Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
The Puzzler

Trojans were Basques?

641 posts in this topic

3 q's cormac because I actually do value your input.

1.How do you know the Sicani were not Iberian in origin?

2.How do you know what haplogroup they are/were?

Two of the three pre-Greek peoples of Sicily, the Sicans and the Elymians, may also have been pre-Indo-European.

3.Where do you suggest they came from?

The thing is the megalithic structures are all throughout Western Europe as well, I find it hard to think the same groups did not build them all.

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered together, per the following:

The most represented are R1b1c-M269 (24.58%), J2-M172 (15.25%) and E3b1a-M78 (11.44%). The co-occurrence of the Berber E3b1b-M81 (2.12%) and of the Mid-Eastern J1-M267 (3.81%) Hgs together with the presence of E3b1a1-V12, E3b1a3-V22, E3b1a4-V65 (5.5%) support the hypothesis of intrusion of North African genes.7,12

Differential Greek and northern African migrations to

Sicily are supported by genetic evidence from the Y chromosome

R1b1c is an older designation associated with R1b1a2-M269 and is Anatolian in origin. J2 is Middle Eastern and E3b1a is an older designation associated with E1b1b1a1-M78 and is either North East African/Near Eastern in origin. R1b1a2-M269 is older in origin than anything that is in evidence in Iberia and ancestral to the specific group found there.

Two of the three pre-Greek peoples of Sicily, the Sicans and the Elymians, may also have been pre-Indo-European.

3.Where do you suggest they came from?

Considering that the largest group R1b1a2-M269 is Anatolian in origin then NO, it's not pre-Indo-European. Ancestrally they originated from the east.

Considering that the megaliths were built over a very large period of time, it's more likely that whomever the original builders were, their influence was passed on to other cultures.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Questions 1 and 2 can be answered together, per the following:

Differential Greek and northern African migrations to

Sicily are supported by genetic evidence from the Y chromosome

R1b1c is an older designation associated with R1b1a2-M269 and is Anatolian in origin. J2 is Middle Eastern and E3b1a is an older designation associated with E1b1b1a1-M78 and is either North East African/Near Eastern in origin. R1b1a2-M269 is older in origin than anything that is in evidence in Iberia and ancestral to the specific group found there.

Considering that the largest group R1b1a2-M269 is Anatolian in origin then NO, it's not pre-Indo-European. Ancestrally they originated from the east.

Considering that the megaliths were built over a very large period of time, it's more likely that whomever the original builders were, their influence was passed on to other cultures.

cormac

Thank you. I have researched your answers some more and come up with these points.

The pdf said this:

The presence

of the lineage E3b1b-M81 in Sicily and Iberia reflects gene

flows also from North Africa.

This sits with my view because I said that the Iberians also settled in Tunisia, Libya. There appears to be an Iberian/Libyan connection where these 2 areas were mixing.

The E3b1b-M81 in Iberia reflects Libyan gene flow, as it also appears in Sicily, the same acknowledgement is made.

Notice this, the same (Libyan) haplogroup E3b1b-M81 is found in Portugal and Rio De Janeiro, a Portugese settled country.

The presence of chromosomes of North African origin (E3b1b-M81; Cruciani et al., 2004) [in Rio de Janeiro] can also be explained by a Portuguese-mediated influx, since this haplogroup reaches a frequency of 5.6% in Portugal (Beleza et al., 2006), quite similar to the frequency found in Rio de Janeiro (5.4%) among European contributors.

Y-chromosome genetic variation in Rio de Janeiro population, Silva et al. 2006

I think it's hard, unless you know the dates of these tests when the ages are, that pdf, from what I gathered was dating around 2380 years before present, which is not very old really.

An interesting thing I recently read is that no haplogroup V is showing in ancient Iberian populations, contrare to the older tests that showed it was.

ie; Haplogroup V is believed to have originated around the Western Mediterranean region, approximately 13,600 years before present- possibly on Iberia. It derives from the Haplogroup HV0a.

[edit] DistributionIt is found with particularly high concentrations in the Saami People of northern Scandinavia, as well as the Basque people (10.4%) [1] and somewhat higher among the isolated Pasiegos in nearby Cantabria. It also is found in particularly high concentrations (16.3%) among the Berbers of Matmata, Tunisia.[3] The highest levels are in Scandinavian and Western and North African populations. It is spread at varying low levels across Europe and smaller portions of West and Central Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_V_(mtDNA)

New info:

I did obtain a copy of the new study and, like you, am

puzzled by the complete absence of haplogroup V among

the ancient Iberians. Again, the Izagirre study tries

to deal with this discrepancy, though even he appears

to be at a bit of a loss to explain its absence among

ancient Basque remains, then its subsequent high

frequency among contemporary Basque populations. He

suggests that haplogroup V appeared at a time when the

population size was small enough to allow genetic

drift to act. However, the date attributed to

haplogroup V is 10,000-15,000 YBP from a point of

origin in southwestern Europe.

The theory concerning the origins of haplogroup V is

even more difficult to sustain in light of the ancient

Iberian study. It should be noted that the Iberian

study focuses on much more recent skeletal remains

than found in the ancient Basque studies. Thus, by

the time period in question - the 8th to the 3rd

centuries BC - one would expect to find some

haplogroup V among the remains. However, there is

still a complete absence of haplogroup V at this late

time period. In contemporary populations, it is

present in Portuguese at 7-8% and in Andalucians and

Catalans at 5-6%. It is absent in Central Spanish and

Valencian populations.

I also wanted to pointed out that haplogroup J is

present in the ancient Iberian samples at a high

frequency of nearly 12%, comparable to the ancient

Basque samples. Like contemporary Basque groups,

Spanish and Portuguese today show a much low frequency

of this haplogroup than their ancient counterparts.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENEALOGY-DNA/2005-09/1126821299

It appears the V arrived with the Moors.

