Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 56 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 ... LastLast
Results 1,376 to 1,400 of 1567

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #1376
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    281
    Points
    2,076
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,076, Level: 12
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 30.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2-Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    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
    Fathers mtdna T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna T1a1e
    Sons mtdna K1a4o
    Mum paternal line R1b-S8172
    Grandmum paternal side I1d1-P109
    Wife paternal line R1a-Z282

  2. #1377
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    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.

  3. #1378
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    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?

  4. #1379
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



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

  5. #1380
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    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

    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[/QUOTE]

    Lemnos was Etruscan-esque during the Bronze Age.

    Macedonian was clearly Greek or closely related to Greek.

    There are lexical and grammatical connections between Greek and Phrygian. It was a centum language. Professor Claude Brixhe believes that Greek and Phrygian come from the same branch of Indo-European languages.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=J-...nguage&f=false

    Greeks were already well established by 500 BCE, so I don't really understand the relevance of your point, no offense. Homer was alive, for instance, in the 800s BCE.

  6. #1381
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    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?
    Hurrians were not just in north Syria. They were throughout Syria and also Iraq and quite possibly in Iran too.

    I never said that Greek was the first language. I don't know where you got that from. I don't know what you're referring when you said that I "listed people who were similar to Greeks racially". I do not think that Greeks had the first alphabet. I also don't think that Greeks had the first Indo-European language. I never said that. You misread what I wrote, no offense.

    Nobody is talking about race. I know very well what Indo-European means. It's pretty well established that the Mycenaeans settled in the Levant. I'm not sure what you're taking offense to. I even said that the Hittites were primarily Hattians, ethnically, who were not Hittites, ethnically. You seem to be totally misconstruing what I am saying.

  7. #1382
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Don't confuse IE languages with IE or PIE races totally different ballgame.
    Nobody said this. You're the one that seems confused about different languages and groups, such as "correcting" me with Hurrians when I said (and meant) Hattians, and arguing about Semitic-nature of Hittites. You're the one that brought up ethnic groups and conflated linguistic and cultural connections with ethnicity. You were also the one that said that "the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc". I didn't.

  8. #1383
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    281
    Points
    2,076
    Level
    12
    Points: 2,076, Level: 12
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 74
    Overall activity: 30.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2-Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    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
    Lemnos was Etruscan-esque during the Bronze Age.

    Macedonian was clearly Greek or closely related to Greek.

    There are lexical and grammatical connections between Greek and Phrygian. It was a centum language. Professor Claude Brixhe believes that Greek and Phrygian come from the same branch of Indo-European languages.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=J-...nguage&f=false

    Greeks were already well established by 500 BCE, so I don't really understand the relevance of your point, no offense. Homer was alive, for instance, in the 800s BCE.[/QUOTE]

    The earliest inhabitants of Lemnos are said to have been a Thracian tribe, whom the Greeks called Sintians, "robbers". The name Lemnos is said by Hecataeus to have been applied in the form of a title to Cybele among the Thracians.[8] The worship of Cybele was characteristic of Thrace, where it had spread from Asia Minor at a very early period.

    Etruscan traders arrived in lemnos circa 500Bc .....there is no association of Lemnos and etruscans ...................Etrucans are noted as an indigenous people of italy, who traded far and wide , had colonies in Corsica, Lemnos and other islands

  9. #1384
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Nobody said this. You're the one that seems confused about different languages and groups, such as "correcting" me with Hurrians when I said (and meant) Hattians, and arguing about Semitic-nature of Hittites. You're the one that brought up ethnic groups and conflated linguistic and cultural connections with ethnicity. You were also the one that said that "the majority of the IE languages came from Greece the Armenian Anatolia etc". I didn't.
    And you are the one who is getting angry for no reason. Hurranians are native Anatolians Hittites inhabited Anatolia and are native Anatolia but they are more Semitic than the earlier Anatolians Hattians I don't even know who or what they are but I know what native Anatolians are.

