Print Page | Close Window

Minoan civilization originated in Anatolia!

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mediterranean and Europe
Forum Description: Greece, Macedon, Rome and other cultures such as Celtic and Germanic tribes
Moderators: Leonidas, es_bih
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=24005
Printed Date: 23-Jul-2017 at 09:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Minoan civilization originated in Anatolia!
Posted By: Yiannis
Subject: Minoan civilization originated in Anatolia!
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 14:25


WELCOME, OUR NEW FORUM HAS MOVED TO
ALLEMPIRES.NET/FORUM/FORUM





Some very interesting news on the Minoan civilization. There was a dispute as to where did the population of Minoan Crete originate from. Some indicated Egypt and others Anatolia.
Now, a research called: "Origins of Neolithic populations in Greece, based on Paternal DNA" has been published by the professor of Genetics at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. Triantafillidis, in cooperation with Uni's in US, Canada, Russia and Turkey.
 
He has identified DNS in 193 individuals from Cretan males and 171 from mainland Greece. results were compared to other samples in other universities.
 
Results showed that Minoan Cretan samples compared with the Anatolian ones, while the Greek mainland compared with Balkan ones. Of course, as proven by other experiments, the professor said, we have proof that also mainland Greek genes originate from Anatolia too, but entered Greece through different routes.
 
 
 

 



-------------
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin



Replies:
Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 15:07
I don't think comparing DNAs with so ancient civilisations is viable.

The Minoans were destroyed by the Myceneans which were not too kind to their enemies if Iliad is to be believed. Plus after that came the Dorians and later Kilikian pirates and later Romans and Saracens and then the Byzantines brought other populations from the mainland and then came the Venetians and the Turks.

I doubt there is much Minoan DNA left in Crete. The Balkans also went through many invaders but Crete has less population and size


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 16:03
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.


-------------


Posted By: Anton
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 16:13
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:


I doubt there is much Minoan DNA left in Crete. The Balkans also went through many invaders but Crete has less population and size
 
Crete population was quite close wasn't it? If you have some sequences characteristic to Minoans then they will be preserved despite following crosses. And frequency of those sequences should increase in close society due to inbreeding. 


-------------
.


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 17:03
What I meant is that the Minoans were possibly wiped out by the Myceneans. At those ages it was common to kill most of the enemy's population and Crete's archaic history is full of wars. If my memory serves me right, from the Dorian invasion to the Roman times the island was at war between its major cities.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 17:45
This is nothing new...Basically, this theory was already expressed back in the 50s. Now at least we seem to have genetic evidence. I'm not surprised at all.  Have a look at Greek placenames for example. There's a huge amount having Anatolian possesive forms on words of unknown etymology. However, a respectfull amount of placenames are known Hittite/Luwian/etc words in possesive form. Just an example: Parnassos --> Parna (Luwian for "House", masculin) + -ssos (anatolian plural possesive form for masculin words), Melissa(gk. Bee) --> Melit (Luwian for honey) + -ssa (plural possestive form for feminine words).


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:13
I know Cyprus had other influences as well but if you look at the Eteocypriot language, the anatolian character is strong. Just an example:

    Ana matori umiesai Mukulai lasana Aristonose Arto wanaks okose
    kera keretulose.

    The city of the Amathusans honored the king/noble Ariston son of Aristonax.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:37
Originally posted by Yiannis Yiannis wrote:

we have proof that also mainland Greek genes originate from Anatolia too, but entered Greece through different routes.
 


I think this map shows exactly that...







Yiannis where can the report of Α.Π.Θ be found?


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:38
Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

This is nothing new...Basically, this theory was already expressed back in the 50s. Now at least we seem to have genetic evidence. I'm not surprised at all.  Have a look at Greek placenames for example. There's a huge amount having Anatolian possesive forms on words of unknown etymology. However, a respectfull amount of placenames are known Hittite/Luwian/etc words in possesive form. Just an example: Parnassos --> Parna (Luwian for "House", masculin) + -ssos (anatolian plural possesive form for masculin words), Melissa(gk. Bee) --> Melit (Luwian for honey) + -ssa (plural possestive form for feminine words).


Hittites and Luvian speakers were native Anatolians, not Greeks however.

I don't see how one can jump to such a conclusion from such an unscientific bit of news.


-------------


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:47
Originally posted by kafkas kafkas wrote:


Hittites and Luvian speakers were native Anatolians, not Greeks however.

I don't see how one can jump to such a conclusion from such an unscientific bit of news.


I didn't say the were Greeks. But Greeks weren't alpine people eather. Do you think Greeks entered Greece though northern Europe or Anatolia? Just look at the language groupings of Greek, Phrygian and Armenian. They can't have all come from different regions.

And I did not jump to such a conclusion just like that. There is plenty of material on that matter for over 50 years now.

Hesperia, Vol. 31, No. 3. (Jul. - Sep., 1962), pp. 284-309.



Moreover you have archeological evidence that the cultures that inhabited Greece in late neolithic and the bronse age came from east. Safron appeared with the arrival of the early Greeks and as we know Saffron does not grow on many places of this earth. The agricultural evidence is generally clear.



Btw, the Hittites and Luwians were not native eather. It depends on which period you look at. They were for sure the descendands of the earliest IE people entering the area.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Vorian
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 18:55
I was always fascinated by the prehistoric era of Greece. Those times are very interesting.

Do you guys know any decent sites? (Not the ones claiming everything was Greek since the dawn of time, it seems they are the only ones I stumble upon :D)


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 19:16
Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:

I was always fascinated by the prehistoric era of Greece. Those times are very interesting.

Do you guys know any decent sites? (Not the ones claiming everything was Greek since the dawn of time, it seems they are the only ones I stumble upon :D)


I get most of my material from the "Scholarly Journal Archive" (www.jstor.org) but you need an account there and that is not free. Also, there's a lot of PDFs spreaded around at various universities on the matter. However, I can't really remember since all material i have is a collection from the last 2-3 years.

As for the everything was greek sites i guess you've hit something like this: http://e-e-e.gr - http://e-e-e.gr LOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOL




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 20:19
I found a press release about it in Greek. The translation is probably crappy but just for the record i will post it.

Thessaloniki 2/4/2008

"The origins of the Neolithic people of Greece" is the title of the research conducted by professor Konstantinos Triantafilidis of the Aristotelean University of Thessaloniki in cooperation with the university of Crete and universities in the USA, Canada, Russia and Turkey. In the research 193 blood samples were collected from men living in Crete and 171 from men living in the Greek mainland, near to known neolithic settlements. Specifically from New Nicomedia (Veria, Makedonia), Sesklo and Dimini (Thessaly), Phracti  and Lerni (Kranidi, Argolis).

The results of the research were compared to researches made in Europe, Anatolia and Africa.

The absence of the genetic markers J2b-M12 in the inhabitants of the neighbouring areas of Bosporus, shows that those neolithic people came to Greece through sea.  

The Y-Chomosome results of the Cretan population showed that it is grouped together with the people of Anatolia. The samples of the Greek mainland are paritaly grouped with the palaiobalkanic cultures. This cocludes that the neolithic people of Crete came from Anatolia. Ofcourse the other genetic markers of the Greek mainland show that a part of those neolithic people came from Anatolia as well.  

It is worth to mention that the case of the samples from the Phracti cave in Peloponesus, show relation to the populations of Crete. This fact probably prooves the geographic ifluence between Crete, Peloponesus and Anatolia. Also, it should be mentioned that the later settlements in crete around 1100BC are from people of the mainland and is represented by the V13 genetic marker.  This marker appered in a frequency of 35% in Thessaly and Peloponesus while in Crete it reached 7% and therefore shows the genetic effect the those people produced. The wider genetic effect of the mainland in Crete reached 20%.

The dating of the halogroup J2a1h-M319 in Crete is placed at 3100BC. The importance of these results in archeology is very valuable for the historians, since it marks the limits between the Neolithic and the broze age in Crete, which is related to a sequence of important changes in the organization of the social services, the demographics, the material culture, the technology, the iconography and the burial rites. Many researchers suggested that the arrival of the new settlers was responsible for those changes; a social/cultural ressurection from which the famous Minoan civilization rised. Those new impressive characteristics that are connected with the early bronze age in crete have been previously proposed to originate from Egypt, Libya, Syra, Palestine, eastern Aegean an Anatolia. Contrary to the theory that the minoan civilization was a result of settlers from Egypt and Libya, the majority of the halogroups e3b1-m78 is characterized from the monocleuid marker V13, in Crete and equally in the mainland of Greece. In the samples however from Egypt this marker was not found. This shows that there was no recent genetic contact between Egypt and Crete/Greek Mainland. In other words, the Helladic area was not invaded by Egyptian populations as the DNA analysis show, but by settlers from Anatolia. Those results disprove the Aphrocentric theory or Black Athina, which was presented by some scientists of questionable nature. According to that theory the Greek civilization was a result of africans.

It is worth to mention that the study of the mitochondrial DNA and the Y-Chomosome, showed that the 80% of the inhabitatnts of Europe have palaiolithic origins. It is also known that the oldest neolithic settlements in europe are found in Greece. The scientific research of the origins of those people is done based on the findings provided by different scientific fields e.g archeology, linguistics, genetics; while many discussions are held about how, when and from where those people can from in the neolithic period in south eastern europe.

In order to answer those questions, the DNA of the chromosome Y was studied. The markers of the Y-Chromosome are inherited and unaltered from father to son, from generation to generation and therefore create paternal genetic trees. This gives us the chance to understand the origins of human populations.




-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 01:00
Originally posted by kafkas kafkas wrote:

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

This is nothing new...Basically, this theory was already expressed back in the 50s. Now at least we seem to have genetic evidence. I'm not surprised at all.  Have a look at Greek placenames for example. There's a huge amount having Anatolian possesive forms on words of unknown etymology. However, a respectfull amount of placenames are known Hittite/Luwian/etc words in possesive form. Just an example: Parnassos --> Parna (Luwian for "House", masculin) + -ssos (anatolian plural possesive form for masculin words), Melissa(gk. Bee) --> Melit (Luwian for honey) + -ssa (plural possestive form for feminine words).


Hittites and Luvian speakers were native Anatolians, not Greeks however.

I don't see how one can jump to such a conclusion from such an unscientific bit of news.
you needs to read a little closer and not jump on the defensive so easily.
 
 the people that lived in Greece, before the greeks speakers came, mainly originated from anadolia. population movements between the aegean and anodolia have been a constant situation from pre-historic time until last century. Our countries share many genes Kavkas
 
This Minion peice of news just confirms this and is unsuprising
 
 


Posted By: kafkas
Date Posted: 03-Apr-2008 at 03:47
Originally posted by Leonidas Leonidas wrote:

Originally posted by kafkas kafkas wrote:

Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

This is nothing new...Basically, this theory was already expressed back in the 50s. Now at least we seem to have genetic evidence. I'm not surprised at all.  Have a look at Greek placenames for example. There's a huge amount having Anatolian possesive forms on words of unknown etymology. However, a respectfull amount of placenames are known Hittite/Luwian/etc words in possesive form. Just an example: Parnassos --> Parna (Luwian for "House", masculin) + -ssos (anatolian plural possesive form for masculin words), Melissa(gk. Bee) --> Melit (Luwian for honey) + -ssa (plural possestive form for feminine words).


