Lazaridis summary of Europe population genetics

[Yetos]

οκ

lets see some facts,

Thyrrennian remnants,
Islands
Lemnos Tenos Andros,
inland Greece
possibly Orchomenos Boetea, Phtia generally,

kabeireian ancestry
Lemnos Samothrace and other Aegean islands,
Minoan and Minyan effort to occupy their dwellings
BUT
AT LEMNOS KAMINIA a kabeirian dwelling (Hephastos religion-miners/melters)
WE FIND THE THYRRENIAN LEMENEAN STELE,

the remnants of Thyrrenians at Lemnos are about same time with Dorian return
little bit older at Tenos and Andros, (Notice Athens change happens that era)
so what we surely know, is that The Aegean-Thyrrenian raise after Troyan war and stops with return of Temenides,
THAT IS THE AEGEAN-THYRRENIAN STORY,
as also the connectivity of Phokaia with Lemnos-Kaminia-Thyrrenian.
Myrina is more complicated due to Minoan Cretan and Iolkos admixture to the island,

THE POSSIBILITY THAT AEGEAN-THYRRENIANS TO BE CONNECTED WITH KABEIREIANS IS OBVIOUS,
BUT IS NOT CERTAIN,
CERTAIN IS THAT LEMNEAN-THYRRENIAN IS A BRANCH OF ETRUSCAN GREATER LINGUISTIC FAMILY,

NOW
Considering the PELASGIKON TEIXOS (Pelasgian fortification wall) OF ATHENS THAT IS ABOUT TROYAN WAR TIME
AND THE PELASGIKON TEIXOS of HEPHAISTEIA (ΗΦΑΙΣΤΕΙΑ) IS FEW CENTURIES AFTER,
IT IS OBVIOUS THAT
1 the termination ΛΗΜΝΙΑ ΚΑΚΚΑ (Lemnian curse-sins) as described by historians is truth,
2 The old Athenians with the new Atheneans after Doric era is not tottaly the same, rather old Atheneans moved to wider Attica or to Lemnos and other islands,
3 OLD ATHENEANSS WERE NOT IN TROYAN WAR SINCE NOT MYCENEANS (Although Telamona and other cities were)

Inetresting link about the Acropolis wall,
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper....0199%3Abook%3D2%3Achapter%3D17%3Asection%3D1

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...0125%3Abook%3D6%3Achapter%3D137%3Asection%3D1


ΛῆμνονδὲΜιλτιάδηςὁΚίμωνοςὧδεἔσχε. ΠελασγοὶἐπείτεἐκτῆςἈττικῆςὑπὸἈθηναίωνἐξεβλήθησαν, εἴτεὦνδὴδικαίωςεἴτεἀδίκως: τοῦτογὰροὐκἔχωφράσαι, πλὴντὰλεγόμενα, ὅτιἙκαταῖοςμὲνὁἩγησάνδρουἔφησεἐντοῖσιλόγοισιλέγωνἀδίκως:


ALTERNATIVE

Homer describes a not known language at Lemnos
BUT NAMES THEM AS ΣΙΝΤΙΕΣ SINTIES

Thoukidides
Thoukidides which is one of the most trustable historians

a Possible brief
The archaiological remnants of Lemnos, especially the written and the letters
show a connection among Phrygia to Phokaia to Aegean to Italy.
The most possible is that the times of Troyan War Brygians the connection among Graikoi and Thracians moved to Phrygia
the people there find an exit through Phokaia to Aegean and Attica, and from there to Italy and Thyrrenia,
The dates of Lemnean-Thyrrenians are among Troyan war and Before Doric era,
THE TIMES OF SEA PEOPLES,
and is a good scenario, covering the empty spaces of history,
(or creates fog?)


SO TO RESUME,

THE CONNECTIVITY OF LEMNEAN-THYRRENIANS WITH PELASGIANS
LEMENAN-THYRRENIANS = PELASGIANS
is documemnted by ancient Historians,
BUT THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT PELASGIANS WERE BEFORE MYCENEANS, SELLOI=HELLENES, MINOANS,

BUT
IF THE CONNECTIVITY IS
LEMNOS-THYRRENIANS = PELASGIANS= KABEIREIANS or kabiroi (Boetia)
THEN WE GO BACK enough to consider them as locals same time the Greek and Mycenean Ethnogenesis (Before 2200 BC)

 

[Yetos]

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.

