Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 31 of 48 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 775 of 1180

Thread: David Reich Southern Arc Paper Abstract

  1. #751
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,258


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert;653592,[COLOR=#000000

    [/COLOR]

    I referred to myself as the descendant ofthe "Barbarians" because you brought up the Barbarians at the Gate and their predatory nature.
    You're probably aware of it, but that was an allusion to Augustine writing as the Vandals surrounded his city. As I already said, I have some of that "Barbarian" blood too.




    The thing is in the eyes of the Romans, ALL of their wars were defensive and thus legitimate. Hence they justified their wars either with self-defense, protecting and avenging friends, and punishing wrongs, etc. For example, when exactly did the Persian or Parthian Empire threaten, declare war on or tried to attack and invade Rome when Caesar, Crassus, or Antonius planned a military campaign against them? The truth of the matter is some wars of Rome were rather defensive and others not so much. The more wealthy and powerful the Romans became, the more capable they were of further expanding their Empire. Romans were not satisfied with conquering only land near to them. They realized that land further away might also have riches in them that would make Rome even more wealthy. Once again glory and honor were extremely important in Rome. Hence, to me, it's not entirely convincing that Rome's wars were all defensive and that Rome became accidentally a great Empire by being busy defending itself.
    It should be clear from my prior posts that I'm no admirer of war like cultures and the building of empires through force. Of the two of us it is you, I think, who exhibits more admiration for those kinds of cultures. It is, in fact, the extreme value which the steppe people put on warfare and the conquest of other peoples, and the way in which they treated the conquered which I most dislike about their culture. It is far more "Nazi-like" than anything Rome ever did. I would say the same about the Germanic tribes which toppled Rome and the Anglo-Saxons who created an apartheid system in Britain.




    Well, there is a controversy around the She-wolf.

    "We know that the She-wolf embodies the story of Rome’s founding, but the statue’s origins are not so widely known. Originally, the She-wolf was recognized as an Etruscan statue, meaning that it was made in the early part of the 5th century BC."


    https://emarlowe.colgate.domains/arts101/student-posts/the-capitoline-she-wolf-who-am-i-and-where-do-i-come-from/


    This specific statue of a She-wolf may well be of Etruscan origin. Nevertheless, a She-wolf suckling Romulus and Remus is definitely a Latin/Roman folklore and as far as I know not an Etruscan myth. Or did I miss something, and Romulus and Remus are Etruscan mythological figures? Furthermore, Mars, the God of war is not just the Greek version of Ares. There is the tendency to deny the Latins/Romans anything of their own- they either got it from the Etruscans or from the Greeks, people say.


    I don't get all the emphasis you place on this. The Russians have a bear, the Americans an eagle, the British a lion, and the Germans have always had the black eagle. So what? Is being suckled by a wolf scarier and more ominous? Is it more indicative of being warlike and fierce? Really? Enough of this discussion.

    Where did I indicate or allude to that Rome was racist? The Romans certainly believed in their own superiority over basically everybody, they were crystal clear about it in their own written records. Anyway, the Romans were xenophobic rather than outright racist. Plus I literally wrote that is better to be conquered by the Romans than by many other people.
    Every country, on some level and to some degree, at least in the past, thinks/thought it's the best. What matters is how that country treats immigrants, or people it conquers, as in the bad old "empire" days.

    There is no comparison between being conquered by the steppe people versus being conquered by Rome? Did the Romans kill all the men in Gaul or Britain and take all the women, virtually extinguishing certain local y lines? Could a man conquered by the steppe invaders buy himself out of slavery, become the equal of his conquerors? It's an absurdity. Being conquered by Rome was also better than being conquered by the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. As I advised you, you should read their law codes, and compare them to Roman law. That's over and above the fact that the Germanic tribes brought down all the carefully decided legal cases under Roman law and brought back Trial by Combat!!!

    Indeed, it was better living as a "Roman" in the Empire than as a "barbarian" beyond the borders, imo. Look up how people lived outside the borders of the empire and compare to life within it. Later, what happened wasn't that people feared being conquered by Rome; they wanted to be let INTO the Empire, fed by it, and protected by it. Rome just couldn't absorb them all, a problem facing European countries today, and the U.S.A. as well. Nor were the tribesmen prepared for life within the Empire, stabling their horses, for God's sake, in the magnificent public buildings, fearing death if they went to the public baths, totally incapable of continuing civilized life because, for starters, they were all illiterate.

    Or, think of the suffering which the Jewish people could have avoided had they just done as Jesus advised: "Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's." Instead, the zealots took over and their travails began. People have made the same mistake over and over again over the centuries and indeed millennia. Revolutionaries never really want to give freedom to everyone; they just want to become the ruling hierarchy, and impose their own rigid rules.





    Slavery was indeed the norm in most cultures. However, the scale of slavery in Rome was on another level compared to, for instance, in Germanic societies. It's believed that 2/3 of the Roman population were slaves.

    Btw, slavery in Ancient Rome isn't really bemoaned but mostly the transatlantic slave trade.


