History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedMinoan civilization originated in Anatolia!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
Epikoureios View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Epikoureios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 11:47
Understood.
I did not know Macedonia was a country, I always consider it to be a region of Greece, but then again, what do I know? I am only a dishwasher from Brooklyn!
 
 
But then, these questions arise: "What is a Greek"?
"Is one born a Greek or he/she becomes?"
 
...Or to go a little deeper: "What is the difference between Theory and Dogma?"


Edited by Epikoureios - 12-Apr-2008 at 11:52
"Λάθε Βιώσας"
Επίκουρος

"Tabula Rassa"
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Apr-2008 at 17:21
This doesn't really suprise me - both are palace cultures, both are architecturally quite similar (Anatolian civilisations also used similar styles of pottery in some respects and used the so called cyclopedic masonry). Moreover, both were palace cultures. One problem with this theory is that the artistic styles have not carried over to Myceanean culture - the Cycladic art was developed by the Myceanean and Sub-Myceanean palace cultures to a realism that was frankly much better than lets say, the Hittites or the Hurrians -
 
A statue of Neo-Hittite King Tarzunha
 
The famed golden funeral mask of "Agamemnon" I wouldn't trust Schilemann's verdict on this piece though...not every bronze age ruler from this area is instrisically linked with the Illiad!
 
However, two main factors that can be said in refutation against this theory are that firstly, with the advent of the contempary Hittties into Anatolia, the politics and society of that region were really much more advanced - the Hittites developed something of a caste system between the Hittite ruling dynasty and the Hurrian working class. There are also strong implications of a complex system of law with serious concepts of moral responsability. It is not clear at all that Myceanean civilisation had any of this, but they both did share some kind of empire with centres of centralisation (obviously it was harder to achieve this in Greece than in the ancient near east and/or anatolia though, as history has taught us) but (and this leads nicely into my second point) there is ironically less archeological and historical evidence for the Myceanean civilisations than there are for the Hittites. I would say that many of the influences in both of them seem to appear more Egyptian (the "caste system" that is clearly there in Hittite culture, and disputably there in Myceanean culture) and perhaps also Mesopotamian (the principle of the "Palace state").
 
...For the last time stop speaking about the Macedonian question as well! It's really not that relevant to what we are discussing now. We have the minefield for that issue now stop it!


Edited by Aster Thrax Eupator - 13-Apr-2008 at 17:25
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 19:12
Originally posted by Epikoureios Epikoureios wrote:

Flipper wrote:
"As for the everything was greek sites i guess you've hit something like this: http://e-e-e.gr "
 
OR you can hit something like this (from A-Z): http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Inventions2.htm
 
I am sure that by now you've heard of a thing called "Google" or another one called "Yahoo", they can help you overcome your ignorance and calm your hatred.
Search and you shall find!


I was ironic about that site, not serious.
Makedonas eimai filaraki, oxi tipote allo.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 19:15
Aster I think the statue of the Neo-Hittite King never appeared. Is there any similarity with Agamemnon?


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Apr-2008 at 19:47

Oh - well basically it's the usual Hittite art; not much in the way of anotomical representation and pretty basic approaches to stances. My point was that in contrast to Schilemann's "Agammemon" golden mask, the facial structure is awful and in a lot of Hittite art (like the large rock santuary near Hattusas, begining with T but I can't remember it for the life of me) appears to have impossible stances. I realise that these problems aren't really rectified really until the time of the Athenian black figure painters (such as Sophilos, Kleitas, the oakshott painter, the Phrynos painter, the Amasis painter, Execias, Androkides etc) but some of the near eastern stuff (especially the Egyptian) really does seem much better. Although the Myceanean has some problems like all early art, I see more similarities between it and Egyptian art, because Mycenean seems to be so far ahead of Hittite/Anatolian that I don't really see that much influence. When one regards some of the "Psi" submycean female statues, although they obviously aren't as good as, say the Carayatids of Mnescicles' Erecheteum, at least the have some realistic posture and composition.

"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Apr-2008 at 07:55
Aster there are many theories about whos art/architecture etc was developed in Greece. The fact that a wave of anatolian settlers came to Greece does not mean they imposed their art on the people already there. Also, when all these were a theory, i think it was Palmer who suggested that there were two migrations to Greece from anatolia. An early one and one around 2500BC. That means that the first wave of settlers who came under neolithic times, developed a separate art than the anatolian. Anyway, many theories, so far i guess it is only the farming that is pretty clear. The art part has a lot of future research.

