# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  (OFFTOPIC from Sea Peoples)

## Yetos

> wilusa = ilusa = ilios = troy or trojan lands, 
> homer used a name for the city and a name for the lands


That is a myth that Troya means the area, created you know by who. 
troya as land is after tera IE word not Pelasgian.

Nope the city is Ilion after Ilos but the people are Troyans 
the Troyans probably means the same with Etruscans (En+Turcis) if we accept that terminology, 
but for me both Troyans Etruscans and Attica share the Hatti,
the Hattians used to start their cities with Hath-
so Hath-kon = Attica (compare ko no so =Knossos,) 
Hath+roya raya rugia? = Troya Troia 
Hath+rusc = Etruscan 
Hath +riya = Hatria in Adriatic 

in Greek Alphabet it is more obvious

χαθ+κωνος = χΑττικα ->Αττικα (κο+νο+σο = κνοσσος)
χαθ + ρογια = χαΤρογια ->Τροια 
χαθ + ρουγια =χΕτρουγια -> Etrucia->Etruscia
χαθ+ριγια = χΑτριγια -> Χατρια -Hatria

also a mountain that exist in Cyprus Τρωοδος 
http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Τρόοδος

which might be from Pelasgian origin name, although there is another explanation also 
compare Hath+turca = Hatussa the capital of Hatti

so the word Troy probably meant city of Hatti as endonym and Tyrenes (Etruscans-Thyrrenians) Tyrenes = Troyans the exonyms that Homer uses to describe the tribe, not the area
the word troya that exist in some Balcanic languages is similar to Latin tera a IE word and i Believe has nothing to do with the word Troy which means something like tower (en Turcis) or Hatti-city


HOMER NAMES THE CITY AND THE LAND AS ILION AND THE PEOPLE AS TROYANS, NOT THE LAND, 
NEVER NAME THE TROYANS AS ILIANS OR ILLYRIANS 
TROYA AS LAND IS AFTER LATIN TERA AN IE WORD NOT A PELASGIAN
TROYANS IS LIKE TYRRENIANS (En +Turcis or or Hath+rucia)

Zanipolo once again you seem to believe what ever is written, by the modern Olga lubovic poppovic of Albania Zeus 10, who in order to prove that Troyans and Etruscans were Albanians find connection of word troya with Troia and Etruria. 
the troya of Albanian is after IE terra territory (terra gaia are IE terra+gaia= big area, open land, a peripheral,)
the Troia is after its people
Homer says ες Ιλιον and Τρωες and not εs Τροια and Ilans Illyrians Illuwankas as you say

Search in Greece the city of Theseus an ancient Athenen semi-god
it is named Τροιζην 

http://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Τροιζήνα

Τροιζην is the mother land of Theseus and many other who migrate to Attica
the connection of Troizen to Attica is bigger than to IE Argolis so we probably speak about a small Pelasgian satelite city of Attica Athens 
the similarity of Τροιζην Τροια Τρουσκανς etc is obvious
again we speak about a city not a area, a land,
*
Troia is the nation of Troyans*
*ILION is after the builder ILOS and means the city and the Land*

*it is not the war of Troy, But ILIAS the war in ILION*

Troyan wars is like Persian wars,
Persian wars does not mean that it happens in Persia. but with Persians
Troyan war does not mean war with the land but with Troyans -Tyrrenes

*
Homer Uses the name ILION for city and Land* ες Ιλιον*
And Troes Troyans for the nation, the people 
it is Ilion who is inhabited by Troyans
and not Troy who is inhabited by Ilians Illyrians 

*as ZEUS10 would like to

----------


## zanipolo

> That is a myth that Troya means the area, created you know by who.


who?






> Nope the city is Ilion after Ilos but the people are Troyans 
> the Troyans probably means the same with Etruscans (En+Turcis) if we accept that terminology, 
> but for me both Troyans Etruscans and Attica share the Hatti,
> the Hattians used to start their cities with Hath-
> so Hath-kon = Attica (compare ko no so =Knossos,) 
> Hath+roya raya rugia? = Troya Troia 
> Hath+rusc = Etruscan 
> Hath +riya = Hatria in Adriatic


If we believe in roman and veneti ( eneti) stories, then ok............i do not believe in this





> so the word Troy probably meant city of Hatti as endonym and Tyrenes (Etruscans-Thyrrenians) Tyrenes = Troyans the exonyms that Homer uses to describe the tribe, not the area
> the word troya that exist in some Balcanic languages is similar to Latin tera a IE word and i Believe has nothing to do with the word Troy which means something like tower (en Turcis) or Hatti-city


hittite text says the area of troy was called wilusa.




> HOMER NAMES THE CITY AND THE LAND AS ILION AND THE PEOPLE AS TROYANS, NOT THE LAND, 
> NEVER NAME THE TROYANS AS ILIANS OR ILLYRIANS 
> TROYA AS LAND IS AFTER LATIN TERA AN IE WORD NOT A PELASGIAN
> TROYANS IS LIKE TYRRENIANS (En +Turcis or or Hath+rucia)


Homer says, Ilion for land and ilias for city. I do not know it they where illyrian, but I doubt that very very much. Possiblity they are thracian = yes. The thracians where neighbours of trojans in anatolia




> Zanipolo once again you seem to believe what ever is written, by the modern Olga lubovic poppovic of Albania Zeus 10, who in order to prove that Troyans and Etruscans were Albanians find connection of word troya with Troia and Etruria. 
> the troya of Albanian is after IE terra territory (terra gaia are IE terra+gaia= big area, open land, a peripheral,)
> the Troia is after its people
> Homer says ες Ιλιον and Τρωες and not εs Τροια and Ilans Illyrians Illuwankas as you say



i do not believe this, where did I say this?