    Here's a article about slavery in Germanic society.

    "Germanic tribes in dealing with their slaves, says that they treated them neither to chain nor to forced labor and killed them rather in a fit of anger' than from inclination toward cruelty."

    https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/do...10.1086/250761


    The thing is, that enslaved people no matter where deserve their suffering to be acknowledged. If you ask me these
    Roman slaves from present-day France and Britain were rightfully bemoaning their enslavement and I feel for them. Even in death, these enslaved unfortunates were shackled and with their iron color around their necks, they couldn't escape their chains untill their last breath.

    May they soul rest peace and they run free.


    "Roman slaves are unearthed . . . still with their iron collars and shackles in place." One of the slaves was a shackled child.
    That figure is absurd, almost as absurd as your quote about German slavery. I'm sure the poor slaves killed in a fit of anger would feel much better about it knowing it wasn't part of some plan, or something.

    I've given your posts a lot of time, and due respect as a member of the site, but it's not my job to teach ancient history to people who have never really studied it. Your posts are getting as bad as those of Silesian. Please pick up some volumes by respected historians and archaeologists on the Roman Empire, and Germanic culture of the time as well. As to the latter, please don't mistake the musings of the Roman version of Rousseau when describing the "Noble Savages" for reality; it was to shame his own people into better behavior. It's not enough to present quotes from ancient authors; you have to know the CONTEXT.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  2. #752
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,774

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Rare e-fgc7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    i think all empires were brutal
    some more than others
    but you can't be an angel and rule so many people
    and such a great territory without force .
    ancestery :
    mostly western jewish here is the overlapp with south europe[U]

    "Know where you came from and where you are going."

    Direct paternal line : mizrahi from damascus

  3. #753
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-10-21
    Posts
    55


    Country: Tajikistan



    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    I0443-L23 Displaced all in Khvanysk including ydna R1a.


    Srubnya R1a Z93 was totally displaced not only from its northern sphere but also from Sintashta and Arkaim. There are only a few scattered remnants. Sintashta was supposed advanced chariot warrior society. Nothing remains of it, and like the Assyrians R1b-Z2103 has expanded population aka Bashkirs. Sintashta Arkaim are in top right hand corner of map.

    The figure of R1b lineage is from an research of 2015.

    There are a research of 2021 "The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" in which is said: "although limited in number, the two Xiaohe males belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1c, which falls outside of the R1b1a clade representative of the Yamnaya and Afanasievo individuals".

    I repeat: the question is the ancient Assyrians, not the modern ones.

  4. #754
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Sorry, but the first bolded comment is so broad a generalization and such an overstatement that to address it adequately would take pages of examples and citations. This is not the thread for it.

    I'll just say that if the merged societies were a template of Indo-European culture then they would all be pastoralist societies where people carted their belongings with them as they trundled from place to place with their herds of sheep and cows, they would have no metallurgy, no pottery, no female goddesses and their associated fertility rites and on and on.

    Are there in these societies elements of steppe culture such as the lionization of warfare and conquest, the host-client relationships, the training of young males, parts of the religion? Yes, there are, but to say the template of the societies was completely Indo-European is a fallacy. Nor, I would point out, is the lionization of war and conquest unique to the Indo-Europeans. I think the Assyrians would have something to say about that.

    Turning to the issue of language, yes, it's important to know the genesis of language, but it's largely a matter of intellectual interest for the specialized few. It's irrelevant to most people. Nor does it determine culture. The Amerindians of the New World had Indo-European languages imposed upon them. Do you think it was the language the "natives" and the mestizos of Mexico were forced to learn which made Mexico a basically European culture? It wasn't. It was the fact that Amerindians and Mestizos were herded into missions or haciendas and forced to learn farming, and indeed to accept the notion that land could be owned. I could go on and on with more examples. Immigrants to the U.S. from India, China, Africa, learn an Indo-European language. It doesn't make them Indo-European. I speak English with native fluency, but it isn't my "native" language, and speaking it most of the time and now even thinking in it most of the time doesn't make me English or give me an English cultural identity or personality. I still watch British film and television and marvel at the repression of emotion, the inability to express one's true thoughts and feelings to others, and on and on........

    In my opinion, many underestimate the importance of language in the formation of culture and society and how very much language is ingrained in culture. My take on this issue is (and linguistics would agree) that language reflects perception, but it also reflects the history of culture and explains why certain ideas and beliefs are so prominent. Why do you think politicians and people in charge are policing the language in our society?

    Besides, I'm quoting scholars who suggest that the Etruscans differ from the Romans not only linguistically but also culturally.

    They found that the Etruscans shared a genetic profile with neighboring populations, such as the Latins that inhabited Rome at the same time, even though the two groups had significant linguistic and cultural differences.


