|
Post by xxx on Feb 12, 2004 19:00:44 GMT -5
That's a pretty racist statement. Which part of it? Racist against who? Against Black Africans for comparing them to Nordics? Against Nordics for comparing them to Black Africans? Or is it racist because the observation is right but I should have tried to look for a more politically correct way to expose it? Ah.. it may look like racist to you because of the joke calling for the classification of an extreme nordic while posting an albino gorilla in the "Racial Classifications" forum, so I fear you are now getting paranoid about any comment I make. AWAR, I've insulted no one except for the nordic gorilla thing, which was just harmless fun, and I haven't used any falsities, lies or deceits for this article. Don't panic, I'm not going to start gratuitously making mockery of Nordics or Negroes here. Wrong, it could be easily be done in a smart way. Just by giving some facts and details about their deeds, without much or any personal opinions.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 12, 2004 19:17:00 GMT -5
A Spanish Historian and Archaeologist, Jorge Alonso García, has been successful in decyphering funerary scripts in the Iberian and Tartessan languages using the Basque language. These successes have lead him to try the same with the Ethruscan script, and again succeeded to translate some funerary inscriptions through the Basque. Eventually he has tried with Linear A, and again with the same satisfactory results. And since Basque is not an Indo-European language, but one spoken by ancient Mediterraneans, the evidence is conclusive: Basques, Iberians, Tartessans, Ethruscans, Minoan Creteans, and others are ancient Mediterraneans with no links to Indo-Europeans. Damn, just as Andrea had managed to convince me Etruscan was Slavic... I accept that what you say could be a serious possibility but it must be a very new development (just like Andrea's case). Sorry guys but I am getting seriously confused. Then there is the problem of script versus language. Michael Ventris could eventually decipher Linear B because he could recognize that it was an archaic form of Greek. But with, say, the Etruscan script, though you can transliterate the Etruscan letters--they are basically the same as the letters of the Greek alphabet--you can't make sense of many Etruscan words, except proper names, because the Etruscan language is an "isolate." It appears to be unrelated to any Indo-European language or to Basque, another European "isolate." Why are there still ancient languages that we are unable to decipher despite a century of effort, like the Bronze Age Minoan script Linear A, while we've been able to decipher many others, like the later Linear B?
www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=0303/etc/conversations
|
|
|
Post by Dienekes on Feb 12, 2004 20:09:25 GMT -5
Etruscan, Linear A etc. remain undecyphered. There are tons of baloney linguists out there.
|
|
Scoob
Full Member
Posts: 157
|
Post by Scoob on Feb 12, 2004 23:19:50 GMT -5
Meds brought civilization to Europe. Simple as that. However, modernism is heavily influenced by Nordic ideas. I think the modern idea of an egalitarian democracy is heavily influenced by the Nordic ethic. Nords tend to believe in "Systems" or "Rules that all equally adhere to." "All equal under the law." That is part of the primitive communalism of the hunting peoples of the North, in my opinion. Meds tend to operate along the lines of patronage systems - which are "corrupt" in terms of modern ideas of democracy. Note the failure of moder Med countries to produce a stable government - compare the political turmoil of Southern Europe to the stability of Scandinavia. And to name one Nordic civilization? The USA before the 20th century. In a way, I see Nords are boring and plain but also beautiful in their simplicity. Meds are rich in feeling and culture, but also corrupt and hard-minded in their cultural conservatism. I also think that Nords are in serious danger of going extinct - while Meds are not. Also, back to the point... an excellent article about Indo-European versus Old Med values can be found here: users.cyberone.com.au/myers/gimbutas.html
|
|
Andrea
Full Member
IM ROY JE DA JEST TO VESNIYO - May they all have a paradise this springtime
Posts: 119
|
Post by Andrea on Feb 13, 2004 2:58:13 GMT -5
Hi Artemidoros, ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sonofzeus on Feb 13, 2004 3:07:28 GMT -5
