Ancient Minoans on "Near East Neolithic K13"

[Sikeliot]

This is a good calculator to reveal ancient affinities. To me, this still implies that the Levantine affinity of modern Cretans arrived later, around the same time Sicily acquired theirs.

Natufian element is low!

#1:
# Population Percent
1 ANATOLIA_NEOLITHIC 41.38
2 CHG_EEF 25.09
3 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 10.86
4 NATUFIAN 9.77
5 EHG 9.31
6 SHG_WHG 3.59

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Sardinian 18.36
2 Sicilian 21.63
3 Stuttgart 21.89
4 Albanian 22.4
5 Greek 23.08
6 Italian_South 25.19
7 Jew_Moroccan 25.43
8 Jew_Ashkenazi 25.6
9 Bulgarian 26.52
10 Cypriot 26.6
11 Jew_Tunisian 28.1
12 Jew_Libyan 28.13
13 Turkish 28.99
14 Anatolia_ChL 29.24
15 Turkish_Istanbul 29.56
16 Romanian 29.74
17 Turkish_Balekesir 30.16
18 Turkish_Aydin 31.53
19 Turkish_Kayseri 31.92
20 Lebanese 32.06

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 71.3% Greek + 28.7% Anatolia_N @ 4.95
2 66.2% Stuttgart + 33.8% Lezgin @ 4.99
3 65.3% Stuttgart + 34.7% Chechen @ 5.16
4 72.7% Sicilian + 27.3% Anatolia_N @ 5.29
5 72% Albanian + 28% Anatolia_N @ 5.54
6 63.8% Stuttgart + 36.2% Kumyk @ 5.57
7 69.2% Sicilian + 30.8% Europe_EN @ 5.89
8 67.8% Greek + 32.2% Europe_EN @ 6.35
9 64.4% Stuttgart + 35.6% Adygei @ 6.4
10 69.3% Jew_Ashkenazi + 30.7% Anatolia_N @ 6.64
11 65.1% Sardinian + 34.9% Armenia_ChL @ 6.65
12 63% Stuttgart + 37% Balkar @ 6.67
13 65.5% Jew_Ashkenazi + 34.5% Europe_EN @ 6.95
14 67.8% Stuttgart + 32.2% Tajik @ 6.99
15 68.7% Albanian + 31.3% Europe_EN @ 7
16 62.6% Sardinian + 37.4% Anatolia_ChL @ 7.02
17 62% Turkish_Istanbul + 38% Europe_EN @ 7.26
18 69.8% Italian_South + 30.2% Anatolia_N @ 7.27
19 68.6% Bulgarian + 31.4% Anatolia_N @ 7.43
20 63.6% Stuttgart + 36.4% Azeri @ 7.44



#2:
# Population Percent
1 ANATOLIA_NEOLITHIC 49.25
2 CHG_EEF 23.73
3 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 12.65
4 NATUFIAN 12.65
5 SHG_WHG 1.36
6 SIBERIAN 0.36

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Stuttgart 16.2
2 Sardinian 20.87
3 Sicilian 28.68
4 Anatolia_ChL 29.56
5 Jew_Moroccan 29.81
6 Cypriot 30.01
7 Albanian 30.9
8 Greek 30.98
9 Italian_South 31.21
10 Jew_Tunisian 31.33
11 Jew_Libyan 31.4
12 Jew_Ashkenazi 31.95
13 Lebanese 35.44
14 Turkish 35.68
15 Bulgarian 35.81
16 Europe_MNChL 36.46
17 Turkish_Istanbul 36.47
18 Turkish_Balekesir 36.52
19 Armenia_ChL 36.76
20 Turkish_Kayseri 37.06

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 71.8% Stuttgart + 28.2% Assyrian @ 4.26
2 75% Stuttgart + 25% Kurd_C @ 4.39
3 72.1% Stuttgart + 27.9% Jew_Iranian @ 4.5
4 71.2% Stuttgart + 28.8% Jew_iraqi @ 4.61
5 74.8% Stuttgart + 25.2% Iranian_Lori @ 4.73
6 61.4% Italian_South + 38.6% Anatolia_N @ 5.11
7 72% Stuttgart + 28% Armenian @ 5.16
8 77.3% Stuttgart + 22.7% Iranian_Mazandarani @ 5.2
9 70.6% Stuttgart + 29.4% Turkish_Trabzon @ 5.2
10 60.9% Jew_Ashkenazi + 39.1% Anatolia_N @ 5.3
11 58% Cypriot + 42% Europe_EN @ 5.48
12 74.7% Stuttgart + 25.3% Iranian @ 5.54
13 75.6% Stuttgart + 24.4% Iranian_Shirazi @ 5.64
14 73.4% Stuttgart + 26.6% Azeri @ 5.93
15 86.5% Stuttgart + 13.5% Iran_LN @ 6.01
16 86.5% Stuttgart + 13.5% Iran_N @ 6.01
17 74.5% Stuttgart + 25.5% Georgian @ 6.19
18 75.3% Stuttgart + 24.7% Abkhasian @ 6.2
19 72% Stuttgart + 28% Druze @ 6.2
20 63.6% Sicilian + 36.4% Anatolia_N @ 6.21


#3:
# Population Percent
1 ANATOLIA_NEOLITHIC 48.84
2 CHG_EEF 24
3 NATUFIAN 13.39
4 IRAN_NEOLITHIC 13.04
5 PAPUAN 0.58
6 KARITIANA 0.15

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Stuttgart 17.24
2 Sardinian 21.69
3 Sicilian 28.47
4 Cypriot 29.33
5 Jew_Moroccan 29.38
6 Anatolia_ChL 29.83
7 Jew_Tunisian 30.68
8 Jew_Libyan 30.83
9 Albanian 30.91
10 Greek 30.94
11 Italian_South 30.97
12 Jew_Ashkenazi 31.66
13 Lebanese 34.74
14 Turkish 35.42
15 Bulgarian 35.95
16 Turkish_Istanbul 36.17
17 Turkish_Balekesir 36.31
18 Turkish_Kayseri 36.6
19 Turkish_Trabzon 36.6
20 Armenia_ChL 36.76

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 70.4% Stuttgart + 29.6% Assyrian @ 5.28
2 69.7% Stuttgart + 30.3% Jew_iraqi @ 5.44
3 70.7% Stuttgart + 29.3% Jew_Iranian @ 5.45
4 73.9% Stuttgart + 26.1% Kurd_C @ 5.68
5 73.7% Stuttgart + 26.3% Iranian_Lori @ 5.94
6 70.6% Stuttgart + 29.4% Armenian @ 6.1
7 69.1% Stuttgart + 30.9% Turkish_Trabzon @ 6.16
8 59.2% Cypriot + 40.8% Europe_EN @ 6.2
9 63.4% Cypriot + 36.6% Anatolia_N @ 6.23
10 76.3% Stuttgart + 23.7% Iranian_Mazandarani @ 6.43
11 62.1% Italian_South + 37.9% Anatolia_N @ 6.44
12 61.5% Jew_Ashkenazi + 38.5% Anatolia_N @ 6.47
13 73.6% Stuttgart + 26.4% Iranian @ 6.66
14 74.6% Stuttgart + 25.4% Iranian_Shirazi @ 6.74
15 70.4% Stuttgart + 29.6% Druze @ 6.85
16 64.4% Stuttgart + 35.6% Cypriot @ 6.97
17 72.2% Stuttgart + 27.8% Azeri @ 6.98
18 63.4% Jew_Moroccan + 36.6% Anatolia_N @ 7.01
19 68.4% Stuttgart + 31.6% Lebanese @ 7.05
20 73.3% Stuttgart + 26.7% Georgian @ 7.15

[wvwvw]

Sardinians have a lot of Neolithic and almost no WGH

[Sikeliot]

Sardinians have a lot of Neolithic and almost no WGH

Yes.

