Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 113

Thread: Lazaridis summary of Europe population genetics

  1. #76
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,844

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Thoukidides
    is clear

    Attika before Hellenised(Dorian descent) spoke Thyrrenian simmilar lemnean,
    generally the overall gives an After Mycenean, before Dorian(Temenides) population
    that camefrom minor Asia to Aegean to Etruria.
    It is not only in Lemnos,
    but also in other islands,
    the pigeon godess. (if remember correct ATUN) as also the snake/dolphin people, etc etc

    DO NOT MIX PELASGIANS WITH PELAGONIANS,

    PELAGONIA IS A REAGON OF MAKEDONIA,
    PELASGIAN ARGOS AND PELASGIOTIS HAVE NOTHING TO DO PELAGONIA

    PELAGONIA MEANS ONCE WAS A PELAGO, A SEA, the land that once was sea,
    PELASGIAN ARGOS MEANS THE VALLEY OF PELASGIANS
    PELASGIOTIS MEANS COUNTRY OF PELASGIANS.

    BTW
    search the tombs and the Y-DNA of Thyrrenians,

    it has nothing to do with stupid claims, of some 'scholars'


    word Attica might be Pelasgian
    and probably means Hatti-ko notice -ko- is used also in other Greek cities,
    most possible is that pelasgians were Hattian (not Hettit) speakers
    ΟΘΕΝ ΑΙΔΩΣ OY EINAI
    ΑΤΗ ΛΑΜΒΑΝΕΙΝ ΑΥΤΟΙΣ
    ΥΒΡΙΣ ΓΕΝΝΑΤΑΙ
    ΝΕΜΕΣΙΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΙΣΗ ΑΚΟΛΟΥΘΟΥΣΙ ΔΕ

    When there is no shame
    Divine blindness conquers them
    Hybris (abuse, opprombium) is born
    Nemesis and punishment follows.

    Εχε υπομονη Ηρωα
    Η τιμωρια δεν αργει.

  2. #77
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    it's just a theory for me. i actually do not believe in this more than in other theories. but i think its worth thinking about it especially when anatolia or southern caucasus could be the homeland of PIE.
    that the etruscans were autochtonous doesn't prove it but it would fit in this theory. if they were not it would disprove it.
    I do not understand why you think that the question of whether the Etruscans were autochthonous or not has any bearing on the theory that Anatolia or Southern Caucasus could be the ultimate homeland of PIE. Surely the arrival of the ancestors of Etruscans, whether it was in the Late Neolithic/EBA or in the LBA/Early Iron Age, was an indepenent and unrelated development, and there is no reason to believe that the two (IE and Tyrrhenian) expansions must've been linked to each other or even come from the same place (Anatolia+South Caucasus is a huge territory, and those who believe Etruscan came directly from Anatolia talk about Western Anatolia, many hundreds of km away from the postulated and hypothesized homeland for Early PIE in Transcaucasia, much closer to Azerbaijan and Armenia than to the Aegean islands).

  3. #78
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Thoukidides
    is clear

    Attika before Hellenised(Dorian descent) spoke Thyrrenian simmilar lemnean,
    generally the overall gives an After Mycenean, before Dorian(Temenides) population
    that camefrom minor Asia to Aegean to Etruria.
    It is not only in Lemnos,
    but also in other islands,
    the pigeon godess. (if remember correct ATUN) as also the snake/dolphin people, etc etc

    DO NOT MIX PELASGIANS WITH PELAGONIANS,

    PELAGONIA IS A REAGON OF MAKEDONIA,
    PELASGIAN ARGOS AND PELASGIOTIS HAVE NOTHING TO DO PELAGONIA

    PELAGONIA MEANS ONCE WAS A PELAGO, A SEA, the land that once was sea,
    PELASGIAN ARGOS MEANS THE VALLEY OF PELASGIANS
    PELASGIOTIS MEANS COUNTRY OF PELASGIANS.