Ok

i am expanding
Kabeiros a mountain at Phrygia land of Hatti

Roman/Etruscan Camillus Notice Greek Cadmillos from Kabeirian
E-T-RU-S-CO Greek Αn-Th-RU-pos

more?
Hiitite Habi-ri


the dates from Hatti to Hettit to kabeiroi to Troyan war to Pelasgians to Thyrrennians fits correct.
the known Hatti vocabulary is too small,
as also the Etruscan

 

[LATGAL]

Since both the Minoans and Mycenaeans had CHG ancestry, it is likely it was primarily from the same source (Anatolia and the Near East). If it came in the Chalcolithic (generally considered as part of the Neolithic), that was more of a technology, than population, diffusion, so wasn't likely to have overturned the population or imposed new ruling castes. Since Indo-European steppe tribes also had CHG ancestry, the Mycenaeans could have also got it from that source.

Some clarification here:

1) The Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic population (so far, based on what has been sampled since many areas are still terra incognita) in the Aegean, southern Greece (also Thrace in significant amounts in one of the samples) and Sicily has CHG-like ancestry that the earlier Neolithic populations lack. This kind of ancestry seems to move even further north later on during the Bronze Age in lesser amounts (J2a in Hungary, some CHG in [post-]Vucedol etc.).

2) The Mycenaean samples have extra CHG compared to what you'd get from a simple mix of Yamnaya and early Neolithic. You need for either the steppe part of the ancestry (e.g. something like the Yamnaya_Ukraine outlier) or for the local part (e.g. something like the Minoans or the later Peloponnese_N samples with extra CHG, and this seems more likely right now) to have more of it.

 

[CrazyDonkey]

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

Tell Herodotus that: "If therefore all the Pelasgian race was such as these, then the Attic race, being Pelasgian, at the same time when it changed and became Hellenic, unlearnt also its language."

 

[Salento]

We should all decide what to do with Herodotus.
We all quote him ( #metoo ) lol, as Proof, or Disproof.
We all know that a lot of what he wrote is Challenged by Modern Scholars.
Herodotus: Father of History, Father of Lies.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Tell Herodotus that: "If therefore all the Pelasgian race was such as these, then the Attic race, being Pelasgian, at the same time when it changed and became Hellenic, unlearnt also its language."

You made a statement which is not true. That Athenians thought they had unlearned their language. That is false.

Herodotus wasn't an Athenian (and was probably partly non-Greek). You can use Herodotus account to make an argument about the original language of Athenians.
That won't change the fact that your statement was false (and I predict that the arguments you can make will be invalid too but you can try)

 

[CrazyDonkey]

Fair enough.

The Athenians did claim to be autochthonous - if so, they did unlearn their language. My comment was more about Mycenaean being a hybrid culture, with, I believe, the "ruled" having adopted the language of the "rulers". That's why I said it was half-right, if we take "Pelasgian", in the loose sense, to refer to the pre-Greek population.

I'll leave discussion of King Pelasgus to another time...

 

[CrazyDonkey]

Some clarification here:

1) The Late Neolithic-Chalcolithic population (so far, based on what has been sampled since many areas are still terra incognita) in the Aegean, southern Greece (also Thrace in significant amounts in one of the samples) and Sicily has CHG-like ancestry that the earlier Neolithic populations lack. This kind of ancestry seems to move even further north later on during the Bronze Age in lesser amounts (J2a in Hungary, some CHG in [post-]Vucedol etc.).

There is clearly a movement to exploit copper sources, around 2,000 BCE, along with smelting, manufacturing, and trading, in Iberia, the Tyrol area of south central Europe, and Greece. Stuart Piggott in Ancient Europe traces the Tyrol smiths possibly to Ugarit and Byblos (possibly fleeing the Amorites), having possibly sailed up the Adriatic and crossed over St. Gothard's Pass. These seem to me to be more like "factories", in the old sense, rather than large transfers of population or power.

2)The Mycenaean samples have extra CHG compared to what you'd get from a simple mix of Yamnaya and early Neolithic. You need for either the steppe part of the ancestry (e.g. something like the Yamnaya_Ukraine outlier) or for the local part (e.g. something like the Minoans or the later Peloponnese_N samples with extra CHG, and this seems more likely right now) to have more of it.

My point was they could have got it from both - Anatolia/Near East (where the Minoans got it) and from the Steppes. Anthony traces the Mycenaeans possibly back via south east Europe to the Catacomb Culture (p.369). The Mycenaeans were mostly R1a, while the Yamnaya were mostly R1b.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Fair enough.

The Athenians did claim to be autochthonous - if so, they did unlearn their language. My comment was more about Mycenaean being a hybrid culture, with, I believe, the "ruled" having adopted the language of the "rulers". That's why I said it was half-right, if we take "Pelasgian", in the loose sense, to refer to the pre-Greek population.

I'll leave discussion of King Pelasgus to another time...