When the study on Bronze Age Sicily comes out, I expect them to be similar to these Minoans.

[wvwvw]

Yes.

When the study on Bronze Age Sicily comes out, I expect them to be similar to these Minoans.

It would be more interesting to see a Sicilian and Greek sample from around 100 AC.

I find it amusing that Minoans, the most Neolithic of Greeks, had no Near Eastern whatsover. It proves they were not related to the Middle east people at all, and their civilization was indigenous Greek.

[wvwvw]

Yes.

When the study on Bronze Age Sicily comes out, I expect them to be similar to these Minoans.

You can't exclude new surprises though.

[Sikeliot]

It would be more interesting to see a Sicilian and Greek sample from around 100 AC.

I find it amusing that Minoans, the most Neolithic of Greeks, had no Near Eastern whatsover. It proves they were not related to the Middle east people at all, and their civilization was indigenous Greek.

Sicilians by this point would have absorbed an accumulation of Near Eastern influences but not yet an Arab conquest nor Normans and Lombards. Greeks would have not yet been Slavicized.

My guess is Greeks and southeast Sicilians would have been like modern Apulians, and the rest of Sicily may have been like Sephardi Jews.

[Kelmendasi]

Sardinians have a lot of Neolithic and almost no WGH
No. Sardinians have a good amount of WHG it's just Steppe that they lack, the "Neolithic" which they have is EEF which is enriched with WHG

[wvwvw]

Sicilians by this point would have absorbed an accumulation of Near Eastern influences but not yet an Arab conquest nor Normans and Lombards. Greeks would have not yet been Slavicized.

My guess is Greeks and southeast Sicilians would have been like modern Apulians, and the rest of Sicily may have been like Sephardi Jews.

We should see a Greek sample, just before the arrival of Slavs to the Balkans. They have discovered a big cemetery from that period, I hope they make good use of it.

I just find it hard to believe the Arabs had that much of an impact in Sicily. Could it Jewish in Roman times or Phoenician influence. How much Near Eastern did the Phoenician sample have?

See my Minoan thread
https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?214268-Minoan-Linear-A

[Selurong]

It would be more interesting to see a Sicilian and Greek sample from around 100 AC.

I find it amusing that Minoans, the most Neolithic of Greeks, had no Near Eastern whatsover. It proves they were not related to the Middle east people at all, and their civilization was indigenous Greek.

It's a nice idea, but if you were to tell that to trolling Turks here, they would say that Crete belonged to the Emirate of Crete instead of the Ancient Minoans.

[Insuperable]

It would be more interesting to see a Sicilian and Greek sample from around 100 AC.

I find it amusing that Minoans, the most Neolithic of Greeks, had no Near Eastern whatsover. It proves they were not related to the Middle east people at all, and their civilization was indigenous Greek.

Near Eastern on Near East Neolithic K13? There is no such component on Near East Neolithic K13, but Natufian, CHG, Iran Neolithic instead.

[Yehiel]

What would you say is the best calculator for ancient affinities?

[Principe Azzurro]

It would be more interesting to see a Sicilian and Greek sample from around 100 AC.

I find it amusing that Minoans, the most Neolithic of Greeks, had no Near Eastern whatsover. It proves they were not related to the Middle east people at all, and their civilization was indigenous Greek.

They had 25% Iran Neolithic/Armenian/South Caucasus/Mesopotamian like ancestry, you must of missed it, it correlates with the incoming of J2a on Crete, same in Mycenaeans just a little less, you also see this ancestral component enter the Levant so far with J1-P58 lineages and J2b-M205, its clear J lineages brought this autosomal component.

[wvwvw]

They had 25% Iran Neolithic/Armenian/South Caucasus/Mesopotamian like ancestry, you must of missed it, it correlates with the incoming of J2a on Crete, same in Mycenaeans just a little less, you also see this ancestral component enter the Levant so far with J1-P58 lineages and J2b-M205, its clear J lineages brought this autosomal component.

It came from Anatolia at least 10,000 years ago, and the U mtdna has been in Greece for at least 50,000 years. That pretty much makes it indigenous Greek.

[Hadouken]

This is a good calculator to reveal ancient affinities. To me, this still implies that the Levantine affinity of modern Cretans arrived later, around the same time Sicily acquired theirs.

Natufian element is low!



greeks dont score any more natufian today than that

[Principe Azzurro]

It came from Anatolia at least 10,000 years ago, and the U mtdna has been in Greece for at least 50,000 years. That pretty much makes it indigenous Greek.

That is completely false, out of all Neolithic Farmers only 1 turned out to be J2a, the rest were mostly G-L91, G-F1193, and under G-P303 along with minor T no neolithic farmer J2 in Europe, we see the neolithic Anatolian Farmer clade with the G, also there was no such thing as Greeks back then, the idea of Hellene identity starts with the Mycenaeans, anyways this is isn't an anti-Greek post its a factual statement the Minoans were a fusion of the Neolithic farmers and Kura Araxes, it shows in the autosomal and uniparental markers, sorry but theres no way around it.

[Percivalle]

Sardinians have a lot of Neolithic and almost no WGH

Not true, actually.

[wvwvw]

That is completely false, out of all Neolithic Farmers only 1 turned out to be J2a, the rest were mostly G-L91, G-F1193, and under G-P303 along with minor T no neolithic farmer J2 in Europe, we see the neolithic Anatolian Farmer clade with the G, also there was no such thing as Greeks back then, the idea of Hellene identity starts with the Mycenaeans, anyways this is isn't an anti-Greek post its a factual statement the Minoans were a fusion of the Neolithic farmers and Kura Araxes, it shows in the autosomal and uniparental markers, sorry but theres no way around it.

The Minoans have been in Greece for at least 10,000 years, that's a fact. And you are wrong that the Greek civilization starts with the Myceneans. That Hellas was occupied much earlier than has been believed until now has been conclusively demonstrated by the archaeological evidence unearthed in recent years. The artifacts brought to light leave us with no doubt whatsoever that this area was occupied by humans from the Late Paleolithic period.

This Hellenic Paleolithic culture gave way to the corresponding
Neolithic between the 9th and 7th millennium B.C.; or from the
Mesolithic to the Pre-ceramic respectively. Within this time-frame we
witness great technical and sociological advances, accompanied by a
population explosion in Greece, as indicated by the many artifacts
found that have been dated to this period. This is exactly the period
during which the cultivation of the earth and the founding of more or
less permanently inhabited settlements began; these usually being
located on flat land which could be irrigated by a nearby river.
According to Dr. D. Theoharis, in his treatise titled Neolithic
Civilization, the holding and cultivating of land gave rise to the
concept of private ownership, and, by extension, that of patriotism.
These occupied settlements ultimately stabilized and expanded, and, by
the 6th millennium B.C., the first city in Europe was founded: which we
dare to assert -- with a conviction supported by the evidence -- was
most likely Sesklo!

According to the state-of-the-art dating technology employed by the
University of Pennsylvania in America, Sesklo was dated to 5800 B.C.,
with a margin of error factor of + - 97 years. There are, of course,
older Neolithic artifacts, such as those from Argissa, which have been
dated to 6200 B.C. by U.C.L.A., from Elateia (6290 B.C.), and from Nea
Nicomedia (6240 B.C.). In this study, however, we are going to focus
our attention upon the general area of Thessaly (Homeric Hellas): more
specifically, upon Europe's oldest city, Sesklo, and that of Theopetra,
near Trikala, because it was here that we find the oldest evidence of
the cultivation of grain in Greece. In Professor Theoharis' excellent
treatise, he informs us that up until that time (the decade of the
80s), over 170 Neolithic settlements and communities had been
discovered in Thessaly alone!