    BTW
    search the tombs and the Y-DNA of Thyrrenians,

    it has nothing to do with stupid claims, of some 'scholars'


    word Attica might be Pelasgian
    and probably means Hatti-ko notice -ko- is used also in other Greek cities,
    most possible is that pelasgians were Hattian (not Hettit) speakers
    Your post is contradicting itself, because if Attica does derive from "Hatti" indicating its population was Hattic then it logically couldn't have been Tyrrhenian, since Etruscan and Lemnian have no apparent - i.e. not so remote that it's virtually impossible to attest - ancestral connection with what linguists know of the Hattic language. So, either that population was Hattic, or it was Tyrrhenian. Those two language families can even, theoretically, have had some long gone common ancestor, but by the Bronze Age they were most certainly not just different languages, but independent language families.

  4. #79
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Ailchu View Post
    not the etruscans but maybe the proto etruscans, who could have come from the south east and moved north. i mean if it was true that PIE originated from the south caucasus why couldn't this be possible? pre anatolian might have existed before 3500 bc and we see an increase in CHG ancestry in europe starting at around this time so it could be possible that there were people who spoke this language moving into europe. genetically there probably isn't much more to find here. i'm no linguit so i also don't know if there is much more to find in linguistics. if someone could prove that anatolian and tyrsenian languages have a common root or not it would be clear. but it probably remains an open question. maybe the similarities between anatolian languages and tyrsenian could be there because the expanding PIE's adopted things from the people they conquered in anatolia and who spoke some kind of EEF language that was similar to proto etruscan.
    There is no significant support from serious linguists to this assumption that Tyrrhenian and Anatolian IE have a common root or even had substantial mutual influence. AFAIK that's a pretty fringe hypothesis without much wider acceptance. There aren't any significant morphological or syntactic (i.e. in the core of the language's structure) between Etruscan and Luwian or Hittite, and what I've read once mentioned only a supposedly large number of apparent cognates/loanwords, which doesn't really prove any genetic-linguistic relationship at all.

    Also, the usual date estimated for the split of Anatolian IE (that wasn't even the earliest form of PIE, but the first significant branching off from PIE) ranges from 3500 to 4200 BCE.

    That means that Common PIE, with Anatolian included, must've existed more or less siimilar to its reconstructed form by at least 4000 BCE. The CHG spread into Europe dates to the Copper Age and Early Bronze Age, that is, basically contemporaneous with a time when PIE was already fully formed and beginning to split into different IE branches. That spread of CHG would've necessarily involved "full PIE", not some kind of Tyrrhenian-IE ancestor.

    There is no way to explain, within such chronological constraints, how Tyrrhenian was so extremely more diverged from PIE (including its post-4000/3500 BCE Proto-Anatolian daughter) if it had supposedly participated in those same demographic and cultural expansions. It was, even as early as the Copper Age, at best a "cousin" language family with a common ancestor with PIE several thousands of years earlier (back in the Early Neolithic or even Mesolithic) - and even that is very uncertain according to most linguists.

  5. #80
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    528


    Country: Portugal



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Didn't EHG and CHG have any substructure to allow differentiating a much earlier Mesolithic EHG admixture in the Balkans from a much later Pontic-Caspian EHG extensively mixed with a CHG that also did not necessarily come from the exact same genetic substructure from where the CHG admixture may have come independently to the Balkans in the Copper Age/Bronze Age? I think that with increasingly numerous samples scientists can distinguish such subgroups of these very broad (geographically and genetically) labels and test, in their calculators, what scenario fits the available data better.
    That is what I am asking. :)

    Its just I get confounded if that steppe signal has different alleles than the ones combining the CHG/IranN and EHG, say for instance in Romania/Bulgaria/Thrace. Very undersampled region in timespan for that matter.
    However if the EHG component in those Hunter gatherers was the same as in Ukraine and CHG combination with farmer is the same seen arriving to Steppe in 5th milenium, I still have to be convinced that the steppe signal is all "steppe" or we have "steppe" signal from people that have nothing to do with steppe.

    Example: How do we know that the "steppe signal" in Mycenaean is definitely from Steppe populations from Ukraine and not from the next door much closer, lets called Romania "fake Yamnaya"?
    Or the alleles are the same and there is no way of distinguishing it?

  6. #81
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    274

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223 Y4751 Y31616

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    The term 'Pelasgian' is used in different ways by different authors. Sometimes apparently it was used for speakers of non-Doric 'Greek', possibly for people whom we label today 'Bronze Age Greeks'.

    The statement that this term refers to 'pre-Greek inhabitants of Greece' is false. First of all that is a modern concept. There no such concept in ancient sources.

