Photos from stuff of the "early Atreides"

[Ellinas]

Mycenae from air

http://www.duke.edu/~rkl7/Images/Mycenae%20today.jpg

Ruins

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/ralimage/mycenae.jpg

The

[Davidu]

Too bad the Myceneans were such a barbarian people. I mean the destroyed the extraordinary civilisation of the Cretans from whom they took the art and trade skills, as well as the art of sailing.

But that was already happening all over Europe and not only as the indo-europeans were taking over the older cutures.

[nemafakei]

Note that all the named references are no more than conjucture based on Schliemann's idealistic enthusiam.

Although... there almost certainly existed the Mycenean name Orestes, as o-re-ta is documented in Linear B. Not, however as a king or prince.

[Davidu]

I wonder about the people that inhabited Romania before the indo-europeans setteld the area. Namely the dacians.

[Ellinas]

Are you all following these Indo-european theories?

[Davidu]

Meaning?  ???

[Caid Ivik]

Are you all following these Indo-european theories?

You know a better one?

[Davidu]

We all speak indo-european languages. Our genetic structure isn't, however, purely indo-european right now. The indo-european archetype was the blond or redhead with blue or green eyes. Look at the norsemen, german, slavs, dacians, celts, even greeks. Even today in Iran there are people with blue eyes.

The minoan civilisation was pre-indo-european. They are depicted as having black curly hair and black eyes.

That's why I wonder how did the first human inhabitants of my region look like.

[nemafakei]

"We all speak indo-european languages."

Hungarian, Basque, Finnish, Etruscan. What genetic groups would you associate these with? The basques are blue-eyed redheads like the celts!

[Davidu]

Basques are a mistery. They are believed to be a mixture of pre-indoeuropeans with celts ad some nort-african populations.

Hungarian and Finnish population are of asiatic origins. Uralo-altaic or fino-ugric, both names are correct. Hungarians openly claim they are  descendents of Attila and the huns, though they reffer to themselfes as maghyar and not huns.

As for the etruscans, they are believed to be of asiatic origin: close east.

And besides, today's appearence does not show exactly what DNA group you belong to.

I mean after the roman colonisation, when they brough people from ALL over the empire, romanians do not look alike. I mean, we have all sorts of people. With mongoloid features (back from the mongol invasion), norse features (we were in close contact with the germans, the goths passed through here), slavic features (slavs passed to the south). Etc etc.

What I meant was that in that moment in history, the differences must have been pretty noticeble. Minoans-Myceneans.

[Ellinas]

We all speak indo-european languages. Our genetic structure isn't, however, purely indo-european right now. The indo-european archetype was the blond or redhead with blue or green eyes. Look at the norsemen, german, slavs, dacians, celts, even greeks. Even today in Iran there are people with blue eyes.

The minoan civilisation was pre-indo-european. They are depicted as having black curly hair and black eyes.

That's why I wonder how did the first human inhabitants of my region look like.

The only sure so-called Aryans qare the Persians and the West Indians. For me the theories about the Indo-Europeans/Aryans were fairy tails of Hitler. Official science adopted these theories unfortunately.

The fact that most European languages share some elements with Indian languages and Persian is not a proof about the theory of the Aryans.

I am pretty sure that Greeks (even Dorians-they originated in North Macedonia) are not Indo-europeans but indigenous. This is proved by anthropologist Ares Poulianos even if the official Greek state denied his theories. The web-site of him is here http://www.aee.gr . The English section of the page is not so rich, but it also has many info.

[Davidu]

Hmmm...

Arian means "sacred people".

When I reffer to indo-europeans, I do not say that indo-europeans are better, or superior, to other people. That is moronic to say. Actually the indo-european DNA, with colored hair and colored eyes, is RECCESIVE. The DNA with dark hair/dark eyes is DOMINANT, meaning that the DNA of the non-indo-europeans is err... stronger.

It is not a theory. This group of peoples is an "anomaly".

Anyway, you say the greeks are indigenous, pre-indoeuropeans.

As far as I know greek is recognised as an indo-european language. Classical latin and clasical greek have almost the same structure. This is irrelevant because the romans copyied the greeks civilisation as well as they could.

There is a point in the greek mythology where it is said that Zeus seduced a woman named Europa and took her over the sea, to a new land that from that day hence bared her name. Beautiful story.

What do I see in it? The migration of the proto-greek tribes from Asia Minor to present-day Greece.

It is perfectly plausible for these tribes to have descended from the main propagation area of north Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus) - present-day Ukraine - towards the Caucasus and then turned west and reached the greek peninsula. That is the moment the "akhigawa" - aheeans - and the other tribes conquered the greek paninsula and then conquered and distroyed the minoan civilisation that was within their grasp.

As far as I know there were three waves: Ionian, Dorian, and Aheean. The first were the Myceanians.

Now, Crete was fairly easy to conquer. Why? Because:

1. they had virtually no army. They didn't need one. They were a corporate state. They were merchants.

2. the greeks had a powerful tradition in military arts and posessed the advanced technology of bronze working.

Now, when the greeks managed to build some ships and reach Crete, they were unstoppable.

Many traits of the cretan (minoan) civilisation have been incorporated in the greek world:

the cretan column is seen at Mycene in the Lyons' Gate. The minoan art has been adapted to the greek feelings. And the greeks got the technology of sea-faring.