One of the most significant of these -- insofar as its historical
importance is concerned -- is that of Theopetra, near Trikala. It was
here that a cave was discovered which had been inhabited, according to
the artifacts unearthed, from +- 50,000 to +- 3500 B.C. Some of the
finds made within the cave and its environs were really startling.
Among these were four human footprints, but more importantly, the seeds
of fossilized legumes (lentils), as well as those of grain (barley);
discoveries which prove that the cultivation of the earth was known in
Hellas well before the "arrival" of our mythical Indo-Europeans. As far
as the footprints are concerned, the archaeologists have determined
that they were those of children, one of whom was wearing footwear! The
ceramics discovered in the same cave have been dated to the Mesolithic
period, i.e., the ninth millennium B.C.: a fact that, when considered
with the others we've cited so far, indicates the kind of progress
which contributed to the civilization which followed in Neolithic
Hellas. Finally, a gold amulet was also found in the Theopetra cave, of
the same type as hundreds of others which have been unearthed
throughout Greece, as well as in the rest of the Balkan peninsula; in
other words, in the home territory of the proto-Hellenes, not the
pre-Hellenes.

When Professor Tsountas first started his excavations at Sesklo, he
unearthed a small settlement of no more than fifty dwellings. Further
excavations, however, showed that Neolithic Sesklo was not merely a
small settlement but a whole city, with an area of 100 stremmata [25
acres] and a population of at least 3000 inhabitants, the epicenter of
which was a fortified acropolis on a hill which is known today as
Kastraki. The dwellings had been constructed around the base of the
hill of the acropolis. On this hill, there was found the remains of a
rudimentary palace. (Such a palace has also been unearthed at Magoula,
and is thought to be even older than that of Sesklo. Unfortunately,
during the Nazi occupation this structure was destroyed by the Germans.
The only description of it we have is from an article published in the
People's Observer -- an organ of the Nazi party -- by one "Benecke," a
German archaeologist. Excavations in the 1970s were only able to bring
parts of the floor to light.) From Professor Tsountas and Theoharis'
descriptions of Sesklo, we are able to understand how many are the
similarities between this site and Mycenae, and even Athens, for
example.

At Sesklo we find, for the first time, the classical prototype of an
Hellenic polis of the 5th century B.C., not to mention the 6th. The
existence of a fortified acropolis, overlooking a settled community of
inhabitants, who would have had to have lived under a specific set of
rules enforced by a king who governed from the palace, is a perfectly
reasonable assumption. The palace was not the only structure located
within the ramparts of the acropolis, however. Right next to the palace
there was unearthed a ceramics workshop, as well as some additional
habitats, between which was found a stone platform for winnowing grain.
Professor Tsountas has also located a moat which protected a section of
the wall of the acropolis. The labyrinthine layout of the battlements
forced would-be attackers to follow an approach to the main gate which
would have exposed them to a continuous line of defenders from atop the
wall. It was also determined that their were three gates in all; one
main and two auxiliary. Further excavation at the foot of the acropolis
hill has yielded the remnants of at least 500 to 800 additional
habitats.

There are, however, some researchers who doubt the conclusions we've
drawn from this evidence; especially with that having to do with the
wall: for instance, they say that it could not have been used for
defense since it is barely one meter thick. In that period, however,
considering that there were no siege engines available, who would have
possibly been able to destroy a wall of that thickness? Besides, it is
worthy of note that similar fortifications of walls and moats have been
unearthed in other Neolithic sites in Thessaly, where, according to the
researchers involved, there were also small, settled communities. Other
Indo-Europeanizing researchers have come to an opposite conclusion.
They seized upon the opportunity to declare that the residents of
Sesklo hurried to build their fortifications in order to defend
themselves against the foreigners who occupied neighboring Dimini;
which settlement, according to them, had been founded by Indo-European
colonizers. However, this theory does not stand scrutiny because the
acropolis at Sesklo was destroyed 4400 years B.C.; that is, at least
four centuries before the development of the Dimini culture, and 2400
to 1400 years before the most widely accepted dates as to the "arrival"
of the Indo-Europeans. So that the Thermoluminescence dating method
(which is doubted by some scholars) employed by Professor I. Lyritzis
on ceramic material from Sesklo and Dimini, which showed that Dimini
was occupied from circa 4800 B.C., merely proved that these two
settlements coexisted for a space of time. In spite of this, the
similarity of the artifacts leaves absolutely no doubt that Dimini was
a Greek settlement.

Our purpose so far, has been to show the quality of Hellenic Neolithic
civilization, and, by extension, the power of the Neolithic Greeks. So
that the knowledge we have of a general destruction which happened
precisely during the period in question (circa 4400 B.C.), has caused
many Indo-Europeanizers to theorize that this was when the first waves
of invaders swept down into Hellas. According to them, more proof was
supplied by the new motifs which began to embellish the pottery of that
period. It is worth mentioning here that the old motifs did not
disappear, but merely coexisted with the new for a time. This fact is
evidence that what most probably happened was that the change naturally
evolved when the existing motifs were combined with those that were not
Greek. These could easily have become familiar to the Neolithic Greeks
in the course of their travels, since it has been conclusively proven
that they were a seagoing people from at least the fifth millennium
B.C.

As regards the destruction of the Neolithic towns and settlements which
actually did take place, from Serbia to Sesklo, why is it automatically
assumed that these were the result of a foreign invasion and not a war
of an internal nature, the cause of which could have been for the
control of the fertile plain of Thessaly? That Sesklo was not destroyed
by Indo-European invaders is also proven by the fact that the
succeeding power in the Thessalian plain, Dimini, continued the same
city planning model as that of Sesklo; with a fortified acropolis,
protected by successive encircling barricades and a palace: It is
obvious that the acropolis of Dimini evolved from that of Sesklo. In
the middle of the fifth millennium, however, we do not see civilization
advancing only in Thessaly. Attica also has tens of Neolithic sites,
even in places where it would be difficult for one to imagine that they
would be located: For instance, remains of Neolithic settlements have
been unearthed in Palea Kokkinia and in Korydallo. Without a doubt, the
most important find from the Neolithic period discovered in Attica to
date are the remnants of a road constructed with paving stones which
was unearthed in Nea Makri. Public road-building projects suggest a
civilization which had developed trade and the need to transport goods;
one that most likely used chariots and wagons. According to Athens
University archaeologist, M. Pantelidou-Ngofa, this road had been
constructed using stones from the sea, and was slightly convex in order
to prevent the accumulation of water on its surface. She summarizes her
analysis as follows: "We can, as well, regard its (the road's) solid
construction as being necessary to meet the demands of frequent and
heavy traffic of people and animals from the settlement to the sea, as
well as that of travelers coming from other settlements."

The settlement at Nea Makri was, according to the evidence unearthed to
date, most likely extensive, extending along the entire length of the
beach. We also note that in Nea Makri no evidence has been found of
disturbances or disasters all during the transition from a more ancient
to the Middle Neolithic period. We therefore cannot speak of a general
invasion of Hellas by some unknown, foreign race. The destructions in
Thessaly are therefore isolated ones and are not repeated in Attica or
Eubea, where the settlement of Leukanti, for instance, was inhabited
from the Neolithic to the Byzantine periods.