    As with most other European populations, a large proportion of this genetic profile can be attributed to steppe-related ancestry. It’s unclear, then, how such significant differences arose between the Etruscans and their neighbors.
    https://ancient-archeology.com/dna-has-finally-revealed-the-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans/

    To me it makes perfectly sense that the Etruscans differ also culturally from their Roman neighbours. I believe that each language carves up the world somewhat differently. So each language provides its speakers with a particular worldview that won’t be quite the same as the one that speakers of other languages have. In other words, we see the world according to the framework.


    Furthermore, in analyzing Roman culture one should be very aware of the fact many, many aspects of their culture which made Rome great were actually Etruscan in origin. Without the Etruscans there would have never been "the greatness which was Rome". Whole volumes and hundreds and hundreds of articles have been written on the subject. You should give them a read...........
    Dear Angela, let me clarify some things. The Etruscans are no strangers to me. However, I had specific things in mind and focused on language as an integral part of human identity. It's strange to me how you deduced that I was talking about "greatness" or the lack thereof. But just for the sake of the argument, let me point out, that the Romans had to conquer the Etruscans, and subjugate them and all of Italy in order to become "great." In order to get access to the Etruscan achievements, they had to conquer them first. The bottom line, without their military, the Romans would be probably forever in the shadow of the Etruscans and Greeks.



    Captive Greece took captive her savage conquerer and brought the arts to rustic Latium
    ― Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones.

    In addition, I didn‘t write anything disparaging about the Etruscans, to begin with. Again, what I rather was doing was engaging in the idea that culture is reflected by language. In fact, I didn‘t claim that the Romans were better or worse than the Etruscans nor did I link them to the Nazis. Here's the thing, conservations would be less frustrating and less prone to misunderstanding if the discussion partners try to avoid reading too much into other people's comments or attributing words to others they actually didn't say. My point was that the Etruscans kept more of their pre-Indo-European culture than the Latins which is reflected by their language.

    “If anyone can refute me—show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things from the wrong perspective—I’ll gladly change. It’s the truth I’m after, and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.” – Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book VI, 21

  5. #755
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    You're probably aware of it, but that was an allusion to Augustine writing as the Vandals surrounded his city. As I already said, I have some of that "Barbarian" blood too.






    It should be clear from my prior posts that I'm no admirer of war like cultures and the building of empires through force. Of the two of us it is you, I think, who exhibits more admiration for those kinds of cultures. It is, in fact, the extreme value which the steppe people put on warfare and the conquest of other peoples, and the way in which they treated the conquered which I most dislike about their culture. It is far more "Nazi-like" than anything Rome ever did. I would say the same about the Germanic tribes which toppled Rome and the Anglo-Saxons who created an apartheid system in Britain.






    I don't get all the emphasis you place on this. The Russians have a bear, the Americans an eagle, the British a lion, and the Germans have always had the black eagle. So what? Is being suckled by a wolf scarier and more ominous? Is it more indicative of being warlike and fierce? Really? Enough of this discussion.



    Every country, on some level and to some degree, at least in the past, thinks/thought it's the best. What matters is how that country treats immigrants, or people it conquers, as in the bad old "empire" days.

    There is no comparison between being conquered by the steppe people versus being conquered by Rome? Did the Romans kill all the men in Gaul or Britain and take all the women, virtually extinguishing certain local y lines? Could a man conquered by the steppe invaders buy himself out of slavery, become the equal of his conquerors? It's an absurdity. Being conquered by Rome was also better than being conquered by the Lombards and the Anglo-Saxons. As I advised you, you should read their law codes, and compare them to Roman law. That's over and above the fact that the Germanic tribes brought down all the carefully decided legal cases under Roman law and brought back Trial by Combat!!!

    Indeed, it was better living as a "Roman" in the Empire than as a "barbarian" beyond the borders, imo. Look up how people lived outside the borders of the empire and compare to life within it. Later, what happened wasn't that people feared being conquered by Rome; they wanted to be let INTO the Empire, fed by it, and protected by it. Rome just couldn't absorb them all, a problem facing European countries today, and the U.S.A. as well. Nor were the tribesmen prepared for life within the Empire, stabling their horses, for God's sake, in the magnificent public buildings, fearing death if they went to the public baths, totally incapable of continuing civilized life because, for starters, they were all illiterate.

    Or, think of the suffering which the Jewish people could have avoided had they just done as Jesus advised: "Give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's." Instead, the zealots took over and their travails began. People have made the same mistake over and over again over the centuries and indeed millennia. Revolutionaries never really want to give freedom to everyone; they just want to become the ruling hierarchy, and impose their own rigid rules.









    I've given your posts a lot of time, and due respect as a member of the site, but it's not my job to teach ancient history to people who have never really studied it. Your posts are getting as bad as those of Silesian. Please pick up some volumes by respected historians and archaeologists on the Roman Empire, and Germanic culture of the time as well. As to the latter, please don't mistake the musings of the Roman version of Rousseau when describing the "Noble Savages" for reality; it was to shame his own people into better behavior. It's not enough to present quotes from ancient authors; you have to know the CONTEXT.