    And if you look back. You tried to explained to not only me but everyone else here that only various different Greek tribes and Anatolian tribes spoke the Indo European languages. Which is historically inaccurate understand? I am telling you because it is not because I want to battle against you like a key board warrior. Hattians formed a ''state in Anatolia'' they are not ''Anatolians''

  10. #1385
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by torzio View Post
    Lemnos was Etruscan-esque during the Bronze Age.

    Macedonian was clearly Greek or closely related to Greek.

    There are lexical and grammatical connections between Greek and Phrygian. It was a centum language. Professor Claude Brixhe believes that Greek and Phrygian come from the same branch of Indo-European languages.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=J-...nguage&f=false

    Greeks were already well established by 500 BCE, so I don't really understand the relevance of your point, no offense. Homer was alive, for instance, in the 800s BCE.
    The earliest inhabitants of Lemnos are said to have been a Thracian tribe, whom the Greeks called Sintians, "robbers". The name Lemnos is said by Hecataeus to have been applied in the form of a title to Cybele among the Thracians.[8] The worship of Cybele was characteristic of Thrace, where it had spread from Asia Minor at a very early period.

    Etruscan traders arrived in lemnos circa 500Bc .....there is no association of Lemnos and etruscans ...................Etrucans are noted as an indigenous people of italy, who traded far and wide , had colonies in Corsica, Lemnos and other islands
    [/QUOTE]

    https://web.archive.org/web/20170505...nLanguage.html

    http://mnamon.sns.it/index.php?page=...&id=26&lang=en

  11. #1386
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    And you are the one who is getting angry for no reason. Hurranians are native Anatolians Hittites inhabited Anatolian Hattians I don't even know who or what they are but I know what native Anatolians are.

    And if you look back. You tried to explained to not only me but everyone else here that only various different Greek tribes and Anatolian tribes spoke the Indo European languages. Which is historically inaccurate understand? I am telling you because it is not because I want to battle against you like a key board warrior. Hattians formed a ''state in Anatolia'' they are not ''Anatolians''
    I'm not angry but you're totally misrepresenting what I wrote. I never tried to "explain" that to you (what are you even referring to?) or to anybody else. I'm very confused by your criticisms/reading of what I wrote.

    It's not historically inaccurate to suggest that various Greek and Anatolian "tribes" spoke Indo-European. I asked people what they thought the Minoans spoke. You misunderstood this. Greek IS Indo-European and Anatolian WAS Indo-European anyhow.

    Anatolian is both a linguistic term and a geographic term. Turks are technically Anatolians because they live in Anatolia. Have you ever heard of Anatolian Greeks? You even used the term "Anatolian Armenians" yourself. You also seem to use Anatolia in the geographic sense in your most recent comment.

    Hattians were not Indo-European. But they seemed to have had early contact with Indo-Europeans, something that is accepted at least as far as the Hittites go. All that I said was that I suspected that they had contacts with Indo-Europeans prior to 1600 BCE, whether this contact was with Anatolians IE or somebody else (and I used a source from a Hittite scholar to support this). Hurrians were not Indo-European, unless Laroche, Fournet, and Bomhard are correct (in which case, they belong to the first branch to break off), but they are generally accepted as having early contact with/influence from/influence on Indo-Europeans...Armenians, Hittites, Luwians.

    If you want to be picky, Hurrians are not "native" Anatolians. They either come from Armenia, Georgia, Iran, or Syria...none of which are in Anatolia. We don't know where they Hittites came from--either the Steppes, Armenia, Iran, or the Balkans. None of which are Anatolia. The only NATIVE Anatolians would be the Hattians, if you really want to be truly picky.

    So no, nothing that I said is controversial at all. You're the one confusing Hattians and Hurrians, arguing that Greeks never went to the Middle East but only influenced (or were influenced by) the alphabet there, that Hurrians only lived in "Anatolian Armenia", that the majority of Indo-European languages come from Greece, Armenia, Anatolia. None of these points are remotely accepted by researchers.