I agree on the similarities with Egyptian. However, it is not just the Mycenaean art, but the Minoan too. There are similar figures (athena like ones, bulls) and patterns (infinity circles, axes) on several things around egypt and palestine. I don't know if this has anything to do with a possible migration of the aegians after the Thera erruption, but it is something that is easily noticed.


Do you have any good examples of images showing a reconstruction of Hittite temples? I think you had posted something many moons ago.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
konstantinius View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 22-Aug-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 762
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote konstantinius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Apr-2008 at 02:51
Originally posted by kafkas kafkas wrote:

That doesn't mean anything, and there's nothing that indicates they originated in Anatolia. If anything this just means they mixed a lot with Turks. Greeks aren't native to Anatolia, they were colonizers.


There is nothing Turkic yet in Anatolia during the Minoans. Lets not start on that now, shall we?
" I do disagree with what you say but I'll defend to my death your right to do so."
Back to Top
Aster Thrax Eupator View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Porphyrygenitus Augustii

Joined: 18-Jul-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1923
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aster Thrax Eupator Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Apr-2008 at 00:08
Quote I agree on the similarities with Egyptian. However, it is not just the Mycenaean art, but the Minoan too. There are similar figures (athena like ones, bulls) and patterns (infinity circles, axes) on several things around egypt and palestine. I don't know if this has anything to do with a possible migration of the aegians after the Thera erruption, but it is something that is easily noticed.
 
Yes I noticed many similarities between them, but also interestingly enough between the religious symbols of the cult of Teshub of Hatti/Hurri and the Bull cult at Minos. These two are contempary and there is blatantly some large links between them in other aspects as well - they are all palace-culture centred and all have large Megarons built in the Cylopedic style. There is one discrepancy here however; the Hittites didn't to any of our knowledge maintain a standing fleet, and the nature of their empire was one of loose vassals because of the geographical situation of the empire (incidently this stands in stark contrast with the Mycenean which seemed to have much more infastructure and direct intervention in many of it's far flung territories), so how could the Hittites have acquired influences from this cult? That said, it's probably the other way around - the principle of the "Bull of Heaven" (epic of Gilgamesh anyone?) had been around in the ancient near east for centuries. Sorry just pondering outloud like I always do and it's probably quite irritating. Hmm this is all so immensely fascinating - and I've recently been to Mycenae as well - I can see an article coming out of this...
"Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!
Back to Top
Byrdsjanuary1954 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 30-Sep-2008
Location: De.
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Byrdsjanuary1954 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:07
But the Minoans weren't Greek. They were a completely different people.
Rickenbacker 360/12
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:57
Originally posted by Byrdsjanuary1954 Byrdsjanuary1954 wrote:

But the Minoans weren't Greek. They were a completely different people.


Yes, but they became one of the basis for what later became Greek civilization. They might not have been Greek speaking, but they were spreaded from Crete, to the islands, to central Greece (Boiotia) and up to Macedonia (Bottia & Bottiki). In other words they have contributed genetically after several thousands years. The point is that their origin is from Anatolia, like many other people that unfortunately vanished.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 06:39
The statue of  that Hittite King is really interesting, It seems there were really some similarities between Hittites and Scythians, look at the costume of Protothyes, his Hittite inscription and his palace: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17707&PID=330274
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Status: Offline
Points: 3963
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 07:39

What is the meaning of Minos/Minoan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minos : It is not clear if Minos is a name or if it was the Cretan word for "King". Scholars have noted the interesting similarity between Minos and the names of other ancient founder-kings, such as Menes of Egypt, Mannus of Germany, Manu of India, and so on. There is a name in Linear A mi-nu-te that may be related to Minos. According to La Marle's reading of Linear A (see below), we should read mwi-nu ro-ja (Minos the king) on a Linear A tablet. The royal title ro-ja is read on several documents, including on stone libation tables from the sanctuaries, where it follows the name of the main god, Asirai (the equivalent of Sanskrit Asura, and of Avestan Ahura

In Avesta we read http://www.avesta.org/ka/niyayesh.htm : (I) praise the name of that Minoyan mino, the increaser, worthy to be praised, who always was, always is, and always will be; whose one name is Ohrmazd, the God who is the greatest among all, wise, Creator, supporter, protector, endurer, the lord of righteousness, forgiver, and dispenser of excellent and pure justice.