"That's a pretty racist statement." "Which part of it? Racist against who? Against Black Africans for comparing them to Nordics? Against Nordics for comparing them to Black Africans?" The meaning of Racism as we know it today is that,when you wear chains to other people or even kill them because they are of a different race. (especially when you brought them by your self to your country or you found them there, where you invaded.) There is not such a thing as "Racistic statement" regarding civilization. People don't know what racism is. Racialism isn't "racism",neither statements of higher and lower civilizations or even of human achievements are "racistic". For example when I listen North/Central Europeans saying "Look Greece and now look our countries",I don't find this "racistic" as it's true.But they forget that we had to face a lot of problems.While they had all the free time to immitate us and surpass us. Look the Byzantine Empire for example and the Medieval Europe,back then for us they were nothing more than uncivilized Barbarians,except of the Romans.While we the Greeks even under the worst circumstance we never became "barbarians" as we mean it=savages!They can't break us down that's for sure. -------------------------------------------------------- "SoZ, those quotes are from Hesiod's mythology . Carlos Parada explains the Hesiod's mythology." I prefer read straight from the proto-type and there are Greeks who explain everything. -------------------------------------------------------- " We are the product of the meeting between the Old European Mediterraneans and the newly arrived Indo-Europeans.It is an error to believe that the Indo-European migrations automatically substitute the aboriginal peoples, leaving no [genetic] trace of them." "SoZ, I am not saying that Greeks are foreigners in Greece, but if the Hellenes were an Indo-European people, then they arrived in the area where they met with the ancient Mediterraneans inhabitants and mixed with them. " Greeks are not any kind of product between any arrival,they are combination of two local races. But Spain also use to be the most homogenous country in Europe as most Spaniards are Mediterraneans. Never happened any "Indo-European migration" in Greece,there is not such a thing as "Indo-Europeans" in the ancient Greek manusripts,ancient Greeks always said they were natives.And the Mediterranean Greeks named their selves Hellenes! Even today when Greeks want represent a full Hellena or Hellinida they put Mediterraneans same goes for Iberians! The "Indo-Eurpean" theory came out when English people occupied India and heard of the "Aryans",so they said let's built a theory that we were those Aryans, north Europeans,while still NW Indians are close genetically with Greeks of Thrace.And the people of Thraco-Makedones,on the mountains, still name their selves as Arimanians and Arimanes! ---------------------------------------------------------- "These Indian castes show a genetic relation to south Russians, so, it's pretty clear that the Aryans who invaded India more than 3500 yrs ago are related genetically to south Russians." NW Indians are close genetically with Greeks of Thrace and probably they had among them some Norics,as modern Thracians have. " if Greeks lived in the Eurasian steppes, they'd have developed into highly efficient horsemen and nomads." Wrong,Greeks/Hellenes/Yunans moved in different places and they did everywhere the same thing,why Albanians never did anything similar?Explain that!While Greeks of Epiros made a whole civilization or even the Turks as we know them today made the Ottoman Empire and their leaders were not "Irano-Afgans" neither other races but mainly Mediterraneans by the Greeks.It is the genes and the psyche of the race. I am a Greek/Hellenas and I am the same person wherever I go,same goes for all people. Did you read the Mediterranean race and the lower races of Mankind? People are the same wherever they go.That's what history proves,except if you know any African civilization in USA and Africans live there some centuries,while Mediterraneans did something on North Africa.I have many such examples! Nature is "racistic". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "Of course the main area of development of PIE is not the Mediterranean but the central Balkans IMO." Central Balkans are in the Mediterranean area and: "Mediterraneans represent early population level of countries such as Serbia and Albania(thus they predate Dinarics there) and represent at least 10% of local populations today.Mediterraneans are associated with Vinca culture of Serbia that is older than Sumer." "Minoan Creteans, and others are ancient Mediterraneans with no links to Indo-Europeans." Minoan Cretans and Mycenaean Peloponnesians used linear B too I think and it was Hellenic. The linear probably was a public alphabet while the known Greek was a religious alphabet(secret).We even find similar linear alphabet in South America,does this mean that Mayas were Mediterraneans,no!As we show here probably the Indo-Europeans were Mediterraneans! www.racearchives.com/archived/viewnews.asp?newsID=183056056500