  12. #1387
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    I'm not angry but you're totally misrepresenting what I wrote.

    It's not historically inaccurate to suggest that various Greek and Anatolian "tribes" spoke Indo-European. I asked people what they thought the Minoans spoke. You misunderstood this. Greek IS Indo-European and Anatolian WAS Indo-European anyhow.

    Anatolian is both a linguistic term and a geographic term. Turks are technically Anatolians because they live in Anatolia. Have you ever heard of Anatolian Greeks? You even used the term "Anatolian Armenians" yourself. You also seem to use Anatolia in the geographic sense in your most recent comment.

    Hattians were not Indo-European. But they seemed to have had early contact with Indo-Europeans, something that is accepted at least as far as the Hittites go. All that I said was that I suspected that they had contacts with Indo-Europeans prior to 1600 BCE, whether this contact was with Anatolians IE or somebody else (and I used a source from a Hittite scholar to support this). Hurrians were not Indo-European, unless Laroche, Fournet, and Bomhard are correct (in which case, they belong to the first branch to break off), but they are generally accepted as having early contact with/influence from/influence on Indo-Europeans...Armenians, Hittites, Luwians.

    If you want to be picky, Hurrians are not "native" Anatolians. They either come from Armenia, Georgia, Iran, or Syria...none of which are in Anatolia. We don't know where they Hittites came from--either the Steppes, Armenia, Iran, or the Balkans. None of which are Anatolia. The only NATIVE Anatolians would be the Hattians, if you really want to be truly picky.

    So no, nothing that I said is controversial at all. You're the conflating Hattians and Hurrians, that Greeks never went to the Middle East only influenced (or were influenced by) the alphabet there, that Hurrians only lived in "Anatolian Armenia", that the majority of Indo-European languages come from Greece, Armenia, Anatolia. None of these points are remotely accepted by researchers.
    No but you said they were the FIRST in speaking Indo European languages no, they were the first in Europe to have the Alphabet including vowels.

    Anatolian in a racial sense is Anatolian/Near Eastern. Scholars say Armenians are something to do with them or descend from them. Anatolian Greeks are Pontian Greeks there's enough about who they are racially online Turks well people were called Turks when they converted to Islam there isn't a Turkish ''race'' but most Turks have a Near Eastern/Anatolian Mongolian Central Asian mix if you want to talk about average Turks or Turkish

    averages.

    I am not confusing Hattians with Hurrians I know the difference Hurrians/Hittites are Native Anatolians Hattians ''formed a state in Anatolia'' or populated it like even the Celts the Goths at one point even Roman tribes did so what here?

    Greeks went to the Near East the Phoenicians who are nothing to do with the people of the Levant both ancient or modern neither the Greeks, got their alphabet from them ( Phoenicians ) but they ( Greeks ) added vowels A E I O U. No I am trying to say the opposite ( and this is the forth time now ) Greeks were not the first people to speak the Indo European languages. These points are accepted by not only past and present scientists, anthropologists historians and geneticists so no I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. Go to Google.com research what I am saying and get back to me instead of trying to score baseless points.

  13. #1388
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    No but you said they were the FIRST in speaking Indo European languages no, they were the first in Europe to have the Alphabet including vowels.

    Anatolian in a racial sense is Anatolian/Near Eastern. Scholars say Armenians are something to do with them or descend from them. Anatolian Greeks are Pontian Greeks there's enough about who they are racially online Turks well people were called Turks when they converted to Islam there isn't a Turkish ''race'' but most Turks have a Near Eastern/Anatolian Mongolian Central Asian mix if you want to talk about average Turks or Turkish

    averages.

    I am not confusing Hattians with Hurrians I know the difference Hurrians/Hittites are Native Anatolians Hattians ''formed a state in Anatolia'' or populated it like even the Celts the Goths at one point even Roman tribes did so what here?