It is difficult to say what "Mino" means in Avestan and Persian languages, it should be a title, "Minoyan mino" is similar to "Shahan shah" (King of kings).

Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 02:10
Referencing the Avesta to investigate the origin of the Minoans? My god, that's like using the bible to study evolution.

Let's get this right. Besides the genetic evidence pointing to a non-Indo-European, Anatolian origin of the Minoans and Etruscans, we have linguistic and cultural evidence. Anatolia is just a region, the actual connection is to the Hurrian.

http://www.geocities.com/mariamnephilemon/names/europa/minoan.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20061001130423/http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/m992.htm

Hurrian names and words are found in the few Minoan writings we have because they are their relatives. In terms of culture, the Hurrians (like their other relatives the Sumerians), believe in the sky diety ANU. Who was transmitted to the Aegean by the Minoans, and picked up as urANUs by the Greeks.  So the answer to the mystery of "how were the Etruscans influenced by the Greeks?" is, they weren't. The ancestors of the Etruscans left the Aegean to Italy as the Greeks were moving in. Simple right?
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Status: Offline
Points: 1814
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 10:21
Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

Referencing the Avesta to investigate the origin of the Minoans? My god, that's like using the bible to study evolution.

Let's get this right. Besides the genetic evidence pointing to a non-Indo-European, Anatolian origin of the Minoans and Etruscans, we have linguistic and cultural evidence. Anatolia is just a region, the actual connection is to the Hurrian.

http://www.geocities.com/mariamnephilemon/names/europa/minoan.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20061001130423/http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/m992.htm

Hurrian names and words are found in the few Minoan writings we have because they are their relatives. In terms of culture, the Hurrians (like their other relatives the Sumerians), believe in the sky diety ANU. Who was transmitted to the Aegean by the Minoans, and picked up as urANUs by the Greeks.  So the answer to the mystery of "how were the Etruscans influenced by the Greeks?" is, they weren't. The ancestors of the Etruscans left the Aegean to Italy as the Greeks were moving in. Simple right?


Basically, Anatolian in majority is Indoeuropean. The rest of the theories seem to have been dismissed. This is the most descend source i've found about the eteocretan language http://www.teicrete.gr/daidalika/index.htm

The site belongs to the university of Crete, so what you get there is recognised academic work.

I like Gareth Owens version (He has many texts on that site) who has studied a vast number of tablets, including many unpublished ones. He points into a Proto-IE language that has words in common with Hittite, Greek and Sanskrit.

He doesn't go by names, but he has been able to use many words in general, including ofcourse namings.

Just few samples...

Minoan                 Greek                  Sanskrit            English
PITERE                   PATERES             PITARA               Fathers
SIRUTE                   KERAIZO             SIRU                   to destroy

Minoan                   Greek                 Carian           Sanskrit         English
INAIJA                     IERA                    JERA              ISIRAH            holy

Minoan                   Greek                   English

DIKITE                    DIKNO                   Indicate

Also, if we use DIKTIS (the one who indicates in Greek) we might have the original word used in the tabled.

Minoan                   Greek                     English                   IE

DAMATE                  DAMETER                 Mother Earth          MATE (Mother)


Anyway...I can continue for ages, with examples in Sanskrit, Hittite, Tocharian and other indoeuropean languages. Since, the language is unknown to us, you will see many possible translations by many. The thing is that those who specialize in the aegian languages, have use other methods when separating the words.

For example, I could very fast make a selection of words from the tablet context and cognate words that would just work for one example.

E.g

Poto = Greek for drink
Tinu = (tinos) whose in Greek
Ida = i saw in Greek
Kuro = boy in Greek
Dosomo = (dose mou) give me
etc etc...

However, the way i showed above is not the way it works...The linguists know how to separate words, find suffixes and prefixes and then recognise verbs, adjectives etc.

As for the Etruscans...They moved to Italy more than a millenia later after the recognisable Greek material culture appears in the area. Furthermore, they probably came from Lydia. The Islands, had the Leleges (Carians?) and other aegian populations.





Edited by Flipper - 25-Oct-2008 at 10:37


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 11:54
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

I agree on the similarities with Egyptian. However, it is not just the Mycenaean art, but the Minoan too. There are similar figures (athena like ones, bulls) and patterns (infinity circles, axes) on several things around egypt and palestine.