Among other things, the excavations of the settlements in Attica, the
majority of which are located near the coast, have, as a result of the
artifacts unearthed, determined that the inhabitants of Neolithic
Attica were seafarers who maintained commercial contacts with the
neighboring islands, at the very minimum. It is not merely by chance
that on Mount Pangaio, as well as on Andros Island (in the Strofilas
area) there were found depictions of ships carved upon stone. More
particularly, the engravings from Pangaio include a sailing ship with
rowers and have been dated to the middle of the 5th and the 4th
millenniums. The scenes from Andros have also been dated to the 4th
millennium, and could be considered a predecessor of the convoy wall
paintings found on Thera Island, since at Strofilas we do not have a
depiction of one ship only, but of a small fleet.

The facts presented so far can only lead a logical and fair-minded
person to one conclusion: The Neolithic Greeks had developed an older,
much more advanced civilization than anything our hypothetical
Indo-Europeans of the Ukrainian steppes were capable of during the same
period. Which leads us to wonder why, since the Greeks were already
seafaring at that time and had constructed fortified cities, would they
allow these invaders to come and settle upon their land? Really, why
would a seafaring people, who could deploy sailing ships with banks of
rowers, allow these invaders, who had only rudimentary rafts and oars,
to cross the Aegean; the Greek sea? Unless, of course, we can somehow
convince ourselves that these Indo-Europeans learned their sailing
skills on the steppes of the Caucasus or on the plains of Central
Europe!! The Indo-Europeanizers, of course, persist in their views,
claiming that there are many similarities between the Neolithic Greek
civilization and that of the corresponding ones which developed in the
Balkans (from today's Serbia to present-day Moldavia), which they, of
course, consider to be Indo-European. Ergo, these Indo-Europeans first
settled in the Northern Balkans, after which they migrated down to
Hellas. But it is precisely this similarity which could be cited to
support the view that there was a much older migration of Neolithic
Greeks into the historically Greek living space of Asia Minor and the
Balkan peninsula.

The ancient Greek myths describing the journey of Dionysus to faraway
India evidently reflect a collective memory of this early attempt by
the Greeks to explore the world. Of course, to rely upon mythology is
risky, but why is it that only Greek myth has recorded such events? Why
haven't the adventures which would been encountered by our hypothetical
and far-traveling Indo-Europeans ever been recorded or passed down as
legends via an oral tradition? The only mythology that could be said to
have much in common with the Greek -- and not by mere chance -- is that
of the Sumerians.

The paradox for the Indo-Europeanizers, is that the cultures
of the Sumerians, the Dilmoun, as well as that of the inhabitants of
what is today's South Yemen, were remarkably similar to that of Hellas'
at that time. At Dilmoun, for instance, many swords have been unearthed
that could be copies of those of the early Mycenaean period. In this
particular case, the finds are in agreement with our philological
sources. For instance, Diodorus Siculus tells us that in his time the
inhabitants of Yemen spoke of being descendants of the Greeks! It was
during the period when the Sumerians were founding their city-states
that they also warred against one another as well as against their
barbarian neighbors using phalanxes of spearmen.

[wvwvw]

That is completely false, out of all Neolithic Farmers only 1 turned out to be J2a, the rest were mostly G-L91, G-F1193, and under G-P303 along with minor T no neolithic farmer J2 in Europe, we see the neolithic Anatolian Farmer clade with the G, also there was no such thing as Greeks back then, the idea of Hellene identity starts with the Mycenaeans, anyways this is isn't an anti-Greek post its a factual statement the Minoans were a fusion of the Neolithic farmers and Kura Araxes, it shows in the autosomal and uniparental markers, sorry but theres no way around it.

That's because a great catastrophe struck Greece (the eruption of Thera and the floods and tsunamis that followed). At least 3 Greek tribes became extinct. Hellene one of the survivors gave his name to Hellenes (a small tribe around Thessaly originally) and eventually to all other Greek tribes, since his tribe was nomadic and multiplied greatly.

[Laberia]

Why this whore is allowed to spam every thread?

[wvwvw]

Why this whore is allowed to spam every thread?

Why this Albanian midget is allowed to ruin every Greek thread? He should be completely banned from the Greek section and from every Greek thread.

[Laberia]

Why this Albanian midget is allowed to ruin every Greek thread? He should be completely banned from the Greek section and from every Greek thread.
It's good that you recognize yourself for what you are.

[Principe Azzurro]

The Minoans have been in Greece for at least 10,000 years, that's a fact. And you are wrong that the Greek civilization starts with the Myceneans. That Hellas was occupied much earlier than has been believed until now has been conclusively demonstrated by the archaeological evidence unearthed in recent years. The artifacts brought to light leave us with no doubt whatsoever that this area was occupied by humans from the Late Paleolithic period.

This Hellenic Paleolithic culture gave way to the corresponding
Neolithic between the 9th and 7th millennium B.C.; or from the
Mesolithic to the Pre-ceramic respectively. Within this time-frame we
witness great technical and sociological advances, accompanied by a
population explosion in Greece, as indicated by the many artifacts
found that have been dated to this period. This is exactly the period
during which the cultivation of the earth and the founding of more or
less permanently inhabited settlements began; these usually being
located on flat land which could be irrigated by a nearby river.
According to Dr. D. Theoharis, in his treatise titled Neolithic
Civilization, the holding and cultivating of land gave rise to the
concept of private ownership, and, by extension, that of patriotism.
These occupied settlements ultimately stabilized and expanded, and, by
the 6th millennium B.C., the first city in Europe was founded: which we
dare to assert -- with a conviction supported by the evidence -- was
most likely Sesklo!

According to the state-of-the-art dating technology employed by the
University of Pennsylvania in America, Sesklo was dated to 5800 B.C.,
with a margin of error factor of + - 97 years. There are, of course,
older Neolithic artifacts, such as those from Argissa, which have been
dated to 6200 B.C. by U.C.L.A., from Elateia (6290 B.C.), and from Nea
Nicomedia (6240 B.C.). In this study, however, we are going to focus
our attention upon the general area of Thessaly (Homeric Hellas): more
specifically, upon Europe's oldest city, Sesklo, and that of Theopetra,
near Trikala, because it was here that we find the oldest evidence of
the cultivation of grain in Greece. In Professor Theoharis' excellent
treatise, he informs us that up until that time (the decade of the
80s), over 170 Neolithic settlements and communities had been
discovered in Thessaly alone!

One of the most significant of these -- insofar as its historical
importance is concerned -- is that of Theopetra, near Trikala. It was
here that a cave was discovered which had been inhabited, according to
the artifacts unearthed, from +- 50,000 to +- 3500 B.C. Some of the
finds made within the cave and its environs were really startling.
Among these were four human footprints, but more importantly, the seeds
of fossilized legumes (lentils), as well as those of grain (barley);
discoveries which prove that the cultivation of the earth was known in
Hellas well before the "arrival" of our mythical Indo-Europeans. As far
as the footprints are concerned, the archaeologists have determined
that they were those of children, one of whom was wearing footwear! The
ceramics discovered in the same cave have been dated to the Mesolithic
period, i.e., the ninth millennium B.C.: a fact that, when considered
with the others we've cited so far, indicates the kind of progress
which contributed to the civilization which followed in Neolithic
Hellas. Finally, a gold amulet was also found in the Theopetra cave, of
the same type as hundreds of others which have been unearthed
throughout Greece, as well as in the rest of the Balkan peninsula; in
other words, in the home territory of the proto-Hellenes, not the
pre-Hellenes.

When Professor Tsountas first started his excavations at Sesklo, he
unearthed a small settlement of no more than fifty dwellings. Further
excavations, however, showed that Neolithic Sesklo was not merely a
small settlement but a whole city, with an area of 100 stremmata [25
acres] and a population of at least 3000 inhabitants, the epicenter of
which was a fortified acropolis on a hill which is known today as
Kastraki. The dwellings had been constructed around the base of the
hill of the acropolis. On this hill, there was found the remains of a
rudimentary palace. (Such a palace has also been unearthed at Magoula,
and is thought to be even older than that of Sesklo. Unfortunately,
during the Nazi occupation this structure was destroyed by the Germans.
The only description of it we have is from an article published in the
People's Observer -- an organ of the Nazi party -- by one "Benecke," a
German archaeologist. Excavations in the 1970s were only able to bring
parts of the floor to light.) From Professor Tsountas and Theoharis'
descriptions of Sesklo, we are able to understand how many are the
similarities between this site and Mycenae, and even Athens, for
example.