But J is in them.

The big question:

Reading the article concerning mtDNA in pre-Roman

> > Iberian peninsula

> > referred to by Ann T. , I find the absence of V

> > prior to Roman

> > occupation is confirmed by this current study. I

> am

> > truly puzzled that

> > if, as Sykes says, V originated in northern Spain, ---- (Haplogroup V is believed to have originated around the Western Mediterranean region, approximately 13,600 years before present- possibly on Iberia.)

> > how could it

> > disappear in the pre-Roman studies conducted so

> far

> > and then reappear in

> > the modern populace.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troy I was built c. 3000BC so I'd be looking for the original builders of this structure.

Which brings into question a number of factors.

As you are aware, the Hisarlik "mound" is the product of repeated occupations and rebuildings. The site is composed of numerous "structures" that have been torn down, burnt, rebuilt, replaced, etc. numerous times. Structural footprints present quite an array. Within each of the levels there are actually many documented "sub-levels", sometimes as many as ten or more. It should also be noted that the mound itself was more of a citadel that could only contain a few hundred people at its peak. Current research would tend to indicate that the surrounding settlement/support population may have consisted of as many as 6000 individuals during the most productive periods.

To address the 3000 BC date more specifically (note: Level I is generally dated to 2900 BC):

The Luwian speakers were "one of three groups of Indo-European speaking peoples who entered Anatolia some time during the course of the Third Millenium" (Bryce 2002). In this, he is referring more specifically to levels VI and VII. Bryce also posits that the earlier levels "may well have had a Luwian population".

A review of Blegen's original 1936 report presents ceramics from Level I that are not consistent with the stylistic or decorative patterns associated with Iberian ceramics of the relevant period. The ceramics of Level II demonstrate quite clearly the utilization of the potters wheel. This would not be consistent with the hand-formed Corded/Bell Beaker ceramics present in Iberia during this period. The burial patterns and structural elements would also not appear to be reflective of those associated with Iberian populations at this time. The discontinuity in regards to structural patterns/methodologies is also apparent in the evaluation of the earlier levels by Mellaart (1959).

Other aspects such as lithic and metallurgical technology can be addressed.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The presence of the lineage E3b1b-M81 in Sicily and Iberia reflects gene flows also from North Africa.

Meaning that it DOES NOT ORIGINATE in Sicily or Iberia.

This sits with my view because I said that the Iberians also settled in Tunisia, Libya.

The article is not detailing migration TO Africa, but FROM Africa. Again showing that the E3b1 subgroups DO NOT ORIGINATE in Iberia.

I think it's hard, unless you know the dates of these tests when the ages are, that pdf, from what I gathered was dating around 2380 years before present, which is not very old really.

The article was dating the E3b1a2-V13 lineage associated with Sicily and NOT the other haplogroups which were peripheral to the discussion.

An interesting thing I recently read is that no haplogroup V is showing in ancient Iberian populations, contrare to the older tests that showed it was.
The Magdalenian expansion from the southwest refugia began ~15 kya110 and, on the basis of their geographic distribution, it has been proposed that H1 and H3 (as well as V) are markers for this expansion, having evolved in the western refugium.

The sister clade of H, haplogroup V, indeed dates to ~13.6 (9.1; 18.2) kya (13.7 [12.1; 15.2] kya in ρ and 12.2 [10.0; 14.3] kya in syn rate), fitting better the time of expansion from the Franco-Cantabrian glacial refuge.

Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock

You really, REALLY need to quit using Wikipedia, outdated sources and half-truths/outright fabrications as your source material. You're more intelligent than that. Unless you make a decent attempt to keep up with genetic studies/literature and where it supports the claims made in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia isn't much more than a piece of crap for the incredibly gullible/intellectually lazy.

It appears the V arrived with the Moors.

No, V DID NOT arrive with the Moors, unless you're going to try telling me that the Moors were around c.13,600 BP. I'm not buying it. :no:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning that it DOES NOT ORIGINATE in Sicily or Iberia.

The article is not detailing migration TO Africa, but FROM Africa. Again showing that the E3b1 subgroups DO NOT ORIGINATE in Iberia.

The article was dating the E3b1a2-V13 lineage associated with Sicily and NOT the other haplogroups which were peripheral to the discussion.

Correcting for Purifying Selection: An Improved Human Mitochondrial Molecular Clock

You really, REALLY need to quit using Wikipedia, outdated sources and half-truths/outright fabrications as your source material. You're more intelligent than that. Unless you make a decent attempt to keep up with genetic studies/literature and where it supports the claims made in Wikipedia, then Wikipedia isn't much more than a piece of crap for the incredibly gullible/intellectually lazy.

No, V DID NOT arrive with the Moors, unless you're going to try telling me that the Moors were around c.13,600 BP. I'm not buying it. :no:

cormac

The absence of haplogroup V in the prehistoric samples analyzed conflicts with the hypothesis proposed by Torroni et al., in which haplogroup V is considered as an mtDNA marker for a major Paleolithic population expansion from southwestern Europe, occurring approximately 10,000-15,000 years before the present (YBP). Our samples from the Basque Country provide a valuable tool for checking the previous hypothesis, which is based on genetic data from present-day populations. In light of the available data, the most realistic scenario to explain the origin and distribution of haplogroup V suggests that the mutation defining that haplogroup (4577 NlaIII) appeared at a time when the effective population size was small enough to allow genetic drift to act-and that such drift is responsible for the heterogeneity observed in Basques, with regard to the frequency of haplogroup V (0%-20%). This is compatible with the attributed date for the origin of that mutation (10,000-15, 000 YBP), because during the postglacial period (the Mesolithic, approximately 11,000 YBP) there was a major demographic change in the Basque Country, which minimized the effect of genetic drift. This interpretation does not rely on migratory movements to explain the distribution of haplogroup V in present-day Indo-European populations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1378091/

No V in prehistoric samples, only ones after Roman occupation. They are saying genetic drift might be possible to explain it, but I don't know of any tests that actually show V originated in Iberia as Sykes assumed.