    Greeks went to the Near East the Phoenicians who are nothing to do with the people of the Levant both ancient or modern neither the Greeks, got their alphabet from them ( Phoenicians ) but they ( Greeks ) added vowels A E I O U. No I am trying to say the opposite ( and this is the forth time now ) Greeks were not the first people to speak the Indo European languages. These points are accepted by not only past and present scientists, anthropologists historians and geneticists so no I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. Go to Google.com research what I am saying and get back to me instead of trying to score baseless points.
    I did not say that Greeks were the first to speak Indo-European languages. You totally misread something that I wrote. Also, I didn't bring up alphabets, you did.

    Your "racial" sense of Anatolian is correct. I wasn't talking about that though--I was talking about languages and geography. You seem to be talking about Anatolian Neolithic Farmers. We aren't talking about genetics/ethnicity though--you are (which is funny, because you accused me of talking about "race" or something).

    The first name that we know of for the region we now call Anatolia was "Hatti" and we call the people there "Hattians". They were not Indo-Europeans. They got conquered in some way by the Hittites, who were Indo-European, and the Hittite elite imposed their language onto the Hattian population. The Hittites took much of the native Hattian culture though, including many of their gods. Later on, the Hittite elite mixed in with and/or were replaced by Hurrians, who imposed their own religious customs onto the land. All that I said was that if the Alaca tombs were not built by Proto-Hittites, and if the early Black Sea kurgans were not built by Proto-Hittites, there must have been a previous Indo-European people in the region sometime in the late 3rd millennium. I wondered-aloud whether these people could have been Greeks, who migrated from the Yamnaya culture in Ukraine, en route to the Mediterranean. Other Indo-European languages and cultures would have already been well-established by this time. When we talk about Hittites/Luwians being the oldest, we aren't talking about 1600 BCE. We are talking about the Anatolian IE languages having split off from the main body of IE language many centuries, or even a few millennia, before that. For example, Indic and Iranic split by 1800 BCE. The Hittite Empire wasn't established until 1600 BCE.

    Again, nobody is saying that Greeks spoke the first Indo-European language. I'm certainly not saying that. I think I made that very clear. I don't know how you misconstrued anything that I said with me saying that Greeks are the oldest Indo-Europeans or whatever you think I said. In fact, I repeatedly said that Anatolian (and possibly Hurro-Urartian) broke off well before Greek. The only thing I said was I a) wasn't sure which direction the Greeks migrated into the eastern Mediterranean from (whether through eastern Europe or through the Caucasus/Armenia) and b) asked what language people here thought the Minoans spoke. That's it.

    You keep bringing up the Phoenician alphabet and vowels, which has nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about.

    You probably speak many languages, but I suggest you work on your reading comprehension, at least as far as English goes.

  14. #1389
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    I did not say that they were the first to speak Indo-European languages. You misread what I wrote. Also, I didn't bring up alphabets, you did.

    Your "racial" sense is correct. I wasn't talking about that though--I was talking about languages and geography.

    The first people that we know of in the region we now call Anatolia was "Hatti" and we call the people there "Hattians". They were not Indo-Europeans. They got conquered in some way by the Hittites, who were Indo-European, and the Hittite elite imposed their language onto the Hattian population. The Hittites took much of the native Hattian culture though, including many of their gods. Later on, the Hittite elite mixed in with and/or were replaced by Hurrians, who imposed their own religious customs onto the land.

    Again, nobody is saying that Greeks spoke the first Indo-European language. I'm certainly not saying that. I think I made that very clear. I don't know how you misconstrued anything that I said with me saying that Greeks are the oldest Indo-Europeans or whatever you think I said. In fact, I repeatedly said that Anatolian (and possibly Hurro-Urartian) broke off well before Greek. The only thing I said was I a) wasn't sure which direction the Greeks migrated into the eastern Mediterranean from (whether through eastern Europe or through the Caucasus/Armenia) and b) asked what language people here thought the Minoans spoke. That's it.