    Also, another statement which is false is that 'the Greeks generally equated Pelasgians with Etruscans'
    I take the term to refer to remnants of the pre-Greek "neolithic" population. Herodotus:

    If one can judge by this evidence, the Pelasgians spoke a barbarian language. And so, if the Pelasgian language was spoken in all these places, the people of Attica being originally Pelasgian, must have learned a new language when they became Hellenes.
    The Athenian claim of being originally Pelasgians is half-true - the base population of the Mycenaeans were originally non-Greek farmers who were part of the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia and the Near East.

  7. #82
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,844

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Your post is contradicting itself, because if Attica does derive from "Hatti" indicating its population was Hattic then it logically couldn't have been Tyrrhenian, since Etruscan and Lemnian have no apparent - i.e. not so remote that it's virtually impossible to attest - ancestral connection with what linguists know of the Hattic language. So, either that population was Hattic, or it was Tyrrhenian. Those two language families can even, theoretically, have had some long gone common ancestor, but by the Bronze Age they were most certainly not just different languages, but independent language families.
    why?

    Do you know Hatti language?
    hatti is not IE,
    neither Semitic,

    notice not Hettit, but Hattian

    also notice Pyrgi tablets,
    Hatti lived beside Phoenicia,
    Pyrgi tablets are Phoenician and Etruscan

  8. #83
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    why?

    Do you know Hatti language?
    hatti is not IE,
    neither Semitic,

    notice not Hettit, but Hattian

    also notice Pyrgi tablets,
    Hatti lived beside Phoenicia,
    Pyrgi tablets are Phoenician and Etruscan
    I think most people say that those Non-IE Anatolian languages may share roots with Caucasian languages, which makes a ton of sense.

  9. #84
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by berun View Post
    Aegean Sea Peoples attacked Egypt, destroyed Myceanians, Hittites and Semitic kingdoms. They were very capable to reach Italy as did Greeks and Illyrians in south Italy. Greeks counted Lemnians as Pelasgians, they said nothing about Etruscan colony.
    I wouldn't rely too much on that observation, honestly. I'm pretty sure you can find no written reference at all about Lemnians and their language from the time of the Greek Dark Ages, which is when those Etruscan-related tribes may have settled there. Written documents in Greece after the Bronze Age collapse and before around 800 BCE are virtually nonexistent. And of course several centuries later to the Greeks any non-Greek minority population living in some parts of their Hellenic world since a long time ago (centuries, milennia, who knows?) were "Pelasgians". Pelasgian was more or less a catch-all term like "barbarians": non-Hellenic people of Greece who were not recent immigrants or invaders. It didn't even refer exactly to one homogeneous ethnic group. They just lumped all of those people together, they weren't exactly anthropologists and linguists, nor did they have any access to documents about the arrival of those people, as they lost the knowledge of Mycenaean script and only developed theirs on the basis of the Phoenician alphabet after their own illiterate Dark Ages was surpassed.

  10. #85
    Regular Member Promenade's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-01-16
    Posts
    288

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-U106 R-L1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1e

    Country: USA - New York



    Does anyone know anything about the context of the Hittites that will be tested?

    As far as I know Hittite was an elite language that made it rather transient, with the general population originally speaking hattic or hurrian. So it may be important that they test elite samples in particular since most of the general populace may not have received ancestry from the Hittites.

  11. #86
    Regular Member zanipolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    22-03-11
    Posts
    2,071

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 - Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    K1a4o

    Ethnic group
    Down Under
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    why?

    Do you know Hatti language?
    hatti is not IE,
    neither Semitic,

    notice not Hettit, but Hattian

    also notice Pyrgi tablets,
    Hatti lived beside Phoenicia,
    Pyrgi tablets are Phoenician and Etruscan
    Euboen alphabet is from Phoenicia, does phoenicia use semitic alphabet ?
    Father's Mtdna H95a1
    Grandfather Mtdna T2b24
    Great Grandfather Mtdna T1a1e
    GMother paternal side YDna R1b-S8172
    Mother's YDna R1a-Z282

  12. #87
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,282


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    TALANTA XL-XLI (2008-2009), 151-172