    Some clarification here. My motive for playing devil's advocate is to provoke into thinking about what we mean when we say something or someone is "predatory", is being predatory in nature restricted to"Barbarians" only? "


    [/QUOTE]
    That figure is absurd, almost as absurd as your quote about German slavery. I'm sure the poor slaves killed in a fit of anger would feel much better about it knowing it wasn't part of some plan, or something.

    My bad, I mistakenly typed 2/3 but I meant 1/3. At least according to my history teacher and some books I've read around 30% of the population in Rome was enslaved. It's undeniable that Romans brought advancement and civilization, but they also brought tremendous suffering and misery to some people. No matter how glorious empires are they have their dark and grim side. Yes, not a few slaves could buy their freedom but many died in their shackles. Occasionally a slave owner would free (emancipate) a slave of their own volition.


  6. #756
    Viscount
    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    697

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    Quote Originally Posted by Just_a_Common_Guy View Post
    The figure of R1b lineage is from an research of 2015.
    There are a research of 2021 "The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies" in which is said: "although limited in number, the two Xiaohe males belong to the Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b1c, which falls outside of the R1b1a clade representative of the Yamnaya and Afanasievo individuals".
    I repeat: the question is the ancient Assyrians, not the modern ones.
    I'm really surprised to see the extent of Assyrian empire at its peak expansion. Yet what remains of this once dominant Mesopotamiam bronze age culture, according to Grugni 2012 is a steppe lineage R1b-Z2103 at levels of 20-50+/- percent. Looking at the position of Hajji Firuzz Steppe R1b-Z2103 in relation to ancient Assur has me wondering what the actual ydna of ancient Assyrians was made up, of. Whatever the actual Assyrians were, it is evident that Mesopotamia is the cradle of many inventions like pottery wheel, and sometime around the bronze age +/- 1000 years R1b-Z2103 moved from the steppe to replace some of the males lines, as evidence by Eupedia R1b-Z2103 Anatolia map showing variance from 15-40 percent in modern day the Southern Arc regions. I would imagine that this region has been heavily populated compared to the steppe. Similar situation in Southern Italy, in places like Sicel(aka Sicily). Similar pattern modern day replacement of fortified settlements with warrior chariot culture(R1a-z93Srubnaya type the supposed ancestors of Indo-Iranian language and the first to supposedly have Dom2 horses,predating Turganik) on the steppe in Sintashta-Arkaim .
    Last edited by Silesian; 09-08-22 at 15:15.
    Suum cuique---Rubiconem suum


  7. #757
    researcher eupator's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-07-22
    Posts
    239

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-A12332*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    W6*

    Country: Greece



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Just a clarification.

    The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.

    Hajji-Firruz is a damaged sample positive for R-M12149* (which is upstream of both Z2106 and L584) that YFULL considered as too low quality to include in their tree. Hasanlu F38 (Medes?) is L584 so not associated with Yamnaya, as of yet.

  8. #758
    Viscount
    Join Date
    10-06-12
    Posts
    697

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-BY593
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U5b2a2

    Country: Canada-Ontario



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by eupator View Post
    Just a clarification.

    The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.

    Hajji-Firruz is a damaged sample positive for R-M12149* (which is upstream of both Z2106 and L584) that YFULL considered as too low quality to include in their tree. Hasanlu F38 (Medes?) is L584 so not associated with Yamnaya, as of yet.
    Excellent post, thank you.

  9. #759
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,777


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    but it also reflects the history of culture and explains why certain ideas and beliefs are so prominent. Why do you think politicians and people in charge are policing the language in our society?

    Besides, I'm quoting scholars who suggest that the Etruscans differ from the Romans not only linguistically but also culturally.



    https://ancient-archeology.com/dna-has-finally-revealed-the-mysterious-origins-of-the-ancient-etruscans/

    To me it makes perfectly sense that the Etruscans differ also culturally from their Roman neighbours. I believe that each language carves up the world somewhat differently. So each language provides its speakers with a particular worldview that won’t be quite the same as the one that speakers of other languages have. In other words, we see the world according to the framework.


    Dear Angela, let me clarify some things. The Etruscans are no strangers to me. However, I had specific things in mind and focused on language as an integral part of human identity. It's strange to me how you deduced that I was talking about "greatness" or the lack thereof. But just for the sake of the argument, let me point out, that the Romans had to conquer the Etruscans, and subjugate them and all of Italy in order to become "great." In order to get access to the Etruscan achievements, they had to conquer them first. The bottom line, without their military, the Romans would be probably forever in the shadow of the Etruscans and Greeks.


    ― Horace, Epistles Book II and Epistle to the Pisones.

    In addition, I didn‘t write anything disparaging about the Etruscans, to begin with. Again, what I rather was doing was engaging in the idea that culture is reflected by language. In fact, I didn‘t claim that the Romans were better or worse than the Etruscans nor did I link them to the Nazis. Here's the thing, conservations would be less frustrating and less prone to misunderstanding if the discussion partners try to avoid reading too much into other people's comments or attributing words to others they actually didn't say. My point was that the Etruscans kept more of their pre-Indo-European culture than the Latins which is reflected by their language.


