|
Post by Melnorme on Feb 16, 2004 6:32:56 GMT -5
Mynydd, Artemidoros thinks the 'Meds' came from Anatolia, not North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 16, 2004 7:02:19 GMT -5
Mynydd, Artemidoros thinks the 'Meds' came from Anatolia, not North Africa. Well, yes, South-Eastern Eurpe's Mediterraneans may have come through Anatolia, but from Northern Africa. That the Mediterraneans originated in Northern Africa I believe it is much established and accepted. I thought he meant that the Mediterraneans, in their way out of Africa and through Anatolia might have split into two groups, one being the Indo-European.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 16, 2004 8:15:48 GMT -5
Still defended by some and rejected by others. There is nothing conclusive. Correct. No, I am not. I am just observing evident facts: - almost all the European Nations speak Indo-European languages; - we know next to nothing about the ethnicity (language, religions, traditions) of the pre-Indo-European folks of western Europe. So, we can't say that we have something from them. Also, about the genetic studies, that is still in it's very beginning. If, for instances, Collin Renfrew is correct, then the neolithic was brought by the Indo-Europeans and so we all have a lot more Indo-European blood that we thought. Is it? What is inferior and what is superior? Supposedly, you said. Supposedly. It is a matter of place and time, not of cultural nature. Indeed, it is important to notice that the highest Deities of both Germanics and Celts, are, in the first place, Deities of Wisdom: Lugh, Dagda, Ogma, Odin. Caesar said - in «De Bello Gallico» - that the highest social level of the Gauls were the Druids, who were «men of wisdom» par excellence, above everybody else in their society. And so, such potential arose to a never imagined level, when the West developed medicine, technology, politics, and reached the Moon. And more is to come. And why would they need such knowledge, if their societies were more nomadic than agricultural? And their knowledge in doing stronger weapons, isn't that important? Why did the Indo-Europeans dominate most of western Asia and all Europe? And correct, in all this cases. It is a study that is still being done. Anyway, there seem to be important genetic elements that produce important differences between both folks. Not necessarily. The origin of the Portuguese people does not lies, necessarily, in the most archaic pre-History. I would like to to see you pointing out where and when did I ever claim to be purely Indo-European. The fact that you do not like Aryans, whistles, Maria-Fernandez or that-invented-conception-that-the-nordicists-use-to-make-us-feel-inferior, is not important. What does matter is to keep focused on the real arguments that the other side uses, and not a simplified version of those same arguments. If you can only «fight» against charicatures, because it is easier, that's bad. Why? Because I disagree and have arguments? Because they are crucial. That's why. Do you think that the reality that Latins met Etruscans defeats the reality that Latins and Celts were ethnically related? Does this reality bothers you? Is it better to despise the Indo-European element and value only the Mediterranean aspect of Southern Europe... to link it with Northern Africa, perhaps, creating a distance towards Central and Northern Europe? I was just claryfying the subject, since you said that «Whatever you may be thinking of originally Latin in cultural terms, may well be borrowed or influenced by the Ethruscans.»<br>and that «whatever» sounds too much as «everything».<br> But, if it was not that what you wanted to say, that's good.
|
|
|
Post by Graeme on Feb 16, 2004 9:04:39 GMT -5
We are conjecturing about the past, the languages spoken, and what has not really been said; what the original Meds looked like.
I have a bias like all of you about this subject. I am a Med through and through, from generation to generation, before recorded time. Don't get hung up on terms. Aryan is a language term and means IE. The looks of the people who spoke IE languages probably varied quite widely. Yes, my Med ancestors existed before IE speakers invaded the region. These Med ancestors were probably simple farmers and fishermen. The IE invaders like the Turkic speaking invaders of Turkey were a strong, cohesive, military, but small group of people who managed to impose their languages on our ancestors. Their contribution was more cultural and religious, and bringing the horse and other animals with them, but their genetic contribution was probably small.
What the IE speakers looked like is pure speculation and I would not jump to the conclusion that they were tall blond people like some people have a need to believe. The ancient Basques, the ancient Cretans and the Etruscans were indigenous when IE speakers invaded and survived for a time due to their civilisation, economic power and military power.