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 13, 2004 12:30:25 GMT -5
The "theory" of the Aryan invasion of the Indus Valley to claim the Indus Valley Civilization does not hold itself stand, That theory is still successfully defended. Recent genetic research indicates a closeness between the higher hindu casts and European folks. And it seems to be out of doubt that Deities like Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Surya, thre Asvin twins, Agni, etc., are of Aryan root, as well as the Vedas, unique masterpiece, demonstration of a high cultural level. Well, they contacted that civilization and imposed their own language and Deities. I see no reason to consider that their original culture was somehow inferior to the Dravidian. The same happened all over Europe, with the exception of the Basque Nation. Again, I see no reason to consider the original Aryan culture as being somehow inferior to the non Aryan cultures that the migrating Aryans found in their march of conquest. That depends on what people consider cultural baggage which can attest any sign of High Civilization. Certainly, the migrating Aryans could not bring pyramids or zigurats upon their horses. But the cultural connections studied by Georges Dumézil show quite clearly that there was a developed Aryan spirituallity. Yes. And?... Well, call it whatever you want: Aryan, Maria Aranjuez or a whistle. It is just a matter of words. It is not the fact that we still ignore the original name that such folk use to name themselves that is being discussed. I saw nothing in that article that denies what I wrote above. There is a difference between knowim«ng more about a given subject and changing one's mind abou that subject. Not in the same level of importance. We know next to nothing about the languages of those pre-Indo-European languages and Dieties. So, until further discoveries, we are more Indo-European than anything else. Language. Roots. Religion. I.e., ethnic identity. Or may be of real Latin origin.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 14, 2004 8:55:38 GMT -5
Etruscan, Linear A etc. remain undecyphered. There are tons of baloney linguists out there. Dienekes, the guy followed a new approach which had not been used until now, and that is to make use of a living language close to what he suspected would be the origins of Iberians and Tartessans. As he succeeded, he then went on trying with Etruscans and later Minoans. J.A. García has written various books on the decyphering of these languages: Desciframiento de la lengua ibérico-tartesa (1996), Desciframiento de la lengua etrusca (1998), Desciframiento de Lineal A y estudios genéticos en cretenses(1) (1997), Traducción de nuevos textos ibéricos (1998). (1) Co-authored by Prof. Arnáiz Villena, head of the Department of Immunology at the Hospital 12 de Octubre (Madrid, Spain) and chair at the Faculty of Medicine (Universidad Complutense de Madrid). Two other books he has co-authored with Prof. Arnáiz Villena are El Origen de los Vascos y Otros Pueblos Mediterráneos (1998) and Minoicos, Cretenses y Vascos - Un estudio genético y lingüístico (1999). Prof Arnáiz has been working together with J.A. García as he finds his genetic studies support García's linguistic claims. While these claims may be subject to controversy and even some polemics, I think they should be taken seriously into account. I am currently reading El Origen de los Vascos [...], where he includes some details about these linguistic works. I'll try to get some resume for an article here.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 14, 2004 9:08:14 GMT -5
We do not know what languages the pre-historic Mediterraneans spoke. It could well have been an early Proto-IE language. Then Indo-Europeans would be trace their origins to the Mediterraneans? On the contrary. It has been suspected since long ago that Basque is central to decyphering the Iberian languages, which was non Indo-European. Besides, that the Mediterraneans of the Neolithic crossed the Strait of Gibraltar to come into Spain and other parts of Western Europe is a well accepted fact nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Feb 14, 2004 9:21:36 GMT -5
Prof Arnáiz has been working together with J.A. García as he finds his genetic studies support García's linguistic claims. While these claims may be subject to controversy and even some polemics, I think they should be taken seriously into account. Isn't that the guy who came up with the infamous study about Greeks and Ethiopians?