    You keep talking about things you know very little. You don't have a point because you don't have knowledge on these topics that has nothing to do with this thread.


    If you had a minimum of knowledge, which you don't, you would know that for years archaeologists have used a term to define the entire context before Romanization which is Etruscan-Italic world and sometimes Etruscan-Italic koiné. You keep bringing up concepts that are not only outdated, completely false, based on a dichotomous reading of old 19th century ideologies, that are even to be considered outdated in a forum today, let alone in a context of higher knowledge.


    L'archeologia delle pratiche cultuali. Mondo etrusco-italico


    https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/l-archeologia-delle-pratiche-cultuali-mondo-etrusco-italico_%28Il-Mondo-dell%27Archeologia%29/


    Dai primi insediamenti al fenomeno urbano. Mondo etrusco-italico e romano


    https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia...rcheologia%29/


  10. #760
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    24-07-22
    Location
    São Paulo
    Posts
    54

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-DF27
    MtDNA haplogroup
    L2a

    Country: Brazil



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Almost everything on this forum becomes about italians. Whether to 'criticize them' or 'defend them.' This is very tiring and tedious. People could leave Italians alone, at least on topics that have nothing to do with them.

  11. #761
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,777


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Niceguy12 View Post
    Almost everything on this forum becomes about italians. Whether to 'criticize them' or 'defend them.' This is very tiring and tedious. People could leave Italians alone, at least on topics that have nothing to do with them.

    You're right, the topic of the thread is a different one, the David Reich Southern Arc coming paper, and let's all get back on topic.

  12. #762
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    904


    Country: Canada



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by eupator View Post
    Just a clarification.

    The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.

    Hajji-Firruz is a damaged sample positive for R-M12149* (which is upstream of both Z2106 and L584) that YFULL considered as too low quality to include in their tree. Hasanlu F38 (Medes?) is L584 so not associated with Yamnaya, as of yet.
    Do you know their burial type in grave?
    In ancient East europe, EHG group introduced supine type for the first time which was changed by next intruders. SS/repin/yamna has supine with leg flexed like scythians. However EEF continued their traditions of ANATOLIA:

    • Samara culture and Dniepr-Dones (5th – 4th millennium BC)



    • Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog cultures (5th – middle 4th millennium BC)


    EEF


  13. #763
    Elite member
    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    73
    Posts
    5,407

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by eupator View Post
    Just a clarification.

    The Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 is downstream of Z2106>Z2108*, the Z2103 variety in Iran/Mesopotamia/Caucasus is majority L584, which is not associated yet with any Yamnaya sample, I am not saying that it's not going to end up being found in them, but so far there is no such connection.
    I'm sure you would say 'upstream' here.

  14. #764
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    14-06-17
    Posts
    243


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    your link to "Klimsha" doesn't work. Who is he or she?

    Third of all, this 400-page book by a respected Russian archaeologist puts the discovery in the Near East.
    https://www.academia.edu/5159110/Com...ort_of_Eurasia
    The link works for me: https://atlas-innovations.de/en/

    Your book only mentions evidence for wheeled vehicles dating back to c. 3500 BC, e.g. the Bronocice pot from Poland. However there is significantly older evidence in Europe, which isn't mentioned. Not only is the oldest evidence in Europe, but also the oldest actual wheels and vehicles are in Europe, and the quantity of evidence in Europe is much larger than in Mesopotamia. The Mesopotamian evidence basically consists of some drawings whose interpretation and dating is controversial.

  15. #765
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    You keep talking about things you know very little. You don't have a point because you don't have knowledge on these topics that has nothing to do with this thread.


    If you had a minimum of knowledge, which you don't, you would know that for years archaeologists have used a term to define the entire context before Romanization which is Etruscan-Italic world and sometimes Etruscan-Italic koiné. You keep bringing up concepts that are not only outdated, completely false, based on a dichotomous reading of old 19th century ideologies, that are even to be considered outdated in a forum today, let alone in a context of higher knowledge.


    L'archeologia delle pratiche cultuali. Mondo etrusco-italico


    https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia...rcheologia%29/


    Dai primi insediamenti al fenomeno urbano. Mondo etrusco-italico e romano


    https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia...rcheologia%29/


    Thanks for the links. However, you seem not to understand where I'm coming from. Why do you ignore the scientific article which states that anthropologist Cosimo Posth of the University of Tübingen in Germany led a large international team of researchers who found out that the Etruscans differ culturally from the Romans? That is not me but the scholars speaking. So I based my opinion on their conclusion. Anyway, If I don't know what I'm talking about, then tell me why do the Romans speak an Indo- European language and the Etruscans don't. Do you think speaking a totally different language is not a big deal? And isn't speaking a pre-Indo-European language not a case of retaining more of pre-Indo-European culture than your neighbors who switched the language?

