Linear Gutian (Formerly known as Linear Elamite) was deciphered, an IE language

[Shahmiri]

I just wanted to say that my work was published in Iran, those who are interested about the history of Indo-European language, can read it.

[MOESAN]

A link to your work?

[Shahmiri]

A link to your work?

It has been published on paper (Amordad magazine), not the web.

[Jettles]

Well I don't think too many people around here speak Persian, let alone have access to Iranian print media. Is it going to turn up online and/or do you plan to translate your work into English so more people can evaluate it?

[hrvclv]

Iran... whence Cyrus once emerged...

[spruithean]

Iran... whence Cyrus once emerged...

I had a feeling just reading the title of this thread.

[nornosh]

I had a feeling just reading the title of this thread.

Yet I managed to find this link https://www.academia.edu/40942425/De...inear_Elamite_

[nornosh]

Yet its in Persian so you need translator.

[spruithean]

So he's still pushing the same hogwash. Using the same outdated sources and the same mental gymnastics to prove a bizarre theory.

Still with complete misrepresentation of current scientific work on several haplogroups.

Complete and utter nonsense.

[Shahmiri]

My next work will be published soon, there are about 60 inscriptions in Linear Gutian, we read some other ones, they belong to these ancient kings: Hutran-Temti, Indattu, Eparti, Shilhaha and Palar-Ishshan.

[spruithean]

My next work will be published soon, there are about 60 inscriptions in Linear Gutian, we read some other ones, they belong to these ancient kings: Hutran-Temti, Indattu, Eparti, Shilhaha and Palar-Ishshan.

You are still using the same sources which were proved to be nonsense to you on not only this forum but elsewhere as well. This just screams of academic dishonesty. Where is your actual evidence. Provide your supporting evidence for Linear "Gutian".

Actually, nevermind. You can't provide the evidence because you source old work (which has been debunked) and misrepresentation and misinterpretation of current archaeogenetics to support your position.

[Shahmiri]

You are still using the same sources which were proved to be nonsense to you on not only this forum but elsewhere as well. This just screams of academic dishonesty. Where is your actual evidence. Provide your supporting evidence for Linear "Gutian".

Actually, nevermind. You can't provide the evidence because you source old work (which has been debunked) and misrepresentation and misinterpretation of current archaeogenetics to support your position.

I don’t know what you mean, my sources are recent works about this script, like the works of dr. Francois Desset, I met him at Tehran university and we discussed about this script for some hours, I have also contacted Michael Mäder who has also worked on this script, both of them have read my works.

[spruithean]

I don’t know what you mean, my sources are recent works about this script, like the works of dr. Francois Desset, I met him at Tehran university and we discussed about this script for some hours, I have also contacted Michael Mäder who has also worked on this script, both of them have read my works.

I'm referring to your citation of the artifacts from Luristan and the perceived similarity to artifacts found in Scandinavia. You still haven't confirmed any connection between Gutians and Goths, and the genetic evidence that has been rolling in is pointing to a Scandinavian origin for the Goths. We've been over this, and yet you've misrepresented the data provided by Narasimhan et al, and others.

Let me be clear, I have no issue with some new fantastic discovery. I'm a skeptic and I appreciate evidence that is strong and reputable.

[Shahmiri]

I'm referring to your citation of the artifacts from Luristan and the perceived similarity to artifacts found in Scandinavia. You still haven't confirmed any connection between Gutians and Goths, and the genetic evidence that has been rolling in is pointing to a Scandinavian origin for the Goths. We've been over this, and yet you've misrepresented the data provided by Narasimhan et al, and others.

Let me be clear, I have no issue with some new fantastic discovery. I'm a skeptic and I appreciate evidence that is strong and reputable.

As a historian, the only thing which is important for me is the identification of dark spots in the history, it is really possible that Gutians and Goths were two different people but they had a similar culture and the similarity of their names relates to this similar culture, it is even possible that their names had different origins too, for example Irish and Iranian people have similar names and both of them have Indo-European culture but their names seem to have different origins.

[spruithean]

As a historian, the only thing which is important for me is the identification of dark spots in the history, it is really possible that Gutians and Goths were two different people but they had a similar culture and the similarity of their names relates to this similar culture, it is even possible that their names had different origins too, for example Irish and Iranian people have similar names and both of them have Indo-European culture but their names seem to have different origins.

Sure, that's the important thing to most historians, but misrepresenting genetic data to try and support ones theory is just bad practice. The Goths and Gutians are most certainly different people. I don't see the similarity in their names of which you speak. Gothic names (both Ostrogothic, Visigothic and Gepidic) are distinctly Germanic (only exception here would be those of some of the Gepid rulers, Giesmus, Mundus, etc have Turkic etymologies attributable to the Huns and Hunnic admixture).

What similarities in names are there between Irish and Iranian? Yeah, of course they are IE speaking people, outside of this shared linguistic ancestry their histories are quite divergent.

Do you have evidence that the names of Gutian leaders are actually etymologically Gothic?