Well, no homo sapiens sapiens population is autochthonous (at least outside the homo sapiens sapiens homeland), so they were wrong.

Your model is a traditional elite dominance model, which is ok. But, you should avoid using the term 'Pelasgians' at least.

Sometimes it clearly refers to Bronze Age IE speakers, imo. In Dionysius of Halikarnassus account it is used for a population that appears to have been Mycenaean-related, originally from Thessaly that had migrated also in Italy and was in Tuscany (and Lazio) before the Etruscans. After the Etruscan expansion (which according to his account should be placed a little before the Trojan war) remnants of them existed in Cortona and among the Italics. (and some supposedly redispersed in Greece)

Off course, any ancient account can be dismissed.

The name Cortona is clearly IE. Compare it to toponyms like Phrygian Gordium, Arcadian Gortunia, Cretan Gortun and the following reconstructed roots:
proto-Albanian *garda 'fence'
proto-Balto-Slavic *gardas 'enclosure' (proto Slavic *gȏrdъ 'town, city')
proto-Germanic *gardaz 'enclosure', 'garden'
Hittite gurtas 'citadel'

[We see here something interesting but not that easy to interpret and a little off topic. We find a meaning close to the meaning 'enclosed settlement' in Phrygian, Hittite, Slavic (but not Baltic) and some Indoeuropean dialects/languages that existed in Greece (Arcadia, Crete) and Italy

But there is also a different word with similar meaning ('enclosed settlement') in Greek, Baltic, Sanskrit and Thracian (Gk. polis, Skt pura, Thrc. -para, Lith. pilis]

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

And I will explain what Herodotus says too.

When he wrote 'Histories'
- There were Pelasgians in Creston (possibly Cortona). They weren't Tyrrhenians but lived besides them.
- Those Pelasgians in Creston were speaking a language which appeared to him the same as the language spoken in Placia on the Hellespont (in modern Turkey)
- Those people were speaking a language that was different from that of their neighbors, therefore not Etruscan (and not Umbrian logically. Also not Phrygian, not Thracian or whatever language the neighbors of the Placians were speaking at that time).
- They were formerly neighbors of the Dorians when both the Pelasgians and Dorians inhabited Thessaly. (According to his account Dorians originated in South Thessaly. Epirus/West Macedonia was a secondary homeland)
- He also classifies the language as 'barbarian' and non-Hellenic.

So, he doesn't say that they were speaking a non-Indoeuropean language. The language can still be Mycenean-related ('Bronze Age Greek' related, a language atleast akin to later attested Greek dialects)

(If we knew since when a 'Pelasgian' language was spoken in Placia I would say more, but either way a separate development for up to 1000 years or more can certainly make a related language appear 'barbarian'. That is possible, at least for Cortona of his time)

 

[Yetos]

And I will explain what Herodotus says too.

When he wrote 'Histories'
- There were Pelasgians in Creston (possibly Cortona). They weren't Tyrrhenians but lived besides them.
- Those Pelasgians in Creston were speaking a language which appeared to him the same as the language spoken in Placia on the Hellespont (in modern Turkey)
- Those people were speaking a language that was different from that of their neighbors, therefore not Etruscan (and not Umbrian logically. Also not Phrygian, not Thracian or whatever language the neighbors of the Placians were speaking at that time).
- They were formerly neighbors of the Dorians when both the Pelasgians and Dorians inhabited Thessaly. (According to his account Dorians originated in South Thessaly. Epirus/West Macedonia was a secondary homeland)
- He also classifies the language as 'barbarian' and non-Hellenic.

So, he doesn't say that they were speaking a non-Indoeuropean language. The language can still be Mycenean-related ('Bronze Age Greek' related, a language atleast akin to later attested Greek dialects)

(If we knew since when a 'Pelasgian' language was spoken in Placia I would say more, but either way a separate development for up to 1000 years or more can certainly make a related language appear 'barbarian'. That is possible, at least for Cortona of his time)

you are bringing Pelasgians to a new dimension,
I like that,

 

[CrazyDonkey]

Well, no homo sapiens sapiens population is autochthonous (at least outside the homo sapiens sapiens homeland), so they were wrong.

Your model is a traditional elite dominance model, which is ok. But, you should avoid using the term 'Pelasgians' at least.

By being half right, I meant that they had relearned their language, not that they were autochthonous. There is definitely, however, buried chthonic elements, if you will, within Greek culture, as well as a significant pre-Greek vocabulary within the Greek language. Many "Greek" deities, cities, placenames, etc., are accounted by linguists and philologists as being neither Greek nor Indo-European. While some are certainly imports and loan words, others are indicative of earlier languages spoken in the Aegean Basin prior to the coming of the Indo-Europeans. I don't think they necessarily signify a single previous language, but do think speculation on a lost language family, with Hurrian/Urartian perhaps at its core (spoken at Ugarit and Byblos), midway and filling the gap between the Indo-European and Afro-Asian language families is not entirely baseless. How many square pegs can be pounded into that round hole is debatable, however.