V imo might even be an ancient haplogroup from the Aral Sea area.

I'll quit on Sicily for now, it wasn't originally in the group of colonies I said, just that the Sicani were said to come from Sicily but also from Iberia. Even though I espoused the V haplogroup as an origin in Iberia - the research I can find only shows V in samples after Roman times. IF it can be shown that V IS in prehistoric dna samples from SW Europe then I might reconsider it - even though Sykes says genetic drift has occurred, can we be sure V is even in prehistoric Spanish areas, let alone an origin point?

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

I did find this which was interesting:

I-M26Haplogroup I-M26 is notable for its strong presence in Sardinia. Haplogroup I comprises approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians, and I-M26 is the predominant type of I among them.

Haplogroup I-M26 is practically absent east of France and Italy.,[26] while it is found at low but significant frequencies outside of Sardinia in the Balearic Islands, Castile-Leon, the Basque Country, the Pyrenees, southern and western France, and parts of the Maghreb in North Africa, Great Britain, and Ireland. Haplogroup I-M26 appears to be the only subclade of Haplogroup I found among the Basques, but appears to be found at somewhat higher frequencies among the general populations of Castile-Leon in Spain and Béarn in France than among the population of ethnic Basques[citation needed]. The M26 mutation is found in native males inhabiting every geographic region where megaliths may be found, including such far-flung and culturally disconnected regions as the Canary Islands, the Balearic Isles, Corsica, Ireland, and Sweden.

This is the possible haplogroup the men had that built the European megaliths. This indicates this haplogroup is the one I should be better looking at. It's also a fairly European haplogroup, thought to originate in the Balkans c.25,000 yrs ago, c. 23,000BC.

The distribution of M26 also mirrors that of the Atlantic Bronze Age cultures, which indicates a potential spread via the obsidian trade or a regular maritime exchange of some of metallurgical products.

M26 is particularly the one in the Atlantic Bronze Age cultures as well. It's the only subclade of I to be found in the Basques. Not found east of France and Italy.

So, on studying the I groups, it seems from a central core around the Balkans, 3 groups spread out, one of which went into France and Spain, the I-M26 group became the megalithic builders of Europe and part of the Atlantic Bronze Age pre-IE people of Spain and France around the Pyrenees.

I made up the chart like this:

I 25,000ya balkans - I2 17,000balkans - I2a 11,000balkans - I2a1 8,000SWeurope - I2a2 7,500SEeurope

I2b 13000central europe - I2b1 9000germany - I2b1a less than 3000britain

I1 5000scandinavia

I2a1 6000BC(8000ya) SW Europe must have M26 in it imo.

Not really proving anything, just pinning down who built the megaliths for a start.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No V in prehistoric samples, only ones after Roman occupation. They are saying genetic drift might be possible to explain it, but I don't know of any tests that actually show V originated in Iberia as Sykes assumed.

Your source, a study from 1999, has been effectively invalidated several ways. A more recent one being the following:

However, it is noticeable that the frequencies of the ancestral lineages of V (pre-V) in pooled Cantabrians (7%) and Pasiegos (5%) are at the top of their range in Europe, and contrast with the lack of pre-V sequences in the nearby populations such as Basques, Portuguese or French and the low frequencies detected in northern Europe (Torroni et al. 2001). These results are congruent with the hypothesis that haplogroup V arose in a south-western European glacial refugium from which a postglacial recolonization of Europewas initiated (Torroni et al. 1998; Torroni et al. 2001). The Basque country was suggested as a possible candidate focus of this dispersion, but this was refuted on the basis of the lack of haplogroup V representatives in prehistoric Basques (Izagirre et al. 1999). In the light of our results, this focus could well be displaced to Cantabria. Nevertheless, a more recent northern invasion bringing V sequences that mixed with a recipient Cantabrian population harbouring mainly pre-V

sequences is also a plausible alternative. The most probable hypothesis about the origin of Pasiegos, which also holds for other Cantabrians, is that they are the result of an ancient indigenous substrate more or less mixed with more recent immigrants. The other possibility, that the high frequencies found in Cantabrians for lineages with dual geographic origins have been the result of genetic drift, is weakened because it happens in outbred and inbred samples, and it is recurrent in independent male and female genetic lineages as well as in autosomal markers (Esteban et al. 1998; S´anchez-Velasco et al. 1999).

Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Characterization of Pasiegos, a Human Isolate

from Cantabria (Spain)

IF it can be shown that V IS in prehistoric dna samples from SW Europe then I might reconsider it - even though Sykes says genetic drift has occurred, can we be sure V is even in prehistoric Spanish areas, let alone an origin point?

See above link. The fact that you picked up on a 13 year old study and thought that it was the last word on the subject runs counter to the fact that it's been shown to be in error by subsequent studies.

With a look into Haplogroup I you are finally on firmer ground, although once again here is another haplogroup that DOES NOT originate in Iberia. With that in mind, I believe it's time you put "X originated in Iberia and was responsible for Y" to rest. It doesn't even make for a good zombie. :lol:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I2a1 6000BC(8000ya) SW Europe must have M26 in it imo.

I2a1, the parent subgroup at that point DOES NOT include M26. M26 doesn't come into play until I2a1a and is not found in I2a1b.

Balkan Groups:

Haplogroup I originates c.28,000 BP.

I2 originates c. 14,000 BP.