At Sesklo we find, for the first time, the classical prototype of an
Hellenic polis of the 5th century B.C., not to mention the 6th. The
existence of a fortified acropolis, overlooking a settled community of
inhabitants, who would have had to have lived under a specific set of
rules enforced by a king who governed from the palace, is a perfectly
reasonable assumption. The palace was not the only structure located
within the ramparts of the acropolis, however. Right next to the palace
there was unearthed a ceramics workshop, as well as some additional
habitats, between which was found a stone platform for winnowing grain.
Professor Tsountas has also located a moat which protected a section of
the wall of the acropolis. The labyrinthine layout of the battlements
forced would-be attackers to follow an approach to the main gate which
would have exposed them to a continuous line of defenders from atop the
wall. It was also determined that their were three gates in all; one
main and two auxiliary. Further excavation at the foot of the acropolis
hill has yielded the remnants of at least 500 to 800 additional
habitats.

There are, however, some researchers who doubt the conclusions we've
drawn from this evidence; especially with that having to do with the
wall: for instance, they say that it could not have been used for
defense since it is barely one meter thick. In that period, however,
considering that there were no siege engines available, who would have
possibly been able to destroy a wall of that thickness? Besides, it is
worthy of note that similar fortifications of walls and moats have been
unearthed in other Neolithic sites in Thessaly, where, according to the
researchers involved, there were also small, settled communities. Other
Indo-Europeanizing researchers have come to an opposite conclusion.
They seized upon the opportunity to declare that the residents of
Sesklo hurried to build their fortifications in order to defend
themselves against the foreigners who occupied neighboring Dimini;
which settlement, according to them, had been founded by Indo-European
colonizers. However, this theory does not stand scrutiny because the
acropolis at Sesklo was destroyed 4400 years B.C.; that is, at least
four centuries before the development of the Dimini culture, and 2400
to 1400 years before the most widely accepted dates as to the "arrival"
of the Indo-Europeans. So that the Thermoluminescence dating method
(which is doubted by some scholars) employed by Professor I. Lyritzis
on ceramic material from Sesklo and Dimini, which showed that Dimini
was occupied from circa 4800 B.C., merely proved that these two
settlements coexisted for a space of time. In spite of this, the
similarity of the artifacts leaves absolutely no doubt that Dimini was
a Greek settlement.

Our purpose so far, has been to show the quality of Hellenic Neolithic
civilization, and, by extension, the power of the Neolithic Greeks. So
that the knowledge we have of a general destruction which happened
precisely during the period in question (circa 4400 B.C.), has caused
many Indo-Europeanizers to theorize that this was when the first waves
of invaders swept down into Hellas. According to them, more proof was
supplied by the new motifs which began to embellish the pottery of that
period. It is worth mentioning here that the old motifs did not
disappear, but merely coexisted with the new for a time. This fact is
evidence that what most probably happened was that the change naturally
evolved when the existing motifs were combined with those that were not
Greek. These could easily have become familiar to the Neolithic Greeks
in the course of their travels, since it has been conclusively proven
that they were a seagoing people from at least the fifth millennium
B.C.

As regards the destruction of the Neolithic towns and settlements which
actually did take place, from Serbia to Sesklo, why is it automatically
assumed that these were the result of a foreign invasion and not a war
of an internal nature, the cause of which could have been for the
control of the fertile plain of Thessaly? That Sesklo was not destroyed
by Indo-European invaders is also proven by the fact that the
succeeding power in the Thessalian plain, Dimini, continued the same
city planning model as that of Sesklo; with a fortified acropolis,
protected by successive encircling barricades and a palace: It is
obvious that the acropolis of Dimini evolved from that of Sesklo. In
the middle of the fifth millennium, however, we do not see civilization
advancing only in Thessaly. Attica also has tens of Neolithic sites,
even in places where it would be difficult for one to imagine that they
would be located: For instance, remains of Neolithic settlements have
been unearthed in Palea Kokkinia and in Korydallo. Without a doubt, the
most important find from the Neolithic period discovered in Attica to
date are the remnants of a road constructed with paving stones which
was unearthed in Nea Makri. Public road-building projects suggest a
civilization which had developed trade and the need to transport goods;
one that most likely used chariots and wagons. According to Athens
University archaeologist, M. Pantelidou-Ngofa, this road had been
constructed using stones from the sea, and was slightly convex in order
to prevent the accumulation of water on its surface. She summarizes her
analysis as follows: "We can, as well, regard its (the road's) solid
construction as being necessary to meet the demands of frequent and
heavy traffic of people and animals from the settlement to the sea, as
well as that of travelers coming from other settlements."

The settlement at Nea Makri was, according to the evidence unearthed to
date, most likely extensive, extending along the entire length of the
beach. We also note that in Nea Makri no evidence has been found of
disturbances or disasters all during the transition from a more ancient
to the Middle Neolithic period. We therefore cannot speak of a general
invasion of Hellas by some unknown, foreign race. The destructions in
Thessaly are therefore isolated ones and are not repeated in Attica or
Eubea, where the settlement of Leukanti, for instance, was inhabited
from the Neolithic to the Byzantine periods.

Among other things, the excavations of the settlements in Attica, the
majority of which are located near the coast, have, as a result of the
artifacts unearthed, determined that the inhabitants of Neolithic
Attica were seafarers who maintained commercial contacts with the
neighboring islands, at the very minimum. It is not merely by chance
that on Mount Pangaio, as well as on Andros Island (in the Strofilas
area) there were found depictions of ships carved upon stone. More
particularly, the engravings from Pangaio include a sailing ship with
rowers and have been dated to the middle of the 5th and the 4th
millenniums. The scenes from Andros have also been dated to the 4th
millennium, and could be considered a predecessor of the convoy wall
paintings found on Thera Island, since at Strofilas we do not have a
depiction of one ship only, but of a small fleet.

The facts presented so far can only lead a logical and fair-minded
person to one conclusion: The Neolithic Greeks had developed an older,
much more advanced civilization than anything our hypothetical
Indo-Europeans of the Ukrainian steppes were capable of during the same
period. Which leads us to wonder why, since the Greeks were already
seafaring at that time and had constructed fortified cities, would they
allow these invaders to come and settle upon their land? Really, why
would a seafaring people, who could deploy sailing ships with banks of
rowers, allow these invaders, who had only rudimentary rafts and oars,
to cross the Aegean; the Greek sea? Unless, of course, we can somehow
convince ourselves that these Indo-Europeans learned their sailing
skills on the steppes of the Caucasus or on the plains of Central
Europe!! The Indo-Europeanizers, of course, persist in their views,
claiming that there are many similarities between the Neolithic Greek
civilization and that of the corresponding ones which developed in the
Balkans (from today's Serbia to present-day Moldavia), which they, of
course, consider to be Indo-European. Ergo, these Indo-Europeans first
settled in the Northern Balkans, after which they migrated down to
Hellas. But it is precisely this similarity which could be cited to
support the view that there was a much older migration of Neolithic
Greeks into the historically Greek living space of Asia Minor and the
Balkan peninsula.