    AN ‘ETEOCRETAN’ INSCRIPTION FROM PRAISOS AND THE HOMELAND OF THE SEA PEOPLES

    Luuk de Ligt

    The whereabouts of the homeland or homelands of the so-called Sea Peoples have been endlessly debated. This article re-examines this problem by looking at one of the ‘Eteocretan’ inscriptions from the town of Praisos. It is argued that this text is written in an Indo-European language belonging to the OscanUmbrian branch of the Italic language family. Based on this finding it is suggested that this language must have arrived in eastern Crete during the Late Bronze Age, when Mycenaean rulers recruited groups of mercenaries from Sicily, Sardinia and various parts of the Italian peninsula. When the Mycenaean state system collapsed around 1200 BC, some of these groups moved to the northern Aegean, to Cyprus and to the coastal districts of the Levant. It is also suggested that this reconstruction explains the presence of an Etruscan-speaking community in sixth-century-BC Lemnos. An interesting corollary of this theory is that the Sea Peoples were present in the Mycenaean world some considerable time before its collapse in the early twelfth century.

    http://www.talanta.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/TAL-40-412008-2009-pag-151-172-DeLigt.pdf



    As user Cato explained months ago, according to the Archaeologist Reinhard Jung South Italy was invaded by North-Central Italian warriors during the LBA and the refugees from the South, along with the northern invaders, become the Sea People.


    Reinhard Jung (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften OREA), Push and Pull Factors of the Sea Peoples between Italy and the Levant


  13. #88
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,282


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Reinhard Jung, "News about the Aegean-Italian contacts at the time of the Sea Peoples?"


  14. #89
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    why?

    Do you know Hatti language?
    hatti is not IE,
    neither Semitic,

    notice not Hettit, but Hattian

    also notice Pyrgi tablets,
    Hatti lived beside Phoenicia,
    Pyrgi tablets are Phoenician and Etruscan
    Yes, I know, but I'm stating that professional linguists don't consider Hattic and Etruscan or Tyrrhenian as a whole to belong to the same language family or even to be particularly closely related. There are inscriptions in Hattic and many loanwords in Hittite - and they aren't particularly similar to Etruscan or Lemnian. There is no way a Hattic population in pre-Greek Attica spoke a Tyrrhenian language, unless of course they shifted their language adopting the language of some foreigners. Also, the core homeland of the Hatti was actually many hundreds of km to the north of Phoenicia.

  15. #90
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    274

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223 Y4751 Y31616

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    There is strong evidence for a non-Indo-European substrate (not loan words) in Greek, not included in any other IE language, with possible connections to Hurrian, Hattic, Urartian, and several Caucasian languages.

    Both archaeology and genetics point to an agrarian migration to Greece, originating from central/western Anatolia and the fertile crescent. Several millennia later, we find Hattic spoken in central Anatolia, while Hurrian was spoken within a large part of the fertile crescent. Caucasus is nearby and is therefore a possible refuge of people akin to these early farming societies. Linguistic data seem to incline towards the conclusions made by geneticists and archaeologists.The aforementioned migrational model can explain why Pre-Greek words have counterparts in Hattic, Hurro-Urartian and North Caucasian languages. After the Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic linguistic families’ reconstructions, a third big family might emerge from this research.
    http://palaeolexicon.com/assets/PreG...%20origins.pdf

    Even Renfrew acknowledges its existence:

    The Greek language is unusual among the languages of Europe in the high proportion of its vocabulary which includes words which are not only not Greek words, but apparently not part of an Indo-European vocabulary either.
    Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 10-05-18 at 18:54.

  16. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    05-09-15
    Posts
    2,070


    Ethnic group
    Albanian
    Country: Albania



    Who is the author of this study?