I2a/P37.2 originates c.10,700 BP.

I1b originates c.1000 BC in Eastern Europe/Balkans.

Sardinia:

I1b1b (formerly I1b2) originates in Sardinia c.9300 BC.

Northern Europe:

I1 originates c.4000 - 6000 BP.

England:

I2b1a-M284 originates c.1870 BC.

Northwest Europe:

I2b-M436 (formerly I1b2) originates c.9300 BP.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I2a1, the parent subgroup at that point DOES NOT include M26. M26 doesn't come into play until I2a1a and is not found in I2a1b.

Balkan Groups:

Haplogroup I originates c.28,000 BP.

I2 originates c. 14,000 BP.

I2a/P37.2 originates c.10,700 BP.

I1b originates c.1000 BC in Eastern Europe/Balkans.

Sardinia:

I1b1b (formerly I1b2) originates in Sardinia c.9300 BC.

Northern Europe:

I1 originates c.4000 - 6000 BP.

England:

I2b1a-M284 originates c.1870 BC.

Northwest Europe:

I2b-M436 (formerly I1b2) originates c.9300 BP.

cormac

OK, got it - not until I2a1a. What time frame would you place on that? Considering I2a1 is c.6000BC - would you consider 4000BC too early for the I2a1a-M26?

I2a1a (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) (Former I2a1 in the Y2010 tree)Typical of the population of the so-called "archaic zone" of Sardinia; also found at low frequencies among populations of Southwest Europe, particularly in Castile, Béarn, and the Basque Country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your source, a study from 1999, has been effectively invalidated several ways. A more recent one being the following:

Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Characterization of Pasiegos, a Human Isolate

from Cantabria (Spain)

See above link. The fact that you picked up on a 13 year old study and thought that it was the last word on the subject runs counter to the fact that it's been shown to be in error by subsequent studies.

With a look into Haplogroup I you are finally on firmer ground, although once again here is another haplogroup that DOES NOT originate in Iberia. With that in mind, I believe it's time you put "X originated in Iberia and was responsible for Y" to rest. It doesn't even make for a good zombie. :lol:

cormac

That's fine, I wasn't really interested in saying it or any haplogroup ORIGINATED in Iberia to start with, even though it has now gone down that track. Like I said before, who said it had to originate in Iberia?

If I2a1a-M26 comes after I2a1 - and that haplogroup originates in South West Europe, why wouldn't I2a1a-M26 also originate in that area, just a bit later?

I know 'I' doesn't originate there, but by the time you get to I2a1a-M26, it should.

I understand at this point that 'I' or any subclade of it is not in the area of Troy, I'm all good with that for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, got it - not until I2a1a. What time frame would you place on that? Considering I2a1 is c.6000BC - would you consider 4000BC too early for the I2a1a-M26?

I2a1a (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) (Former I2a1 in the Y2010 tree)Typical of the population of the so-called "archaic zone" of Sardinia; also found at low frequencies among populations of Southwest Europe, particularly in Castile, Béarn, and the Basque Country

Actually I made one slight mistake. I2a/P37.2 that I posted earlier should have read I2a1/P37.2. The date remains the same. And your I2a1 was redesignated I2a1a/M-26 and that date remains the same. Recent developments have off-set parts of this lineage one step in designation, hence my error.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine, I wasn't really interested in saying it or any haplogroup ORIGINATED in Iberia to start with, even though it has now gone down that track. Like I said before, who said it had to originate in Iberia?

If I2a1a-M26 comes after I2a1 - and that haplogroup originates in South West Europe, why wouldn't I2a1a-M26 also originate in that area, just a bit later?

I know 'I' doesn't originate there, but by the time you get to I2a1a-M26, it should.

I understand at this point that 'I' or any subclade of it is not in the area of Troy, I'm all good with that for now.

This goes back to the redesignation of parts of "I" that I mentioned earlier. I2a1/P-37.2 originates in the Balkans and I2a1a/M-26 originates in Sardinia.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this whole debate is the issue of ethnicity and or/genetics compared with culture. Genetics and culture are on either side and ethnicity really falls somewhere in between. The available physical evidence certainly implies there was a sea crossing series of cultures that did build megaliths according to astronomical placement and had particular reverence for certain symbols like the bull or wolf.

The bull is first see as a symbol of focus in Catal Huyuk dating to around 6000 BCE. This could fall under the time frame of Proto-Indo-Europeans and they may have dispersed unevenly taking the culture around the Med seeding these megalithic cultures. Skills used in sea travel would also have been useful in building as far as sighting and measurements go, not to mention the management of work forces.

Much of what Puzz and GGGguy say seems logical to me but tying it down with genetics is unlikely to give definitive answers. It may however help in terms of general trends but there were a lot of cultures to rise and fall in the period we are talking about and it is interesting how sosme cultures preserved themselves better than others. Or rather the symbols were preserved by moving across cultural traditions and genetic groups. Maybe a link can be found or maybe not but the Minoans, Iberians and Trojans could well have retained some ancestral or cultural memory where they shared some things in common.

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/ancient_europe.htm

I've read about the Basque syntax and how it relates to Celtic languages. Can you confirm or refute the following statement:

Welsh, Erse and Gaelic use the same complicated syntax that Basque does. The people living in the British Isles used that language long before the Kelts arrived in 1800 BC. Welsh is peculiar in that it adopted Keltic words into its vocabulary, but maintained the syntax. It is suggested that Pre-Keltic Welsh was identical to Basque.