The ancient Greek myths describing the journey of Dionysus to faraway
India evidently reflect a collective memory of this early attempt by
the Greeks to explore the world. Of course, to rely upon mythology is
risky, but why is it that only Greek myth has recorded such events? Why
haven't the adventures which would been encountered by our hypothetical
and far-traveling Indo-Europeans ever been recorded or passed down as
legends via an oral tradition? The only mythology that could be said to
have much in common with the Greek -- and not by mere chance -- is that
of the Sumerians.

The paradox for the Indo-Europeanizers, is that the cultures
of the Sumerians, the Dilmoun, as well as that of the inhabitants of
what is today's South Yemen, were remarkably similar to that of Hellas'
at that time. At Dilmoun, for instance, many swords have been unearthed
that could be copies of those of the early Mycenaean period. In this
particular case, the finds are in agreement with our philological
sources. For instance, Diodorus Siculus tells us that in his time the
inhabitants of Yemen spoke of being descendants of the Greeks! It was
during the period when the Sumerians were founding their city-states
that they also warred against one another as well as against their
barbarian neighbors using phalanxes of spearmen.

This screams Nationalism, be reasonable the Minoans didn't speak an Indo-european language and had cultural ties and genetic ties to the Near East, and everything started in the East and spread westwards not the other way around, Indo-Europeans in the North, and movement of J in the South, not to mention of course the Neolithic cultures that were there earlier were very important as well.

[Principe Azzurro]

That's because a great catastrophe struck Greece (the eruption of Thera and the floods and tsunamis that followed). At least 3 Greek tribes became extinct. Hellene one of the survivors gave his name to Hellenes (a small tribe around Thessaly originally) and eventually to all other Greek tribes, since his tribe was nomadic and multiplied greatly.

Greece already had the Minyans and the Minoans who were part of the Aegean civilization cultures, both are directly influenced by the Near East.

[Sikeliot]

Greece already had the Minyans and the Minoans who were part of the Aegean civilization cultures, both are directly influenced by the Near East.

I am not seeing that so much in the Minoan results. They are mostly similar to Sardinians, though there is also a secondary Near Eastern component (though, of course, smaller than what is present in modern Cretans).

[Laberia]

Greece already had the Minyans and the Minoans who were part of the Aegean civilization cultures, both are directly influenced by the Near East.

My friend, this piece of shit has got a permanent bann from another forum dedicated to history. The reason? Was considered an idiot.

[Yehiel]

Why this whore is allowed to spam every thread?

Its not healthy to disrespect women over the internet.

[Principe Azzurro]

My friend, this piece of shit has got a permanent bann from another forum dedicated to history. The reason? Was considered an idiot.

Noce to see you again indeed my friend, yeah there is a lot of Nationalism in her posts.

[wvwvw]

Greece already had the Minyans and the Minoans who were part of the Aegean civilization cultures, both are directly influenced by the Near East.

Again Minoans had been in Greece for at least 10,000 years. Back then they may not spoke Greek but the Greek language evolved from the language they spoke. Minoans after 2000 BC spoke an early form of Aeolic and Ionic dialect.

[wvwvw]

Noce to see you again indeed my friend, yeah there is a lot of Nationalism in her posts.

And you are a bitter bigoted shithead. There's no point in discussing anything with people like you.

[Lavrentis]

My friend, this piece of shit has got a permanent bann from another forum dedicated to history. The reason? Was considered an idiot.

Which forum?

[wvwvw]

Why this whore is allowed to spam every thread?

I liked how the Italian whore thumbed up the midget Turkalbanian whore.

[Principe Azzurro]

I am not seeing that so much in the Minoan results. They are mostly similar to Sardinians, though there is also a secondary Near Eastern component (though, of course, smaller than what is present in modern Cretans).

The reason for this and it makes sense is that no modern population is exactly the same as the Minoans, the reason why Sardinians are closer to them and the Mycenaeans is because they changed relatively little since Neolithic and Bronze Age, the first wave of this Near Eastern ancestry in Minoan Crete was around 2700-2600 BC or 4700-4600 ybp which already considerable time from the ancient Minoan samples, it seems to be mostly male dominated and they married the local women, and thats why they appear more Neolithic Farmer like, the second wave came in the Middle Bronze Age which also brought the Minyan ware to Mainland Greece and the islands. Very likely also to Sicily with the Castelluccio Culture. Most other Middle Eastern like ancestry probably came with the Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman Empire (Greek Islands were the Hub of the Slave trade for hundreds of years), Byzantine Empire and Emirate of Crete.

[wvwvw]

Noce to see you again indeed my friend, yeah there is a lot of Nationalism in her posts.

This well known Italian troll has reincarnated himself once again despite all his previous bans.

[Principe Azzurro]

And you are a bitter bigoted shithead. There's no point in discussing anything with people like you.


LOL, I am anti-racist, you can't get Nationalism get in the way of facts.

[Sikeliot]

The reason for this and it makes sense is that no modern population is exactly the same as the Minoans, the reason why Sardinians are closer to them and the Mycenaeans is because they changed relatively little since Neolithic and Bronze Age, the first wave of this Near Eastern ancestry in Minoan Crete was around 2700-2600 BC or 4700-4600 ybp which already considerable time from the ancient Minoan samples, it seems to be mostly male dominated and they married the local women, and thats why they appear more Neolithic Farmer like, the second wave came in the Middle Bronze Age which also brought the Minyan ware to Mainland Greece and the islands. Very likely also to Sicily with the Castelluccio Culture. Most other Middle Eastern like ancestry probably came with the Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman Empire (Greek Islands were the Hub of the Slave trade for hundreds of years), Byzantine Empire and Emirate of Crete.

Yes. I definitely think the additional MENA influences in southern Italy, Sicily, and the Aegean are more recent and postdate the Minoans by quite a bit.


This well known Italian troll has reincarnated himself once again despite all his previous bans.


No, this is someone I know from other forums.

[Tauromachos]

I am not seeing that so much in the Minoan results. They are mostly similar to Sardinians, though there is also a secondary Near Eastern component (though, of course, smaller than what is present in modern Cretans).

Fair enough,the Minoans didn't have Levantine or Egyptian though they had some cultural and trade relations with these regions.

But they had more Anatolian and North Iran Armenian highlands

[Principe Azzurro]

This well known Italian troll has reincarnated himself once again despite all his previous bans.


Moron, this is the first time I registered on Apricity. Sikeliot can vouch for me. I clearly stated who I was in an introduction thread. :picard1:

[Sikeliot]

Fair enough,the Minoans didn't have Levantine or Egyptian though they had some cultural and trade relations with these regions.


They were culturally influenced by those regions but did not have DNA from them.

[Principe Azzurro]

Fair enough,the Minoans didn't have Levantine or Egyptian though they had some cultural and trade relations with these regions.

But they had more Anatolian and North Iran Armenian highlands

Cybernautic can you please explain this to WWWW, this is what I was saying.

[Principe Azzurro]

I liked how the Italian whore thumbed up the midget Turkalbanian whore.

I like how you downrated 4 of my posts are you 15?

[Tauromachos]

They were culturally influenced by those regions but did not have DNA from them.

Both,they influenced these regions as well and i agree DNA wise they didn't have relations

[wvwvw]

The reason for this and it makes sense is that no modern population is exactly the same as the Minoans, the reason why Sardinians are closer to them and the Mycenaeans is because they changed relatively little since Neolithic and Bronze Age, the first wave of this Near Eastern ancestry in Minoan Crete was around 2700-2600 BC or 4700-4600 ybp which already considerable time from the ancient Minoan samples, it seems to be mostly male dominated and they married the local women, and thats why they appear more Neolithic Farmer like, the second wave came in the Middle Bronze Age which also brought the Minyan ware to Mainland Greece and the islands. Very likely also to Sicily with the Castelluccio Culture. Most other Middle Eastern like ancestry probably came with the Hellenistic kingdoms, Roman Empire (Greek Islands were the Hub of the Slave trade for hundreds of years), Byzantine Empire and Emirate of Crete.