  17. #92
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,844

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by zanipolo View Post
    Euboen alphabet is from Phoenicia, does phoenicia use semitic alphabet ?
    Euboean Alphabet is the Greek alphabet,
    that travel West and is known as Latin alphabet today
    the usage of Phoenician alphabet by classic Greeks is another story

  18. #93
    Regular Member Yetos's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-10-11
    Location
    Makedonia
    Posts
    5,844

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    G2a3a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    X2b

    Ethnic group
    Makedonian original
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Yes, I know, but I'm stating that professional linguists don't consider Hattic and Etruscan or Tyrrhenian as a whole to belong to the same language family or even to be particularly closely related. There are inscriptions in Hattic and many loanwords in Hittite - and they aren't particularly similar to Etruscan or Lemnian. There is no way a Hattic population in pre-Greek Attica spoke a Tyrrhenian language, unless of course they shifted their language adopting the language of some foreigners. Also, the core homeland of the Hatti was actually many hundreds of km to the north of Phoenicia.
    Yet the Pyrgi tablets show they knew each other very well.
    as also except Lemnian stele,
    the other foundings,
    the goddess with pigeons of Etruscan culture,
    strangely is also found elsewhere in Aegean,

    Yet the case that Athens spoke Lemnian/Thyrrenian is certified by Historians,

    I suggest search the words
    ανθρωπος = human Anth-RU-pos
    Ωκεα = ocean = Aqua
    Attica Hatti-con

    etc

    The Etruscan origins problem is quite big,
    the Eluveitie cup send them to Swiss
    but the lemnean as also many geneticks, even to their pets sends them to minor Asia,
    the possibility Eteo-cretan to be connected with Etruscan is open,
    another theory connects them with Ombroi (Umbrian)

    As for Hatti,
    we accept that it was Caucasian language, that was spoken before IE hettit,
    from Aegean to Phoenicia to Black sea,
    but we do know less considering Thyrrenian,


    Your Problem to give a possibility that pre-Greek Φωκαια (Phocea Phokaia) spoke Thyrrenian
    is that modern Linguists classify Hattian as N Caucasus language,
    But don't they also classify Summerian there?
    Last edited by Yetos; 09-05-18 at 19:23.

  19. #94
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    274

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223 Y4751 Y31616

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by LABERIA View Post
    Who is the author of this study?
    Giampaolo Tardivo, Philippos Kitselis

  20. #95
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Your Problem to give a possibility that pre-Greek Φωκαια (Phocea Phokaia) spoke Thyrrenian
    is that modern Linguists classify Hattian as N Caucasus language,
    But don't they also classify Summerian there?
    Hmm, no, they don't. As far as the current consensus of mainstream linguistics is concerned, Hattic is not a North(western) Caucasian language, but considered by some to have some sort of very ancient relation to it (of what kind and how long ago that is still an ongoing debate), and Sumerian is certainly not classified as a Caucasian language at all (there are 3 Caucasian language families), but an undeniable language isolate.

    Incidentally, and strangely, virtually all language isolates, from Basque to Sumerian to Japanese, have been connected to Caucasian languages by a few linguists, but that does not mean that their fringe ideas were well received by the larger linguistics academia.

    What is sure, though, is that Etruscan was most definitely already spoken in some recognizable form in the end of the Bronze Age, and we also have Hattic inscriptions from the late Bronze Age. They look nothing like each other, so at best Hattic and Etruscan had come from an old ancestor thousands of years earlier (something like Welsh vs. Italian), and it will thus be necessary to establish for certain whether Pelasgian pre-Greeks were Hattic-related or Etruscan-related.

    By the Bronze Age, when Mycenaeans and Minoans were expanding, they would certainly not be the same people nor spoke the same language - and that is even considering the (low) possibility that they were originally from the same language stock.

  21. #96
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,117

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Yetos View Post
    Euboean Alphabet is the Greek alphabet,
    that travel West and is known as Latin alphabet today
    the usage of Phoenician alphabet by classic Greeks is another story
    This will mean that the original Phoenicians did not use the west-semetic script , but must have used either a Luwian or Hatti script/language ...........We know from history that the north levant had anatolian languages and was ruled by hittite for a long time
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  22. #97
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    I take the term to refer to remnants of the pre-Greek "neolithic" population. Herodotus:

    The Athenian claim of being originally Pelasgians is half-true - the base population of the Mycenaeans were originally non-Greek farmers who were part of the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia and the Near East.
    Herodotus is one author. And he doesn't say exactly what you (or Yetos) think.

    Herodotus associates the term 'Hellenes' with the Dorians. If you post the whole paragraph and make an argument based on that I can explain why the argument is invalid.

