fleet. I went to Cyprus, Phœnicia and the Egyptians; I went also to the Ethiopians, the Sidonians, and the Erembrians, and to Libya where the lambs have horns as soon as they are born, and the sheep lamb down three times a year. Every one in that country, whether master or man, has plenty of cheese, meat, and good milk, for the ewes yield all the year round. But while I was travelling and getting great riches among these people, my brother was secretly and shockingly murdered through the perfidy of his wicked wife, so that I have no pleasure in being lord of all this wealth.". In Odyssey's Book/Rhapsody 14 it shows Odysseus sharing the following, "Mars and Minerva made me doughty in war; when I had picked my men to surprise the enemy with an ambuscade I never gave death so much as a thought, but was the first to leap forward and spear all whom I could overtake. Such was I in battle, but I did not care about farm work, nor the frugal home life of those who would bring up children. My delight was in ships, fighting, javelins, and arrows—things that most men shudder to think of; but one man likes one thing and another another, and this was what I was most naturally inclined to. Before the Achæans went to Troy, nine times was I in command of men and ships on foreign service, and I amassed much wealth. I had my pick of the spoil in the first instance, and much more was allotted to me later on.". All these and more correlate a lot with the Sea Peoples accounts. The descriptions of the Aeneid, presenting Trojan survivors under Aeneas could also correlate since we know he settled in Northern Africa for a period. Furthermore, regarding Sea Peoples, they were most likely a confederation of a number of people, comprised of Aegeans (Mycenaeans, etc.), Sicilians, and Sardinians that plundered the Bronze Age world, after some kind of administrative collapse probably in the region of western Anatolia, Greece, and southern Italy. Maybe this administrative collapse was the result of material exhaustion from the Trojan War between Mycenaeans and Trojans along with its allies (Troy had many allies). This in combination with other catastrophic events (droughts, famine, migrations/invasions, revolutions, disruption of trade, earthquakes, etc.) probably forced many of the involved people to migrate or simply travel and plunder (like Odysseus seems to have done even prior of the war) the Eastern Mediterranean. After all, the only people who match the characterization "Sea Peoples" most faithfully are the Mycenaeans. They ruled the seas, something which they had inherited from their fellow Minoans.

    Last, regarding the Philistines, they were recorded as "P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset)" in the
    Egyptian records, and most certainly it refers to what we came to know as Philistines, which were also most likely a Mycenaean Sea People's group or even mixed with a strong Mycenaean element. Have a look at this presentation regarding them presented by Aren Maeir (a Jewish archaeologist), namely "New Perspectives on the Philistines in Light Recent Excavations at Tell Es-Safi/Gath", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJC8OAhm1f4. He proves their Mycenaean origin. Furthermore, Mycenaeans were not a unified people but comprised of different tribes and under different independent rulers. We have to view them as such and consider the multiple profiles of the Sea Peoples' groups in order to get a deeper understanding. Especially in the case of the Levant, we don't just have the Philistines (Peleset), but also the Danaoi (Denyen), Teukrians (Tjekker), and Sardinians (Sherden). There is evidence for all of them. For example, Danaoi (Denyen) which is the other main ethnonym of the Mycenaean Greeks, likely came to be known as the Biblical "tribe of Dan" in the region, here is an interesting article on them by an Israeli newspaper, https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-tribe-of-dan-sons-of-israel-or-of-greek-mercenaries-hired-by-egypt-1.5468423.

    You write, "I guess I'm not following how this negates Hamp's hypothesis though? The Bronze Age Collapse (~1200 BCE) is well after when the proto-Greeks would have settled in Crete and mainland Greece. We know there were Greek-speakers on Crete by 1650 BCE at the latest. I don't know if Hamp dated when he thought the (proto)Greeks left the Caucasus region, but presumably it would have been during the 3rd millennium BCE, if not before.".
    It negates his points in regards to the Pamphylians and Cypriots which appear in their respective regions much later than the initial settlement of proto-Greek people on the mainland of Greece. For example, archaeologically Greek presence on Cyprus seems to appear at approximately 1400 BCE. Unless i have totally misunderstood him, doesn't Hamp suggest that Pamphylians and Cypriots Greeks first appeared in their respective regions at around the same time proto-Greeks appeared on the mainland? Last, it doesn't negate the southern route hypothesis for proto-Greeks which is always on the table. I am not referring to that part. I agree with the dating you mention, i believe proto-Greeks first settled north-western mainland Greece, or more specifically the Pindus mountain range, between approximately 3000-2500 BCE.
    Last edited by Demetrios; 21-08-19 at 10:45.

  3. #1353
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: United States



    Hamp seems to suggest, if I'm understanding him correctly, that the Greeks went their separate ways near Smyrna/Izmir. Some went south to Cyprus, some went to Crete (via Arcadia), and the remainders went to the mainland. But he classifies these as A, B, C groups, and I'm not sure if that's purely for categorization purposes or if that's also to denote some chronology/timeline (i.e. A=Cypriots so does this suggest that they split-off first, according to him).

  4. #1354
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    Country: United States



    About 2000 BC a wheel-made monochrome ware makes its appearance in Kanesh and other central Anatolian sites, and the ancestry of this pottery seems on the evidence of surface surveys to lie in north-west Anatolia, and particularly in the Tavşanlı-Kütahya region. The interesting point about it is that it is to be found in the earliest settlements of Boğazköy, a fact which suggests that the original settlement at this site was made by north-westerners who were presumably Indo-European, but not Hittite, in speech. This drive from the north-west may have been the occasion of the establishment of Palaic, another Indo-European dialect [...] No linguistic features in the Hittite texts from the Boğazköy archives can yet be ascribed to this wave of western influence.
    J. G. MacQueen. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. (Ancient People and Places, volume 83.) Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 1996 ed. Pp. 32


    Could these have been Greeks? Phrygians? Armenians? The first two seem more likely based on the geography.

  5. #1355
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,173
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,173, Level: 21
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 377
    Overall activity: 82.0%


    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.

  6. #1356
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    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.

  7. #1357
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    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.

  8. #1358
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    269
    Points
    5,173
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,173, Level: 21
    Level completed: 25%, Points required for next Level: 377
    Overall activity: 82.0%


    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.

  9. #1359
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    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'.

  10. #1360
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,317
    Points
    280,433
    Level
    100
    Points: 280,433, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 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

  11. #1361
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

  12. #1362
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

  13. #1363
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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?

  14. #1364
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    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.

  15. #1365
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    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



  16. #1366
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

  17. #1367
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    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?

  18. #1368
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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

  19. #1369
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    358
    Points
    3,445
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,445, Level: 16
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 5
    Overall activity: 98.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2-Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    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 K1a4o
    Mum paternal line R1b-S8172
    Grandmum paternal side I1d1-P109
    Wife paternal line R1a-Z282

  20. #1370
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

  21. #1371
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    358
    Points
    3,445
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,445, Level: 16
    Level completed: 99%, Points required for next Level: 5
    Overall activity: 98.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2-Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    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

  22. #1372
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,317
    Points
    280,433
    Level
    100
    Points: 280,433, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    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.

  23. #1373
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    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.

  24. #1374
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

  25. #1375
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,137
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,137, Level: 8
    Level completed: 94%, Points required for next Level: 13
    Overall activity: 1.0%


    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.

Page 55 of 65 FirstFirst ... 5455354555657 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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