Hittites and Luvian speakers were native Anatolians, not Greeks however.

I don't see how one can jump to such a conclusion from such an unscientific bit of news.
you needs to read a little closer and not jump on the defensive so easily.
 
 the people that lived in Greece, before the greeks speakers came, mainly originated from anadolia. population movements between the aegean and anodolia have been a constant situation from pre-historic time until last century. Our countries share many genes Kavkas
 
This Minion peice of news just confirms this and is unsuprising
 
 


Like you said Turkey and Greece share much of the same genes (although the Greeks are probably much more genetically consistent), but I think this is all it proves. I just don't think the test can be applied to the question at hand due to the few thousand year time difference.


-------------


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 01:01
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.


True, but they were there long before the Turkic invasion. The Greeks Hellenized and mixed with the natives in the same way the Turks have today so I would agree that the Minoan population has been absorbed over the centuries. I saw all the different faces while I was in Turkey as a testimony of intermixing. This still would make an interesting study, what were their origins-??

-------------
Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


Posted By: Flipper
Date Posted: 08-Apr-2008 at 18:48
Originally posted by kafkas kafkas wrote:


Like you said Turkey and Greece share much of the same genes (although the Greeks are probably much more genetically consistent), but I think this is all it proves. I just don't think the test can be applied to the question at hand due to the few thousand year time difference.


Yes sure, actually I believe the people of Anatolia are our common link. I don't believe the Hittites vanished for example nor the Phrygians (who were identifiable at least until the 6th century AD). They just passed and embodied to different nations from time to time.

However, on your last sentence, please have a look on what the press release says about the examination of the Y-Chomosome. This was used cause it passes unaltered from father to son which means the timeframe can not easily distort the results.

Now, It would be interresting to know which university in Turkey participated and see the report it has released, if any available in public yet.


-------------


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


Posted By: apro282
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2008 at 00:41
I've read about this report last month. There findings just confirm what most were theorizing to begin with, that Neolithic farmers into Europe were originally from Anatolia & the Near East, not sub-Sahara Africa. Here is the actual paper for anyone interested:
 
Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic
  • R. J. King11, S. S. zcan javascript:popRef%28a2%29 - 2 - 2 , T. Carter javascript:popRef%28a3%29 - 3 - 3 , E. Kalfoğlu javascript:popRef%28a2%29 - 2 - 2 , S. Atasoy javascript:popRef%28a2%29 - 2 - 2 , C. Triantaphyllidis javascript:popRef%28a4%29 - 4 - 4 , A. Kouvatsi javascript:popRef%28a4%29 - 4 - 4 , A. A. Lin javascript:popRef%28a5%29 - 5 - 5 , C-E. T. Chow javascript:popRef%28a5%29 - 5 - 5 , L. A. Zhivotovsky javascript:popRef%28a6%29 - 6 - 6 , M. Michalodimitrakis javascript:popRef%28a7%29 - 7 - 7  and P. A. Underhill javascript:popRef%28a5%20c1%29 - 5,* - 5
  • The earliest Neolithic sites of Europe are located in Crete and mainland Greece. A debate persists concerning whether these farmers originated in neighboring Anatolia and the role of maritime colonization. To address these issues 171 samples were collected from areas near three known early Neolithic settlements in Greece together with 193 samples from Crete. An analysis of Y-chromosome haplogroups determined that the samples from the Greek Neolithic sites showed strong affinity to Balkan data, while Crete shows affinity with central/Mediterranean Anatolia. Haplogroup J2b-M12 was frequent in Thessaly and Greek Macedonia while haplogroup J2a-M410 was scarce. Alternatively, Crete, like Anatolia showed a high frequency of J2a-M410 and a low frequency of J2b-M12. This dichotomy parallels archaeobotanical evidence, specifically that while bread wheat (Triticum aestivum) is known from Neolithic Anatolia, Crete and southern Italy; it is absent from earliest Neolithic Greece. The expansion time of YSTR variation for haplogroup E3b1a2-V13, in the Peloponnese was consistent with an indigenous Mesolithic presence. In turn, two distinctive haplogroups, J2a1h-M319 and J2a1b1-M92, have demographic properties consistent with Bronze Age expansions in Crete, arguably from NW/W Anatolia and Syro-Palestine, while a later mainland (Mycenaean) contribution to Crete is indicated by relative frequencies of V13.

    http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00414.x - http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00414.x


    Posted By: Epikoureios
    Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 11:16
    Flipper wrote:
    "As for the everything was greek sites i guess you've hit something like this: http://e-e-e.gr - http://e-e-e.gr "
     
    OR you can hit something like this (from A-Z): http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Inventions2.htm - 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!


    -------------
    "Λάθε Βιώσας"
    Επίκουρος

    "Tabula Rassa"


    Posted By: Anton
    Date Posted: 12-Apr-2008 at 11:32
    Originally posted by Epikoureios Epikoureios wrote:

    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!
     
    Sorry for the oftop. Flipper, here is nice example of negative attitudes of Greeks toward Maks. I guess Epikoureios just didn't realize you are Greek.  Your "ignorance" arised from the country he suggested you are from. LOL Welcome to the forum, Epikoureios! 


    -------------
    .


    Posted By: Epikoureios
    Date 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?"


    -------------
    "Λάθε Βιώσας"
    Επίκουρος

    "Tabula Rassa"


    Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
    Date 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
     
    http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/3006/images/e14a.jpg">
    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!


    -------------
    "Don't raise your voice - we all know how lovely it is!"
    Triano, in "Mosterella" by Plautus! Read it...now!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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 - 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!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: konstantinius
    Date 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."


    Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Byrdsjanuary1954
    Date Posted: 30-Sep-2008 at 20:07
    But the Minoans weren't Greek. They were a completely different people.

    -------------
    Rickenbacker 360/12


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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!


    Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
    Date 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 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17707&PID=330274


    Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
    Date Posted: 01-Oct-2008 at 07:39

    What is the meaning of Minos/Minoan?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minos - 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 - 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).



    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date 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?


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date 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 - 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.





    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: edgewaters
    Date 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.


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date 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://www.smso.net/Linear_A
    http://home.comcast.net/%7Efoxvog/Glossary.pdf - 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.


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date 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.


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date 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.


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date 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. 
     


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date 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


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 02:56
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    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?
    No, this is not mainstream. You don't read in layman books and popular media about geminate consonants, athematic suffixes, sygmatic nominatives, and plenty of such things but there are mainstream beliefs, hypotheses, theories on them. A part of the mainstream scholarship gets popularized, but most part doesn't. And a lot of fringe theories get popularized, too. In consequence the most popular beliefs are not always the mainstream beliefs (where in the latter case I relate the mainstream to the community of scholars, of experts).
     
    Quote 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.
    You got it wrong. Perhaps they are catchwords for the layman (like you seem to be), but for scholars they are concepts, and are anything but vague (well, generally; there is always room for incompetence)
     
    Quote
    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. 
    You don't seem to understand much of the PIE theories (and I remind you this is not the topic of this thread, you seem to have a tendency to talk about Iranian issues). No one forbids you to hypothesise anything, but the mainstream PIE theories are more than a hypothesis. If you want to discuss about PIE topics join this thread: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=4331 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=4331  
    Hurrian and Sumerian, linguistically, are very different, much more different than Tocharian and Celtic. And indeed, AFAIK, there's no evidence to connect Hurrian to Sumerian.
     
    Quote 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
    Nice try. Most of the hits are about Scythian arts or other topics. If you'd compare with hits on Roman (over 100,000, albeit not all about the Romans from Antiquity) you'd see Scythian is rather a peripheral topic and the legend of Scythians (I assume you mean Herodotus' account) is even more peripherical. Thus your earlier claim about the "legend of Scythians taking a large chunk of the dialogue" rests on no evidence.
     
    Your parallelisms are invalid as there are not so many Middle East or Asian studies journals enrolled in JStor (and Scythians are a topic for a journal like JRS or Classical Philology or Greece&Rome, but Oghuz or Wusun aren't).


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 11:03
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    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://www.smso.net/Linear_A
    http://home.comcast.net/%7Efoxvog/Glossary.pdf - 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.


    Excuse me mate, but you say that linguists who seek IE sources are dishonest and you make a link to a site quoting the Gareth Owens!!!

    Furthermore, the theories suggested on the first link are about Luwian, Indo-Iranian on the IE side and Phoenician on the non-IE side. In that sense neither Cyrus has been wrong with his input.

    I agree with Chibuldios that we assume things about Linear A, based on the phonetic values of Linear B. Probably, many symbols have the same values but not all of them. We might be reading it completely wrong.

    Everyone have some suggestion. I'm not saying some of them are more correct than others as long as they use a credible methodology. Evans suggested that Carian was the closest language to the Minoan. His and Ventris suggestions are not based just on the questionable reading of the Linear A tablets but also in the few Minoan inscriptions written with Greek letters, which we know how to read. The Greek letter inscriptions do point to an IE language. Strabo, noted that the Carian language contained many Greek words. Those words were probably not Greek, but words from a older language that was a common ancestor for both Greek and Carian.

    Also, considering the fact that a big part of the Greek population do have roots from the people living in the Aegian, i would expect to find more traces of Semitic languages in Greek, rather than a large number of words that relate to the Anatolian languages. Semitic words do exist in Greek, but the examples are few. To compare the number of words of Semitic origin in Greek with the number of words of Anatolian origin is out of the question. The large number of synonyms in the Greek language also explain the pre-Greek languages. There are more that 1 word for each meaning, simply because in the second millenium BC, in parallel with Greek, the aegian languages were spoken too. That's why you have words like Pelagos and Thalassa, Petra and Lithos, Phos and Lyks, Gis and Chthon.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 12:31
    Here's a good introduction on Linear A, and also a nice collection of texts.
     
    http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/ - http://www.people.ku.edu/~jyounger/LinearA/
     
    Quote I agree with Chibuldios that we assume things about Linear A, based on the phonetic values of Linear B. Probably, many symbols have the same values but not all of them. We might be reading it completely wrong.
    Often this reading is marked with a name of its own, John Younger calls it Linear AB, Yves Duhoux abbreviates it LA > LB (where LA and LB stand for Linear A and B respectively).
     
    Besides word-by-word comparing, there are few other approaches on decipherment, which IMO have better chances to provide good results.
    - the identification of each symbol with a syllabe based on some independent method (e.g. acrophonic principle or similar connections: see Younger's example with the cat and the cow - the Minoan syllabe might not the be the actual AB syllabe, but it may be a mV or mVV type of syllabe)
    - determining the meaning from context (like the aforementioned KU-RO apparently meaning "total")
    - analysing the grammar, the morphology - in some votive tablets some words occur in several different forms; this type of analysis may be more suitable for comparision with other known languages, but we must keep in mind that there's a real possibility that no other language we know of is close to Minoan, case in which all parallelisms will be a dead-end


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 26-Oct-2008 at 13:40
    Yes that's a good link Chibuldios. It summarizes most of it.

    In order not to be missunderstood, I do not dismiss the Semitic theory. It is a suggested theory, that has some basis. However, I'm more convinced with the Anatolian character of the Minoan, because the words suggested link with more languages of IE origin. Also as I mentioned before, statistically in Greek, the remnants of the pre-Greek languages are not Semitic.