[Shahmiri]

Sure, that's the important thing to most historians, but misrepresenting genetic data to try and support ones theory is just bad practice. The Goths and Gutians are most certainly different people. I don't see the similarity in their names of which you speak. Gothic names (both Ostrogothic, Visigothic and Gepidic) are distinctly Germanic (only exception here would be those of some of the Gepid rulers, Giesmus, Mundus, etc have Turkic etymologies attributable to the Huns and Hunnic admixture).

What similarities in names are there between Irish and Iranian? Yeah, of course they are IE speaking people, outside of this shared linguistic ancestry their histories are quite divergent.

Do you have evidence that the names of Gutian leaders are actually etymologically Gothic?

I can't say anything if you see no similarity between Guti and Old Norse Goti (Goth) or Old Irish ēriu (Irish) and Middle/Old Persian ēria (Iranian). About your questions, please read my articles in Academia website.

[spruithean]

Those words you cite are merely similar in "spelling" and are not a strong argument in your favour.
Unfortunately I cannot read Persian and I feel a large amount of potential review of your work by people outside of Iran is being missed without an alternate language translation of your articles.

[Shahmiri]

Those words you cite are merely similar in "spelling" and are not a strong argument in your favour.
Unfortunately I cannot read Persian and I feel a large amount of potential review of your work by people outside of Iran is being missed without an alternate language translation of your articles.

I'm translating my work into English, for example about Gutian words in the bilingual inscription, look at my article about the etymology of some Gutian words in these inscriptions.
I'm very interested to read your review, for example you can say about Akkadian urudu "bronze, copper", the word which has been read as aizu by Dr. Francois Desset, doesn't mean "bronze, copper" in proto-Germanic,...
I actually just searched these words which have been read in Gutian inscription and we know their meanings because of the Akkadian inscription, in proto-Germanic language and wrote them.

[nornosh]

So if your theory is correct then not only Germanics but R1b folks in general must have originated from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey. IMO with so little steppe admixture in Iberia I think R1b folks could very well be settlers from Southeastern Europe and not from Pontic steppe region(Yamnayans) and they could have migrated to Southeastern Europe from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey yet only in bronze age not later though.

[spruithean]

So if your theory is correct then not only Germanics but R1b folks in general must have originated from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey. IMO with so little steppe admixture in Iberia I think R1b folks could very well be settlers from Southeastern Europe and not from Pontic steppe region(Yamnayans) and they could have migrated to Southeastern Europe from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey yet only in bronze age not later though.

But the real question is, where is the legitimate evidence of his theory? I've not seen any corroborating activity of others discussing "Linear Elamite" or as OP calls it, "Linear Gutian". Where is the peer review of his papers?

[nornosh]

But the real question is, where is the legitimate evidence of his theory? I've not seen any corroborating activity of others discussing "Linear Elamite" or as OP calls it, "Linear Gutian". Where is the peer review of his papers?

Yes if the migration date is in bronze age I meant.

[Ygorcs]

So if your theory is correct then not only Germanics but R1b folks in general must have originated from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey. IMO with so little steppe admixture in Iberia I think R1b folks could very well be settlers from Southeastern Europe and not from Pontic steppe region(Yamnayans) and they could have migrated to Southeastern Europe from Zagros region, Eastern Turkey yet only in bronze age not later though.

Iberians have far more Yamnaya-related ancestry than CA/BA Iranian/South Caucasian ancestry, so that isn't a great start to this hypothesis.

[spruithean]

Iberians have far more Yamnaya-related ancestry than CA/BA Iranian/South Caucasian ancestry, so that isn't a great start to this hypothesis.

Exactly.

It just feels like the OP of this thread is continuing down the path of his preferred pet theory. I would love to see some legitimate peer review process of the articles in the original URL.

[nornosh]

Iberians have far more Yamnaya-related ancestry than CA/BA Iranian/South Caucasian ancestry, so that isn't a great start to this hypothesis.

Yes because Southern europeans get their Yamnaya admixture from CWC only via BB+ very little Yamnaya-like admixture from IE, IMO R1b folks had the same admixture as EEF+I.Neolithic and they came not from Steppe but from Southeastern Europe(Balkans) this theory which was earlier explored by Scientists before being dropped in favour of the Steppe theory is now making more sense. I am saying the EEF admixture in modern Europeans could be majorly from R1b folks this explains why there's so much R1b in Iberia yet very little Steppe admixture.

[MOESAN]

Yes because Southern europeans get their Yamnaya admixture from CWC only via BB+ very little Yamnaya-like admixture from IE, IMO R1b folks had the same admixture as EEF+I.Neolithic and they came not from Steppe but from Southeastern Europe(Balkans) this theory which was earlier explored by Scientists before being dropped in favour of the Steppe theory is now making more sense. I am saying the EEF admixture in modern Europeans could be majorly from R1b folks this explains why there's so much R1b in Iberia yet very little Steppe admixture.

could you develop and say how and when, concerning Iberia Y-R1b?