There was no slave trade in the Greek islands. It was the Roman that brought slaves into Italy, and later the Arab conquests that further increased the Arabic in S.Italians.

[Principe Azzurro]

There was no slave trade in the Greek islands. It was the Roman that brought slaves into Italy, and later the Arab conquests that further increased the Arabic in S.Italians.

There was,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos#History

"Strabo states that in 166 BCE the Romans converted Delos into a free port, which was partially motivated by seeking to damage the trade of Rhodes, at the time the target of Roman hostility. In 167 or 166 BCE, after the Roman victory in the Third Macedonian War, the Roman Republic ceded the island of Delos to the Athenians, who expelled most of the original inhabitants.[6] Roman traders came to purchase tens of thousands of slaves captured by the Cilician pirates or captured in the wars following the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire. It became the center of the slave trade, with the largest slave market in the larger region being maintained here.

The Roman destruction of Corinth in 146 BC allowed Delos to at least partially assume the former's role as the premier trading center of Greece. However, Delos' commercial prosperity, construction activity, and population waned significantly after the island was assaulted by the forces of Mithridates VI of Pontus in 88 and 69 BCE, during the Mithridatic Wars with Rome.[7] Before the end of the 1st century BCE, trade routes had changed; Delos was replaced by Puteoli as the chief focus of Italian trade with the East, and as a cult-centre too it entered a sharp decline. Due to the above history, Delos - unlike other Greek islands - did not have an indigenous, self-supporting community of its own. As a result, in later times it became uninhabited."

[Laberia]

Its not healthy to disrespect women over the internet.

It's not a human. It's Raine of Apricity. You will have all the time know who is he/she.

[wvwvw]

There was,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delos#History

"Strabo states that in 166 BCE the Romans converted Delos into a free port, which was partially motivated by seeking to damage the trade of Rhodes, at the time the target of Roman hostility. In 167 or 166 BCE, after the Roman victory in the Third Macedonian War, the Roman Republic ceded the island of Delos to the Athenians, who expelled most of the original inhabitants.[6] Roman traders came to purchase tens of thousands of slaves captured by the Cilician pirates or captured in the wars following the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire. It became the center of the slave trade, with the largest slave market in the larger region being maintained here.

The Roman destruction of Corinth in 146 BC allowed Delos to at least partially assume the former's role as the premier trading center of Greece. However, Delos' commercial prosperity, construction activity, and population waned significantly after the island was assaulted by the forces of Mithridates VI of Pontus in 88 and 69 BCE, during the Mithridatic Wars with Rome.[7] Before the end of the 1st century BCE, trade routes had changed; Delos was replaced by Puteoli as the chief focus of Italian trade with the East, and as a cult-centre too it entered a sharp decline. Due to the above history, Delos - unlike other Greek islands - did not have an indigenous, self-supporting community of its own. As a result, in later times it became uninhabited."

That was not a slave hub you retarded imbecile. The Seleukid Empire was Greek by the way. And any near eastern in Greeks most definitely came from the Cypriots. Italians have more middle eastern and more affinity to Northern Africa and to Maghrebians since the Romans had colonies in North Africa. And later increased with the Emirate of Al-Sicily.

http://i.imgur.com/tQUxPJA.png

[Laberia]

Which forum?

Historum. There are real scholars there, people who publish books with their researches. The dumbass started to spam every thread. They tried for almost one month with patience and nativity to explain that this theories were totally nonsense. It was a funny situation because they had no idea about Raine of Apricity also the idiot used an another nickname. But it was impossible to explain to this retard. Finally they decided to give a permanent bann, something very rare because usually they use to advise the members and later to give temporary bann. The retard realized an personal record. Was permbann immediately.

[wvwvw]

The Albanian and Indian members ganged on me to ban me from Historum (nick: Sum of One). They basically lied about me and banned me for no reason. Although from day one I was receiving plenty of PMs from other posters telling me how much they liked my posts). It was Laberia that was constantly being ridiculed not me.

[Principe Azzurro]

That was not a slave hub you retarded imbecile. The Seleukid Empire was Greek by the way. And any near eastern in Greeks most definitely came from the Cypriots. Italians have more middle eastern and more affinity to Northern Africa and to Maghrebians since the Romans had colonies in North Africa. And later increased with the Emirate of Al-Sicily.

http://i.imgur.com/tQUxPJA.png

Moron, I am an university student majoring in Ancient Greek history, I quoted that to show you that the Romans set up Slave Trade Markets in Greece.

[Laberia]

Its not healthy to disrespect women over the internet.

I liked how the Italian whore thumbed up the midget Turkalbanian whore.

You see? What did i said few minutes ago to you?

[Principe Azzurro]

..

No one ever said Sicilians and Southern Italians don't have Middle Eastern dna, I state it all the time and am proud of it unlike other people *Italicroots*

[wvwvw]

Moron, I am an university student majoring in Ancient Greek history, I quoted that to show you that the Romans set up Slave Trade Markets in Greece.

You are majoring in bullshitting and nothing but bullshitting. You are a joke, and your ignorance about Greek history is glaring.

[Principe Azzurro]

You are majoring in bullshitting and nothing but bullshitting. You are a joke, and your ignorance about Greek history is glaring.

Your the one who says Minoan civilization is 10 000 years old, you know how retarded that sounds? No where in any academic community is this considered factual, only in stupid extreme nationalistic ideology.

[wvwvw]

Your the one who says Minoan civilization is 10 000 years old, you know how retarded that sounds? No where in any academic community is this considered factual, only in stupid extreme nationalistic ideology.

No you moron, that's not what I said. It's not my fault if you can't read. The ancestors of the Minoans had been to Greece for at least 10,000 years, not the Cretan Palace civilization. The very term Minoan is a misnormer since there were no such things are Minoans, only Greeks and the previous Hellads. Minos I did not reign until 1406 BC.

The Neolithic cultures of Greece at Sesklo and elsewhere in Greece were Greek.

The Cretans after 2000 BC, the so-called Minoans spoke proto Greek. The idea that Linear A has not been deciphered is a lie. Linear A has been deciphered since the mid to late 1990's using computer analysis and it has been shown to be primarily proto-Aeolic and proto-Ionic Greek. Which makes sense considering it is now proven the Minoans were genetic simblings with the Myceaneans.

The major problem with Linear A is that 95% of the text of the extant inscription is so damaged that it is unreadable therefore since it cannot be read it cannot be translated into anything meaningful.

"In conclusion, according to Tsikritsis, Linear A script represents an archaic form of Greek. Specifically, it must be an early aeolic dialect the speakers of which used linguistic archaisms (words and sounds that later became obsolete) that are not found in Linear B.."

Tsikritsis has published his work and no one has been able to refute it. It is the most extensive and scientifically based (peer reviewed) study ever carried out on Linear A and its shows it to be a dialect of Aeolic Greek. According to Homer the language of Eteocretans overlapped with the languages of the Achaeans, Dorians and Pelasgains. The only way this could be possible is if the Eteocretans language was descended from proto-Greek and most likely to be have been a dialect of proto-Aeolic or proto-Mycenaean.

"There is a fair and fruitful island in mid-ocean called Crete; it is thickly peopled and there are nine cities in it: the people speak many different languages which overlap one another, for there are Achaeans, brave Eteocretans, Dorians of three-fold race, and noble Pelasgi."

And the fact that Cypriot Linear Script which is the same age as Linear A and a sister script used to write Greek is another indication that Linear A was Greek.