Today it does not matter as the ancient Meds have assimilated the IE speakers and Neolithic wheat growing farmers. Our language may be IE, but the basis of our genetic structure is pre IE or Neolithic. So are we trually Meds. I would say yes.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 16, 2004 9:13:54 GMT -5
Mynydd, Artemidoros thinks the 'Meds' came from Anatolia, not North Africa. Well, Neolithic Meds I believe originated in the Middle East and came to Europe via Anatolia. The Med populations that spoke an ancestral PIE I believe originated in Anatolia. There were also Palaeolithic Meds in Europe before them. Needless to say I consider the term Mediterranean a phenotype with racial strings attached rather than a pure racial type.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 16, 2004 9:29:18 GMT -5
Well, yes, South-Eastern Eurpe's Mediterraneans may have come through Anatolia, but from Northern Africa. That the Mediterraneans originated in Northern Africa I believe it is much established and accepted. I disagree. The accepted view, which is well documented, is that Eu4 carriers (who are dominant in north Africa) came from the Middle East along with carriers of Eu9, Eu10, Eu11 and that all the above are responsible for the spread of agriculture. At the time of their arrival there were Palaeolithic populations in Europe who were carrying the Y-chromosome markers Eu7, Eu8, Eu18, Eu19. Eu19 is thought to originate in modern Ukraine and its expansion is believed by many to represent the spread of IE languages. hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdfI am a fan of the rival theory (C. Renfrew) that IE languages were spread by the Neolithics (mostly). It makes much more sense. Both because of the greater genetic impact the had and because of the huge cultural advantage of farmers over hunter gatherers.
|
|
|
Post by sonofzeus on Feb 16, 2004 12:23:52 GMT -5
According to most Anthropologists/Paleoanthropologists the Mediterranean race was formed in the Mediterranea and especially south-east Mediterranean(Aegean Basin & west Asian Minor).Orientalids-Near Easterns-Middle Easterns have nothing to do with them.The Mediterraneans agriculturalists of the Neolithic period were Hellenes/Pelasgians and invaded all Europe during 10,000-5,000 bc by south-east Europe.They spoke the proto-Indo-European language.They colonized the Italian peninsula,the Iberian and part of modern France,they moved through the Moravian gates in Danube and reached all central-northern and central-eastern Europe,they were Europoid Mediterraneans.
By the antiquity to now only 12,50 percent of the Greek population is of Middle Eastern ancestry and has assimilated by the meso-neolithic period,probably related to Hittito-Louvites than to Turkized Irano-Afgan Iranians,Kurds and other eastern Anatolians.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 16, 2004 13:42:07 GMT -5
No, I am not. I am just observing evident facts: - almost all the European Nations speak Indo-European languages; Great point! Almost all... actually, ALL South American and Central American nations speak Indo-European languages. Of course you might now argue that those languages of the Indo-European family were introduced by Europeans... so, it does not imply that the descendants of the Mayans or Aztecs have any relation with the ancient Indo-Europeans. Likewise, Latin was introduced in the Iberian peninsula by the Romans, and it eventually formed the Portuguese, Castilian, Catalan and other Romance languages. Speak for yourself. When researchers are linking the old Mediterranean peoples throughout the European Mediterranean area through language, religious beliefs and traditions (and genetics), it is because something is known from them. I'll leave your statement "So, we can't say that we have something from them" for later. If and only if he is right. But genetics don't seem to be supporting him so far. See Origins of the Indo-Europeans: Genetic Evidence by Sokal, Oden and Thomson. The rest of the paragraph gives you a pretty obvious clue, but only if you know about the Mediterranean Civilization and Culture and if you can differenciate between what is a Civilization and what is not. Did I really? Oh, yes... I don't claim to know who the Aryans were, more so when there are different theories (not just Germans and Russians claims) and all are equally valid until further findings. Why is that important? It is completely irrelevant to the issue, but thank you for the information (whatever it is good for). You just destroyed all my argumentation. I'm impressed. Listen, now I should be making fun of that, but I don't find it funny, it's sad. Do you realize of what you've written? After what you've just said, I wouldn't be surprised if you had more to say. Yeah... knowledge is for wimps, who wants it? We are the Indo-Europeans and we ain't gonna need it for nothing. Stronger than... ? Cuz' the Romans adopted the gladius hispaniensis as they considered it superior technologically and stronger built. The origin of the gladius hispaniensis was the Iberian falcata, and the Romans never managed discovered what made it stronger. Recent researchers have suggested that the metal used contained some composition with titanium... not bad for the period of time they lived in. If the Huns had arrived before the Indo-Europeans, it would have been the Huns who would have most probably dominated instead. Enough studies have been done for anyone who doesn't come with a pre-concived idea of what he wants to claim to be and not to be. Those elements that produce important differences are, by the way, not share between the Portuguese and other (Indo-)Europeans either. I'm not sure you understand the period in time were are dealing with. And more, you neglect the accepted views that those