> *
> Troia is the nation of Troyans*
> *ILION is after the builder ILOS and means the city and the Land*
> 
> *it is not the war of Troy, But ILIAS the war in ILION*
> 
> Troyan wars is like Persian wars,
> Persian wars does not mean that it happens in Persia. but with Persians
> Troyan war does not mean war with the land but with Troyans -Tyrrenes


veneti will never say they are trojans because a Troj = dirt path , a troja = a cheap prositute . Why would they refer to themselves as this?



> *
> Homer Uses the name ILION for city and Land* ες Ιλιον*
> And Troes Troyans for the nation, the people 
> it is Ilion who is inhabited by Troyans
> and not Troy who is inhabited by Ilians Illyrians 
> 
> *as ZEUS10 would like to


Re you writing for someone else?

----------


## 8mike

> Nope the city is Ilion after Ilos but the people are Troyans 
> the Troyans probably means the same with Etruscans (En+Turcis) if we accept that terminology, 
> but for me both Troyans Etruscans and Attica share the Hatti,
> the Hattians used to start their cities with Hath-
> so Hath-kon = Attica (compare ko no so =Knossos,) 
> Hath+roya raya rugia? = Troya Troia 
> Hath+rusc = Etruscan 
> Hath +riya = Hatria in Adriatic 
> 
> ...


let's say this is the real meaning of those name, we can attempt a connection with PIE *atta (father) which revolves into Hittite *attas ? If so can we connect other places to those, such as Athens (*atta (*hath) + *ena)? This acn give to those name a significance of "father land" + other word.

the *reusc can be related to *reus (elm, often used in toponims) or to *roi (hill) or *rei (to possess) or *rek - *rem (to tower up, to project, to rest)
the *kon you used in Attica can refer to *ken (to be born, to begin, come forth anew)

all of those are my suppositions assuming that what you said is truthfull, which is impossible to demonstrate unfortunately, but interesting enough

----------


## Yetos

> let's say this is the real meaning of those name, we can attempt a connection with PIE *atta (father) which revolves into Hittite *attas ? If so can we connect other places to those, such as Athens (*atta (*hath) + *ena)? This acn give to those name a significance of "father land" + other word.
> 
> the *reusc can be related to *reus (elm, often used in toponims) or to *roi (hill) or *rei (to possess) or *rek - *rem (to tower up, to project, to rest)
> the *kon you used in Attica can refer to *ken (to be born, to begin, come forth anew)
> 
> all of those are my suppositions assuming that what you said is truthfull, which is impossible to demonstrate unfortunately, but interesting enough



I guess you read that in Zeus10? or you saw it in YouTube?
Sorry non conected with IE , the Hath probably ment something like Human compare Ανθρωπος (human) 
if we enter to way of Thinking that you say then Hatria (Greek Patria) means fathers land which lead us to a way from Italy to minor Asia and not from minor Asia to Italy,
but Both Genetic and Linguistic show us the opposite that 'Father land' was minor Asia.
Any connection of Pelasgian and Etruscan with IE especially the connection that certain Albanian circles promote is totaly wrong, 
*the most possible is that Etruscans is after 
Hath-Rascena ->Etruscans 
now Rascena and Raetia 
we might talk like 
Hath-Raetia ->Hatria*

Pelagonia means that the land once was sea, a Pelagos. 

*A good Linguistic example is that rich land owner had a title like Furun which can be found in Aramaic and Hebrew as Farouch Farish by what I can remember*
Fur goes to Par in Greek compare Παρνης-Παρνηθος Παρνων Παρνασσος
probably something like Highlands or farming land I read somewhere, 
compare words like Elam El-a-mat (holy Land-Temple) compare E-mat-heia 
Even the word Ellas has a meaning in PElasgian as EL +La = Holy Stone as many Linguist claim but from me is most suitable that is after Hellanas River (Eel river)

Pelasgian word in Albanian is Ereb (dark -Black) and many others that someone must search,


words like Farm in Latin is after Hatti compare Parn- and Fur

----------


## DejaVu

> let's say this is the real meaning of those name, we can attempt a connection with PIE *atta (father) which revolves into Hittite *attas ? If so can we connect other places to those, such as Athens (*atta (*hath) + *ena)? This acn give to those name a significance of "father land" + other word.
> 
> the *reusc can be related to *reus (elm, often used in toponims) or to *roi (hill) or *rei (to possess) or *rek - *rem (to tower up, to project, to rest)
> the *kon you used in Attica can refer to *ken (to be born, to begin, come forth anew)
> 
> all of those are my suppositions assuming that what you said is truthfull, which is impossible to demonstrate unfortunately, but interesting enough


Wrong.

Its Ata (Tata) + ena (edna) = Father + one = Atena is born from her fathers head and got only one parent = Father and no mother. Same meaning in Modern Macedonian and many other slavic languages.

"Athena is "born" from Zeus' forehead"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena

Everytime something is translated people use Latin or Greek = Wrong 
Why? Both languages are new compared to Slavic or Germanic.

Ella means in Greek/slavic Macedonian = come
Ellada = land of the people who came?
Hellas = New settlers?