    Also, Miletus was a city founded by Cretans. The native language of the citizens (before complete Hellenization by the Ionians) was Carian and we do have written records of that. We also have Linear A tablets from Miletus.

    http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25562 - http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=25562


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 15:50
    Linear B syllabics have been useful, we have at least 3 indications of geographic names. Two of them are Ida in Crete and Hurrian town Tursa (TURUSA), probably relating to the Tyrrhenians and Sea People.

    After decades of the same IE and Semitic theories to decipher Linear A virtually no progress was made. Its time too look at the obvious agglutinative forms and other references that point to a proto-Tyrrhenian/Hurrian origin.




    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 16:36
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    Linear B syllabics have been useful, we have at least 3 indications of geographic names. Two of them are Ida in Crete and Hurrian town Tursa (TURUSA), probably relating to the Tyrrhenians and Sea People.

    After decades of the same IE and Semitic theories to decipher Linear A virtually no progress was made. Its time too look at the obvious agglutinative forms and other references that point to a proto-Tyrrhenian/Hurrian origin.
    There's nothing known about a proto-Tyrrhenian language, so I don't see how one could relate Linear A to it. If by Tyrrhenian you mean a language family encompassing Etruscan, then this obviously is unrelated to Hurrian.
     
    As for Hurrian, it should be noted that all Linear B and AB syllabes are in V or CV form, whereas Hurrian cuneiform had also VC syllabes. And the only argument you brought for a Hurrian connection was this dubious word-list : http://web.archive.org/web/20061001130423/http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/m992.htm - http://web.archive.org/web/20061001130423/http://www.anistor.co.hol.gr/english/enback/m992.htm
     
    For what's worth the parallels with Luwian and Hittite yielded more impressive results (touching even grammar issues).


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 17:40
    Proto-Tyrrhenian in terms of the non-IE languages spoken in eastern and southern Anatolia prior to large wave of migration from that region into other parts of the Mediterranean. We cannot apply phonology that was only suited for studying IE languages to others. You have to consider Hurrian as their root language with other influences, like Luwian and Latin along the way. This is not the "easy" theory, there is still a lot of work needed for Hurrian itself. And there is nothing "impressive" about those IE theories for Linear A, even the IE faithful admit they still don't know what's the language, they only "suggest."  Well, let them waste their time trying, it wont change a single thing.

    Inform yourself more about Hurrian, not just the main topic, but the smaller details which reveal a lot more than an IE-only emphasis.

    http://www.nostratic.ru/arc/Untitled12.pdf - http://www.nostratic.ru/arc/Untitled12.pdf


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 18:05
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    Proto-Tyrrhenian in terms of the non-IE languages spoken in eastern and southern Anatolia prior to large wave of migration from that region into other parts of the Mediterranean.
    There's no evidence for such a claim.
     
    Quote We cannot apply phonology that was only suited for studying IE languages to others.
    What are you talking about? The syllabe phonology (if this is what you meant) is not at all "only suited for studying IE languages".
     
    Quote You have to consider Hurrian as their root language with other influences, like Luwian and Latin along the way. This is not the "easy" theory, there is still a lot of work needed for Hurrian itself.
    No one has to support a theory if there are no evidences. If a theory is not "easy" then it means it's rather improbable.
     
    Quote And there is nothing "impressive" about those IE theories for Linear A, even the IE faithful admit they still don't know what's the language, they only "suggest." 
    Actually I said "more impressive" and that's easily provable because the suggested links between Minoan and Anatolian IE languages are far more substantial than between Minoan  and Hurrian or other similar claims. Of course, it may be merely some coincidences and Minoan be an isolate, but the issue at stake here is why to accept a relation with Hurrian and not with some other Anatolian IE languages?
     
    Quote Inform yourself more about Hurrian, not just the main topic, but the smaller details which reveal a lot more than an IE-only emphasis.

    http://www.nostratic.ru/arc/Untitled12.pdf - http://www.nostratic.ru/arc/Untitled12.pdf
     
    Such links suggest you don't understand much of what's written there ... but suit yourself. This is not even an article about Hurrian, but about the name of a deity and its posisble origins in several languages (two main hypotheses are analysed - Hurrian and Semitic). It touches the issue of interpreting Minoan as a Semitic or Semitic-influenced language. It also mentions Hurrian loan-words in Hittite, which suggest, contrary to your claims, that few Hurrian words in Linear A could be interpreted as evidence that Minoan is actually an IE Anatolian language split after receiving few borrowings from Hurrian. Tricky, huh?


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 20:28
    Lets clarify that the IE-theory proponents tried to use the argument that Minoan must have come from previously unknown IE branch .Its not possible because that would imply an unquestionable connection to root IE words, none which worked. If you look at all the examples provided, its all speculation. If not lets see some examples of the few Minoan  samples matching with Hittite??? Comparing Hittite or any IE language to Minoan has been inconclusive, lets get past that point for once or else it will become repetitive.

    On that link you will find some good information on Hurrian words and forms that were prominently used in the region. If we aren't IE zombies, we can confidently conclude that the users of Linear A had just as easy access to the Hurrian as the Hittite did, but the fact that Linear A is not matching with IE gives us another clue that it might actually be a source of Hurrian itself (in this case to the Greeks instead of the Hittite).

    When people become more learned they can tell the forms used in Linear A that correspond with common Hurrian ones. An example this mysterious first segment of a 'libation'.

    a-ta-i-*301-wa-ja o-su-qa-re ja-sa-sa-ra-me...

    Adani (stool in a regular sense, but "the throne" when referring to deities)

    -wa (Hurrian dative suffix, "goes to")

    Ja ("Deity", probably intermediate between Etruscan Ais and Hurrian Ya
    )

    O-Su-Ka (Hurrian Sauska)

    -re (Hurrian commitative suffix, "along with")

    Sa-Sa-Ra (variety of the name Ishara)

    -me (-ne, Hurrian article suffix, simply denotes "The")

    This segment translates as, The throne goes to the deities Sauska and Ishara...


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 20:33
    I believe Chibuldios has covered some important issues.

    My add would be the following:

    a) The genetic research was made on living people and samples from neolithic settlements. The Turkish contibution consists of samples taken from areas where people like the Luwians, Carians, Hittites, Lydians etc lived. Those people were not Semitic.

    b) As I posted earlier, Linear A is not found only in Crete but in the Turkish coast as well. Specifically in areas where Anatolian languages were spoken. I don't have samples of those texts, but two things are possible: I) The tablets contain words found in Crete which makes Carian a language that evolved from Minoan, II) The Carians, like the Greeks adopted the Linear A script to write their own anatolian language.

    c) Cretans migrated to the Balkan mainland as far as Macedonia. 2/3rds of Western Chalkidiki was predominately Bottiean (Cretan) and later Chalkidean. It is also an area of early writtings, that reveal various people living side by side (Cretans, Euboans, Macedonians, Ionians, Thracians and Carians [Athos peninsula]). Except from Greek, Carian has been recorded, probably Thracian too, but no semitic in any form (words, placenames, personal names). Other places nearby would be Pieria, Emathia and the city of Idomaenae (from the Cretan idomeneas), where again no linguistic or material culture traces point to a Semitic precence.

    d) Another migration of Cretans, is the one in Orchomenos, Beottia. On the other side of Beottia the Gefyraeoi lived, who are identified as Phoenician people, unlike the Bottians of Orchomenos. 

    e) Now i have a question. Can theories like the one of Cyrus Gordon, render possible sentenses in Linear A, like the ones rendered with the help of Indoeuropean languages?


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 20:41
    The Carian argument is weak because its only based on speculation what Carian is, which at this point is anything someone "suggests" without providing adequate detail.

    If you are really interested of where Minoan might have originated, search for Kizzuwatna and focus on the non-Luwian elements.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 20:53
    I still see examples of single words. Moreover those words are proposed to cognate with single syllables. That could produce combinations of cognates in a large variety of languages.

    Contrary, with the help of many early IE languages you can render possible translations in more than one tablet. Examples follow:

    AP Za 2 (GORILA 4, 1982, 4)

    U-NA-KA-NA-SI. I-PI-NI-MA . SI-RU-TE. KU-PA-NI-TU-NI-TE
    PI-MI-NA-TE . I-NA-JA-RE-TA-QA

    Give victory destroyer Iphinama and strong and holy Kubaba(Cybele?).

    KO Za 1 (GORILA 4, 1982, 18)
    A-TA-I-A301-WA-JA . TU-RU-SA . DU-PE2-RE . I-DA-A . U-NA-
    KA-NA-SI. I-PI-NA-MA. SI-RU-TE

    Astarti mistress dupere (another epithet of the godness) of Ida and Ifinama the destroyer, give [us] victory.

    Turusa is compared to the Hittite Turwana, which is the feminine equivalent of Greek Tyrannos.

    There are more inscriptions relating to the same context.




    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 20:54
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    The Carian argument is weak because its only based on speculation what Carian is, which at this point is anything someone "suggests" without providing adequate detail.

    If you are really interested of where Minoan might have originated, search for Kizzuwatna and focus on the non-Luwian elements.


    What Carian is? Carian is a written language that appears in billingual documents, therefore we have safe translations of the texts.


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 21:07
    Also, I've been using this map over and over again. It is based on Palmers hypothesis of the Anatolian invasion of Greece.

    Look at the placenames in Crete. They point clearly to Luwian origin.



    Specifically, the -ssos is possesive form of "male" objects while -ssa are possesives of feminine ones.

    Parnassos in Crete is the same name of the mountain where Delphi relyes in the mainland and renders litterarly into the Luwian Parna (house), meaning "our house".

    Thalassa in Greek is a synomym of Pelagos and would render as Alas (Alas = Gk. Salt, Alat = Lw Salt ) -ssa (our salt).

    Melissa renders directly to the Luwian word for honey "melit" (Gk. Meli) and means our honey (bee in Greek).

    Ierissos, in Chalkidike renders to "our holy" from Greek Ieron and Carian Jeru which means holy.

    Kissamos in Crete can be found as Kissabos (alt. Ossa) in the borders of Thessaly and Macedonia.

    Therissos in Crete has again the typical -ssos ending.

    Tylissos needs no comments...Just a quick look on Athenian pre-Ionian placenames solves a lot.

    There are hundreds of placenames to pick up...