Then there is the connection between Saharan/Baque and Hebrew:

Nyland (2001) concluded that most every Hebrew word or name appears to have a built-in hidden sentence in Basque, usually having a bearing on the original meaning. Many words have been distorted over time and can no longer be decoded with confidence, but the majority can be translated, just as was done in the examples above. There is no doubt that the Hebrew language was constructed by skilled linguists applying formulaic manipulation to the Saharan/Basque vocabulary, which must have been the language of the Hebrews as they came from Egypt ca 1,100 bce.. It is written in Genesis 11:7 "Let us confuse their language so they can no longer understand one another's speech", this was taken as a biblical command and Hebrew was the product of this "confusion". Genesis 11:9 then tells us that this linguistic work was done in Babylon. Lahetjuzan and the other early Basque scholars were right after all; Hebrew is most probably manipulated Saharan/Basque.

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/hebrew.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The bull is first seen as a symbol of focus in Catal Huyuk dating to around . This could fall under the time frame of Proto-Indo-Europeans and they may have dispersed unevenly taking the culture around the Med seeding these megalithic cultures.

Uh No, as Indo-Europeans had already started making their way into Europe via Anatolia by 7000 BC, 1000 years before.

Much of what Puzz and GGGguy say seems logical to me but tying it down with genetics is unlikely to give definitive answers.

Blowing off genetic studies in order for one to play "mix-n-match" isn't a valid means of finding answers IMO. What genetics has shown us, to a large degree, is what haplogroups were in which areas at particular times and where they originated from. None of which remotely validates the "mix-n-match" approach I've seen here in various discussions.

I'm not a linguist so can't answer your first question, but the second one is predicated on the belief that Hebrews were in Egypt (THE EXODUS). At the risk of being repetitious, there was no Exodus. :rolleyes:

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

I'm not a linguist so can't answer your first question, but the second one is predicated on the belief that Hebrews were in Egypt (THE EXODUS). At the risk of being repetitious, there was no Exodus. :rolleyes:

cormac

To add, pertaining to the linguistic question, it's rather absurd in the first place to suppose "the Hebrew language was constructed." Languages are not constructed--unless you work for Hollywood and want to invent something like Klingon. In the real world, however, a language evolves based on the time and place where it first emerged, the associated languages with which it comes into contact and influences such languages may have on it, and whether the said language lives on or is replaced by another.

There is nothing mysterious about Hebrew. It's well understood that the Semitic language family originated in Africa many thousands of years ago and slowly spread out from there, up and into the Levant. Hebrew was just one dialect of the Western and Northern Semitic tongues spoken in the Levant in ancient times. Hebrew shares many cognates and similarities with Arabic, Aramaic, Syriac, and other Semitic tongues both extant and extinct--and it certainly has nothing to do with Basque.

Well, unless we de-evolved into Lego linguistics again. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with this whole debate is the issue of ethnicity and or/genetics compared with culture. Genetics and culture are on either side and ethnicity really falls somewhere in between. The available physical evidence certainly implies there was a sea crossing series of cultures that did build megaliths according to astronomical placement and had particular reverence for certain symbols like the bull or wolf.

The bull is first see as a symbol of focus in Catal Huyuk dating to around 6000 BCE. This could fall under the time frame of Proto-Indo-Europeans and they may have dispersed unevenly taking the culture around the Med seeding these megalithic cultures. Skills used in sea travel would also have been useful in building as far as sighting and measurements go, not to mention the management of work forces.

Much of what Puzz and GGGguy say seems logical to me but tying it down with genetics is unlikely to give definitive answers. It may however help in terms of general trends but there were a lot of cultures to rise and fall in the period we are talking about and it is interesting how sosme cultures preserved themselves better than others. Or rather the symbols were preserved by moving across cultural traditions and genetic groups. Maybe a link can be found or maybe not but the Minoans, Iberians and Trojans could well have retained some ancestral or cultural memory where they shared some things in common.

http://www.worldology.com/Europe/ancient_europe.htm

I've read about the Basque syntax and how it relates to Celtic languages. Can you confirm or refute the following statement:

Then there is the connection between Saharan/Baque and Hebrew:

http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/hebrew.htm

Hi Slim, nice to see you pop in. This website has a great map, which I can't seem to cut and paste, so have a look, it shows what might have been haplogroups of certain people at around 2800-2500BC.

cormac, I gather you know this map?

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

I went through, after I printed it out and matched all the haplogroups mentioned below it into the sections of colour just to understand it better.

It appears Indo-European (language beginnings and also culture) spread from the area of the later Maycop culture, which lies North of the Caucasus - this is the R1b line, it follows south and into Troy, then crosses into Europe to a Celtic core - from which R1b and its subclades probably spread the IE language and culture and R1b around Europe. Above them is the Late Yamna culture, these 2 cultures were in contact apparently and created a general core of R1 a and b spreading from it.

The Maykop culture, the R1b link to the steppe ?

The Maykop culture (3700-2500 BCE), in the North Caucasus, was culturally speaking a sort of southern extension of the Yamna horizon. Although not generally considered part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe culture due to its geography, the North Caucasus had close links with the steppe, as attested by numerous ceramics, gold, copper and bronze weapons and jewelry in the contemporaneous cultures of Mikhaylovka, Sredny Stog and Kemi Oba. The link between the North Pontic and North Caucasus is older than the Maykop period. Its predecessor, the Svobodnoe culture (4400-3700 BCE), already had links to the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka and early Sredny Stog cultures, and the even older Nalchik settlement (5000-4500 BCE) displayed a similar culture as Khvalynsk on the Volga. This may be the period when R1b started interracting and blending with the R1a population of the steppes.

The Yamna and Maykop people both used kurgan burials, with their deads in a supine position with raised knees and oriented in a north-east/south-west axis. Graves were sparkled with red ochre on the floor, and sacrificed dometic animal buried alongside humans. They also had in common horse riding, wagons, a cattle- and sheep-based economy, the use of copper/bronze battle-axes (both hammer-axes and sleeved axes) and tanged daggers. In fact, the oldest wagons and bronze artefacts are found in the North Caucasus, and spread from there to the steppes.