Hellenes the people (Danoi) who came from Egypt and got the language and alphabet from Cadmus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadmus

Achilles was Pelasgian and so was Paris (Alexander), not Hellenes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_(mythology)

----------


## Yetos

> let's say this is the real meaning of those name, we can attempt a connection with PIE *atta (father) which revolves into Hittite *attas ? If so can we connect other places to those, such as Athens (*atta (*hath) + *ena)? This acn give to those name a significance of "father land" + other word.
> 
> the *reusc can be related to *reus (elm, often used in toponims) or to *roi (hill) or *rei (to possess) or *rek - *rem (to tower up, to project, to rest)
> the *kon you used in Attica can refer to *ken (to be born, to begin, come forth anew)
> 
> all of those are my suppositions assuming that what you said is truthfull, which is impossible to demonstrate unfortunately, but interesting enough


*are we reconstructing IE languages according Albanian?*

*First of All I said Atticaas Pelasgian word and not Athens*

*Second if you Believe that Attica is After Albanian Ate = Father that means that Father Land of Albanians is Attica Greece so Albanians are of Greek ORIGIN since their father Land is Greece 
Thank you for testify that* 


*Κωνος* = the pyramid, the city that starts with low builgings and in Center are they High, 
Mykonos Mycenae = Mu +ko +no
ko+no+so+ κνωσσος 

*Attica Attili Attussa Atria are all these Father land of Etruscans?*

Αθηνα from Albanian Atte +*ena ?? only an Albanian can thought of that,
Αθηνα is after 4 meanings 
1)the egyptian-Libyan Goddess *Neith* 

2) compare Di-onysus Dias Di-meter Afro-Dite Posei-Di-on A-Di-s etc, all means god Di in Brygian Ti-os 
the virb is θεω Theo means fast Runner so Athena means that one who runs fast when you call her or prey to her
compare Αθηνα with *γοργοεπικωος* the fast hear and come,

3) godess *Hannahannah*

4) Divine think Θεια Νοησις-νους *Diwya+no* 

*I wonder in Albania all day you guys have nothing to do except to rebuild the IE and especially the Greek Language?
what are you aiming to? to prove that Albania is the older and the original IE and all others especially Greek are Albanian words?

Are you all guys try to explain Greek Language with non Greek words?
why to say then that Athena is Albanian Goddess?
In that way I say Albanians = Alubians = Αλλος Βιος = they came from elsewhere.
Is that a logic in That.
why you are doing it?
do you get paid by someone? 
Athena a Greek city and Greek Goddess can not be explained by Greek but with Albanian?
so the Greeks who build the city and worship the Goddess did not Spoke Greek but Albanian?

So what? the real Greeks are Albanians? and Greeks are Romans and Turks?
only a stupid like Aristeidh Kolla said that.

watch the Video 

*a*re we kidding? do you believe these crub?

8mike i know the site you read that, I want to ask you 2 questions,
Do wanna Be more Greek than Greeks?
DO you Believe Albanians are more Greek than Greeks?


*<strong>

*


DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CRUP?

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ALBANIANS ARE MORE GREEKS THAN GREEKS?
OR YOU BELIEVE THAT GREEKS ARE ALBANIANS THAT FORGOT THEIR LANGUAGE AND MUST LEARN IT AGAIN?

IT IS ANOTHER THINK TO WANNA BE SOMETHING, AND ANOTHER TO SAY TO SOMEONE ELSE WHO HE IS.

DEJAVU IS RIGHT ATHENA IS AFTER TATA+*ENA SO IS A SLAVIAN GODDESS AND GREEKS ARE SLAVS And Not ALBANIANS

BTW THANKS DEJAVU 
Next time I use Slavic to explain Greek
*Ελα = Ι invite or order you to come, virb is Ερχομαι Past Ηλθον non regular like go went went
so if they came from Egypt someone Else Invited them or Order Them. 
Maybe the Bulgarian Santanski did ?

so the ones who came are ερχομενοι or Ελθοντες Not Ελληνες,

Ελλας Hellas is After Ellanas river (Eel river)
and if you want a Pelasgian non IE explanation is like EL+LA = God or Sun + Stone-Rocks
which is mostly expressed by certain circles




> Ella means in Greek/slavic Macedonian = come
> Ellada = land of the people who came?
> Hellas = New settlers?



I see you are learning Makedonian Language,

καλως Ηλθες dobrodozdovde

----------


## 8mike

> *are we reconstructing IE languages according Albanian?*
> 
> *Κωνος* = the pyramid, the city that starts with low builgings and in Center are they High, 
> Mykonos Mycenae = Mu +ko +no
> ko+no+so+ κνωσσος 
> 
> *Attica Attili Attussa Atria are all these Father land of Etruscans?*
> 
> Αθηνα from Albanian Atte +*ena ?? only an Albanian can thought of that,
> ...


wow have you read my post? did i mention Albanian anywhere? i only mentioned PIE and Hittite, what is wrong with you ? Also, i didn't read anything anywhere, i just use the PIE dictionary and since you mentioned Hittite i used an Hittite word coming from PIE. Also, that i wrote was not limited to Athena but to all the word you used there.

ALSO read this http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Append...European/átta and you will see that this is the PIE root of the slavic "tata" AND ALSO ancient greek "atta". 

We are trying to have serious conversation here, why do you have to bring up those kinds of things writing like a douche?

@Taranis, can you remove the posts related to albanian please? lets have this thread clean without off topics. Thanks

----------


## Taranis

> We can debate how good are Maciamo's maps but they show clear correlation in expansion of R1a and Q from Ukraine to Kurdish areas to Syria. I think this fits well with sea peoples movement that was described as a conspiracy of northerners...


No offense, but that clear correlation of yours is based on the unawareness of the existence of subclades of Haplogroup Q, and on the neglection of the fact that the place where a Haplogroup is most abundant today may not necesarily (and is in fact quite unlikely to) be the point of it's origin. Once you look into the three of subclades of a certain Haplogroup, many of the patterns that you interprete into Maciamo's maps just disappear.




> How do you know that Kurds never lived at Black sea? you are extrapolating last thousand years to whole history before?


Why should they have ever lived at the Black Sea?




> How do you know they always spoke indo-iranian?


Well, bear in mind that the inhabitants of the approximate area of Kurdistan in the Bronze Age, the Hurrians, were A) a literate people and B) spoke a non-Indo-European language. In a nutshell, we know the general history of the area until ca. 2000 BC. 