    Another author (Dionysius of Halikarnassus) says about non-Etruscan Pelasgians of Italy the following:

    1) The previously inhabited Thessaly
    2) Aborigines received them chiefly on account of their kinship
    3) They had wandered much in Greece from Achaean Argos to Thessaly
    4) They were driven out by the ancestors of Aetolians and Locrians
    5) They dispersed to Crete, Cyclades, near Olympus and Ossa, to Boeotia, Phocis, Euboea. Some passed to Asia (=Asia Minor), the Hellespont and the adjacent islands like Lesbos
    6) The greater part of them took refuge among the inhabitants of Dodona, ‘their kinsmen’
    7) They left in obedience of an oracle and crossed to Italy.That movement was supposed to have happened after the movement of Oenotrians, so after 1744BC but at least more than 3 generations before the Trojan War, which is the date he places the movement of Sicels to Sicily, so certainly before 1296 BC.
    8) They landed in Po river and those who remained founded Spina. The had ‘mastery of the sea for a long time’ but later the ‘barbarians in the neighborhood’ made war upon them ‘in great numbers’ and ‘deserted the city’.
    9) First they took some of the small towns belonging to Umbrians but in order to avoid a conflict with the Umbrians they moved to the country of the Aborigines who ultimately accepted them and made an alliance with them.
    10) They settled near the sacred lake (Cutilia), in the land of Aborigines (in Lazio).
    11) They made joint expedition againist the Umbrians and helped Aborigines expel Sicels.
    12) ‘In common with the Aborigines settled many cities, some of them previously inhabited by the Sicels and others which they built themselves’. The cities he mentions are Caere (Agylla), Pisae, Saturnia, Alsium. All of them are in Tuscany but he doesn’t connect Pelasgians and Aborigines (or Sicels) with Etruscans but says that those Pelagians and Aborigines ‘were in the course of time dispossessed by the Tyrrhenians’
    13) They conquered a large and fertile region, became populous rich and prosperous, but a drought and wars with the neighbors made them disperse through Greece again though ‘some few of them remained in Italy through the care of the Aborigines’
    14) He presents them as ‘superior to many in warfare’ as a result of them living among ‘warlike nations’ but also says ‘they rose to the highest proficiency in seamanship’ as a result of them living with the Tyrrhenians.
    15) He says practically that when Sophocles wrote Inachus, (much later than those events are supposed to have happened) Greeks were using the term ‘Tyrrhenia’ for the whole Western Italy and the term ‘Tyrrhenians’ for all the nations (the Latins, the Umbrians, the Ausonians and ‘many others’) that were inhabiting it.
    16) He is “persuaded, therefore, that these nations changed their name along with their place of abode, but cannot believe that they both had a common origin’ because ‘their languages are different and preserve not the least resemblance to one another”
    17) He says that ‘calamities of the Pelasgians’ began ‘about the second generation before the Trojan war’ (so around 1260 BC) and that when the Pelasgians left the country ‘their cities were seized by the various peoples which happened to live nearest them in each case, but chiefly by theTyrrhenians



  23. #98
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    274

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-M223 Y4751 Y31616

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    I'm saying what I think the term actually refers to (irregardless of what the Greeks themselves surmised on the topic) - remnants of a previous "pre-Greek" (non-Indo-European) population, which had primarily migrated from Anatolia and the Levant as part of the Neolithic expansion, prior to the migration of who were or became the "Greeks" from the Balkans (c. 2,000 BCE). This is testified to by the "pre-Greek" (non-Indo-European) substrate in the Greek language. That the Athenians thought they had originally been "Pelasgians", due to their belief in being autochthonous, I believe, and had unlearned their original language, shows that they believed the Pelasgians to have been the original, non-Greek-speaking inhabitants of Attica (and Greece, by geographic extension). As I said, they were at least half-right in that contention.

    Of course, the notion of a pre-Greek substrate in Greek (despite Renfrew, himself, acknowledging it) doesn't fit the narrative that the Indo-European language that became Greek came with the Neolithic expansion from Anatolia (c. 6,000 BCE).
    Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 10-05-18 at 05:06.

  24. #99
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Athenians didn't think they had unlearned their original language.

  25. #100
    Regular Member Leandros's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-08-17
    Age
    31
    Posts
    90


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    Athenians didn't think they had unlearned their original language.
    Ancient Greeks didnt know their ancestry, dude, listen to some random barbarian tell you what your ancestry is.



    Στάλθηκε από το PE-TL10 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 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
  •