    You keep bringing up the Phoenician alphabet and vowels, which has nothing to do with anything anybody is talking about.

    You probably speak many languages, but I suggest you work on your reading comprehension, at least as far as English goes.

    I brought up the alphabet thing to explain to you what the Greeks were first at. Like it's not the ''first speakers of the Indo European languages'' like you try to repetitively suggest it is.

    You said several times in your past posts various Greek and Anatolian tribes were the first people to speak the Indo European languages. The simple answer is ''no they were not '' is that plain enough in English for you?

    And again, the ancient Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians because they would have based at least their later languages on that. That's all my point was/is.

    I suggest you do research then come back to me you seem like your main goal is to repeat yourself and claim ''you never said'' what you did indeed say in past posts. Forget about even the Anatolian stuff, we are way past that by now.

  15. #1390
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    I brought up the alphabet thing to explain to you what the Greeks were first at. Like it's not the ''first speakers of the Indo European languages'' like you try to repetitively suggest it is.

    You said several times in your past posts various Greek and Anatolian tribes were the first people to speak the Indo European languages. The simple answer is ''no they were'' is that plain enough in English for you?

    And again, the ancient Greeks got their alphabet from the Phoenicians because they would have based at least their later languages on that. That's all my point was/is.

    I suggest you do research then come back to me you seem like your main goal is to repeat yourself and claim ''you never said'' what you did indeed say in past posts. Forget about even the Anatolian stuff, we are way past that by now.
    Anatolian languages are the first known Indo-European languages. This is well established. Greek is not. I did not say that Greek was. Nobody thinks that the Greeks were in the Middle East before they were in Greece, if that is what you're suggesting. Perhaps you need to use Google.

    We aren't talking about alphabets. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. We are using the Latin alphabet to type in English now. Perhaps English originally came from Rome?

    Find me the exact quotes where I claimed Greek was the oldest Indo-European language and any other mumbo jumbo you're accusing me of saying. You won't be able to, because I didn't say any of that stuff.

  16. #1391
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    I’ve actually already read the Austin paper about Armenian being an Anatolian language that you linked. It’s interesting, and it’s a shame that more research wasn’t done following his. Potentially, the Armenian/Anatolian linguistic connection could be explained by influence/mixing with Luwians and Hittites though, rather than the Armenian language itself originally being an Anatolian language. An alternate explanation is that Armenian was originally an Anatolian language that was significantly altered by influence from Indo-Iranian and Greek/Proto-Balkan cultures. I’m still caught up in that Nature study though, which suggests that the Steppe (and Indo-European?) ancestry in the Mycenaeans came from BA Armenians. It would be interesting to find out if any of these Bronze Age Armenian samples from the table were similar to BA Greek samples or any Balkanic samples because then we could theorize that the Greco-Armenians left the Balkans for Armenia/the Caucasus, and then Proto-Greeks went back west. That BA Armenian>Mycenaean sample, as I understand it, seems to be the sticky-wicket, so to speak.

    One of the popular earlier theories was that the Hay were a native population of some undetermined language who were conquered by a theoretical Armen people, who were Indo-Euros close to Greco-Macedonians and/or Phrygians (Diakonoff was a champion of this theory

    Page 54

  17. #1392
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



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

    Page 55

    Yes what about the Indians Persians Kurds who all spoke the Indo European languages?