Now, let's consider the Indo-Iranic are divided into three branches: Iranic, Indic and the Nuristani languages, which are their own separate branch.

Modern Iranic languages:



Modern Indic (aka "Indo-Aryan") languages:



Location of Nuristan:



Thus, the most likely homeland for the Indo-Iranic languages is somewhere in the vicinity of the Hindu-Kush mountains. Bear in mind that Kurdish shares a common ancestraty with all these languages, why should they have lived at the Black Sea at a time?




> what was the language in Spain, France, Romania before Roman conquest? in latin america? do you realize how silly is it to base hard claims about populations on language basis? *did ancestors of Mexican clearly arrive from Spain? did ancestors of Spanish, French and Romanian people clearly arrive from town called Rome?* you are mixing culture with ancestry of populations.... cultures and languages are contaiaious they move from one population to another and have their own history apart from the populations they are related to......


That analogy is non-appropriate. By your logic (regarding Spanish in Mexico), the Aztecs were Spanish. I hope that visualizes the problem with your train of thought.




> I am still sure that Kurds are among Sherdana people....
> but it is quite possible that they have lived in area much before sea peoples conquest...


Based on what evidence? If the Sherdana really came from Sardinia, then they'd have been carriers of G2a and I2a-M26. Is Kurdish I2 part of subclade I2a-M26? I don't think so.




> I would point out to map of assumed movement of PIE speakers that puts homeland of those people into Kurdish areas....if Kurds always lived in that area than they would probably be original PIE speakers, and language transfer would not go from east iranic to them as you assume, but other way around - from them into Europe and Asia... I find this plausible scenario in correlation with some genetic clues...


This map makes no sense. What kind of hypothesis is that (it doesn't look like the Anatolian hypothesis, even though the purported homeland is located in Anatolia in this scenario)? It's far more likely that the spread occured somewhat along these lines:

----------


## how yes no 3

> No offense, but that clear correlation of yours is based on the unawareness of the existence of subclades of Haplogroup Q, and on the neglection of the fact that the place where a Haplogroup is most abundant today may not necesarily (and is in fact quite unlikely to) be the point of it's origin. Once you look into the three of subclades of a certain Haplogroup, many of the patterns that you interprete into Maciamo's maps just disappear.


you show your unawareness by speaking of my unawareness... 
Q1b1 is answer to your question....
i said the observed correlation is a clue, not a proof... everything we talk about can be clues only..fitting the pieces of puzzle...




> Why should they have ever lived at the Black Sea?


why not? how can you claim they never did live there... do you have a crystal ball?
i think they did as there is I2a all around Black sea... 





> Well, bear in mind that the inhabitants of the approximate area of Kurdistan in the Bronze Age, the Hurrians, were A) a literate people and B) spoke a non-Indo-European language. In a nutshell, we know the general history of the area until ca. 2000 BC.


Hurrians were not only people who lived there....
e.g. Gutians also lived in Zagros mountains and also Subarians lived in area,,,,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutians
and many other people....




> The historical *Guti have been widely regarded* as among the* ancestors of the* *Kurds*, including by the modern Kurds themselves. However, in the late 19th-century, Assyriologist Julius Oppert sought to connect the Gutians of remote antiquity with the later *Gutones (Goths),* whom Ptolemy in 150 AD had known as the Guti, a tribe of Scandia. Oppert's theory on this connection is not shared by many scholars today, in the absence of further evidence.[5]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutian_language
it is even possible that proto-Goths were the people who spread PIE languages accross east Europe and Asia from settlement in Zagros mountains..... or that Goths/Gutians is another ancient tribal name of I people...only thing we know about the language of Gutians are names of rulers in Sumer, and those names do not look like PIE words, but personal names of rulers in a conquered country written down by language of conquered country does not have to tell anything of the actual language....

regardless of Goths, PIE could easily have been originally the language of haplogroup I and would be spread separatelly by I1 and I2b in west Europe and by I2a in east Europe and Asia - resulting in centum/satem differences.... 
to India it would reach after converting to PIE J2 Aryans in Indus river valley...







> Thus, the most likely homeland for the Indo-Iranic languages is somewhere in the vicinity of the Hindu-Kush mountains. Bear in mind that Kurdish shares a common ancestraty with all these languages, why should they have lived at the Black Sea at a time?


well, in more recent past Persian empire was stretching to practically whole of Asia minor with exception of Greek settlement along west most coast line... if ancestors of Kurds as east most iranian speaking people of today were part of that they would easily be on Black sea as well, right? but you claim that Kurds could have never lived on Black sea coasts.... why not? and Persian empire was more recent in time...we have no clue what was the case 3200 years before present... i set a possible scenario in which I2a Sherdana did live there...you say Kurds never lived on Black coast... I make a proposal of possible scenario, but you deny it with essentially "its impossible because i say so" type of argument...

today there are islands of Kurdish settlements in north east iran , east and in south east iran...
for me this could be indication that it was ancestors of Kurds who were invading towards east and spreading their language.... those settlements roughly match the supposed 3 directions of spread of PIE dialects and they also match haplogroup I spread...





> That analogy is non-appropriate. By your logic (regarding Spanish in Mexico), the Aztecs were Spanish. I hope that visualizes the problem with your train of thought.


that's your logic that tells you that....
i never told Sherdana are same as modern Serbs or Kurds of today... I said tribal name is the same... and that Kurds have also direct ancestry from the Sherdana that were involved in sea peoples war....