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 27-Oct-2008 at 21:23
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    Lets clarify that the IE-theory proponents tried to use the argument that Minoan must have come from previously unknown IE branch .Its not possible because that would imply an unquestionable connection to root IE words, none which worked. If you look at all the examples provided, its all speculation. If not lets see some examples of the few Minoan  samples matching with Hittite??? Comparing Hittite or any IE language to Minoan has been inconclusive, lets get past that point for once or else it will become repetitive.
    Scholars as Leonard Robert Palmer suggested Minoan is actually a IE language from the IE Anatolian branch (therefore your "clarification" is an erroneous claim) and several Linear A words were succesfully connected with Luwian or Hittite words, but as I already said not only words but also morphology and grammar. The examples provided are speculative, but speculative are the connection with Hurrian and all word-by-word parallels
     
    If you want to see Minoan vs IE Anatolian samples read scholarship. A sketchy bibliography:
     
    L. R. Palmer, "Luwian and Linear A" in Transactions of the Philological Society, 1958
    Jan Best, "The Language of Linear A" in Jan Best, Fred Woudhuizen (eds.), Lost languages from the Mediteranean, 1989
    Anna Morpurgo Davies, "The Linguistic Evidence: Is There Any?" in Gerald Cadogan (ed.), The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean, 1986
    Yves Duhoux, "Liniar A" in A. F. Christidis (ed.), A History of Ancient Greek From the Beginnings to Late Antiquity, 2007
     
    Quote On that link you will find some good information on Hurrian words and forms that were prominently used in the region. If we aren't IE zombies, we can confidently conclude that the users of Linear A had just as easy access to the Hurrian as the Hittite did, but the fact that Linear A is not matching with IE gives us another clue that it might actually be a source of Hurrian itself (in this case to the Greeks instead of the Hittite).
    I'm not a IE zombie and I can't agree with your conclusion and another non-IE-zombie, John Younger, happening to be also a scholar also disagrees with you: "Since Crete appears to have been deliberately colonized in developed Neolithic, probably from SW Anatolia, it would seem logical to assume that the Minoan language was related to one of the Indo-Hittite dialects, most probably Luvian" - I already linked this material, but you failed to notice and/or read it.
    Actually except for a handful of scholars, most do not give an extraordinary credit to the IE hypothesis, however I couldn't find so far scholarly support for your claims.
     
    Václav Blažek' article gives little information on Hurrian, your assessment rather shows a low standard from your side. As proven by the following quote:
     
    Quote When people become more learned they can tell the forms used in Linear A that correspond with common Hurrian ones. An example this mysterious first segment of a 'libation'.

    a-ta-i-*301-wa-ja o-su-qa-re ja-sa-sa-ra-me...

    Adani (stool in a regular sense, but "the throne" when referring to deities)

    -wa (Hurrian dative suffix, "goes to")

    Ja ("Deity", probably intermediate between Etruscan Ais and Hurrian Ya
    )

    O-Su-Ka (Hurrian Sauska)

    -re (Hurrian commitative suffix, "along with")

    Sa-Sa-Ra (variety of the name Ishara)

    -me (-ne, Hurrian article suffix, simply denotes "The")

    This segment translates as, The throne goes to the deities Sauska and Ishara...
    A true gem of crack-pot science. Notice the symptoms:
    - the Truth which of course you know, we, the other mortals (including also the best experts in the field), have still to learn to be able to see It
    - the typical "deciphering" method, actually being some sort of speculative puzzle hard to understand by anyone else but its creator (O-Su-Ka = Sauska?, Sa-Sa-Ra = Ishara?, me = ne? not to mention that 301 represents actually a Liniar A symbol which conveniently is not part of your "translation", probably it would have ruined that "Hurrianoid" sentence)
     


    Posted By: edgewaters
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 12:22
    Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

    Look at the placenames in Crete. They point clearly to Luwian origin.


    That would be fine, except that those names are almost certainly not the original Minoan names for those places. Even if the root is Minoan - for which there is no evidence - the suffixes certainly aren't.


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 13:42
    Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

    That would be fine, except that those names are almost certainly not the original Minoan names for those places. Even if the root is Minoan - for which there is no evidence - the suffixes certainly aren't.
    Suffixes in many cases are actually morphological desinences and usually languages get loanwords but use their own morphological rules (a bit harder to see in English, but it can be easily noticed in loanwords in languages with a rich morphology). Greek has a lot of words which scholars identified as non-Greek in origin, but for many they do not look non-Greek.
     
    Names like Knossos, Parnassos could be very well an Anatolian word with typical Greek morphology (in this case a sygmatic nominative). Based on the information Flipper provided, a Luwian place name could look like *Parnassa.
     


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 18:11
    Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

    Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

    Look at the placenames in Crete. They point clearly to Luwian origin.


    That would be fine, except that those names are almost certainly not the original Minoan names for those places. Even if the root is Minoan - for which there is no evidence - the suffixes certainly aren't.


    But what would they be? If the Minoan Kindom declined around 1600BC because of the tsunami of the Thera erruption, who were the ones to change the placemanes within just 150 years? The Greek speaking populations had already founded cities in the mainland, so they would be aware of a later Luwian invasion between 1600-1450. Moreover, the Greeks seemed not to bother that much about changing the placenames, since they were already in use.

    The -os endings might be tricky and seem Greek but in many cases non-Greek placenames/names look Greek in the Balkans and Anatolia. The difference between a Greek name and a non-Greek name ending in similar suffixes is that the Greek names have always an explainable etymology. Like the example of Parnassos, it might sound Greek directly to a foreigner but it doesn't mean something in Greek.

    Thracian names can in many cases sound 100% Greek, but are easily identified as non-Greek because of the lacking Greek etymology. Phrygian names can fall into the same category in most cases. Sometimes, the names can be almost the same, with the difference that the Phrygian version might be like "distorted" Greek with switching of consonants.




    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 18:22
    Just a quick example for you edgewaters, to see what i ment with the post above.

    Which of the following names are Greek, which Phrygian and which are Thracian?

    - Skilas (Σκύλας)
    - Eptakenthos (Επτάκενθος)
    - Aewas (ΑίFας)
    - Zinos (Ζήνος)
    - Byzas (Βύζας)
    - Manes (Μάνης)
    - Mantas (Μαντάς)

    Believe me, unless you happen to hit on them sometime, it is not easy at all to tell.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 18:53
    Just a quick example for you edgewaters, to see what i ment with the post above.

    Which of the following names are Greek, which Phrygian and which are Thracian?

    - Skilas (Σκύλας)
    - Eptakenthos (Επτάκενθος)
    - Aewas (ΑίFας)
    - Zinos (Ζήνος)
    - Byzas (Βύζας)
    - Manes (Μάνης)
    - Mantas (Μαντάς)

    Believe me, unless you happen to hit on them sometime, it is not easy at all to tell.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: edgewaters
    Date Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 21:03
    Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

    But what would they be? If the Minoan Kindom declined around 1600BC because of the tsunami of the Thera erruption, who were the ones to change the placemanes within just 150 years?


    The modern use of the name "Knossos" stems from Evans reading about Mycenean "Cnossos" in the Iliad and deciding that he had found that site. He applied the name before he was even aware of anything earlier than the Myceneans. 

    The suffixes certainly don't mean anything. It was very common for the Greeks and Romans to append their own suffixes to foreign place names (eg Londinium etc). There is simply no way of knowing what the Minoans themselves called the site, just as we do not know what they called themselves in those times.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 06:17
    The name is recorded as Ko-no-so from a LInear tablet in 1400BC. It is not a Greek toponym.

    Furthermore, the suffixes -ssos and -ssa as I said are anatolian. What is sure in this case is that Greeks did not create the -ssos -ssa placenames. That's what i'm telling...Now, if within 150 years some other people did that, i'm not really sure...


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: edgewaters
    Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 09:57
    Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

    The name is recorded as Ko-no-so from a LInear tablet in 1400BC. It is not a Greek toponym.


    Linear is undeciphered, so that's speculative. 


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 10:44
    Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

    Originally posted by Flipper Flipper wrote:

    The name is recorded as Ko-no-so from a LInear tablet in 1400BC. It is not a Greek toponym.


    Linear is undeciphered, so that's speculative. 


    Linear B...I forgot a B Smile

    The main point is:

    a) Knossos is not a Greek name, not a Greek aquired one
    b) If scepticism towards a Minoan name is used then a suggested 3rd candidate must be given with reasonable info on the following:

    I) Who came before the Greeks and renamed the places
    II) Why did Greeks and eteocretans adapt the newly given placenames
    III) Suggested bibliography that suggests, Knossos & other placenames are not Greek nor Minoan, but of some people that renamed those places between 1600BC and 1450 BC.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 10:53
    Quote Linear is undeciphered, so that's speculative. 
    Linear B was deciphered. Ko-no-so is the Linear B spelling, meaning it is an aproximation of this word in Mycenean Greek ~3500 years ago.
    And the toponym is non-Greek not because it is on a Linear B tablet, but because of that -osso- it contains. So with a high probability Myceneans got some words also with the writing system they received from an older civilization, and place-names are among the most likely candidates.
     
    Quote The suffixes certainly don't mean anything. It was very common for the Greeks and Romans to append their own suffixes to foreign place names (eg Londinium etc).
    Suffixes say a lot. In your case, why the city is called Londinium and not Londinum or
    Londin(i)us or Londin(i)a? You'll say it's a matter of chance, well, it is not, and it gives some precious linguistic information about the original toponyms. One relatively well-known example is that Greek names and nouns (in nominative, of course) ending in -on, in Latin they are adapted with -um desinence. Sometimes linguists can even reconstruct important features of the lost languages based only on how their words were adapted into Greek or Latin.
     
     
     


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 12:19
    Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

    Suffixes say a lot.


    Indeed Chilbudios. Most decipherers are using suffixes to find patterns of verbs, nouns etc. Without the suffix-methodology of Ventris, i doubt he would have managed to decipher the Mycenaean tablets.

    Imagine if you have a recognisable word that is expected to be a verb and with certain symbols abcdefgAB.

    In case you find more patterns like:

    abcdefgAC
    abcdefgAD
    abcdefgBA
    abcdefgDC

    then it means that you have found the possible tenses for that verb.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Giampaolo Tardivo
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 01:09
    Here we are. I red with interest your forum on Minoan-Anatolian possible links. I recently pointed up a Pre-IE Anatolian substrata language(s) in Crete and Mainland Greece. A good results it comes up after a long research in the field. For some reasons, an Hurrian-like theory is quite possible; unfortunately, Hurrian (and Urartian) did no left it a lot of stuff; also, Pre-Greek word are the first step leading to Linear A decipherment. I also suggest to reed  Beekes 44 pages (in PDF), who's professionaly deal with Pre-Greek language:
    www.indo-european.nl/ied/pdf/pre-greek.pdf 



    -------------
    Pablito


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 03:20

    I had a cursory reading of that paper and but I did not notice any hint on Hurrian or Urartian, nor any suggestion that Linear A would be this language. Though the analysis suggests one language (or group of close-related languages/dialects), the author cautiously warns that not all non-Greek words can be traced to the same language and also that other languages may have existed (the example is that of the languages encoded by Hieroglyphic Minoan and Linear A)



    Posted By: eaglecap
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 18:23
    Originally posted by Vorian Vorian wrote:


    I don't think comparing DNAs with so ancient civilisations is viable.The Minoans were destroyed by the Myceneans which were not too kind to their enemies if Iliad is to be believed. Plus after that came the Dorians and later Kilikian pirates and later Romans and Saracens and then the Byzantines brought other populations from the mainland and then came the Venetians and the Turks.I doubt there is much Minoan DNA left in Crete. The Balkans also went through many invaders but Crete has less population and size


    I tend to agree you but the Minoans I do not think were obliterated by the Mykenean Greeks but their population was aborbed over time. From my previous research it was after Thera erupted that they believe the Greeks simply took advantage of their weakness and either dominated them politically or outright conquered them. It is all speculation since we have no written text from that time. I do believe that one out of so many people could still have this genetic connection but your right because of invasion most would not. I read an article in "Archaeology Magazine about a village in England which was tested for any genetic connection to a pre-Bronze Age Neolithic population and yes one man had that link but I cannot remember all the details of that article. You know how many times England has been invaded but even the Angles, Jutes and Saxons did not totally obliterate the native Celtic population.