    https://www.euvolution.com/promethei...-sciencealert/

  16. #766
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Niceguy12 View Post
    Almost everything on this forum becomes about italians. Whether to 'criticize them' or 'defend them.' This is very tiring and tedious. People could leave Italians alone, at least on topics that have nothing to do with them.
    I beg to disagree, it's not about Italians here. Whenever Steppe people, blond hair or blue eyes are being discussed, as sure as day people bring up the Nazis or the boogeyman Nordicism. In other threads, I plead several times in vain to stop making everything about Nazis, and Nordicism when these topics are being discussed to maintain a rational debate. Apparently, Germanic and Steppe populations, are fair game and thus people can display expressions of bias or prejudice and write comments that are dripping with disdain about them all they want. Some appear to take Nordism as an excuse to trash Germanic or Steppe ancestry. Anyway, let's go back to topic.

  17. #767
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,777


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    Thanks for the links. However, you seem not to understand where I'm coming from. Why do you ignore the scientific article which states that anthropologist Cosimo Posth of the University of Tübingen in Germany led a large international team of researchers who found out that the Etruscans differ culturally from the Romans? That is not me but the scholars speaking. So I based my opinion on their conclusion. Anyway, If I don't know what I'm talking about, then tell me why do the Romans speak an Indo- European language and the Etruscans don't. Do you think speaking a totally different language is not a big deal? And isn't speaking a pre-Indo-European language not a case of retaining more of pre-Indo-European culture than your neighbors switched the language?

    https://www.euvolution.com/promethei...-sciencealert/
    Because it is irrelevant what that article writes, it is based on the press release and statements copied and pasted on the occasion of the release of the study. The Transhumanism, really? As for Cosimo Posth is not an anthropologist, he is a geneticist and has studied chemistry and natural sciences. I can hardly believe that a group of geneticists could have found out that the Etruscans and Romans were culturally different. It is not within their competence to find out this. Their competence is to comment on the genetic data, and that's it. And for the genetic datum, Etruscans and Latins were similar. End of story. Different ones are the Romans of the Imperial era.

    Writing that the Etruscans and Romans had significant linguistic and cultural difference is something extremely banal. It is obvious that they were, just as everyone in pre-Roman Italy was 'different'. It is something that can be said of many civilisations that were geographically close. Given that the Romans then borrowed much from the Etruscans, given that Rome was even under Etruscan rule for a few centuries, and since from a certain point onwards all Etruscans also became Romans, it is almost paradoxical. Etruscans were a civilisation that lasted almost a thousand years, and the Romans even a little more. Which period exactly are you comparing? The linguistic ancestors of the Romans are the Latins, and in the early Iron Age it is much more what the Etruscans and Latins have in common than what differentiated them. Attributing diversity to the fact that they spoke different languages... it's not even worth going further and continuing the discussion. And as some users have pointed out, we are off topic, this thread is about David Reich and the Southern Arc, and what we are discussing has nothing to do with this thread at all.

  18. #768
    Regular Member real expert's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-09-16
    Posts
    623


    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    Because it is irrelevant what that article writes, it is not a specialist article. The Transhumanism, really? As for Cosimo Posth is not an anthropologist, he is a geneticist and has studied chemistry and natural sciences. It is not within his (and his colleagues) competence to talk about this. Their competence is to comment on the genetic data, and that's it. And for the genetic datum, Etruscans and Latins were similar. End of story.
    Before we go back to the topic let me make that clear I'm not talking out of my head as you try to make me appear.

    Here's the thing same scientific article was posted on a blog about Archaeology&history. https://ancient-archeology.com/categ...ology-history/

    Plus, on the official Website of the University of Tübingen, there was this article that alludes to the Etruscans being different from their neighbors not in terms of genetics, though.

    "Die Etrusker bewohnten während der Eisenzeit große Gebiete Mittelitaliens, die heutigen Regionen Toskana, Latium und Umbrien mit lokalen Ausläufern in benachbarte Regionen. Ihre Kultur ist bekannt für die besonderen Fähigkeiten bei der Metallbearbeitung, ihre hochentwickelte Kunst und ihre Sprache, die noch nicht in allen Teilen entschlüsselt ist und nicht zur Sprachfamilie der Indoeuropäischen Sprachen gehört. „Die Etrusker traten so verschieden von ihren Nachbarn auf, dass in der Wissenschaft schon lange darüber diskutiert wird, ob diese Bevölkerung lokal entstand oder zugewandert war. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen einen lokalen Ursprung“, berichtet Cosimo Posth."