> Based on what evidence? If the Sherdana really came from Sardinia, then they'd have been carriers of G2a and I2a-M26. Is Kurdish I2 part of subclade I2a-M26? I don't think so.


what? where did I say that Sherdana came from Sardinia? I said it could have been that from west coast of Asia minor much earlier in time they have spread to Sardinia 
now on west coast of Asia minor there is plenty of G and I2a
i have also said that it is possible that in time of sea peoples the ones from Sardinia and the ones from Kurdish areas still speak the same language... 





> This map makes no sense. What kind of hypothesis is that (it doesn't look like the Anatolian hypothesis, even though the purported homeland is located in Anatolia in this scenario)? It's far more likely that the spread occured somewhat along these lines:


nope this map makes no sense it is tied to Kurgan hypothesys of spread of PIE... and black lines are drawn arbitrarily to cover the area...

----------


## Taranis

I've moved this offtopic because a discussion of the Kurds or of the origins of the Indo-Europeans clearly doesn't belong into a discussion of the Sea Peoples.

I don't want to go into great detail with this discussion, but:

- the names "Kurd" and "ŠRDN" are not even remotely similar. The only things they have in common are the letters "r" and "d".

- there's no evidence of Indo-European languages in the area of Kurdistan before the 14th century BC, when the Mitanni loanwords show up in Hurrian. The Mitanni spoke an Indo-Aryan language similar to Rigvedic Sanskrit (hence, they obviously came from the east). This also means we are talking about a very old language stage at that time slice. It makes no sense for Kurdish to have been a separate language at that time slice, and that becomes obvious if you look into the relationship of the Iranic languages to each other.

- The earliest insertion date for (proto-)Kurdish into the area of modern-day Kurdistan would be the Median Empire.

- Also, I don't deny anything "because I say so", but because there's a complex set of arguments that, frankly, I have neither the time nor the interest to post here.

- I wanted to know (and still want to know) what hypothesis your map is taken from, because that map is not consistent with any scenario I have seen thus far.

I haven't seen any alternative to the Kurgan hypothesis that would make sense (Anatolian Hypothesis, Out-Of-India-Hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Hypothesis): the Kurgan hypothesis has problems with it, there's no point denying that, but all rivaling hypotheses have much greater problems with them which mean that they can all readily be dismissed.

----------


## how yes no 3

> - I wanted to know (and still want to know) what hypothesis your map is taken from, because that map is not consistent with any scenario I have seen thus far.
> 
> I haven't seen any alternative to the Kurgan hypothesis that would make sense (Anatolian Hypothesis, Out-Of-India-Hypothesis, Paleolithic Continuity Hypothesis): the Kurgan hypothesis has problems with it, there's no point denying that, but all rivaling hypotheses have much greater problems with them which mean that they can all readily be dismissed.


i can trace picture's origin to this article.... 
Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, _The Early History_ _of Indo-European Languages, In:_ Scientific American, March 1990, pp. 110-116
first PIE people we know about invaded anatolia from east around 2000BC which makes the homeland of PIE people before 2000 BC somewhat east from central Anatolia, hence in Armenia and Kurdistan...from there authors start linguistical reconstruction that leads them to map above... I didnot read the details as I am not really interested in linguistics.......

----------


## Taranis

> i can trace picture's origin to this article.... 
> Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov, _The Early History_ _of Indo-European Languages, In:_ Scientific American, March 1990, pp. 110-116
> first PIE people we know about invaded anatolia from east around 2000BC which makes the homeland of PIE people before 2000 BC somewhat east from central Anatolia, hence in Armenia and Kurdistan...from there authors start linguistical reconstruction that leads them to map above...


Gramkrelidze and Ivanov are actually proponents of the so-called Armenian hypothesis, which is _very distinct_ from the _actual_ Anatolian hypothesis: the Anatolian hypothesis suggested that Proto-Indo-European spread into Europe with the spread of the first farmers. The Armenian hypothesis suggests that the original Indo-European homeland was somewhere in eastern Anatolia (in vicinity of Armenia), and that Armenian is most representative of the original PIE language (as part of the so-called Glottalic Theory, which suggests that PIE is to be reconstructed radically different).




> I didnot read the details as I am not really interested in linguistics.......


No offense, but should that surpise me, after everything that you post here?

----------


## how yes no 3

> Gramkrelidze and Ivanov are actually proponents of the so-called Armenian hypothesis, which is _very distinct_ from the _actual_ Anatolian hypothesis: the Anatolian hypothesis suggested that Proto-Indo-European spread into Europe with the spread of the first farmers. The Armenian hypothesis suggests that the original Indo-European homeland was somewhere in eastern Anatolia (in vicinity of Armenia), and that Armenian is most representative of the original PIE language (as part of the so-called Glottalic Theory, which suggests that PIE is to be reconstructed radically different).


and?
why would Armenian hypothesis be not correct, and anatolian one would?
those are hypothesis, not known absolute truths...
i find interesting that the trajectory given by Gramkrelidze and Ivanov is in clear correlation with spread of haplogroup I in Asia... in my viewpoint that gives it extra-strength..




> No offense, but should that surpise me, after everything that you post here?


i said many times that I do not have any expert knowledge in linguistics...

but this is a forum, or you want forum participants to have PhD in linguistics in order to post their opinions...

----------


## zanipolo

> and?
> why would Armenian hypothesis be not correct, and anatolian one would?
> those are hypothesis, not known absolute truths...
> i find interesting that the trajectory given by Gramkrelidze and Ivanov is in clear correlation with spread of haplogroup I in Asia... in my viewpoint that gives it extra-strength..
> 
> 
> i said many times that I do not have any expert knowledge in linguistics...
> 
> but this is a forum, or you want forum participants to have PhD in linguistics in order to post their opinions...


The term Armenia in italian text from pre roman times also reflects their association with the med, like the link below

http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/li...an_history.asp

This if true, could change many haplotpe theories on migrations

----------


## Taranis

> and?
> why would Armenian hypothesis be not correct, and anatolian one would?
> those are hypothesis, not known absolute truths...