Maykop was an advanced Bronze Age culture, actually one of the very first to develop metalworking, and therefore metal weapons. The world's oldest sword was found at a late Maykop grave in Klady kurgan 31. Its style is reminiscent of the long Celtic swords, though less elaborated. Horse bones and depictions of horses already appear in early Maykop graves, suggesting that the Maykop culture might have been founded by steppe people or by people who had close link with them. However, the presence of cultural elements radically different from the steppe culture in some sites could mean that Maykop had a hybrid population. Without DNA testing it is impossible to say if these two populations were an Anatolian R1b group and a G2a Caucasian group, or whether R1a people had settled there two. The two or three etnicities might even have cohabited side by side in different settlements. Typical Caucasian Y-DNA lineages (such as G2a) do not follow the pattern of Indo-European migrations, so intermarriages must have been limited, or at least restricted to Indo-European men taking Caucasian wives rather than the other way round.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml

It might be a J or G line that built Gobekli Tepe and followed on at Catal Huyuk.

The original Greeks/Pelasgians did not speak IE imo, it was bought in, the original population spoke 'barbarian' - I think it's hard to follow the language so much, original Greeks may have been I lineage, from the area of Bosnia, maybe even down to Albania, which gets closer to Epirus, which is where Achilles had a special place also. A crossing over to Thessaly seems to have taken place from the Adriatic Sea if you follow that story around enough.

A layer of I, megalithic builders spreads through Europe from this Bosnia area, then comes the PIE R1b speakers, who seem to be mentioned in ancient Greek writings as bringing in the Greek language, which overtook the original language (of whom? the I lines?...) The Pelasgians and others, who were probably part of this I megalithic culture who was there first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh No, as Indo-Europeans had already started making their way into Europe via Anatolia by 7000 BC, 1000 years before.

Blowing off genetic studies in order for one to play "mix-n-match" isn't a valid means of finding answers IMO. What genetics has shown us, to a large degree, is what haplogroups were in which areas at particular times and where they originated from. None of which remotely validates the "mix-n-match" approach I've seen here in various discussions.

I'm not a linguist so can't answer your first question, but the second one is predicated on the belief that Hebrews were in Egypt (THE EXODUS). At the risk of being repetitious, there was no Exodus. :rolleyes:

cormac

It might be possible though, because genetics is not showing us very ancient lines in many of the studies and also mythology is filled with stories of ruling lineages who may have been different from the local populations, ones who might not even show they were there in any genetic studies of today. Also languages and lineages can be very different. Mostly it's only Y male lines that are in the studies also.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About Gobekli Tepe, I was reading a National Geographic article last night and realised that inside the circular structures which T shaped large pillars sat around the walls, also were 2 larger T shaped pillars, holding up the ? roof, if they had one, or sky..

2 large T shaped pillars, sounded like a very early version of the Pillars of Heracles or an Atlas concept - the rocks do actually look like priests, they have arms engraved on them and hands and loincloths, on a couple of the large T shaped pillars, 2 of them, in the middle of the circle.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this:

It has been proposed that haplogroup subclade J2a-M410 was linked to populations on ancient Crete by examining the relationship between Anatolian, Cretan, and Greek populations from around early Neolithic sites.[28] Haplogroup J2b-M12 was associated with Neolithic Greece (ca. 8500 - 4300 BCE) and was reported to be found in modern Crete (3.1%) and mainland Greece (Macedonia 7.0%, Thessaly 8.8%, Argolis 1.8%).[29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J2_(Y-DNA)

Haplogroup J2 is widely believed to be associated with the spread of agriculture from Mesopotamia (Iraq and Syria).[1][7]

"The main spread of J2 into the Mediterranean area is thought to have coincided with the expansion of agricultural people's during the Neolithic period."[2] The age of J2 has been estimated as 18,500 +/- 3,500 years ago.[1] Its distribution, centered in Western Asia and Southeastern Europe, its association with the presence of Neolithic archaeological artifacts, such as figurines and painted pottery,[21] and its association with annual precipitation have been interpreted as evidence that J2, and in particular its J2a-M410 subclade belonged to the agricultural innovators who followed the rainfall.[22] However, Di Giacomo stressed the role of post-Neolithic migratory phenomenon, specifically that of the Ancient Greeks, as also being important in the dispersal of Hg J2.

It could be that J2 is a continuation of the Anatolian Gobekli Tepe building people into Neolithic Greeks and early Cretans...these might even be seen in myth as relations of Phoenicians, such as settlers in Boeotia and Thebes, who shared an early Hercules, twin pillar culture, who started sailing and had the Mother cow Goddess and the Bull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...mythology is filled with stories of ruling lineages who may have been different from the local populations, ones who might not even show they were there in any genetic studies of today.

I'll take fact over stories any day.

...ones who might not even show they were there in any genetic studies of today.

Which would suggest, if true, that they were not sizeable enough to have had any significant affect on the areas claimed as their origin point/s nor on any other cultures they were claimed to have come into contact with. Also, this effectively invalidates any names that could be attributed to them such as "Portugese" or "Iberians", etc. One can't base an argument on a culture/cultures that are unevidenced.

Mostly it's only Y male lines that are in the studies also.

It's only Y DNA lines that are discussed in Y DNA articles. MtDNA lines also have their place in the overall picture and there are articles dealing with mtDNA lines.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

E-V13

Origin is either North Africa or the Southern Levant

E-V13 => 14,000 years ago (in the southern Levant or North Africa)

This group is shown on the chart at the time frame of 2800-2500BC in:

Bell-beaker and Megalithic cultures (Europe)

Printed Cardium Pottery (Italy)

Corded Ware Culture (Nth Europe and Northern Asiatic areas)

'Old Europe' (Macedonia, Thrace)

Helladic Greece (Greece)

So, this is saying that from c. 12000BC a group who originated in either the Sth Levant or Nth Africa had spread into the above groups of Bronze Age cultures.