The bull cult is incredibly widespread ... there are traces of it in Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures from the Indus Valley clear to Italy (possibly further) and everywhere inbetween. However, I doubt very much that it represents any movement of people, it just reflects that this area was subject to powerful diffusion.
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 17:40
Linguists who only seek out Indo-European sources as explanations are dishonest, especially in Anatolia where other languages predate IE. Infact, these pre-IE languages influenced early Indo-European speakers who were moving into the region from the west. Minoan and Etruscan are not IE, they are related to Hurrian; both derive from the same language family as Sumerian. The mainstream considers all these languages "isolates," to maintain their pet theories, and not have to revise decades of their misinformation to the public.

Sumerian         Minoan          English

BAR-LU              MA-RU           wool

SIR                    SIRUTE         raze

GU                     KU-RO          totality

PA                     PA-DE           father

(DAM-BAN-DA)   DA-MA-TE      (concubine) Demeter, her main epithet was mistress

http://www.smso.net/Linear_A
http://home.comcast.net/~foxvog/Glossary.pdf

Furthermore, any similarity with IE words near Anatolia or Armenia is based on an earlier substratum (Hurrian). Including Armenian, which is almost blatant because a prominent Hurrian kingdom, Urartu, was located there.


Edited by CiegaSordomud - 25-Oct-2008 at 18:10
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 20:29
Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

Minoan and Etruscan are not IE, they are related to Hurrian; both derive from the same language family as Sumerian. The mainstream considers all these languages "isolates," to maintain their pet theories, and not have to revise decades of their misinformation to the public.
I doubt the mainstream cares about the public perception, as most of them publish in scholarly journals most of us do not read, in a language most of us do not understand, etc.
 
However, for what's worth there's little if any to support relations between Sumerian and other language, in particular Minoan. The readings of Linear A are just tentatives, because the symbols of Linear A are assumed often to be a Linear B kind of syllabary and decoded after some similarities which many times lie in the eye of the beholder. Moreover, both the writing and the language evolve, and thus some symbols may change their meanings in time, therefore even the quasi-identical symbols might not have the same reading in Linear A and B (and this becomes even more probable if we think that Linear B was adapted to Greek, for example compare the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets). With all these, some scholars use some sort of Linear-B derived reading in order to move from symbols to words, but when you see a word like "KU-RO" (apparently with the meaning of "total", "sum"), it doesn't mean this was really the word in Minoan.
 
Yves Duhoux has a nice overviewing chapter on Linear A in Christidis' History of Ancient Greek.
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 21:26
The mainstream scholar establishment does care about the public's interested in history and related topic. This is why the most recent popular discoveries always deal with the similar themes of "European" Kennewick man and "Celtic" Tocharians. So most of the mainstream support goes to forment popular and romantic beliefs, not objective discovery. We have the legend of the Scythians taking a large chunck of the dialogue, where its mostly the same weak sources echoing of each other, for lack of substantive evidence.

The origin of culture that spread neolithic agriculture to the West and East is not in Mesopotamia, its in Iran. It is not discussed simply because they cannot attach Aryan or Indo-Iranian to them, since it occured 10,000 or more years ago. Genetic studies also disprove many old ideas, but again the mainstream is still sticks with the same theories. They overlook the connections between supposed 'isolates' like the Etruscans, Minoans/Pelasgians, Tyrrhenians, Hurrians, Sumerians, Subarians, Caspians, Marhasi, Jeitun, Andronovo, proto-Turks. All the evidence is there in many varied sources, just because the mainstream isnt providing you with a neat little documentary about what they deem to be acceptable truth doesnt change the facts.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Oct-2008 at 23:21
Originally posted by CiegaSordmud CiegaSordmud wrote:

The mainstream scholar establishment does care about the public's interested in history and related topic. This is why the most recent popular discoveries always deal with the similar themes of "European" Kennewick man and "Celtic" Tocharians. So most of the mainstream support goes to forment popular and romantic beliefs, not objective discovery. We have the legend of the Scythians taking a large chunck of the dialogue, where its mostly the same weak sources echoing of each other, for lack of substantive evidence.
Your logic is circular. If you address only popular discoveries you'll conclude the scholars care about public's interest, but why address only the popular discoveries in the first place?
And why only discoveries? A lot of scholarship is not about discovering but about providing a valuable interpretative framework and of course, working in it. In a lot of fields (like historical linguistics) the amount of new discoveries is limited, but there's a wealth of new information provided by new paradigms and interpretations. Considering that most scholarship is unknown to public and that most scholars write articles in scientific journals instead of writing popular books, it is left to conclude that most of them do no care so much about what the public believes. And you didn't actually address my objections. If the scholars care about the public so much why most of them publish in relatively non-popular journals, why do they use a language most people do not understand?
 