I didn't say that the Anatolian or the Armenian one were correct. Obviously "absolute truth" doesn't exist in science, but the best-fitting hypothesis which most consistently explains the available evidence is the one that should be prefered.




> i find interesting that the trajectory given by Gramkrelidze and Ivanov is in clear correlation with spread of haplogroup I in Asia... in my viewpoint that gives it extra-strength..


Do we have bronze age samples of Haplogroup I from Iran or India? How can you even think that your views give it strength if you neither understand the theory nor have any genetic data?




> i said many times that I do not have any expert knowledge in linguistics...


Yet you based a lot of your own ideas in the past on similarities of tribal names, and indeed claimed continuity of tribal names, while acknowledging that you have absolutely no idea how to test if these similarities make any sense or are indicating anything except maybe coincidential similarity? In addition, you disdained any objections against your own ideas.




> but this is a forum, or you want forum participants to have PhD in linguistics in order to post their opinions...


I'm not expecting everybody on this forum to have a PhD in linguistics, and frankly, it is my honest opinion that to understand the basics of linguistics, you don't even need one. All that you need to do is listen, in my opinion.

----------


## Yetos

> and?
> why would Armenian hypothesis be not correct, and anatolian one would?
> those are hypothesis, not known absolute truths...
> i find interesting that the trajectory given by Gramkrelidze and Ivanov is in clear correlation with spread of haplogroup I in Asia... in my viewpoint that gives it extra-strength..
> 
> 
> i said many times that I do not have any expert knowledge in linguistics...
> 
> but this is a forum, or you want forum participants to have PhD in linguistics in order to post their opinions...


Armenian Hypothesis say that Armenians = Thracians = Phrygians

----------


## how yes no 3

> I didn't say that the Anatolian or the Armenian one were correct. Obviously "absolute truth" doesn't exist in science, but the best-fitting hypothesis which most consistently explains the available evidence is the one that should be prefered.


you need lot of criteria to claim something is best-fitting...
instead this is about mainstream and not mainstream theory
you like political correctness, so you go for mainstream theories...
that's fine, but don't make holy books out of them...




> Do we have bronze age samples of Haplogroup I from Iran or India? How can you even think that your views give it strength if you neither understand the theory nor have any genetic data?


i never said my views give any strength to anything

i said that in my viewpoint (=in the way I see things) route given by authors correlating precisely with spread in haplogroup I gives it extra value...hence, it is about genetics giving this theory extra strength for me, which is why I prefer this theory to your mainstream theories...




> Yet you based a lot of your own ideas in the past on similarities of tribal names, and indeed claimed continuity of tribal names, while acknowledging that you have absolutely no idea how to test if these similarities make any sense or are indicating anything except maybe coincidential similarity? In addition, you disdained any objections against your own ideas.


continuity of tribal names has nothing to do with linguistics, as those names lose their tie to their meanings in languages rather quickly, and languages often get replaced, while name of race stays... in fact, linguistics is inadequate there, especially because many relevant languages are extinct...

can you explain linguistically words German or English or Spanish, or Mexican...
linguistic has not much value there as meanings of words are lost long ago and nation names may even origin from times when populations spoke different languages and maybe words never had a meaning, they just did sound good... peoples most often either have own names for other peoples or they use it as it is.....

sound laws also have limited value to tribal/nation names as those are not words that are adopted in every day language.... they can be twisted by different languages but if you do not know through which path word came to be written down it is pretty much impossible to apply sound laws... 

there are exceptions when we know both source language and language in which it is written e.g. we know that Slaveni were written as Sclaveni by Roman authors... than you can use linguistics to see whether there is a law when 'S' of native languge goes to 'Sc' in latin or to claim those are different tribal names... otherwise if you do not know the path you can't make any claim based on linguistics... and with tribal names I speak about, you just can't know paths and hence cannot use linguistics... but instead I show that tribal names correlate or show continuity in geographical spread and correlate via genetics... for me that is enough to base on it a proposal of possible set of historical events...for you is not... i can't help you there.... if hammer is your only tool, you will always see only nails everywhere

----------


## Taranis

> *continuity of tribal names has nothing to do with linguistics*, as those names lose their tie to their meanings in languages rather quickly, and languages often get replaced, while name of race stays... in fact, linguistics is inadequate there, especially because many relevant languages are extinct...


What? Full stop here.

You're completely wrong on this. This has _everything_ to do with linguistics.

Wether a language from which the tribal name is derived is extinct (or not) is pretty irrelevant, and the original meaning of the name is also pretty irrelevant: regardless of wether they are adopted to a new language or not, names will inevitably be subject to sound laws as time passes on. Bear in mind that _sound laws have no exceptions_, and will apply to ALL words in a language, regardless of where these words are from. 

To give you two examples (of names which were shifted according to the second germanic sound shift):

"Chatti" > "Hessen"
"Batav(is)" > "Passau"

The latter is very interesting because this is clearly a Latin name for a fortification that was rendered according to the Second Germanic sound shift. If you don't believe that, compare this with some English words to which this also applies, and compare to German cognate:

"water" - "Wasser"
"rattle" - "Rassel"
"kettle" - "Kessel"

As you can see, this is perfectly regular. This is why it just makes no sense to assume that ethnic names should be somehow magically exempted. If you want to prove that ethnic name X and ethnic name Y are indeed related, you must prove that the sound laws exist to support that by which your name could regularly be shifted from X to Y. If that doesn't exist, you can be pretty sure that the two ethnic names are unrelated.