    -------------
    Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


    Posted By: edgewaters
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 19:51

    Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:

    I read an article in "Archaeology Magazine about a village in England which was tested for any genetic connection to a pre-Bronze Age Neolithic population and yes one man had that link but I cannot remember all the details of that article. You know how many times England has been invaded but even the Angles, Jutes and Saxons did not totally obliterate the native Celtic population.

    I believe you're referring to Cheddar Man. Actually it was two people, who were direct descendants, and that was only out of a local classroom that they tested (26 people IIRC).

    Not sure how much it applies to other locations though ... I think it would be a mistake to simply assume that populations were equally constant in all other locations just because they were in that one site. It's not really even enough to suggest that the population of all England is that constant, just Somerset (which is not really all that surprising as we already knew that the south-west, like Wales, was much less affected by new arrivals).

    On the other hand it does show that populations can be remarkably consistent over very, very long periods of time, the whole of known history.



    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 21:26
    The paper mentions non-Indo-European geographical names found in Greek that are found as far east as Cilicia.

    http://www.sirkeli-project.info/en/research.html

    Quote Around the end of the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 1600 BC) the Hurrian Language and Religion spread out in Cilicia and mingled with the local Luwian language.


    There is also evidence that those Hurrian populations have remained in the region for centuries, even being identified as other Greeks.

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968(197104)30%3A2%3C99%3ATAFCOL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

    Quote For the variant spellings of Tarsus in antiquity. The transliteration Tarsisi is further supported by evidence which corroborates the location of "the land of Iaman (mat Iamnan)" in Cilicia immediately west of Tarsus. Neo-Babylonian document K. 28122 describes certain men with Luwian and Hurrian names as Ionians or Greeks...Such an ethnic mixture was a characteristic of the population in western Cilicia.


    There is other supportive evidence that links materials found in the Middle Minoan period 1700BC, to those in Cilicia, Crete and Troy. Hurrian merchants could have easily settled into parts of the Aegean, as their population lived near the coast.

    Its also interesting to note that one of the Linear A words read with Linear B values mentions TURUSA and IDA.

    A-ta-no-dju-wa-ja tu-ru-sa du-ra2-re I-da-a / u-na-ka-na-si I-pi-na-ma si-ru-te

    If Ida is the geographical connected to Crete, then Turusa could be a rendering of Cilician Tarsus. And it could very well be a description of a voyage between those two places that occurred frequently in those times.

    -------------


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 15-Dec-2008 at 23:59
    < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> < name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 2.4 Linux"> < ="text/">

    Yes, it is. You all right. IE-scholars have made a great effort on IE language reconstruction, this is true; soon they realize a 'Mediterranaean sub-strata language(s) group' with no links to existent languages.
    In 1985 R.A. Brown published 'Evidence of Pre-Greek speech on Crete from Greek alphabetic sources',  the key point was Pre-Greek phonological feature.
    R. S. P. Beekes goes one step further than, and (p. 3)"......... The comparison with Basque or Caucasian languages has not been considered as this is not my competence; I think it possible that there are such connections, but that must be left to others. My suggestions for reconstructions are not essential.........." that is correct.
    In 1986 Djakonoff & Starostin pubblished "Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language", not really welcomed among scholars.

    Moreover, Chirikba's book: "Common West Caucasian. The reconstruction of its phonological system and parts of its Lexicon and Morphology", put Hattic language related to ProtoWesternCaucasian.; last, but not least "NorthCaucasian Etym. Dict." of Nikolaev & Starostin.

    Now I quote Palmer's book ("The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts") at page 39, ref. to Linear A language inscriptions: "..... < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> < name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 2.4 Linux"> < ="text/"> The existence in the syllabary of a system of opposition plain : palatalized : labialized to the neglect of the oppositions voicelles : voiced : aspirate, which are essential to Greek, strongly suggests that the ancestral form of the syllabary was created for a non-Indo-European language (LP 19. 29). Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages.

    So, if you put together (with caution, obviously) all this people, the conclusion........(I let you to do so).




    Posted By: Leonidas
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 10:51
    Originally posted by Giampaolo Tardivo Giampaolo Tardivo wrote:

    Here we are. I red with interest your forum on Minoan-Anatolian possible links. I recently pointed up a Pre-IE Anatolian substrata language(s) in Crete and Mainland Greece. A good results it comes up after a long research in the field. For some reasons, an Hurrian-like theory is quite possible; unfortunately, Hurrian (and Urartian) did no left it a lot of stuff; also, Pre-Greek word are the first step leading to Linear A decipherment. I also suggest to reed  Beekes 44 pages (in PDF), who's professionaly deal with Pre-Greek language:
    www.indo-european.nl/ied/pdf/pre-greek.pdf 



    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> < name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 2.4 Linux"> < ="text/">

    Yes, it is. You all right. IE-scholars have made a great effort on IE language reconstruction, this is true; soon they realize a 'Mediterranaean sub-strata language(s) group' with no links to existent languages.
    In 1985 R.A. Brown published 'Evidence of Pre-Greek speech on Crete from Greek alphabetic sources',  the key point was Pre-Greek phonological feature.
    R. S. P. Beekes goes one step further than, and (p. 3)"......... The comparison with Basque or Caucasian languages has not been considered as this is not my competence; I think it possible that there are such connections, but that must be left to others. My suggestions for reconstructions are not essential.........." that is correct.
    In 1986 Djakonoff & Starostin pubblished "Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language", not really welcomed among scholars.

    Moreover, Chirikba's book: "Common West Caucasian. The reconstruction of its phonological system and parts of its Lexicon and Morphology", put Hattic language related to ProtoWesternCaucasian.; last, but not least "NorthCaucasian Etym. Dict." of Nikolaev & Starostin.

    Now I quote Palmer's book ("The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts") at page 39, ref. to Linear A language inscriptions: "..... < ="-" ="text/; =utf-8"> < name="GENERATOR" ="Office.org 2.4 Linux"> < ="text/"> The existence in the syllabary of a system of opposition plain : palatalized : labialized to the neglect of the oppositions voicelles : voiced : aspirate, which are essential to Greek, strongly suggests that the ancestral form of the syllabary was created for a non-Indo-European language (LP 19. 29). Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages.

    So, if you put together (with caution, obviously) all this people, the conclusion........(I let you to do so).



    Pablito or Giampaolo Tardivo, you can only have one member account. Please choose so i can shut down the other


    -------------


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 11:46

    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    There is also evidence that those Hurrian populations have remained in the region for centuries, even being identified as other Greeks.

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968%28197104%2930%3A2%3C99%3ATAFCOL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-2968(197104)30%3A2%3C99%3ATAFCOL%3E2.0.CO%3B2-D

    Quote
    For the variant spellings of Tarsus in antiquity. The transliteration Tarsisi is further supported by evidence which corroborates the location of "the land of Iaman (mat Iamnan)" in Cilicia immediately west of Tarsus. Neo-Babylonian document K. 28122 describes certain men with Luwian and Hurrian names as Ionians or Greeks...Such an ethnic mixture was a characteristic of the population in western Cilicia.

    However here it is, as you said, only an ethnic mixture between the Greeks coming from the west and the Hurrians coming from the east (though the author doesn't suggest it, I wouldn't be surprised if their "Ionian" epithet reflects only their loyalty to the Greeks). Anyway, here's what that the article says:
    "In addition to buliding a temple of Athena at Tarsus, Sennacherib changed the name of the city. This act appears to have been an initial attempt by Sennacherib to accomodate the enlarged Greek population by giving a name of the city a Greek termination. The customary spelling in Assyrian documents was Tarzi; the spelling according to the Greek account was Tharsis. Sennacherib's settlement of Greek colonists in Tarsus and his change of the city's name to T(h)arsis is confirmed by a later Assyrian inscription of king Esarhaddon (689-671 B.C.), in which Tarsus is spelled Tarsisi instead of the usual Tarzi, and Tarsisi is used to define the eastern limits of the land of Iaman, i.e. 'the land of the Greeks'"

    Quote Hurrian merchants could have easily settled into parts of the Aegean, as their population lived near the coast.
    Could have, but were they?

    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    You all right. IE-scholars have made a great effort on IE language reconstruction, this is true; soon they realize a 'Mediterranaean sub-strata language(s) group' with no links to existent languages.
    This is true for almost all IE languages.

    Quote In 1986 Djakonoff & Starostin pubblished "Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian language", not really welcomed among scholars.
      The study did not enjoy a very good reception because of some unjustified enthusiasm of the authors: there's not a very large number of correspondents, some are quite generously accepted.

    Quote Such phonemic systems are found inter alia among Caucasian languages
    "Inter alia", not "only" Wink

    Quote So, if you put together (with caution, obviously) all this people, the conclusion........
    Palmer did not suggest that we should address with any degree of certainty the language behind Linear A as a Caucasian language. Djakonoff & Starostin's views are not widely supported (and even if they would, they do not necessarily imply a genetic relationship between Hurro-Urartian and Caucasian languages, they could be simply some neighbouring languages sharing a number of features). I don't see any case here that Hurrian is the language of Linear A. Moreover, many of the arguments made for such a language works for Luwian and the IE Anatolian languages which could transport some features to Aegean.



    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 16:45
    The more interesting point is, what were Hurrians doing in lands the Assyrians identified as Greek areas? We know the Hurrians entered Anatolia centuries before the Greeks. Their descendants could have called themselves by other names, but still maintaing their original language and religion. What's not so obvious is the extent of their influence in the region, were they could have been any of the presently unidentified people mentioned by Greeks and others.

    The Egyptians talk of the islands that are now considered to be Cyprus or sorrounding areas as Keftiu. Some scholars tried to equate Keftiu to Crete and the Minoans, but there appears to be other connections between them.

    http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114(195210)56%3A4%3C196%3AAK%3E2.0.CO%3B2-4

    Direct evidence from Keftiu texts include Hurrian names, and connect them to Cilicia (along with Luwians) and even farther east in the Hurrian city of Nuzi. The article also says the name Atana appears in Nuzi and Keftiu, another source says the name means "The Throne" in Hurrian. Atano is found in the Linear A texts.

    By 1750BC, people from north Syria/southwest Turkey could have been travelling to the Aegean for regular trading after the Sea Peoples were put down. Most prominent among them would be the Hurrians because they were already established in Alalakh by that time.

    I should also mention that the majority of Habiru soldiers had Hurrian names in the Tikunani Prism. So any mention of a Habiru does not explicitly imply someone of Semitic origin.

    In the north the Hurrians were already moving deeper into Hittite areas. Its not well explained why Hurrian culture was so influential to the Hittite when they didn't have a powerful centralized empire (except later as the Mittani). Instead they were part of smaller kingdoms that were rich in culture and commerce.

    The Middle Minoan civilization, noted for its high level of organization and commerce could have originated from Hurrians and other related people who had the advantage of coming from already developed areas in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. They had relatively peaceful interactions with those in the Aegean that mostly involved trade.

    We also have evidence for Hurrian influence in the Aegean from Greek myths, mainly the "Kingship in Heaven Myth" discussed in The Cambridge Companion to Greek Mythology book.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=TQyRX6WmMUMC&pg=PA92

    Mesopotamian parrallels are found between in the story of Zeus and Typhon, where he is recovered by Hermes and Aegipan, and the story of Teshub who is recovered by Ea (who is represented by a stag-fish or goat-fish, the same way as Aegipan).