  18. #1393
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    I’ve actually already read the Austin paper about Armenian being an Anatolian language that you linked. It’s interesting, and it’s a shame that more research wasn’t done following his. Potentially, the Armenian/Anatolian linguistic connection could be explained by influence/mixing with Luwians and Hittites though, rather than the Armenian language itself originally being an Anatolian language. An alternate explanation is that Armenian was originally an Anatolian language that was significantly altered by influence from Indo-Iranian and Greek/Proto-Balkan cultures. I’m still caught up in that Nature study though, which suggests that the Steppe (and Indo-European?) ancestry in the Mycenaeans came from BA Armenians. It would be interesting to find out if any of these Bronze Age Armenian samples from the table were similar to BA Greek samples or any Balkanic samples because then we could theorize that the Greco-Armenians left the Balkans for Armenia/the Caucasus, and then Proto-Greeks went back west. That BA Armenian>Mycenaean sample, as I understand it, seems to be the sticky-wicket, so to speak.

    One of the popular earlier theories was that the Hay were a native population of some undetermined language who were conquered by a theoretical Armen people, who were Indo-Euros close to Greco-Macedonians and/or Phrygians (Diakonoff was a champion of this theory

    Page 54
    Nowhere is that suggesting that Greek is the oldest Indo-European language.

    Austin suggested that Armenian is an Anatolian language. This is not widely accepted. So I said, "If this is true, then Armenian was significantly altered by Greek and Paleo-Balkanic languages because Armenian is often lumped with Greek/Paleo-Balkanic languages." Really, the Armenian language is somewhere between Greek and Indo-Iranian, so it was a) Steppe-derived and b) must have split well-before 2000 BCE.

    As for the Mycenaean stuff, the paper that started this thread suggests that the Mycenaeans were a Minoan-like people with additional Steppe-ancestry filtered through either a European or Armenian source. If Armenian and Greek are close, and the Mycenaeans were Indo-Europeans but the Minoans were not (which is possible but we don't know for sure), and the Mycenaeans were partially genetically similar to Bronze Age Armenians, I was speculating that perhaps the Proto-Greeks migrated from the Steppes with the Proto-Armenians (either as one group or as related groups). It has nothing to do with who is older. Clearly Armenian and Greek are Steppe-derived.

    The second part of that--the Hay/Armen theory--is a popular theory. Anyway, all of this would have taken place after 2500 BCE anyhow. So no, none of this suggests that Greeks were the oldest Indo-Europeans (the quote you linked is mostly about Armenians rather than Greeks anyhow). You totally misread it.

    Nothing in what I said is controversial.

  19. #1394
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html

    There it's totally indecisive one guy says Anatolia the next Indo India the next one says Black and Caspian sea all they can do is go by similar Mother tongue words/languages

  20. #1395
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Nowhere is that suggesting that Greek is the oldest Indo-European language.

    Austin suggested that Armenian is an Anatolian language. This is not widely accepted. So I said, "If this is true, then Armenian was significantly altered by Greek and Paleo-Balkanic languages because Armenian is often lumped with Greek/Paleo-Balkanic languages." Really, the Armenian language is somewhere between Greek and Indo-Iranian, so it was a) Steppe-derived and b) must have split well-before 2000 BCE.

    As for the Mycenaean stuff, the paper that started this thread suggests that the Mycenaeans were a Minoan-like people with additional Steppe-ancestry filtered through either a European or Armenian source. If Armenian and Greek are close, and the Mycenaeans were Indo-Europeans but the Minoans were not (which is possible but we don't know for sure), and the Mycenaeans were partially genetically similar to Bronze Age Armenians, I was speculating that perhaps the Proto-Greeks migrated from the Steppes with the Proto-Armenians (either as one group or as related groups). It has nothing to do with who is older. Clearly Armenian and Greek are Steppe-derived.

    The second part of that--the Hay/Armen theory--is a popular theory. Anyway, all of this would have taken place after 2500 BCE anyhow. So no, none of this suggests that Greeks were the oldest Indo-Europeans (the quote you linked is mostly about Armenians rather than Greeks anyhow). You totally misread it.

    Nothing in what I said is controversial.
    When you say Thracian Mycenaean etc they are early Greeks well Thracians were Greco Slavic mix but whatever

    Nothing I said was saying you said something controversial what's this got to do with what the ancient Greeks were racially there are like a zillion of threads and PCA charts of the Mycenaean what's the debate on the language?