> for me that is enough to base on it a proposal of possible set of historical events...for you is not... i can't help you there.... if hammer is your only tool, you will always see only nails everywhere


Let me tell visualize for you the consequences of your own line of thought: according to you, everything that has been the basis of linguistics for the past 130 or even 170 or so years (the comparative method, the Neogrammarian hypothesis, Grimm's Law, sound laws, etc.) is all completely wrong, and maybe we should return to a pre-1800s affair of Linguistics. Did all the linguists of the past 130 or 170 years, to use your own words, _just see nails_?

----------


## how yes no 3

> What? Full stop here.
> 
> ....
> Let me tell visualize for you the consequences of your own line of thought: according to you, everything that has been the basis of linguistics for the past 130 or even 170 or so years (the comparative method, the Neogrammarian hypothesis, Grimm's Law, sound laws, etc.) is all completely wrong, and maybe we should return to a pre-1800s affair of Linguistics. Would you be more comfortable to abandon the concept of Indo-European languages as a whole? Did all the linguists of the past 130 or 170 years, to use your own words, _just see nails_?


you keep twisting whatever you are told

i never told that linguistics is non-sense...

i say it does not make any sense to apply it when you do not know the languages through which word came to be written, which is typically the case for tribal names... how difficult is it to understand this?


why do you always have to cut out a part of argument from a wider picture and shamelessly extrapolate it into non-sense by twisting freely the intended meaning of the words.. .. one should not discuss to prove he is right, but to find the truth... this is a forum it is not a battlefield...

my point is linguistics cannot tell anything about the tribal names that I am relating into groups of same origin, because we do not know the languages of e.g. Sherdana. Scordisci .... or Serians, Scirii, Cimmerians, white Syrians...or of Gutians who ruled over Sumer.....

it is clear that *linguistics cannot claim that those tribal names are related, nor that they are not*...
hence I use other tools: geographical spread, genetic correlation and history....


finally, a question for you: if you imagine PIE langauges as a tree, where do sound laws exist
1) only between parent branch and a child branch
2) also among child branches and grandchild branches...how?

----------


## sparkey

> why not? how can you claim they never did live there... do you have a crystal ball?
> i think they did as there is I2a all around Black sea...


This may be a more plausible assertion if you drop the "a" and just say I2... there are several apparent minor expansions of different I2 around the Black Sea, although the only one that's studied in-depth so far is the I2c-B expansion in Armenians and their neighbors. It's a young clade, and a fairly obvious branch off of a more European clade.

By the way, how yes no, have you had a chance to analyze where I place the modern centers of diversity of different I2a branches in my Paleolithic Remnants map? It seems, although our samples are admittedly biased so far, that we're actually finding the highest diversity of I2a (I call it "I2a1" in the map, since I use Nordtvedt nomenclature) along the _Atlantic Fringe_... not anywhere near the Black Sea. I suppose you're anticipating high diversity among future samples from the Black Sea area?

----------


## how yes no 3

> This may be a more plausible assertion if you drop the "a" and just say I2... there are several apparent minor expansions of different I2 around the Black Sea, although the only one that's studied in-depth so far is the I2c-B expansion in Armenians and their neighbors. It's a young clade, and a fairly obvious branch off of a more European clade.
> 
> By the way, how yes no, have you had a chance to analyze where I place the modern centers of diversity of different I2a branches in my Paleolithic Remnants map? It seems, although our samples are admittedly biased so far, that we're actually finding the highest diversity of I2a (I call it "I2a1" in the map, since I use Nordtvedt nomenclature) along the _Atlantic Fringe_... not anywhere near the Black Sea. I suppose you're anticipating high diversity among future samples from the Black Sea area?


good point about that currently it holds more for I2 than for I2a...

and yes I am expecting higher diversity of I2 and I2a in east Europe around Danube, in Caucasus and Asia minor ... 
thing is east Europe and Asia are very sparsely sampled.....I expect that we find M26 in currently unexpected places..... and also some haplotypes that will give older tmrca for I2a dinaric ..

----------


## Taranis

> my point is linguistics cannot tell anything about the tribal names that I am relating into groups of same origin, because we do not know the languages of e.g. Sherdana. Scordisci .... or Serians, Scirii, Cimmerians, white Syrians...or of Gutians who ruled over Sumer.....


Actually, we do not need to know the languages strictly speaking. If you say that these names are related (hypothetically speaking, we can assume that for the moment), we would have to postulate sound laws existing that are responsible for changing these names from one to another, and also, what would be the original form, hypothetically speaking?

*š-r-d*-*n*
*skord*isci
*Ser*ian
*Skir*i
*Cimmer*i
*Syr*ia
So according to this, *ʃ- (š) corresponds to *sk-, corresponds to *s, corresponds to *k (keep in mind that originally in Greek, the name is rendered as "_K_immeroi"). Which one is the original form? I would personally argue *sk-, because it's possible to derive all other forms from this (*sk > *s > *ʃ, or *sk > *k).

Likewise, *d is corresponded by a Ø (missing) in all names except Sherdana and Scordisci. It's more likely that *d is the original form and that it disappeared than a *d suddenly appearing.

Then we have *-mm- in "Cimmeri", which has no equivalent whatsoever elsewhere, yet we must assume it to be also the original form.

We also have a final *n in "Sherdana" which we have no where else.

Amongst the vowels, we have *a = *e = *i = *o = *y. Which one is the original form? It's impossible to tell.

Based on the above, I would personally probably propose that the original form is something along the lines of *_sk(V)mm(V)rd(V)n_ (with "V" representing unknown vowels), which appears just too unlikely to me. 




> it is clear that *linguistics cannot claim that those tribal names are related, nor that they are not*...


No, I obviously can't. But that's perhaps my point. As you can see above, it's _very unlikely_ that such a multitude of (in some cases bizarre) sound shifts would have occured, _even if_ such a name was transmitted.




