Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Lost Adriatic pool civilization?

etruscan pelasgians italy greek pyramid

  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#31    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2012 - 10:11 AM

Parsec what about IE languages? Maybe they dont have sane origin as one people in certain area in certain time. Maybe for their origin we must look deeper in Jung files.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#32    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:07 AM

Well, I don't know The L.
Archetypes are symbols, and work on an unconscious level.
A language works on conscious level, since it has grammar, syntax and a lexicon, so I don't think we can apply the "Jung concept" to the IE language(s).

To me it's more probable that there has been an original core, that through contacts with other cultures, spread. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was an original IE language, from which all other languages spread. Maybe there was a cultural group that developed this language, and, since they were more influent than other cultures, many of its words, its grammar and even symbols (like the swastika) have been assimilated by other cultures.

Basically the original IE theory comes from the Positivism Era, or, if you prefer, from an evolutionist point of view (although I'd rather not use this term, because, especially in this Forum, it's easilly misunderstood): we have an original language (the root), from which all other languages derive (the branches). Easy, straight, linear.
To me it's not so simple, nor so direct. We can think for instance about more modern times: here in Europe (and thus in the West) we have two main groups of languages (for simplicity I leave the Slavic ones out, you'll pardon me), the Neo-Latin (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Rumanian) and the Germanic ones (English, German, Dutch, Scandinavian languages).
They come from different roots, and thus, they shouldn't share much in common.
But if you take the English language, you can see how it's composed for the 40% on Latin terms. And this not because it derives from Latin, but because Latin had a cultural influence on English (much more than on German, for instance).
Same for contemporary languages: English is ruling the world, and a lot of english words have been adopted by other languages to describe things that already had a word in their original language (how do you call "freezer" in your language? In Italian we use "freezer". We have the word to describe it, "refrigeratore", but we don't use it anymore).
By time, old words disappear, and only the new ones remain.

So, maybe, the IE group was a small, but very culturally powerful/developed group, that spread its culture with commerce (or war): the other groups copied and assimilated the swastika, the huge stones and the language. By time, the original languages disappeared, leaving only some reminiscence; to our eyes, thousands of years later, what appears to be a big and unified group, was instead a constellation of different cultures.


#33    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

Persec hello,

First of all I dont see why you leave Slavic languages from it. But that doesnt matter. I dont agree. Im 100% sure that they have same origin.(I just tried to abuse Jung idea). Furthermore Thomas Young 1813 physicist, doctor and Egyptologists who was involve in deschiphering Rosseta stone first used term Indo European.He used it describe work Mithridates of Prussian philologist Johann Christoph Adelung where he try to connect European languages and Indian .Adelung knew there is connection between European languages and Southeast Asia languages. Source of them is Indo European language in Euroasia 6000-4000 BC.
That people is mystery. We can give name to those people but those people arent like anyother ancient people.
They are uncatchable. From them languages emerged which half people on Earth used it.No texts. No material legacy.
Are you familiar with work of Marija Gimbutas and Kurgan hypothesis which is know accepted by most of historians?

Edited by the L, 17 November 2012 - 10:22 AM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#34    Parsec

Parsec

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 215 posts
  • Joined:15 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Italy

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:59 PM

Hi The L,

as I wrote, I left the Slavic languages out only for practicality and in order to keep the things simple, because I wanted to stress that, despite the difference in origin between English and Neo-Latin languages, they still have many words in common. I didn't want to use too many elements in the example, that could make more confusion. And I have to add that unfortunately I don't know Slavic languages (just a bit of Ukrainian), so I can't say much about them.
I didn't want to belittle the Slavic ones, nor disrespect you.