Minoan Linear A Script. An Early Aeolic Greek Dialect?
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v014.htm

The Phaistos Disk: A Statistical Decipherment
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v002.htm

The Phaistos disc has been proven to be a funeral record of the burial of a proto-Ionian king called Arion.

Jean Faucounau, considers the Phaistos script as the original invention of a Cycladic and maritime Aegean people, the proto-Ionians. He interprets the text as "proto-Ionic" Greek in syllabic writing.

And there are mentioned the names of Gods such as Zeus. The historical kings of the Minoans, became the Gods of Myceanean Greeks and Romans.

The following paragraph from BBC article:

“But the much more minor influx of Steppe people into Greece compared with northern Europe has led some to conclude that this migration could not have effected a change in language. This might imply that progenitors of Greek - and perhaps other Indo-European languages - were already established in the Aegean by the time the Steppe people arrived.”

[wvwvw]

17,000 Years of Greek Prehistory
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24950373?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[Laberia]

The Albanian and Indian members ganged on me to ban me from Historum (nick: Sum of One). They basically lied about me and banned me for no reason. Although from day one I was receiving plenty of PMs from other posters telling me how much they liked my posts). It was Laberia that was constantly being ridiculed not me.
i didn`t had the honor to partecipate in your adventure there. I was just laughing with all the situation that you created there.

[Principe Azzurro]

No you moron, that's not what I said. It's not my fault if you can't read. The ancestors of the Minoans had been to Greece for at least 10,000 years, not the Cretan Palace civilization. The very term Minoan is a misnormer since there were no such things are Minoans, only Greeks and the previous Hellads. Minos I did not reign until 1406 BC.

The Neolithic cultures of Greece at Sesklo and elsewhere in Greece were Greek.

The Cretans after 2000 BC, the so-called Minoans spoke proto Greek. The idea that Linear A has not been deciphered is a lie. Linear A has been deciphered since the mid to late 1990's using computer analysis and it has been shown to be primarily proto-Aeolic and proto-Ionic Greek. Which makes sense considering it is now proven the Minoans were genetic simblings with the Myceaneans.

The major problem with Linear A is that 95% of the text of the extant inscription is so damaged that it is unreadable therefore since it cannot be read it cannot be translated into anything meaningful.

"In conclusion, according to Tsikritsis, Linear A script represents an archaic form of Greek. Specifically, it must be an early aeolic dialect the speakers of which used linguistic archaisms (words and sounds that later became obsolete) that are not found in Linear B.."

Tsikritsis has published his work and no one has been able to refute it. It is the most extensive and scientifically based (peer reviewed) study ever carried out on Linear A and its shows it to be a dialect of Aeolic Greek. According to Homer the language of Eteocretans overlapped with the languages of the Achaeans, Dorians and Pelasgains. The only way this could be possible is if the Eteocretans language was descended from proto-Greek and most likely to be have been a dialect of proto-Aeolic or proto-Mycenaean.

"There is a fair and fruitful island in mid-ocean called Crete; it is thickly peopled and there are nine cities in it: the people speak many different languages which overlap one another, for there are Achaeans, brave Eteocretans, Dorians of three-fold race, and noble Pelasgi."

And the fact that Cypriot Linear Script which is the same age as Linear A and a sister script used to write Greek is another indication that Linear A was Greek.

Minoan Linear A Script. An Early Aeolic Greek Dialect?
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v014.htm

The Phaistos Disk: A Statistical Decipherment
http://www.anistor.gr/english/enback/v002.htm

The Phaistos disc has been proven to be a funeral record of the burial of a proto-Ionian king called Arion.

Jean Faucounau, considers the Phaistos script as the original invention of a Cycladic and maritime Aegean people, the proto-Ionians. He interprets the text as "proto-Ionic" Greek in syllabic writing.

And there are mentioned the names of Gods such as Zeus. The historical kings of the Minoans, became the Gods of Myceanean Greeks and Romans.

The following paragraph from BBC article:

“But the much more minor influx of Steppe people into Greece compared with northern Europe has led some to conclude that this migration could not have effected a change in language. This might imply that progenitors of Greek - and perhaps other Indo-European languages - were already established in the Aegean by the time the Steppe people arrived.”

Yes some of the Minoans ancestors were there since Neolithic, others were not, I don't understand what is hard to understand? Linear A is far from anything Indo-European, in Egypt there is a Minoan medical chant and its clear the language they spoke was unique. If it is so apparent why is that all the cultures that had contacts with both Mainlander/Cycladic Greeks and the Minoans had different names for them? Minoans were the Caphtorim and the pre Hellenics were the Javan/Danoi. If they were truly the same the cultures who came into contact with them would have known right? There is also links with Eteo-Cretan and Eteo-Cypriot, not Eteo-Cretan and Mycenaean.

[wvwvw]

DNA reveals origin of Greece's ancient Minoan culture

Europe's first advanced civilisation was local in origin and not imported from elsewhere, a study says.

The authors therefore conclude that the Minoan civilisation was a local development, originated by inhabitants who probably reached the island around 9,000 years ago, in Neolithic times.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22527821

[Principe Azzurro]

DNA reveals origin of Greece's ancient Minoan culture

Europe's first advanced civilisation was local in origin and not imported from elsewhere, a study says.

The authors therefore conclude that the Minoan civilisation was a local development, originated by inhabitants who probably reached the island around 9,000 years ago, in Neolithic times.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22527821

Your quoting a paper from 2013, we had a paper literally not even a month ago about the origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, the mtdna has changed little but the Y is a different story if you fail to understand that is your problem.

[wvwvw]

Yes some of the Minoans ancestors were there since Neolithic, others were not, I don't understand what is hard to understand? Linear A is far from anything Indo-European, in Egypt there is a Minoan medical chant and its clear the language they spoke was unique. If it is so apparent why is that all the cultures that had contacts with both Mainlander/Cycladic Greeks and the Minoans had different names for them? Minoans were the Caphtorim and the pre Hellenics were the Javan/Danoi. If they were truly the same the cultures who came into contact with them would have known right? There is also links with Eteo-Cretan and Eteo-Cypriot, not Eteo-Cretan and Mycenaean.

The Eteocretans (indigenous Cretans wrongly called Minoans) were Greek. The Danaoi and Javan were simply tribal names of Greeks. Those were Mycenean Greeks. Mycenean is another wrong term to call the people of that period, since those people never called themselves Myceanean. They were Greeks, descendants of Greacus the grandson of Pelasgus which was an Inachid Greek. Hellenes were the decedents of Hellen the son of Deukalion and was applied by the Greeks to refer to the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians and Achaeans collectively. Greeks was a term applied by the Romans first to the Pelasgians, the first Greeks they came into contact with and then to all the Greek speaking inhabitants of Greece.

[Principe Azzurro]

The Eteocretans (indigenous Cretans wrongly called Minoans) were Greek. The Danaoi and Javan were simply tribal names of Greeks. Those were Mycenean Greeks. Mycenean is another wrong term to call the people of that period, since those people never called themselves Myceanean. They were Greeks, descendants of Greacus the grandson of Pelasgus which was an Inachid Greek. Hellenes were the decedents of Hellen the son of Deukalion and was applied by the Greeks to refer to the Dorians, Aeolians, Ionians and Achaeans collectively. Greeks was a term applied by the Romans first to the Pelasgians, the first Greeks they came into contact with and then to all the Greek speaking inhabitants of Greece.

Whatever you say I am done arguing.

[wvwvw]

Your quoting a paper from 2013, we had a paper literally not even a month ago about the origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, the mtdna has changed little but the Y is a different story if you fail to understand that is your problem.

You fail to understand there are not enough ydna samples of Minoans and their predecesors. That doesn't negate anything of what I have said.