    -------------


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 17:06
    Chibuldios covers me in most in this case. I have just few comments.

    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:


    soon they realize a 'Mediterranaean sub-strata language(s) group' with no links to existent languages


    That has been one of the theories. That the aegian languages did not belong to a known language group.

    Originally posted by CIEGA SORDOMUDA CIEGA SORDOMUDA wrote:



    Its also interesting to note that one of the Linear A words read with Linear B values mentions TURUSA and IDA.

    A-ta-no-dju-wa-ja tu-ru-sa du-ra2-re I-da-a / u-na-ka-na-si I-pi-na-ma si-ru-te

    If Ida is the geographical connected to Crete, then Turusa could be a rendering of Cilician Tarsus. And it could very well be a description of a voyage between those two places that occurred frequently in those times.


    Ida is a mountain top in Crete as well as the Cretan word for "What?" (instead of Greek Ti). It is also a Phrygian mountain and the godness "Mater Idae". Turusa could be Tarsus yes...However, the main thing of Aegians was trade. Most of the Linear B tablets are trading notes and religious stuff. The same is assumed for Linear A tablets. Tarsus was probably a common destination where trade occured. Still, you have loads of placenames like i mentioned before, which were not changed by Greeks until today, that have anatolian roots.

    Originally posted by eaglecap eaglecap wrote:



    I tend to agree you but the Minoans I do not think were obliterated by the Mykenean Greeks but their population was aborbed over time. From my previous research it was after Thera erupted that they believe the Greeks simply took advantage of their weakness and either dominated them politically or outright conquered them. It is all speculation since we have no written text from that time.



    I have some notes on this subject. First i do not believe there were any Greek invaders in Greece proper, just various people that you could call mello-Greeks. There was an invation of IE people from the north which probably triggered this. The resulting proto-Greeks, must have incorporated aegian populations that had earlier moved to the mainland or simply populations that were related to the aegians. If you look on the frescos of Mycenaeans and Aegians, you'll see they don't seem so distant. At least in the 14th century BC...So whether, they were conquered and subjected or simply co-existed with the proto-Greeks, the aegians seem to have contributed to the future Mycenaeans.












    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 17:27

    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    The more interesting point is, what were Hurrians doing in lands the Assyrians identified as Greek areas? We know the Hurrians entered Anatolia centuries before the Greeks. Their descendants could have called themselves by other names, but still maintaing their original language and religion. What's not so obvious is the extent of their influence in the region, were they could have been any of the presently unidentified people mentioned by Greeks and others.
    However Greek colonies were not ethnically homogenous. Moreover, we have quite often the case that natives preserve their names (or patronyms), but instead embraced Greek language or even Greek (or later some other of the Roman empire) religion, a phenomenon part of what is usually called Hellenization. And also it could be that the Assyrians referred to most inhabitants of Tarsus and other Greek cities as Greeks, though they weren't really Greeks but from whatever native stocks.

     



    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 17:39
    True Chibuldios.
    The Carrians are one example as well as the Pamphylian (Pamphylis = land of all the tribes/races) Greek dialect which developed in south-central anatolia.


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:00
    Sorry for double account, I made a mistake when I clicked on "Log out". So I choose Pablito, you may shut down "Giampaolo Tardivo".
    Well, if you looking for an etymology of 'basileus', I am sure, is not part of IE roots. In Linear B it was written gwa-si-re-u and it mean ' Prince or King (it depends from context)'. It is not due to a chance similarities that Circassian word gwasha or
    gwasa it means  'princess'; moreover, the real meaning (through Abxazian) it come from 'pole, post'.
    Even in IE languages it exist this concept, cf. Lat. rex, regis and  recto; German Reich, rechte or English itself 'ruler', for inches or smb. who's rule the country.




    Posted By: eaglecap
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:29
    I have some notes on this subject. First i do not believe there were any Greek invaders in Greece proper, just various people that you could call mello-Greeks. There was an invation of IE people from the north which probably triggered this. The resulting proto-Greeks, must have incorporated aegian populations that had earlier moved to the mainland or simply populations that were related to the aegians. If you look on the frescos of Mycenaeans and Aegians, you'll see they don't seem so distant. At least in the 14th century BC...So whether, they were conquered and subjected or simply co-existed with the proto-Greeks, the aegians seem to have contributed to the future Mycenaeans

    Flipper - this is an interesting theory. I know that linear B is classified as Greek so are you saying the Mycenaen Greeks were a proto Greek speaking people? So little is really known that everything I have read about this topic is really only theory. The current theory holds that the Mycenean Greeks were invaders but if you have strong theoretical proof otherwise then that would be interesting. I am open!

    -------------
    Well then, brothers and fellow citizens and soldiers, remember this in order that your memorial, your fame and freedom will be eternal.


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 16-Dec-2008 at 19:50
    Other sources that connect Hurrian people to those in Cyprus, Crete, and Etruscan lands.

    Urartian Bronzes in Etruscan Tombs

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/4199609

    Quote He stressed the importance of the trade route Van-Carchemish-Al Mina on the Syrian coast-Rhodes-Corinth-Italy and pointed out that there is no sign of Phoenician influence on certain types of bronces such at the bronze handle attachments for buckers or cauldrons...whose distribution ranges from Urartu in Armenia to Vetulonia and Paeneste in Italy.'
    ...

    It is generally accepcted that the examples of this type found in Asia are Urartian, and that most of the Aegean examples are copies by Greek workmen of the Vannic [Uratian] originals.
    ...

    The question of the route used by the metalsmiths who brought Urartian bronzes to Etruria calls for some discussion. In this there is a little doubt of the importance of Crete. The close relationship between the Barberini base and the "Zeus" shield from the Idaean cave in Crete has already been noted...But there are now further indications which point to an Urartian origin not only for the Barberini cauldron base but also for the "Zeus" shield.
    ...

    Some scholars would be prepared to see here indications of Asiatic-Italian contact attributable to the Sea raiders with their Asiatic cut-and-thrust swords, amongst whom we can number the earliest Etruscan invaders...it would follow that these first invaders, who may well have originated as far away as Eastern Anatolia and Transcaucasia, were followed up by settlers and metalsmiths from the Urartu-Azerbaijan region who kept in touch with their original homeland..

    ...

    The Armenoid type, of which we can find so many examples in Early Etruscan Art, is to be found at home in Urartu and in the areas controlled by her in North Syria.

    ...we have in Cyprus examples of the bronze winged sirens, but with a bull's not a human head, of a type which can be found among Urartian bronzes at Altin Tepe and Karmirblau, and also in Samos.
    ...

    This equipment is shown on the "Hunters" shield from Mount Ida in Crete and on the Bronze quiver and belt from Knossos, Kunzer....The close resemblance between the helmet, belt, and short tunic of the "warrior" relief on the Boghazkoy [Hittite]  gate with that worn by the soldiers on the Cretan bronzes raises the question whether in fact the Boghazkoy relief may not belong to the same period (8th century, so it originated earlier); the Transcaucasian analogies to the axehead certainly reinforce this suggestion.
    ...

    Kunze also lists siren figures from Olympia which he considers undoubted imports. These siren figures are closely comparable to the Vetulonia examples anc can be constrasted with others from Olympia which are obvious Greek copies of Urartian originals.


    -------------


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 21:24
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    Other sources that connect Hurrian people to those in Cyprus, Crete, and Etruscan lands.


    There is one suggestion about a Hurrian connection with Cyprus, as well as there's a theory of Illyrian connection (!) with Cyprus, as well as a Finnic connection. Basically, there's a wild theory for everything in history. Why draw such extremes though and bypass main problems when you have more logical explanations?

    Cyprus is located in an area that was surrounded by afro-asiatic speaking people and anatolians. The eteocypriots were using their language as well as the mixed Arcadocypriot dialect of Greek until the 4th century. They have written billingual documents that are readable both in plain greek writting and Linear C (The Cypriot Linear script).

    Meanwhile, on the north shore a language that i call "a mixed product" develops by Greek and Anatolian populations. Namely, the Pamphylian dialect of Greek. It incorporates Greek, heavily influenced by anatolian elements and even Phrygian. Nothing strange about that considering the populations living in the area, while the name itself means "land of all races".

    What is to be noted linguistically, and therefore I give my credits to Friedrich and Gardhausens anatolian theory, is that some "strictly" Pamphylian words cognate easily with Cypriot. Just few examples:

    Cypriot               Pamphylian                English
    Weto                   Wettia                        year
    Korwa                 Korwalina                    little girl
    Ellowoikos           Ellothemis                   brave
    Diw                      Diwo                           Zeus

    Another interresting note is that Cyprus born Aphrodite as she was known to the Greeks had the name Anassa. Anassa means "breath" in Greek, but it seems like a borowing from the pre-Greek anatolian languages. In order to stick to that ana- prefix, another example is the syllables a-ro-to-wa-na-ko-so-ko. The wa-na-ko cognates with Linear B syllables like wa-na-ka, wa-na-ka-te, wa-na-ka-te-ro etc all products of wanax (later greek anax). The first syllables (a-ro-to) is probably arto, equivalent to the greek aristos.

    Note as well, that the Arcadian populations that settled in the island have their own story. They and other pre-Doric, pre-Achaean people of Peloponesus were autochthonus, no matter if their speech developed in such way to fit in the Hellenic group of languages. As O. Masson (a history of ancient Greece, Cambridge) notes on the eteo-Cypriot names, they can be identified as Greek partially but with non-Greek endings e.g Ni-ka-to-ro, A-na-sa-ko-ra, A-ri-si-to-no-se.

    Enough with the anatolian part...Let's see the south and eastern populations. Skylax, mentions the "Lepethis of the Phoenicians". When I look at archaic Cypriot art it's more than evident that it has more influence from Phoenicia and Egypt than any other non-Greek civilization.






    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 21:39
    Well, Mycenaean were Greeks  - no doubt - before real Greeks coming in, further, they spoken an archaic Greek language or dialect.
    Conversely, they adopted a lot of pre-Mycenaean Greek words; basileus, galaktos, (w)anax, etc......... are Greek at all. Even nowdays Greek language contains 40% or even more of Greek non-IE lexicon.
    A clear sample is '(the) Sun', helios in Greek (like German Sonne, Lat. Sol, Russian Sol-ntze, etc......), which is IE; even talôs it means '(The) Sun' and it is Greek non-IE, obviously, a sub-strata word.


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 18-Dec-2008 at 22:06
    40% non-IE lexicon is far fetched...Where did you get that number from? If that was true then it wouldn't be classified as a fully qualified IE language.

    How would Phrygian and Armenian which are clearly IE languages, stand close to Greek while other non IE languages don't?


    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 19-Dec-2008 at 16:12
    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    Well, Mycenaean were Greeks  - no doubt - before real Greeks coming in, further, they spoken an archaic Greek language or dialect.
    Conversely, they adopted a lot of pre-Mycenaean Greek words; basileus, galaktos, (w)anax, etc......... are Greek at all. Even nowdays Greek language contains 40% or even more of Greek non-IE lexicon.
    A clear sample is '(the) Sun', helios in Greek (like German Sonne, Lat. Sol, Russian Sol-ntze, etc......), which is IE; even talôs it means '(The) Sun' and it is Greek non-IE, obviously, a sub-strata word.