  21. #1396
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/s...-suggests.html

    There it's totally indecisive one guy says Anatolia the next Indo India the next one says Black and Caspian sea all they can do is go by similar Mother tongue words/languages
    And? What's the point that you're trying to make? None of this is worth studying?

  22. #1397
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    When you say Thracian Mycenaean etc they are early Greeks well Thracians were Greco Slavic mix but whatever

    Nothing I said was saying you said something controversial what's this got to do with what the ancient Greeks were racially there are like a zillion of threads and PCA charts of the Mycenaean what's the debate on the language?
    I didn't say Thracians were Greeks. I said that Macedonians were, or very similar to them. I said that Phrygians were close to Greeks. All of this is pretty widely accepted by modern researchers (I learned this by using Google, FYI).

    Nobody is talking about race! I was talking about linguistic migrations! This thread is about Mycenaean genetics, which was partially similar to Bronze Age Armenians (did you read the article that this thread is based on?). I was saying that this could prove the Greeks came through the Caucasus, which would in turn prove Armenians did. That's all. That's not even a controversial statement, it's one of the two viable theories the migration of the Proto-Greek/Proto-Armenian speakers (i.e. either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans).

  23. #1398
    Regular Member Achievements:
    250 Experience PointsThree Friends1 year registered
    Lenab's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-12-17
    Posts
    699

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I S24 Saxon
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H Pioneers

    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    I didn't say Thracians were Greeks. I said that Macedonians were, or very similar to them. I said that Phrygians were close to Greeks. All of this is pretty widely accepted by modern researchers (I learned this by using Google, FYI).

    Nobody is talking about race! I was talking about linguistic migrations! This thread is about Mycenaean genetics, which was partially similar to Bronze Age Armenians (did you read the article that this thread is based on?). I was saying that this could prove the Greeks came through the Caucasus, which would in turn prove Armenians did. That's all. That's not even a controversial statement, it's one of the two viable theories the migration of the Proto-Greek/Proto-Armenian speakers (i.e. either through the Caucasus or through the Balkans).
    Macedonian are Dorian Greeks yeah Proto Greeks were Mycenaean though! Before them the Minoan.

    Well how did it get derailed dienekes blog did a whole blog on the ancient Greeks not long ago you never read it?

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2017/08...ycenaeans.html

  24. #1399
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Could these have been Greeks? Phrygians? Armenians? The first two seem more likely based on the geography.


    Page 55


    Because Greek and Phrygian were spoken in the right place geographically. According to Hamp and some other researchers, Greeks came through the Caucasus, crossed Anatolia, to the Aegean/Mediterrean. Hamp's map crosses this region. The people of this region came from the NW. Anatolian IE may have come from the east. So if Anatolian IEs came from the east, which is what Reich and Damgaard say, and Palaic is Anatolian, then the people from the NW could not have been Palaic. So who were they then? Well, Greek and Phrygian a) seem to have a connection to Paleo-Balkan languages (in the case of Phrygian, perhaps Thracian too) and b) were in the right place geographically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Yes what about the Indians Persians Kurds who all spoke the Indo European languages?
    What about Iranian and Indian languages? They came from the east. They were not in the region in the time in question. What about Celtic, Tocharian, Germanic?

  25. #1400
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    223
    Points
    1,082
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,082, Level: 8
    Level completed: 66%, Points required for next Level: 68
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Lenab View Post
    Macedonian are Dorian Greeks yeah Proto Greeks were Mycenaean though! Before them the Minoan.

    Well how did it get derailed dienekes blog did a whole blog on the ancient Greeks not long ago you never read it?

    http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2017/08...ycenaeans.html
    Lenab, clearly you and I are not, and never were, in disagreement about this. I told you that you misunderstood what I had said.

Page 56 of 63 FirstFirst ... 6465455565758 ... 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
  •