I only used the term "Pelasgians", in quotes, as a loose, offhand reference. I'm certainly not claiming that they, as a "people", were any more real than the "Minyans". For the Greeks it was merely, I suspect, a grab bag for whatever they didn't have another bag for.

It does have an interesting place in Greek mythology, however, in the form of King Pelasgus, who was supposed to have ruled Argos before the coming of Danaus from Egypt, with his 50 daughters (the Danaidae of "leaky pot" fame) marrying "Pelasgian" husbands (after having murdered their Egyptian husbands on their wedding night), forming the Danaans (the "Greeks", in general, in Homer). In Greek Mythology, the hero Perseus was the son of Zeus and Danae, daughter of Acrisius, King of Argos. Interesting that this tale is the obverse of the "patriarchal" Indo-European pattern, with invading daughters scooping up local husbands.

I'm not sure that "elite dominance model" accurately captures my view. I think that the Indo-Europeans were less an invasion than an infiltration, not dissimilar to the Goths in the 6th century AD, both taking advantage of chinks in the civilizational wall to erode its already shaky foundations. Massacre and rapine, I suspect, was more the exception than the rule, although I don't doubt a good deal of plundering went on, nor do I think that we should be surprised when barbarians occasionally act barbarically. Not all the "tells" of "Old Europe" were burned by marauders - it is suspected that habitation levels were sometimes periodically burned by their inhabitants (as a purification, against pestilence?), then rebuilt. The patron-client relationship, while signifying a power differential, was more contractual, sealed by oaths, than exploitative - I'll give you wool from my sheep so your daughters can weave rugs, then marry my sons.

That doesn't mean barbarians (or tribal societies) lack an ethos, an honor code, if you will, but just that they have one that differs from a modern liberal/humanistic perspective (and differing expectations of what comprises "polite" behavior). I do think that all civilizations are founded by barbarians, who then evolve from Nietzsche's "savage nobles" (in opposition to Rousseau's "noble savages") through acculturation (and sublimation of natural instincts) into church goers and law abiding citizens, before devolving into decadent nihilists defying tradition and flouting the social rules. Ultimately, every civilization falls, to barbarians both within and without the gate, ours being no different - any ruins we leave behind will be buried in a mountain of plastic junk.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Well substrates and superstrates exist everywhere. I don't believe that what you said 'even Renfrew accepts' is exactly correct.
The people who study ancient languages often don't follow the same methodologies. It is apparent if you compare Beekes' Etymological Dictionary of Greek with the equivalent dictionary of Matasovic concerning proto-Celtic (both from Leiden school), for example. (Matasovic is very frank and open about what he really does)

The idea that non-IE elements are always from substrates and not superstrates proves that ideology plays a role. Most of the scholars who write about Indo-Europeans perceive themselves as the descendants of them and don't want to think scenarios like that of IE natives and a non-IE elite who shifts language etc. Have you ever read anyone support than an IE group could have been the result of IE natives and a non-IE elite?

Either way, in Greek we have some words like κυλώ (roll) which are labeled as 'pre-Greek' by people like Beekes but appear related to reconstructed IE roots, in that case *k^wel. That word can be a loan from a non-Greek IE language. You rarely see people even consider that.

I don't trust Beekes because when there is a need to accept an etymology in order to support the narrative he also supports, he is willing to become less strict. For example he assumes a 'coloring' from /e/ -> /o/ in *k^wek^wlos next to the labiovelar (which is something not described by any sound law afaik)

Also, often the data point to a different original meaning than the meaning they reconstruct. For example, the primary meaning of the Greek word κύκλος is circle, not wheel.
One of the attested meanings (yearly cycle) has parallels in Indo-Aryan and Uralic {Finnic: *kekrä(“yearly feast”)}. The idea that in PIE that word meant 'circle' isn't supported by the data. What is theoretically possible is that it was one of the meanings it had.

When someone says that it meant 'wheel', he practically considers the only meaning that has survived in Germanic to be the original one. But the reality is that the word has multiple meanings in Greek and Indo-Iranian, with 'circle' certainly being the primary meaning in Greek at least. The meaning 'wheel' exists only in 4 branches Germanic, Slavic (but without reduplication and other meanings attested too), Indo-Iranian and Greek.

Beekes wants to think that Indo-Europeans had 'massive' wheels like those found in Drenthe 4.4k years ago, so his work serves that purpose.