    I second Flipper, 40% seems just too much.
     
    Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )
    http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=2323 - http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=\data\ie\piet&first=2323
     
     


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 01:14
    Anatolia included several different cultures and people, not all of them were IE.
     
    Second, the Phoenicians came after regular maritime trade was ocurring between Syria, Cilicia, Crete, Cyprus, etc. The same with the Greeks, who followed after the Minoans were already active in the Mediterrenean.


    -------------


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 20-Dec-2008 at 23:47
    By name:
    Chilbudios: "Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )"
    Yes, it is perfectly Greek-IE.
    Talo^s    is Greek non-IE.
    Chilbudios and Flipper: "40 %......". No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
    1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
    CiegaSordomud: "Anatolia included several different cultures and people, not all of them were IE."
    It is true. Hittite itself is IE, along with Luwian and others; but the lexicon clearly shown a sub-strata elements.
    Plus "Second, the Phoenicians came after regular maritime trade was ocurring between Syria, Cilicia, Crete, Cyprus, etc. The same with the Greeks, who followed after the Minoans were already active in the Mediterrenean."
    ibidem.
    Flipper: ".Where did you get that number from? If that was true then it wouldn't be classified as a fully qualified IE language.".
    Prof. Onofrio Carruba told me a 40% of Greek is not IE. Chantraine, Boisacq, Walde-Pokorny, Frisk, etc...... (more or less) are not unlikely. Prof. O. Carruba actively working until 2006 at Pavia University in Aegean-Anatolian studies; he is now retired.
    So, if somebody think to a "Minoan civilization originated in Anatolia", I agree; plus "non-IE and non AfroAsiatic (or Ham-Sem.)", [I agree] double up.



    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 11:10
    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
    1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
     By non-IE do you mean here pre-IE? (all your examples are of pre-IE words)
    The vocabulary of modern Greek is basically formed of:
    -pre-IE inherited lexicon
    -IE inherited lexicon
    -borrowings from other languages: Semitic languages, other IE languages like Persian or Latin, Turkic languages etc.
    -internal word derivations
     
    It seems to me quite unlikely that the archaic non-IE words (substratum plus very early borrowings and their derivations) would go up to 40% in modern standard Greek. Perhaps all non-IE words (i.e. including relatively recent loans from languages like Ottoman Turkish) and their derivations, but even then I'm not so sure about it.
     
     


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 21-Dec-2008 at 23:53
    Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    No problem. Meanwhile language is classified or belonging to this or that group or family (mainly) by grammar (morpho-syntax); lexicon is split in percentage, e.g: Language ABC (any), could have a lexicon of  22% from 1,  15% from 2,  9% from 3.
    1, 2, 3 stands for any other language.
     By non-IE do you mean here pre-IE? (all your examples are of pre-IE words)
    Yes, it is.
    The vocabulary of modern Greek is basically formed of:
    -pre-IE inherited lexicon
    -IE inherited lexicon
    -borrowings from other languages: Semitic languages, other IE languages like Persian or Latin, Turkic languages etc.
    -internal word derivations
    Does it seems to me that you perfectly understand how language it working. Ancient Greek contains a lot of pre-IE lexical items, a small percentage  are clearly Semitics.
     
    It seems to me quite unlikely that the archaic non-IE words (substratum plus very early borrowings and their derivations) would go up to 40% in modern standard Greek. Perhaps all non-IE words (i.e. including relatively recent loans from languages like Ottoman Turkish) and their derivations, but even then I'm not so sure about it.
    Once again, you are perfectly all right. Sub-strata [or pre-IE] include also borrowings. Newcomers followed ancient traders' route.
    My assumption is based on the available evidence.
    A sample:
    Pre-Greek                                                Hurrian                                                 ProtoNorthCaucasian
    aisye^te^r     'prince'                               shaw     'mighty'                                   * shewV     'height'
    akhyron 
           'chaff'                                 harw/b-  'straw'                                    * xhwerxh    'straw'
    [Pre-Greek: ph= phi, th= theta, kh= khi, e^, o^=  eta, omega, y= upsilon.
     Hurrian: h, sh = fricatives
     PNC : sh = fricative, xh = uvular fricative].
    Look: Pre-Greek a-, ai- > Hurrian and PNC * 0- [zero]. First one is interesting, for the simple reason A-M Tremouille and Ilse Wegner explained Hurrian goddess name Shawushka as derivative form from [adj.] shaw-'great' , that is mean '[The] Great one'; and it is not a coincidence that PNC form for 'height' has similar phonological feature. So, Pre-Greek 'princely [youth]' as Aristarco wrote, it agree with Hurrian goddess name (and adjectival root) and PNC 'height', also I proposed a common root as * (ai)shwe- or similar then, at the end it described 'smth or smb on top'.
    Something similar [semantically]  exist in Greek-IE, words like oi megaloi or Aristo-cracy.

     
     


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 01:04
    Sha is an Elamite word for Great. Found in the name Napirisha, "Great God." It might be also where Persian Shah (king) derived from.

    -------------


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 15:30
    Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

    Sha is an Elamite word for Great. Found in the name Napirisha, "Great God." It might be also where Persian Shah (king) derived from.


    I am not surprised about that. This is what prof. John Colarusso (McMaster Uni., Ontario, Canada) like to hear of. He wrote to me to a possible macro-family including Elamo-Dravidian and NorthCaucasian languages.
    Personally I prefer to work to an Aegean-Anatolian sub-strata and ProtoNorthCaucasian - including Hurro-Urartian and Hattic - languages link, in so far more reliable.


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 22-Dec-2008 at 16:34

    Pablito,

    Thank you for your appreciations!

    About your assumption and examples, on one hand akhyron (I'll preserve your transliteration conventions) was recently proved to mean (also) "straw" (see Chadwick's corrections of LSJ), thus your second example contains a semantical identity (if the Hurrian form is correct, I know little about Hurrian) and thus is more persuasive than it originally looked.

    But on the other side, I'm not so sure about some other aspects of this hypothetical link.

    1. Is aisye^te^r the original form of this word?
    In LSJ: aisymne^te^r, -e^ros "ruler, prince" (Homer, Iliad, 24.347); looking in several editions of Iliad, I found both aisye^te^ri and aisymne^te^ri in text, I wonder which is the original one?
    In Liddell, 1889 ed: aisymne^te^r (aisymnao^) "a prince" (I guess the verb would mean something like "to rule over")

    I also looked in the glosses of Hesychius, and I found aisye^te^ri (A 59), aisymne^tai (A 63) which I located in Homer, Odyssey, 8.258.

    So my question is the original, archaic form with "mn" or without? (it's interesting to note however that Beekes regards the "mn" group "quite possible in PIE words, but [...] frequent in Pre-Greek", moreover regards the group "ymn" as an indicator of the pre-Greek substratum, giving also the verb aisymnao^ among examples)

    2. Not long ago, on some other thread, this interesting link was posted:
    http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm - http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

    I usually go with linguistic theories where evidence is strong and interconnected. I am skeptic about those hypotheses and theories built from few examples. Certainly, you may have more aces in your sleeve to support this a-/ai- in Pre-Greek which vanished in PNC and Hurrian, but until the proper evidence will be mounted (here or in some scholarly studies), I think it's wise not to attach pre-Greek to another language for which we do not have persuasive evidence, even for the simple reason that will bring a bias in our future researches.

    And I did not yet understand, how could one tell in such a case when it's a genetical link and where there are two languages in contact which get to share some vocabulary, some phonological features, etc.?

     



    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 02:37
    'Persuasive' evidence is hard to come by, especially with relatively unknown languages. Still, a hypothesis can be made, and some form of relation can be created. To me they key is not diverging into either extreme of an argument, becaused the nature of language/cutural formation is varied. Not a single explanation can apply in all cases (for example, some of those Pre-IE roots in Greek could be from a population native to the area, proto-Kartvelian/South Caucasian,  or a later arrival like Hurrian).
     
    These are probable cognates between Etruscan and Sumerian. Althought they are sometimes labeled as 'false' cognates due to fewer evidence. You have to think of the probability of having this set of basic words to be very similar to each other.
     
    Sumerian being more ancient and becoming extinct sooner, I wouldn't attribute it as an absolute direct ancestor to Etruscan, but there is definetly a connection. Sumerian was used as a classical language for thousands of years after it was replaced by Semitic languages. There is a probability that it survived into western Anatolia, used by some elites in a Hurrian or post-Sumerian population, and it entered into the founding Etruscan population.
     
    This viewpoint is very similar to that of Urartian, which some consider to be a conservative, classical form of Hurrian. Preserved over time as intrusions of other languages (mainly IE) became common.
     
    Etruscan am (to be), and Sumerian am (to be)
    Etruscan ac (to make, act) and Sumerian ak (to make,act)
    Etruscan an (he/she/it) and Sumerian ane (he/she/it)
    Etruscan ipa (who, which) and Sumerian aba (who)
    Etruscan mi (I/me) and Sumerian ma (I/me)


    -------------


    Posted By: Flipper
    Date Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 11:09
    Originally posted by Pablito Pablito wrote:

    By name:
    Chilbudios: "Helios seems IE ( s before vowels becomes h in Greek )"
    Yes, it is perfectly Greek-IE.
    Talo^s    is Greek non-IE.


    I have not much time to comment much right now, but before this goes out of control, i should start correcting some elementary mistakes.

    Talos is 100% indoeuropean...It is from the IE (s)tal- which means "to stick out" or "extend out or project in space" or in a more informal way "to jut out".

    Cretans used Talos as an equivalent to the Sun. The sun does many of the things above. It sticks out from the horizon and projects its light.

    The -os ending is common in IE languages like Greek, Thracian, Phrygian, Albanian and the list goes on...

    The Greek equivalent of Tal- is Stel- like the IE-root word. E.g Stelechos. In Germanic languages the root is Stal-. In Celtic, i'm not 100% sure but i think it is Tail-.

    Also, you have another IE root of Tal- which means "sprout". Taleos or Talios is the word in Greek. Tala is in indian and i think it also corresponds a palm tree.



    -------------


    Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 11:10
    When one wants to see in linguistics a positivist discipline and not some speculative wordplay then he has provide evidences even for hypotheses. "Relatively unknown" is not an excuse, but a reason to be careful, decent, rational.
     
    Let me give you an example I am very familiar with. Thracian is a relatively unknown IE language. However, some scholars identified isoglosses, relationships, etc. How did they do that? For instance, the isoglosses were drawn mainly from the toponymy were based on more than 100 names and most of matches are perfect and most of the variations are completely regular (for instance, justifiable by the changes in prounciation and spelling in Ancient Greek and Latin)! (and the material is now improved with studies on the epigraphical record, including anthroponymy,  etc.).
    In such conditions how would you expect to make plausible a case based on few words?
     
    The probability of some words to be very similar in two unrelated languages is higher than you'd expect (please check the link from my previous post).
    Or this one, from the same site:
    http://www.zompist.com/proto.html - http://www.zompist.com/proto.html
     
     
     


    Posted By: CiegaSordomud
    Date Posted: 23-Dec-2008 at 18:30
    Dont even compare Thracian with Hurrian. We know a lot about IE languages and can make pretty good comparisons with others we already have information on, and in most cases its like comparing dialects if you get to a close enough language.