Apart from your interesting history of the IE term, I don't see how what you write differs from what I wrote.
To me we're saying the same thing.
The Kurgan hypothesis, in its general terms, says the same thing that I wrote in my last post: it could be that the original culture spread its cultural characteristics through war and/or commerce, hence the other cultures assimilated them (willingly or forced).
Anyway, Gimbutas's hypothesis is a little bit more "feminist" to me, describing how the poor "old European matriarchal culture", non belligerant, have been overtaken by the violent and patriarchal IE one. We have to consider the times in which she wrote it: she developed her theories from the sixties on, when the feminist movement raised. It's great, we have to analyze the history of the historians!
Also, I agree with Kathrin Kell, when she says that maybe Gimbutas forced a bit her hand in trying to match the archaeological findigs with the linguistic data.
For sure, Gimbuta had a leading role in prehistoric archaeology and we own much to her.

Thank you The L, thanks to you I'm reharsing a lot of infos buried in my memories, that I studied years and years ago.

So, let's try to recap what we've said so far, and let's try to connect the dots: how do you link the Indoeuropeans with "our" ancient and mystery civilization that spanned from North America to India?
Better, I should ask you first: do you think the IEans are "our" mystery civilization?
Do you think there's a connection between the ancient cities in Italy, the swastika symbol and a vast unknown and advanced culture existed in prehistoric times?

We have five groups of data (they're more, but this is a good beginning):
1- linguistics
2- architecture
3- symbols/symbolism
4- weapons, tools and everyday objects (and thus materials usage and styles)
5- habits/religious beliefs

If we want to understand if there really was a culture that touched half the world thousands of years ago, to me we should find common points in all of the five groups. And, of course, they should share synchronicity, so they should belong to the same time period.
Otherwise we're trying to force something that doesn't exist.


#35    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

Hi Parsec,

I think its because language barrier. I read your previous post again, Now I understand what you mean by leaving Slavic.
I see Gimbutas hypothesis rather as old european agricultury based culture taken by violent livestock nomadic horse riders which came in three waves.
But there are people who didnt agree with her. For example Collin Renfrew, British archaeologist, set Anatolian hypothesis which tells that Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Neolithic Anatolia. Gimbutas thought that IE conquer Europe in 3500 BC and destroy old European culture. Renfrew claim that it was peacefull migration not invasion.
Gimbutas claim that nomads bring horses, new metal weapon and chariots around 3500 BC.
And I agree nothing more interestingly then study history of history and Im glad that I can remind on you on some things.
I try to connected IE to civilization from America to India because Jung hypothesis could only lead to Schauberger quote.
I dont think that IE was our mystery civilization. But origin, maybe? What I want to tell is that they probably didnt have that big centralized state.
That some symbols as swastika and others we mention so far in this thread originate  from IE. Were they advanced? IE? Defenetly no according archaeological sites.
But sites in Varna (which beside Gibekli Tepe and few others realy amazed me) and Vinča culture can tell us that IE were real people. They possibly traded with Varna as many historians argued.
So we have Proto IE language. We have Swastikas. We have polygonal walls. Four faced Gods as religious belief. And sadly we have none of material from them.
Also I dont think that we need to find synchronicity because, althugh his view are debunked,English historian Arnold J. Toynbee in 1922 travel trough Bulgaria and notice that Burlagian villagers wear same "fox fur hats" smilar to Xerxes soldiers in Greeco Persian wars. He concluded that in history we have continuity.
Matrice that doesnt change. From that thought he wrote 12 tomes-Study of history. Cycle rise and fall of civilization. He research 26 civilization and so on. What I ment is Toynbee view on Cycle rise and fall of civilization was debunked none historian ever stressed out that he wasnt right when he said that matrice doesnt change at all.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#36    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2012 - 09:36 AM

The Snake God, Kukulcan and Naga which are according to wiki:

Traditions about nāgas are also very common in all the Buddhist countries of Asia. In many countries, the nāga concept has been merged with local traditions of great and wise serpents or dragons. In Tibet, the nāga was equated with the klu, wits that dwell in lakes or underground streams and guard treasure. In China, the nāga was equated with the lóng or Chinese dragon.


Klu-Kukulcan.

Edited by the L, 23 November 2012 - 09:36 AM.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users