migrations did not change the racial composition at large. As it's usually been the case, where the invading crowd is absorbed (and at times diluted) into the invaded lot, leaving mostly a culture mixed to some degree or another. And not just in Portugal. I didn't say you did, I just said you seem to be very interested in it. And it's alright, it's your choice. Not that it will change the facts though. I don't like Aryans? I don't know, I've never met any. I only dislike this trendy pseudo-aryannism that some Mediterraneans wear on top of their shoulders. Come on, tell us who she is, I'm dying of curiousity. I don't think you have understood a single word since this all started. Why do you assume that I'm trying to create a parallel argument to that of nordicists? No, because you don't have a single argument and yet you insist in arguing. Unless you consider things like linking the Celtic druids to the Space conquest as a valid argument... See one of the paragraphs above about the languages. It seems crucial to you, but not to the argument. Have I said that Latins and Celts were not ethnically related? No, you just created this pseudo-argumentation to oppose to my only claim, which was that they met Etruscans and other Mediterranean peoples before "getting into something". Aha! Now we get to the point, which is that you are afraid to being linked to some "African" origins. Fear not my little one, as when I speak of a North African origin there is nothing that links it to modern Moorish or Negroid people. That's why texts refer to sub-saharian as different to North African. And the distance with "Europe" is zero, as Mediterraneans make up a large part of modern Europe, at least the part which was of importance in terms of civilization in the ancient and classic worlds. This statement is like saying Je suis l'Europe. And, to go back to your earlier statement ( "So, we can't say that we have something from them"), as promised, let me tell you that it is you who is denying part of his heritage, not me. I don't deny my part Indo-European heritage (oh well, no one is perfect), I'm just balancing both from a well argumented point of view and find that my Mediterranean heritage weighs more (in many respects, also genetically). So, I don't create a distance with Central and Northern Europe, but I do keep the existing distances. That simple. No, I didn't mean «everything», nor would I dare to give a list that I simply cannot give. It is only that things are usually some more complex than a simple Roman Civilization that came out of the blue.
|
|
|
Post by Silveira on Feb 16, 2004 14:38:54 GMT -5
LOL. I have meet an Aryan, that is, a brahmin Indian.
Regarding the pseudo-Aryanism, I may be mistaken but are you making reference to the French "nouvelle-droite" ideas that emerged in the 1970s, which placed an emphasis on Europe´s "indo-european" character? These ideas have been adopted by some people in Portugal and Spain who believe they are being very modern by following foreign trends and reciting things they read in foreign manuals. My position is that we should look at our own roots and origins, and this leads us naturally to people who were unrelated to the Indo-European tribes. Studying the traditional institutions of Spain and Portugal, we realize that there is something which makes us different from most of Europe. Being different is not the same as being inferior.
As a Portuguese I have no "fear" of having links with the ancient populations of North Africa. I read a work written by a former colonist in French Algeria, who happened to be of Spanish origin, and he wrote about the similarities between the songs sung by the Berber women in Algeria and the songs he heard as a young boy in his village in León, Spain. The melodies were strinkingly similar, with the only difference being that the Spanish songs were about Saints and the Virgin Mary.
Exactly, by geographical definition we are just as "European" as anyone else. However, "European" is not always defined in the same manner. Many people believe that your grade of "Europeaness" varies in function of your distance from Berlin. Perhaps that is why most of the old school nationalists in Spain and Portugal rejected Spengler´s interpretations. We have our own reality which was not conceived between the Ruhr and the Oder.
We don´t need to create a distance since it already exists and is not necessarily a bad thing. I am quite comfortable with my condition as a Portuguese and don´t feel the need to identify with an ancient linguistic family. Almost 900 years of history is a heavy enough burden for most shoulders.
|
|
|
Post by xxx on Feb 16, 2004 15:55:35 GMT -5
LOL. I have meet an Aryan, that is, a brahmin Indian. I also met once an Iranian married to an English woman, who claimed that her daughter was much Aryan both from her Persian and English sides. This Aryan madness is like a joke. Yes, but not only. There is also the hangover left by the Germans in the 30s. And that at the same time makes us similar to the other countries of Southern Europe. Not in this case. By acknowledging our Mediterranean ancesctry we are sharing an ancestry which created the great Civilizations of the ancient world. One of those pied noir. Many came to live in Spain and I've met a few of Spanish origin. My neighbour happens to be one [French] pied noir. What is the exact area where the Berbers extend? I know there are Berbers in Morocco, more in Algeria, and even Lybia. Are there any in Egypt? For many non Europeans who have the idea of a cultural old Europe, I suspect that it is a bit difficult to see Scandinavians and others as Europeans. As you just said, it is not a bad thing at all. A bad thing would be a highly homogeneous, uniformed Europe. So, heterogeneity, within a geo-political European framework, is good.