    With what 'macrofamily' are you going to compare Hurrian or Etruscan to? Its not that simple.

    Actual work has been done with Uralic/Etruscan, Hurrian/North Caucasian, Elamitic/Dravidian, and their proof has been acceptable thus far, except to the extremists on the other side that dont accept any language connections except IE. So you also have to be rational and at least keep some tentative hypothesis at your disposal until further evidence comes.


    -------------


    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 00:36
    We actually know much more of Hurrian than we know of Thracian. Because in Hurrian we have tens of inscriptions while in Thracian some 3-4 (all virtually untranslated, almost any scholar studying them came with his own "translation", actually some groundless speculation based on some assumed IE cognates). In Hurrian we can articulate full sentences, but not in Thracian. We know some things about Hurrian grammar, but very little of the Thracian one. True we know several important things about Thracian, something about its phonology, we have some tens translateable words, we know very little about its grammar, but that was my point. These small things are the result of a much more solid corpus of evidence compared with what usually it is given to relate Sumerian to Etruscan or whatever other similar exotic links.
     
    We don't need macrofamilies if we don't have the proper evidence. Sumerian is usually labeled as isolate and that is a good enough description given our present knowledge.
     
    What you call 'actual work' is rather controversial scholarship, because of the failure of those scholars to present persuasive evidence. Your position to label the other camp as 'extremist' is disingenous considering the normal thing is to provide proper evidence and this did not happen (and it's not at all related to IE connections, no one would oppose Semitic or Altaic or whatever other connections if proper evidences are given). How could be one extremist just for asking a persuasive case before blindly believing in a hypothesis? To be rational is to be skeptic when facing such speculations.
     
    Tentative hypotheses are often sources of bias. And considering what you posted so far (pushing the links between Hurrians and whatever other Mediterranean people), I think you prove my point.
     


    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 23:19
    Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

    Pablito,

    Thank you for your appreciations!

    About your assumption and examples, on one hand akhyron (I'll preserve your transliteration conventions) was recently proved to mean (also) "straw" (see Chadwick's corrections of LSJ), thus your second example contains a semantical identity (if the Hurrian form is correct, I know little about Hurrian) and thus is more persuasive than it originally looked.

    But on the other side, I'm not so sure about some other aspects of this hypothetical link.

    1. Is aisye^te^r the original form of this word?
    In LSJ: aisymne^te^r, -e^ros "ruler, prince" (Homer, Iliad, 24.347); looking in several editions of Iliad, I found both aisye^te^ri and aisymne^te^ri in text, I wonder which is the original one?
    In Liddell, 1889 ed: aisymne^te^r (aisymnao^) "a prince" (I guess the verb would mean something like "to rule over")

    I also looked in the glosses of Hesychius, and I found aisye^te^ri (A 59), aisymne^tai (A 63) which I located in Homer, Odyssey, 8.258.

    So my question is the original, archaic form with "mn" or without? (it's interesting to note however that Beekes regards the "mn" group "quite possible in PIE words, but [...] frequent in Pre-Greek", moreover regards the group "ymn" as an indicator of the pre-Greek substratum, giving also the verb aisymnao^ among examples)

    2. Not long ago, on some other thread, this interesting link was posted:
    http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm - http://www.zompist.com/chance.htm

    I usually go with linguistic theories where evidence is strong and interconnected. I am skeptic about those hypotheses and theories built from few examples.

    To be skeptic it's fine. Problem is when it persist endlessly. Unetymologized words must have a cognate somewhere, unless is really impossible. Mind ! Hittite and Mycenaean Greek scholar(s) (who's string those language to IE family) were baffled at beginning; only after (a) decade their theory has  been  accepted.

    Certainly, you may have more aces in your sleeve to support this a-/ai- in Pre-Greek which vanished in PNC and Hurrian, but until the proper evidence will be mounted (here or in some scholarly studies),

    Yes, it is. I have got 100's of such comparison accepted even from accademics people.

    I think it's wise not to attach pre-Greek to another language for which we do not have persuasive evidence, even for the simple reason that will bring a bias in our future researches.

    [snip]

    And I did not yet understand, how could one tell in such a case when it's a genetical link and where there are two languages in contact which get to share some vocabulary, some phonological features, etc.?

    This is a very interesting question, and it is part of 'Basic in Linguistics'.

    Language is seen in different way before return a verdict. The statement is (in diachronic and/ or synchronic way)

    By phonological feature (quite complicate): V(owel) and C(onsonant); so, CCVC, CCV, VCC, VCV, etc........in the root

    By morphology : All world languages' are classified one of three 'class': 1-         monosyllabic (e.g: Chinese)

                                                                                                                      2-         agglutinative (e.g: Japanese, Turk)

                                                                                                                      3-        flexive (e.g: English)

    By Syntax, word order  S(ubject) - O(bject) - V(erb), so : SVO, SOV, VSO, VOS, etc......; plus A(djective) - N(oun) or viceversa (NA ~  AN).

    By semantics. It make sense in my own language (or group or family) not in the other one(s).

    By other minor aspects. Mind ! There is a lot of (pseudo) words with no root: Nursery (CV x2, like tata, juju, caca, lili, etc.........) and onomatopeic (e.g: English spalsh, clap, etc.......). History, environment,  (possibly) contact with others, hisorical development, means (of life), etc.......are also  part of Glottochronology.

    Once you set up all this feature (with few exception(s)), you are safe and........peace of mind. Exception should be treaty as part of secondary rules or borrowings.

    I hope I satisfied  your query. That is why scholars always disputed each other about dadada dadada dadada dadada





    Posted By: Chilbudios
    Date Posted: 25-Dec-2008 at 21:14

    Quote To be skeptic it's fine. Problem is when it persist endlessly. Unetymologized words must have a cognate somewhere, unless is really impossible. Mind ! Hittite and Mycenaean Greek scholar(s) (who's string those language to IE family) were baffled at beginning; only after (a) decade their theory has  been  accepted.
    I don't think one can forget being skeptic just for the sake of not being skeptic endlessly. The end should be marked by evidence.
    There are a lot of words we can't etymologize, either they do not have cognates or if they do, they do have in languages which are extinct and unknown or partly known.

    As for the history of linguistics, for a succesful theory there are a lot of speculations which were proved wrong. And let's not forget that the discovery of a language like Hittite or Mycenean Greek was caused by a large corpus of texts, something we don't have for pre-Greek (if it is only one language and not several). There's no similar discovery of an unattested language, the ones we know so far were built with perseverance, consensus and caution over many decades (or even centuries for languages like PIE).

    However, the history of linguistic discoveries can teach us some precious lessons. Let's take Hittite, for instance. Many of the early "decipherments" of this language were mostly wrong, In late 19th century Sayce "deciphered" the bilingual Hama inscription, however most of his sign identifications were wrong. Even after Winckler discovered the great Boghazköy archive, there were still scholars like Weidner going in the wrong direction in their attempts to decipher this language. The scholars of early 20th century didn't know, for instance, of Suppiluliuma, but of Supalulu (as they read this name from Egyptian inscriptions). IIRC in those years Knudtzon alone speculated Hittite to be an IE language (based on several texts, however) but later retracted his hypothesis not having a solid basis to support it. The wide acceptance of Hittite's IE character came with the work of the Czech scholar Hrozny, who's usually also credited with the first real decipherment of this language. Let's also note that Hrozny initially thought of Hittite as a non-IE language.
    In an interview in a Czech publication Hrozny declared about his daring hypotheses (my translation from Romanian, which in turn is from a book translated from Czech): "I like to mention that I do not care at all about my hypotheses and I gladly sacrifice even the most beautiful hypothesis of mine if it results in knowledge leading to scientific truth, the only one which I'm interested in."

    Mycenean Greek has a similar story. It was long before that Linear B, a "Minoan script" (as thought by Evans, more exactly he thought of it as some sort of revision of Linear A, but encoding the same language) was recognized to be an early form of Greek, and this recognition came with proper evidence, Ventris' decipherment. Let's also note that Ventris held stranger initial hypotheses, like several other scholars in his time, i.e. that "Minoan" and Etruscan were related. Also before Ventris actually came with his deciphering, a lot of strange theories relating Minoan words to Greek, Basque and other languages, some ridiculed by Ventris himself. For instance, in an article published in AJA in 1940, he mentions Stawell's reading of Minos as "Mother, Nymph, Savior" (Stawell actually went further in suggesting that the language of Phaistos Disk is also some variation of Ionian Greek). Though Linear B was eventually proven to be an earlier form of Greek, that is untrue for the other Aegean scripts and moreover her "evidences" are today regarded as inacceptable.

    The morale of such stories is that the hypotheses lacking solid evidence were often wrong and arguably fruitless and even burdensome, considering the bias they caused and the effort needed by scholarship to discard them (Beekes himself argued on pre-Greek theories "'Pelasgian' has done much harm and it is time to definitely reject it").


    Quote
    Yes, it is. I have got 100's of such comparison accepted even from accademics people.
    And which are the most persuasive evidences in this direction? I hope you don't mind my doubts, but on the whole I found that comparision rather unpersuasive. Besides that unanswered question from my previous post there are also several phonological incongruencies or at least doubts (e.g. the vocalism). And besides, when checking the scholarly perspective of Pre-Greek, apparently the most wide-spread opinion is that we can't assign it with a reasonable certainty to a single other known language. For instance, Yvex Duhoux on pre-Greek in A History of Ancient Greek (A. F. Christidis ed., 2007), Anna Morpurgo Davies in the chapter "The linguistic evidence. Is there any?" in The End of the Early Bronze Age in the Aegean (Gerald Cadogan ed., 1986) and even R. S. P. Beekes.

    Quote
    Once you set up all this feature (with few exception(s)), you are safe and........peace of mind. Exception should be treaty as part of secondary rules or borrowings.

    I hope I satisfied  your query. That is why scholars always disputed each other about dadada dadada dadada dadada

    It was rather a rhetorical question (but I wouldn't have minded to be proven wrong). Though I disagree with some of the details of your presentation, you seem to admit that a case for pre-Greek (or any other relatively unknown and unattested languages) cannot be safe because we can't "set up all those features".



    Posted By: Pablito
    Date Posted: 26-Dec-2008 at 19:32
    About Mycenaean and Hittite, an IE theory has been  accepted time to time.
    Further, Rosetta stone make Egyptian decipherment easy and reliable; unfortunately, not all ancient languages  had a 'Rosetta stone'.
    I do not mind if you arise some doubt, it is coherent with your point of view.
    The phrase "
    we can't assign it with a reasonable certainty to a single other known language." it is correct, as prof John Colarusso wrote to me "Linguists are notoriously conservative".
    Some linguists are 'hunters'. They try any effort, exact matches and good result coming from hardwork, not easy way.
    Years ago (10-15), I  already saw  NorthCaucasian feature in Pre-Greek language; infortunately I did not have materials   (books, Internet, etc....) or  scholars to talk about; plus no books edited outside U.S.S.R, very rare and in rubbish paper. 
    Now is different, I collect a lot of stuff, I do  any effort for the best result; NOW  scholars do not reject my proposal.
    I hope you (and all Forum)  understand.



    Print Page | Close Window

    Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
    Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net