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 14, 2004 11:11:29 GMT -5
That theory is still successfully defended. Recent genetic research indicates a closeness between the higher hindu casts and European folks. Still defended by some and rejected by others. There is nothing conclusive. But I'm sure you do see reason for the opposite. So, it is just your opinion against mine, and since there is no conclusive proof to back yours nor mine, both are valid as opinions. I think you are very wrong here. You are assuming a Europe-wide substitution of one people for another. That's not supported by the evidence provided by the high incidence of Mediterranean genes throughout Southern Europe and other countries not in the South. And yet it is pretty obvious with some Indo-European groups, to be more precise with those supposedly closer to the Aryans. And you don't have to go back to those early times, you can find proof of this in Classic times when observing the "cultures" of Nordic tribes. I've had to place the word "cultures" between quotes to avoid repeat the terrible "racist" remark I did before. Oh well, I can only give you as much as political correctness allow me to. Carrying pyramids on their horses? Don't take me wrong but I wonder... are you being oversimplistic on purpose? Does the phrase "bringing their knowledge to build the pyramids (or anything else for that matter)" mean anything to you? There are many doubt about who the Aryans really were, and since I have no vested interest in linking them to any group at any price, I leave a door opened to these doubts. That simple, though I'm not sure you'll see it or share it. Give me a break, I wasn't implying anthing with that article but the fact that aryanness claims seem to be fashionable... or perhaps profitable, or else, who knows? I recall you saying on some other thread you are of Portuguese origins. Well, the genetic distance between the Portuguese and the Basques are extremely close. This is explained in terms of both groups originating at large in Mediterranean populations. But if you have any given interest in considering yourself a pure Indo-European or (to use your style above) a "whistle", you are free to do it. As I am free not to give you any credit for it. I find that arguing with you is proving a waste of time. Why are you insisting on such things? Do you think that it defeats the reality that Latins met Etruscans and that they, as normal, absorb their culture or part of it? Or, do you think that Latins were so duffy as to be unable to learn from others? What if Latins are genetically closer to Celts? It doesn't change a bit for this purpose. I hope you are not implying that I'm saying that everything Latin is borrowed from Etruria. And if you are not, then this "observation" of yours is completely pointless.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 14, 2004 16:48:40 GMT -5
Then Indo-Europeans would be trace their origins to the Mediterraneans? Yes, that is what I am saying but not the variant that is dominant south of the Mediterranean. I believe the deepest origins of IE lie in the Fertile Crescent, probably just north of it. Of course the main IE expansion is owed to a mixture of racial types. I am not disputing the crossing of Gibraltar but agriculture arrived in Egypt relatively late, at around 5,000 BC. Following the north African route it would have arrived in Iberia even later. I think it arrived earlier, following the route Anatolia-Greece-Italy-France by sea. We have Neolithic settlements in France around that time, why not in Spain too.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 15, 2004 5:23:21 GMT -5
Yes, that is what I am saying but not the variant that is dominant south of the Mediterranean. I believe the deepest origins of IE lie in the Fertile Crescent, probably just north of it. Of course the main IE expansion is owed to a mixture of racial types. South of the Mediterranean? Do you mean Northern Africa, Berbers? I try to keep an open mind on this issue, but for some reasons I resist to believe in a common origin for Indo-Europeans and Mediterraneans. On the other hand, I admit I like that theory of IE's origins being a mixture of racial types Let's try with some science-fiction speculations... if we admit the possibility of a common, Mediterranean, origin... how would some Indo-Europeans have mutated into their current phenotypes? Mixing with some other, unknown, specie during their migrations, due to a natural processs of depigmentation and traits mutation to acclimatize to some extreme conditions, else... ? The approximate dates for the arrival of the Mediterraneans into Crete are around 6,000 BC, and I don't know about Iberia, but it should have been earlier. It is probable that there was a second wave of migrations through the suggested route. But a sea route to reach Iberia would imply a low impact in human components. More likely there would be successive, perhaps smaller, waves of migrations via the Strait of Gibraltar at different times.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 15, 2004 18:51:57 GMT -5