> hence I use other tools: geographical spread, genetic correlation and history....


No. You have no way of demonstrating that these names are related, but _ad-hoc_ assume that a relation exists anyways (without knowing wether this is the case or not), and _ad-hoc_ attempt to correlate this with patterns that you see on maps.




> finally, a question for you: if you imagine PIE langauges as a tree, where do sound laws exist
> 1) only between parent branch and a child branch
> 2) also among child branches and grandchild branches...how?


Sound laws exist everywhere. And, I do not think that the tree model does necessarily explain a language family reasonably well (but neither does the wave model in the same manner), at least, not in the conventional sense: one "node" may have multiple "twigs" sprouting from it simultaneously (the Romance languages are a good example of that).

As I said, sound laws do exist everywhere, multiple "twigs" can also have common sound laws due to an area effect. You have to consider that sound laws also work on dialect level. The German dialect lines are a good example of that: the various sound laws of the second germanic sound shift affect German dialects to varying degrees, and as a result you have the Benrath and Speyer lines, for instance.

----------


## how yes no 3

> Actually, we do not need to know the languages strictly speaking. If you say that these names are related (hypothetically speaking, we can assume that for the moment), we would have to postulate sound laws existing that are responsible for changing these names from one to another, and also, what would be the original form, hypothetically speaking?
> 
> *š-r-d*-*n*
> *skord*isci
> *Ser*ian
> *Skir*i
> *Cimmer*i
> *Syr*ia


I did divide those into several groups following finding that haplogroup I in central Asia seems to be only Ib1.

group 1: Scirii, Serians, (white) Syrians, Cimmerians, Sumerians
group 2: Scordisci, Sherdana, Kurds
group 3: Sardis, Sardinia
group 4: Sorbs, Serbs, Sarbans, Serboi

what I claim is only that a population carrying certain race/tribal name can keep its name through long periods and that this can be traced via shared genetics...I do not state that those populations still spoke the same language in times when their names are recorded.. hence I do not claim any of those tribes to have been Slavic or Germanic in times when their names are recorded....

Hope you will agree that this split above is much more likely also from the linguistic point of view...


sound laws of course exist, but they cannot be applied without knowing source language, path through which languages 5the word is captured (e.g. recording it in Greek or latin may have been via intermediary language) and the language in which they are captured, and relations between those languages

I believe groups 2 and 4 are one group (becase Sherdana left location name "Serbonian bog", and due to Scordisci, Sherdana, Kurds located in between Sorbs, Serbs and Sarbans, and due to r1a fitting well in my understanding of scenario related to "bronze age collapse"/"sea peoples") 

and I think that group 3 might be related to groups 2 and 4 via I2a people


in group 1, link between Sumerian and Syrian is stated by Strabo and historical evidence suggests that white Syrians are related to Cimmerians as Cimmerians are believed to have settled in Cappadokia while in Strabo's time both tribes of Cappadokians are white Syrians
note also that current version of group 1 name is Sart as those are the people who descend from Serians 

regarding possible link between group 1 with other groups note also that Siraces are by some believed to be same as Serboi and that they are located on position where much later (as late as 10th century) tribal names Serban and Krevatas are recorded by Byzantine historians..

----------


## Taranis

> what I claim is only that a population carrying certain race/tribal name can keep its name through long periods and that this can be traced via shared genetics...I do not state that those populations still spoke the same language in times when their names are recorded.. hence I do not claim any of those tribes to have been Slavic or Germanic in times when their names are recorded....


No, I'm telling you that does not make sense: what you're doing is just pattern-making. You take similar sounding names (without knowing wether they are related or not, you just make the ad-hoc assumption that they must be related in order to fit into your scenario), and then tie them to patterns that you see on Y-Haplogroup maps.

That division of yours into "groups" that you claim to see there is just that: pattern-making, and I find it peculiar that you (again, ad-hoc) put "Sardinia" and "Sherdana" into different groupings despite these are the only two names in the list similar enough to be actually linked (this requires a shift *ʃ > *s, which might have happened when the ethnic name was rendered into Latin, because Latin didn't have the phoneme /ʃ/).

I also find the following peculiar: the theory that the Sherdana were from Sardinia is certainly one of the most plausible ones (the other is that they were Lydians). At the time of the Bronze Age collapse, Sardinia was home to the so-called Nuraghic culture, which appears to have some form of continuity with the earlier Neolithic traditions of Western Europe. Modern Sardinians have an admixture of G2a and I2a-M26, which is a typically Neolithic admixture. Compared to modern-day Europeans, Ötzi, which lived in the Copper Age, autosomally plots closest to modern Sardinians from which we could interfer that modern Sardinians might be fairly representative of Neolithic Europeans. In the end, we do obviously not now if the Sherdana were really Sardinians, but this scenario is nontheless fairly plausible.

Instead, you draw up some kind of extremely unlikely scenario in which the Sherdana are somehow related with Serbians and Kurds, ethnic groups which exist thousands of years later in completely different regions. Because you see this relationship, you postulate that I2a-M26 must somehow have it's origin in eastern Europe or the Near East, despite the fact that there's no evidence that it should be there.

As I said, what you're doing is pattern-making.




> sound laws of course exist, but they cannot be applied without knowing source language, path through which languages 5the word is captured (e.g. recording it in Greek or latin may have been via intermediary language) and the language in which they are captured, and relations between those languages


And I tell you that's irrelevant. My point is that if, and only if, name X and Y are somehow related, there has to be a way how to get from X to Y, from a common ancestral Z to X and Y. With the examples I gave you earlier (and, I could also give you more examples), when names are transmitted from one language to the next (regardless of being borrowed, or being given down to a daughter language), they are always subject to change. Sound laws will always apply, _wether_ _we know them_ _or_ _not_.

----------