|
|
|
Post by Melnorme on Feb 16, 2004 16:14:29 GMT -5
What is the exact area where the Berbers extend? I know there are Berbers in Morocco, more in Algeria, and even Lybia. Are there any in Egypt? Most Berbers live in Algeria and Morocco. They are a very large percentage of the population in Morocco, around 40%. Berber speakers also exist in Tunisia and Libya, but in much smaller numbers. Not sure about Egypt, but if they exist there, they are very few.
|
|
|
Post by AWAR on Feb 16, 2004 19:33:15 GMT -5
But, IE languages weren't introduced in the entire Europe at some unknown anceint times or the neolithic. The inhabitants of Italy were the non-IE Etruscans. THe appenines got their language from Itals.
The Iberian peninsula and the Brittish isles also got IE sometime during the 500BC period, probably from central-European Celts.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 17, 2004 7:29:20 GMT -5
Great point! Really... well, they were dominated far easily than the northern and western Indo-European tribes, such as the Lusitanians, the Galaicians, the Cantabrians. Another supposion. And a rather feeble one: if the Hunes failed later, why would they be successful earlier? Not enough studies to allow to someone to use them as a tool to reach it's own political agenda. Actually, some studies indicate a higher closeness between Portuguese and other Euroeans than between Portuguese and Basques. I say the same about you. Not accepted by all, contrary to what you pretend. Not much is known about the Portuguese proto-History in what concerns genetics. So, those «accepted» views are not solid by any means. And, in Portugal, the proto-Historic populations had a dominant Indo-European culture.
|
|
|
Post by Tautalos on Feb 17, 2004 7:30:11 GMT -5
(Cont.)
You said «if you want to consider yourself a pure Indo-European», which is a statement that would demand a previous statement of mine with a similar meaning. But all right, you back off.
Certainly not.
I do not know what trend is that... what I've seen is a prejudice against any form of Aryannism because the nordicists say that they are Aryans and we are not like them, etc..
Well, she can even be one of your cousins. But, since you said that you never saw an Aryan, it is no surprise that you don't know who she is.
[quoteI don't think you have understood[/quote]
You think wrongly (again...), as it is being shown.
Because you want to create a «Southern European Med pride», contrary to that of the Northerners based on Aryanity. That's the whole idea of your first post: «hey people, drop that idea of the Aryans, they are barbaric creatures, we the Meds are far superior!».<br>
In other words, because I disagree and have arguments, against which you could not do nothing. Thank you for the confirmation in your own «language», which I had to translate.
Again, you confirm what I said before: not being able to discuss properly, since you have no real arguments, you try to create a charicature of the contrary point of view that is «easily» defeated by you. That's what really sad, Mynnyd: for you and for the forum, that get's impoverished by such mindless discussion tactics.
I saw. It was nothing important.
Actually, it is crucial for the argument, even if you just do not like it.
Did I say that you said that?
No, I just answered in the same level, and, obviously, you did not like to taste your own medicine. Too bad. Better luck, next time.
What is that «getting into something»? They were «nothing» before that? And would they never be «nothing» if they did not met the Etruscans?
You are the one who is afraid of having your building tore down, which, by the away, already happened. You show an obvious anti-nordicism since the beginning, and yet you seem to be very happy because you think that you discovered a similar prejudice in the opponent.
I am not you little one, babe.
Nobody said the contrary. Again, you are jumping to conclusions.
The distance with Europe is large, since the contacts between pre-Historic Northern African elements and European elements was far greater than you want to admit.
Quote a single statement of mine denying it.
No, you just try to confuse it and to deem it as culturally inferior, and, ultimately, useless to the definition of Southern European folks, because «oh, there are so many theories about it, and the Nordics and the Slavs etc.!». That is the real nature of your «ballanced» argumentation.
|
|
|
Post by Kukul-Kan on Feb 17, 2004 8:37:08 GMT -5
Really... well, they were dominated far easily than the northern and western Indo-European tribes, such as the Lusitanians, the Galaicians, the Cantabrians. Actually to this day it’s still not decided whether the Cantabrians were Celtic speakers or not.
|
|