South of the Mediterranean? Do you mean Northern Africa, Berbers? I try to keep an open mind on this issue, but for some reasons I resist to believe in a common origin for Indo-Europeans and Mediterraneans. Yes, I think the source of IE languages was probably Anatolia and as such that the population that initiated the IE avalanche was one with a high percentage of J Y-chromosome. I think they brought their language to the Balkans along with a new way of life, agriculture. Of course they still practised hunting, fishing and gathering. The combination of their skills and know-how made them extremely successful and they spread far and wide, mixing with the "indigenous" populations of Europe and transmitting their culture and language while at the same time absorbing cultural and linguistic influences from them. The reason I believe it happened that way is that agriculture is not learned by observation. It takes the accumulated knowledge and experience of generations. That knowledge is IMO natural to be transferred in the language of the teacher. I just can not accept the notion that the original IE speakers were a bunch of ever winning warriors who possessed no real technical or cultural advantage over their adversaries. Of course this theory does not mean a common origin of IEs and Mediterraneans. Not all Mediterraneans were IE speakers nor IEs should be taken for blond northeners. Of course I am not saying that the IndoEuropeanization of say, Scandinavia was done by people of Mediterranean phenotype. The Med element would have been a minority by the time agriculture reached the northern extremities of Europe. I use IE as a linguistic term. The original Med bearers of IE would have mixed with UP populations, which in northern latitudes would have been depigmented already. I am not sure I understood your question or that my answer makes sense. The arrival of Meds to Crete might even go back to 7,000 BC or earlier. The island would have been known and the technology to island hop the 30 or so KM from Antikythera to Crete existed. I think it might be possible that human habitation of Crete predates the arrival of agriculture and the IE languages. As for Iberia I agree the impact would not have been massive and genetic data suggests it was not (although the IE speakers who arrived there would have probably been mixed with UPs from the Balkans and Italy). The Iberians were still genetically close to the Basques, whatever languages they spoke. BTW I am not sure the Basques in spite their genetic affinity with the Spaniards and Portuguese were the original Iberians. It is possible they were pushed to their current location by advancing IE speakers from the French and Spanish coast.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 16, 2004 4:26:20 GMT -5
Yes, I think the source of IE languages was probably Anatolia and as such that the population that initiated the IE avalanche was one with a high percentage of J Y-chromosome. Let's see... it is widely assumed that, at a given time, a process of desertization started in the Sahara area. The inhabitants of that area, the Mediterraneans, started a migration north and crossed into Europe. Many in the Western area entered through the Iberian peninsula, whereas those more East would go through the Fertile Crescent and pass through Anatolia. But they were Mediterraneans and they already spoke a group of languages distinctive from the Indo-European languages. Basque is one of such languages, the only one still alive in present days, and it has a structure distinctive from the languages of the Indo-European branch. That is why Basque is a key to decyphering other ancient Mediterranean languages such as Etruscan and Minoic Linear A. The Indo-Europeans, regardless of where they came from, arrived in later times. At the time when the IE people arrived, there were already some developed Mediterranean cultures in Europe as attested by the Archeological findings, and much of their knowledge would have travelled with them from Northen Africa into Europe. And yet, nothing suggests that, at the time of their arrival, they introduced any significant knowledge superior to that of the already existing Mediterranean cultures. To me this sounds as if the current trends of Negro immigrants into Europe keeps increasing and, some thousand of years down the line, someone says that they brought some cultural advances in the area superior to that of the Europeans. Mediterraneans were simply Mediterraneans, not Indo-Europeans, and they spoke a family of languages distinctive from that of the Indo-European family. That simple. They were later absorbed by the Indo-European migrations/invasions, which is why languages of the Indo-European family are spoken nowadays in the European Mediterranean regions. You keep talking of agriculture as if it had been brough in by the IEs. And yet, the ancient Iberians and Tartessans already had agricultural societies. Not just, but also irrigation, mining, cattle, herding and commerce were part of their economy. My question was based on the assumption that Indo-Europeans could have branched out from the ancient Northern African Mediterraneans (something I don't believe to be true). You keep talking of Mediterraneans who spoke Indo-European languages, which doesn't make any sense at all. It is thought that they all have a common Mediterranean origin, whether you call them Basques, Iberians, Tartessians, Etruscans, probably Ligurians too, may be even Picts, Minoans, and others. And of course the ancient Berbers (1) too. This group extended through the curren areas of modern Portugal, Spain, Southern and Western France, the British Isles, Italy, Crete, Greece, ... and of course we may assume that the Balkans area too. (1)Just as the white Mediterraneans in Europe mixed with the newly arrived Indo-Europeans, the white Mediterranean Berbers would have mixed with some Semitic and Negroids overtime.
|
|