Broken down into (proposed) haplogroups in the early Bronze Age you have:

Bell Beaker & Megalithic - I, I2, I2a, I2b, E-V13, G2a

Printed Cardium Pottery - I,I2, I2a, G2a, E-V13, I2, I2a2, I2b, I1, N1c1

Old Europe - E-V13, J2b, T, G2a, I2a, I2a2

Helladic Greece: E-V13, I, I2, I2a, G2a

Minoan Crete - J2, E-M78, G2a, I, I2, I2a

Interesting how much I is around the areas too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was after this info before, how old is M26?

I2a1a

Former I2a1 in the Y2010 tree. Haplogroup I2a1a (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians.[9] It is also found at low to moderate frequency among populations of the Pyrenees (9.5% in Bortzerriak, Navarra; 9.7% in Chazetania, Aragon; 8% in Val d'Aran, Catalunya; 2.9% in Alt Urgell, Catalunya; and 8.1% in Baixa Cerdanya, Catalunya) and Iberia, and it has been found in 1.6% of a sample of Albanians living in the Republic of Macedonia[10] and 1.2% (3/257) of a sample of Czechs.[11] The age of YSTR variation for the M26 subclade has been calculated at 8.0±4.0 kya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was after this info before, how old is M26?

I2a1a

Former I2a1 in the Y2010 tree. Haplogroup I2a1a (L158, L159.1/S169.1, M26) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians.[9] It is also found at low to moderate frequency among populations of the Pyrenees (9.5% in Bortzerriak, Navarra; 9.7% in Chazetania, Aragon; 8% in Val d'Aran, Catalunya; 2.9% in Alt Urgell, Catalunya; and 8.1% in Baixa Cerdanya, Catalunya) and Iberia, and it has been found in 1.6% of a sample of Albanians living in the Republic of Macedonia[10] and 1.2% (3/257) of a sample of Czechs.[11] The age of YSTR variation for the M26 subclade has been calculated at 8.0±4.0 kya.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)

I2: c.14,000 BP

I2a1/P37.2: c.10,700 BP

I2a1a/M-26: c.8000 +/- 4000 BP

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be possible though, because genetics is not showing us very ancient lines in many of the studies and also mythology is filled with stories of ruling lineages who may have been different from the local populations, ones who might not even show they were there in any genetic studies of today. Also languages and lineages can be very different. Mostly it's only Y male lines that are in the studies also.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About Gobekli Tepe, I was reading a National Geographic article last night and realised that inside the circular structures which T shaped large pillars sat around the walls, also were 2 larger T shaped pillars, holding up the ? roof, if they had one, or sky..

2 large T shaped pillars, sounded like a very early version of the Pillars of Heracles or an Atlas concept - the rocks do actually look like priests, they have arms engraved on them and hands and loincloths, on a couple of the large T shaped pillars, 2 of them, in the middle of the circle.

How does one define the Indo-Europeans of 7000 BCE? Is it their genetics, ethnicity, language or culture? To me it seems like a generalization that confuses more than it clarifies.

http://www.panshin.com/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/indoeuropean1.html

Hebrew probably evolved from Proto-Sinaitic and fused with other linguistic groups I imagine. Exodus has value to me as an allegory and not as a literal telling of history.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/protosinaitic.html

In the Trojans I get more of a sense of a culture that was influenced by cultures around it like the Hittites, Phoenicians, Minoans, Kura-axes, Maykopp, etc. and they cohabited relatively peacefully with trade and intemarriage. However, the Trojan War for me alludes to a change in attitudes with a strenghtening of the imperialists, possibly because of the influx of technology with military applications. Troy was a city focussed on defence it seems clear.

Interesting you mention about the 'T' crosses. This symbol is ancient but later we find it associated with Tammuz, which itself was a derivation of Dummuzi. In the Dummuzi/Inanna myth there is little to connect it to Atlas holding up the heavens but if I recall correctly Dummuzi did drown in a flood so there is a possible link.

Also, if we take Atlas, it may be that the 'A' is not the focus but rather it is the 'T' and we have words like Tula, Telah and tiller as in tiller of the soil. The interplay between sheperds and farmers is central to many myths but it is often confusing. The Basque do have a connection with Atlantis and therefore Poseidon, a patron of Troy along with Apollo. So my thinking is that Apollo was an eastern culture introduction and Poseidon came from the Med and these cultures allied at Troy to defend against... something... which I would say was the Patriarchal rise of cultures.

Good map, thanks Puzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one define the Indo-Europeans of 7000 BCE? Is it their genetics, ethnicity, language or culture? To me it seems like a generalization that confuses more than it clarifies.

http://www.panshin.com/trogholm/wonder/indoeuropean/indoeuropean1.html

Hebrew probably evolved from Proto-Sinaitic and fused with other linguistic groups I imagine. Exodus has value to me as an allegory and not as a literal telling of history.

http://www.ancientscripts.com/protosinaitic.html

In the Trojans I get more of a sense of a culture that was influenced by cultures around it like the Hittites, Phoenicians, Minoans, Kura-axes, Maykopp, etc. and they cohabited relatively peacefully with trade and intemarriage. However, the Trojan War for me alludes to a change in attitudes with a strenghtening of the imperialists, possibly because of the influx of technology with military applications. Troy was a city focussed on defence it seems clear.

Interesting you mention about the 'T' crosses. This symbol is ancient but later we find it associated with Tammuz, which itself was a derivation of Dummuzi. In the Dummuzi/Inanna myth there is little to connect it to Atlas holding up the heavens but if I recall correctly Dummuzi did drown in a flood so there is a possible link.