    Translation
    The Etruscans inhabited large areas of central Italy, present-day regions of Tuscany, Lazio and Umbria, with local outcrops into neighboring regions, during the Iron Age. Their culture is known for their special skills in metalworking, their highly developed art and their language, which is not yet fully deciphered and does not belong to the Indo-European language family. “The Etruscans appeared so different from their neighbors that scholars have long debated whether this population was local or immigrant. Our results show a local origin,” reports Cosimo Posth."

    https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche-fakultaet/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/fachbereich/aktuelles/aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/newsfullview-aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/article/genetische-abstammung-und-erbe-der-etrusker-entschluesselt/


  19. #769
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,777


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post

    Translation
    The Etruscans inhabited large areas of central Italy, present-day regions of Tuscany, Lazio and Umbria, with local outcrops into neighboring regions, during the Iron Age. Their culture is known for their special skills in metalworking, their highly developed art and their language, which is not yet fully deciphered and does not belong to the Indo-European language family. “The Etruscans appeared so different from their neighbors that scholars have long debated whether this population was local or immigrant. Our results show a local origin,” reports Cosimo Posth."

    https://uni-tuebingen.de/fakultaeten/mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche-fakultaet/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/fachbereich/aktuelles/aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/newsfullview-aktuelles-aus-der-forschung/article/genetische-abstammung-und-erbe-der-etrusker-entschluesselt/


    It is still the same old stuff, which does not prove your point in any way. Posth does nothing more than peddle the importance of his discovery to an uneducated public, making you believe that he has solved the mystery of the Etruscans (a mystery that was based on the classic clichés of the Etruscans' coming from outside, of their diversity in the Preroman context and their eventual disappearance) because his research would finally disprove all the false beliefs about the Etruscans. Too bad that his research at best confirmed what archaeologists had been claiming for 50 years, Etruscans were local and the whole subject of diversity has been put back into perspective.

    To take this a step further, what does this have to do with David Reich's forthcoming paper The Genetic History of the Southern Arc?

  20. #770
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    581


    Country: Greece



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by real expert View Post
    I beg to disagree, it's not about Italians here. Whenever Steppe people, blond hair or blue eyes are being discussed, as sure as day people bring up the Nazis or the boogeyman Nordicism. In other threads, I plead several times in vain to stop making everything about Nazis, and Nordicism when these topics are being discussed to maintain a rational debate. Apparently, Germanic and Steppe populations, are fair game and thus people can display expressions of bias or prejudice and write comments that are dripping with disdain about them all they want. Some appear to take Nordism as an excuse to trash Germanic or Steppe ancestry. Anyway, let's go back to topic.
    There are some people of European background usually that like to present Indoeuropeans as 'warlike' but 'pre-indo-Europeans' or non-Indpoeuropeans as 'peaceful' or weak in one way or another etc. The truth is most IE groups at least seemed to have been generally 'warlike' but many other non-IE groups are presented as warlike too.

    E.g. Dionysius of Halikarnassus presents the Etruscans as warlike too.

    In Plato we read:

    I am now referring not to the drinking or non-drinking of wine generally, but to drunkenness pure and simple, and the question is—ought we to deal with it as the Scythians and Persians do and the Carthaginians also, and Celts, Iberians and Thracians, who are all warlike races, or as you Spartans do; for you, as you say, abstain from it altogether, whereas the Scythians and Thracians, both men and women, take their wine neat and let it pour down over their clothes, and regard this practice of theirs as a noble and splendid practice; and the Persians indulge greatly in these and other luxurious habits which you reject, albeit in a more orderly fashion than the others.


    Here we see that both IE and non IE groups (Carthaginians, Iberians) can be presented as warlike. The passage may also be important concerning cultural differences within the speakers of one language group (e.g. Greeks here).

    So, there may be cultural differences between Etruscans and Romans, the language may play a role but most likely not the most important one (there is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis though)
    But one important question should be which are the differences exactly. (maybe for another thread, I don't really care personally)

  21. #771
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    28-03-20
    Posts
    1,728


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    There are some people of European background usually that like to present Indoeuropeans as 'warlike' but 'pre-indo-Europeans' or non-Indpoeuropeans as 'peaceful' or weak in one way or another etc. The truth is most IE groups at least seemed to have been generally 'warlike' but many other non-IE groups are presented as warlike too.
    Peaceful people can primarily live in isolation or as a subjugated entity, which is not fully independent and under the control and/or protection of another, more warlike people. Warfare is in human nature, we already see it in chimpanzees.

    There are however cultures and people with a stronger or weaker emphasis on warfare, like in their religion, ethics, ideology and social-moral evaluation etc. If we look at the intensity and brutality of warfare, pre-IE was either as intense or more so by most realistic accounts. Actually things got overall more peaceful over time, because larger entitities began to control larger pieces of land and more people, which relatively pacified things in comparison to the earlier, pre-Copper Age stage, when small scale warfare was the norm and happened all the time.

    The biggest difference being, in my opinion, that while there was constant small scale warfare before, which oftentimes had little effect than killing a certain percentage of males, with TRB-GAC and PIE at the same time, we see a much larger scale mobile warfare, which was not necessarily more brutal or frequent, but way more consequential.

    I would compare it with the age old warfare among Papuans, which rarely exterminates one tribe and clan completely, but it happens all the time, vs. Turkic and Mongol warfare, which was not more frequent, but much bigger in scale and could annihilate a whole range of groups and either exterminate those or assimilate and mix with them.