Tocharian is not Celtic, but a Centum language, like Celtic (and like English, Italian and several other languages). But Centum and Satem are merely some isoglosses and actually the position of Tocharian in far-east spectrum of IE languages is one of the main concerns of PIE theories, a persuading PIE theory must explain this fact.
 
As for "Kennewick man" I didn't notice anyone to consider it "European" but "Eurasian" or more precise "north-eastern Asian" but at the same time "American" (the former is only a far origin, according to a relatively well-established theory).
 
The legend of Scythians actually takes a very little part of the dialogues among Classicists, you can browse some scholarly material archive like JStor and do the statistics yourself.
 
Quote The origin of culture that spread neolithic agriculture to the West and East is not in Mesopotamia, its in Iran. It is not discussed simply because they cannot attach Aryan or Indo-Iranian to them, since it occured 10,000 or more years ago.
If there's any value to this theory there are studies on it. Your second claim is preposterous, Indo-Iranian is a IE linguistic branchs, it has nothing/little to do with the spread of Neolithic agriculture.
 
Quote Genetic studies also disprove many old ideas, but again the mainstream is still sticks with the same theories.
I wonder if you know what mainstream is ...
 
Quote They overlook the connections between supposed 'isolates' like the Etruscans, Minoans/Pelasgians, Tyrrhenians, Hurrians, Sumerians, Subarians, Caspians, Marhasi, Jeitun, Andronovo, proto-Turks
Not all these are 'isolates' (and how can you talk about mainstream if you dont' know what mainstream holds?) and between most of them there are no connections. Several of them are not ever properly known/understood, so exactly what kind of connections could be?
 
Quote All the evidence is there in many varied sources, just because the mainstream isnt providing you with a neat little documentary about what they deem to be acceptable truth doesnt change the facts.
If there's any shred of evidence which fundaments your case, I'm sure you'll present it.
 
And I don't know what all these have to do with Minoans and their language. I explained how those mysterious Minoan words were created and how useless is a word-by-word parallel with any other known language. 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 25-Oct-2008 at 23:29
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 01:58
The 'mainstream' is the establishment that publishes information in layman books and other popular media only based on select academic sources. There are many scholars, researchers and archeologists who do work in different fields, and im sure they dont care about public opinion just their work and making a living. But the industry itself pushes only select ideas, sometimes regardless of their validity or value, out to the public. Isnt that simple to understand?

Which is why we have many magazines, books, documentaries that talk about history in vague catchwords such as "Eurasian", "Indo-Iranian", "Scythian", "Kurgan" just to get certain individuals tingly. So they talk about the connection between people a quarter of the world away occuring in a short time frame, Tocharians and Indo-Europeans. But forbid you from even hypothesizing that groups sharing similar elements and living right next to each other, Hurrians and Sumerians, might have a relation the same way different IE groups have with one another. So for their pet IE theories they create large "trees" that connect distant groups/languages etc. (which in most cases is fine), but if you do the same with other groups then there's "not any shred of evidence". Just because 80% of IE/Aryan theories are parroting the same line for decades and have accumulated so much BS, you cant ignore newer information and theories that bring forth new ideas. An example is the once universally held belief that the Andronovo complex was the origin of "Indo-Iranians", turns out it isnt, its proto-Turkish. The establishment wont shout this little detail out on any documentary or book, its only found in some recent articles, which require subscription to be seen in full.

Compare the amount of occurences different terms appear in Jstor, lets see on what the majority puts more enphasis on. The mythtical Scythians, or actual provable archeological, ethnic groups and sites.


Results 1 - 10 of about 2,200 from jstor.org for Scythian

Results 1 - 5 of 5 from jstor.org for Jeitun

Results 1 - 10 of about 25 from jstor.org for Marhasi

Results 1 - 10 of about 92 from jstor.org for Oghuz

Results 1 - 10 of 10 from jstor.org for Wusun
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.066 seconds.