Also, if we take Atlas, it may be that the 'A' is not the focus but rather it is the 'T' and we have words like Tula, Telah and tiller as in tiller of the soil. The interplay between sheperds and farmers is central to many myths but it is often confusing. The Basque do have a connection with Atlantis and therefore Poseidon, a patron of Troy along with Apollo. So my thinking is that Apollo was an eastern culture introduction and Poseidon came from the Med and these cultures allied at Troy to defend against... something... which I would say was the Patriarchal rise of cultures.

Good map, thanks Puzz

Quite frankly, I think cormac has Indo-Europeans way too early at 7000BC in Anatolia as he mentioned before.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans in this sense likely lived during the late Neolithic, or roughly the 4th millennium BC. Mainstream scholarship places them in the forest-steppe zone immediately to the north of the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe. Some archaeologists would extend the time depth of PIE to the middle Neolithic (5500 to 4500 BC) or even the early Neolithic (7500 to 5500 BC), and suggest alternative location hypotheses.

By the late-3rd millennium BC offshoots of the Proto-Indo-Europeans had reached Anatolia, the Aegean, Western Europe, the Iranian plateau, and Northwestern China;[citation needed] they reached northern India later.

7000-7500BC would be the max age of PROTO-Indo Europeans, stretching it but I doubt they had reached Anatolia at 7000BC.

Uh No, as Indo-Europeans had already started making their way into Europe via Anatolia by 7000 BC, 1000 years before.

Proto-Indo-European traits:

The following traits of the Proto-Indo-Europeans and their environment are widely agreed-upon but still hypothetical due to their reconstructed nature. Some of the basic facts are:

stockbreeding and animal husbandry, including domesticated cattle, horses, and dogs[1]

agriculture and cereal cultivation, including technology commonly ascribed to late Neolithic farming communities, e.g., the plow[2]

a climate with winter snow[3]

transportation by or across water[1]

the solid wheel,[1] used for wagons, but not yet chariots with spoked wheels[4]

worship of a sky god,[2] *dyeus ph2tēr (lit. "sky father"; > Ancient Greek Ζευς (πατηρ) / Zeus (patēr); *dieu-ph2tēr > Latin Jupiter; Illyrian Deipaturos)[5][6]

oral heroic poetry or song lyrics that used stock phrases such as imperishable fame and wine-dark sea[1]

a patrilineal kinship system based on relationships between men[1]

The Proto-Indo-Europeans were a patrilineal society, possibly semi-nomadic, relying largely on agriculture, but partly on animal husbandry, notably of cattle and sheep. They had domesticated horses – *eḱwos (cf. Latin equus). The cow (*gwous) played a central role, in religion and mythology as well as in daily life. A man's wealth would have been measured by the number of his animals (small livestock), *peḱus (cf. English fee, Latin pecunia).

They practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites, probably administered by a priestly caste. Burials in barrows or tomb chambers apply to the kurgan culture, in accordance with the original version of the Kurgan hypothesis, but not to the previous Sredny Stog culture nor to the contemporary Corded Ware culture, both of which cultures are also generally associated with PIE. Important leaders would have been buried with their belongings in kurgans, and possibly also with members of their households or wives (human sacrifice, suttee).

Many Indo-European societies know a threefold division of priests, a warrior class, and a class of peasants or husbandmen. Such a division was suggested for the Proto-Indo-European society by Georges Dumézil.

If there was a separate class of warriors, it probably consisted of single young men. They would have followed a separate warrior code unacceptable in the society outside their peer-group. Traces of initiation rites in several Indo-European societies suggest that this group identified itself with wolves or dogs (see also Berserker, werewolf).

As for technology, reconstruction indicates a culture of the late Neolithic bordering on the early Bronze Age, with tools and weapons of very likely of "natural bronze" (i.e., made from copper ore naturally rich in silicon or arsenic). Silver and gold were known, but not silver smelting (as PIE has no word for lead, a by-product of silver smelting), thus suggesting that silver was imported. Sheep were kept for wool, and textiles were woven. The wheel was known, certainly for ox-drawn wagons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans

The Balkans were the site of major Neolithic cultures, including Vincha, Varna, Karanovo, Hamangia.

The Vinča culture was an early culture of the Balkans (between the 6th and the 3rd millennium BC), stretching around the course of the Danube in Serbia, Croatia, Romania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Albania the Republic of Macedonia, although traces of it can be found all around the Balkans, parts of Central Europe and Asia Minor.

"Kurganization" of the eastern Balkans (and the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture adjacent to the north) during the Eneolithic is associated with a first expansion of Proto-Indo-Europeans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Balkans

The T connection is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite frankly, I think cormac has Indo-Europeans way too early at 7000BC in Anatolia as he mentioned before.

No, Indo-Europeans from my perspective would include any Proto-Indo-European influence which as I said appears to have come into Europe c.7000 BC. Likely making its way into the Bug-Dneister Culture c.6000/5500 BC and ending with Indo-European (as such) c.4000/3500 BC. None of which allows for the kinds of "mix-n-match" scenarios usually employed by yourself or GGG guy.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Indo-Europeans from my perspective would include any Proto-Indo-European influence which as I said appears to have come into Europe c.7000 BC. Likely making its way into the Bug-Dneister Culture c.6000/5500 BC and ending with Indo-European (as such) c.4000/3500 BC. None of which allows for the kinds of "mix-n-match" scenarios usually employed by yourself or GGG guy.

cormac

From my perspective 7000BC is WAY too early to really have any Indo-Europeans or Proto-Indo-Europeans entering Europe via Anatolia.

Edited by The Puzzler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.