    Same here, PIE brought warfare to the next level, that's what they really did. But they weren't even the first, TRB-GAC pretty much did the same thing, so did other groups of LN-CA people. For some reason, the PIE were in the end just the most effective.

  22. #772
    Regular Member kingjohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-09-16
    Posts
    1,774

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Rare e-fgc7391
    MtDNA haplogroup
    h3ap

    Country: Uruguay



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    There are some people of European background usually that like to present Indoeuropeans as 'warlike' but 'pre-indo-Europeans' or non-Indpoeuropeans as 'peaceful' or weak in one way or another etc. The truth is most IE groups at least seemed to have been generally 'warlike' but many other non-IE groups are presented as warlike too.

    E.g. Dionysius of Halikarnassus presents the Etruscans as warlike too.

    In Plato we read:



    Here we see that both IE and non IE groups (Carthaginians, Iberians) can be presented as warlike. The passage may also be important concerning cultural differences within the speakers of one language group (e.g. Greeks here).

    So, there may be cultural differences between Etruscans and Romans, the language may play a role but most likely not the most important one (there is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis though)
    But one important question should be which are the differences exactly. (maybe for another thread, I don't really care personally)

    that is propagnda thats the word

  23. #773
    Landlord Ricardo's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-08-11
    Posts
    34

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J1 FGC6064 M365
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H1ao1

    Ethnic group
    Brazilian Portuguese Founder
    Country: Brazil



    Not every culture, society or State have the same projection of warfare with the same intensity. In South America the Tupi-Guarani had a very expansionist and warlike culture ready to absorb and include other warriors in their culture, they had tribal chiefdoms and invaded a good part of Eastern South America while other tribes were more local and rooted in the same regions, so we can compare with the PIE culture, ideologies and movements. Most of the IE formations were extremely warlike, just like the Ancient Iranians, Greeks, Latins, Romans and the modern Western Atlantic Powers, Portugal, Castile (Spain), France, England and the Eastern Eurasian Russia created the big modern European Empires following the ancient IE traditions. IE was born as an expansionist culture and language and still is in some formations. They could had stayed only in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc but decided to conquer the world.

  24. #774
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,258


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Riverman View Post
    Peaceful people can primarily live in isolation or as a subjugated entity, which is not fully independent and under the control and/or protection of another, more warlike people. Warfare is in human nature, we already see it in chimpanzees.

    There are however cultures and people with a stronger or weaker emphasis on warfare, like in their religion, ethics, ideology and social-moral evaluation etc. If we look at the intensity and brutality of warfare, pre-IE was either as intense or more so by most realistic accounts. Actually things got overall more peaceful over time, because larger entitities began to control larger pieces of land and more people, which relatively pacified things in comparison to the earlier, pre-Copper Age stage, when small scale warfare was the norm and happened all the time.

    The biggest difference being, in my opinion, that while there was constant small scale warfare before, which oftentimes had little effect than killing a certain percentage of males, with TRB-GAC and PIE at the same time, we see a much larger scale mobile warfare, which was not necessarily more brutal or frequent, but way more consequential.

    I would compare it with the age old warfare among Papuans, which rarely exterminates one tribe and clan completely, but it happens all the time, vs. Turkic and Mongol warfare, which was not more frequent, but much bigger in scale and could annihilate a whole range of groups and either exterminate those or assimilate and mix with them.

    Same here, PIE brought warfare to the next level, that's what they really did. But they weren't even the first, TRB-GAC pretty much did the same thing, so did other groups of LN-CA people. For some reason, the PIE were in the end just the most effective.
    I would suggest you go back and re-read David Anthony, or any of the many papers on "Indo-European" culture for a refresher course on the emphasis put on war and conquest in that culture. Violent conflict between farmer clans or settlements in "Old Europe" in times of scarcity is a completely different story, and anyone with an ounce of logic and any knowledge of the groups being discussed should know that.

  25. #775
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,258


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    2 members found this post helpful.
    To the readers of this thread:

    As to the complaints about discussions of pigmentation, those discussions are almost always started or returned to again and again by Northern or Eastern Europeans. It's "their" freaking obsession, so pardon me or others for noticing that. It's like we're supposed to ignore all the bilge that's posted on the internet about it and what it means. Stop whining about it when you're called out for it, and stop pretending.

    As for the poster complaining about "too many" posts about Italians, don't blame me or Jovialis or Pax or many of our other members. The obsession with Italian genetics and phenotype is all over anthrofora. We post the papers or calculators about Italian genetics and discuss them, but the people who come back to those papers and calculators over and over again are not Italians or people of Italian descent in most cases. Why they're so obsessed with us is a whole separate issue, and not something we can control. Furthermore, probably half of the posts here are about Balkan genetics. If people want to discuss the genetics papers or history of their own ancestral areas, then post about them, for crying out loud. I'm certainly interested and would participate.

    Now, I also got drawn off topic, so I won't be deleting past posts. However, any future off-topic posts will be deleted.

Page 31 of 48 FirstFirst ... 21293031323341 ... 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
  •