Why do you think King Minos is depicted as a negative character? Because he was an enemy. A different civilisation.

And this momentum of expansion was later continued by the phenomenal greek colonisation, and later by the late but history-changing deeds of Alexander the Great.

I wrote all this without reading the site you provided. I'll get to work, and then I'll post my impressions.  ;D

PS great have some history activity!

[Ellinas]

Hmmm...

Arian means "sacred people".

When I reffer to indo-europeans, I do not say that indo-europeans are better, or superior, to other people. That is moronic to say. Actually the indo-european DNA, with colored hair and colored eyes, is RECCESIVE. The DNA with dark hair/dark eyes is DOMINANT, meaning that the DNA of the non-indo-europeans is err... stronger.

It is not a theory. This group of peoples is an "anomaly".

Anyway, you say the greeks are indigenous, pre-indoeuropeans.

As far as I know greek is recognised as an indo-european language. Classical latin and clasical greek have almost the same structure. This is irrelevant because the romans copyied the greeks civilisation as well as they could.

There is a point in the greek mythology where it is said that Zeus seduced a woman named Europa and took her over the sea, to a new land that from that day hence bared her name. Beautiful story.

What do I see in it? The migration of the proto-greek tribes from Asia Minor to present-day Greece.

It is perfectly plausible for these tribes to have descended from the main propagation area of north Black Sea (Pontus Euxinus) - present-day Ukraine - towards the Caucasus and then turned west and reached the greek peninsula. That is the moment the "akhigawa" - aheeans - and the other tribes conquered the greek paninsula and then conquered and distroyed the minoan civilisation that was within their grasp.

As far as I know there were three waves: Ionian, Dorian, and Aheean. The first were the Myceanians.

Now, Crete was fairly easy to conquer. Why? Because:

1. they had virtually no army. They didn't need one. They were a corporate state. They were merchants.

2. the greeks had a powerful tradition in military arts and posessed the advanced technology of bronze working.

Now, when the greeks managed to build some ships and reach Crete, they were unstoppable.

Many traits of the cretan (minoan) civilisation have been incorporated in the greek world:

the cretan column is seen at Mycene in the Lyons' Gate. The minoan art has been adapted to the greek feelings. And the greeks got the technology of sea-faring.

Why do you think King Minos is depicted as a negative character? Because he was an enemy. A different civilisation.

And this momentum of expansion was later continued by the phenomenal greek colonisation, and later by the late but history-changing deeds of Alexander the Great.

I wrote all this without reading the site you provided. I'll get to work, and then I'll post my impressions.  ;D

PS great have some history activity!

What you said is is correct. I just insist that genetically Greeks are not Indoeuropeans. You can see Greeks are not blond haired and with blue eyes like Northern Europeans. The 90% of the Greeks have black or dark brown/marron hair. It is difficult to find a blond Greek, and even if you find the blondest he is not as blond as a Swede. Opposing, you can find much more blond people at the nearby Slavic countries.

I know that the structure of Latin is similar than the Greek because Latin is a language based in Greek. The Latin alphabet is just a copy of the Euboean alphabet (the alphabet used in the dialect of Euboea island). In Greek mythology you can find myths that explain the move of the Greeks to the Italian peniscula (.like the one of Daedalus) bringing the alphabet with them, the alphabet later Latin based. This has nothing to do with the European theory. I happily see you have found out Greek mythology is not a fairy tail. With careful observation you can find there the history of the Greeks and many of the nearby ethnicities (Persians, Phoenicians, Ethiopians, Egyptians...).

You are right about the three "waves". Ionians, Dorians and Achaeans were the big categories but they had many subcategories. About the 85% of today's Greeks population is made by a mixture of these races. (The rest population are Arvanites, Vlachs, Slavs and a few Turks). Only a little correction, Myceneans were Achaeans not Ionians.  ;D

[Davidu]

Sorry about Mycene.  ;D

Well, blond does not have to be the norse verion of blond. And besides, after all there thousands of years, the genetical structure would have been seriously modified.

Well, again, in greek mythology ( which I consider to be the oral history) several god are depicted as blond. Why would a brunet people imagine blond gods?

I'll look more into this. It is most intriguing.

Who are the "arvanites"? Never heard of them.

PS I read the site you provided. The Sarakastani population might have been influenced by the more advanced population of the greeks. I mean in art and language. Again, it might not.

[Ellinas]

Sorry about Mycene.  ;D

Well, blond does not have to be the norse verion of blond. And besides, after all there thousands of years, the genetical structure would have been seriously modified.

Well, again, in greek mythology ( which I consider to be the oral history) several god are depicted as blond. Why would a brunet people imagine blond gods?

I'll look more into this. It is most intriguing.

Who are the "arvanites"? Never heard of them.

PS I read the site you provided. The Sarakastani population might have been influenced by the more advanced population of the greeks. I mean in art and language. Again, it might not.

I don't know about blond gods, but I've also read old Greek texts where blond people are mentioned, like Helen the wife of Menelaos. As I told you you can find blond Greeks but the blond is still darker than the Scandinavians or English etc. Still the blonds are a minority in Greece that is why we treat them specially ;D-and that is why they are special mentions of them in ancient Greek texts. Well if you come in Greece today you will see more than half of the women have full-blond hair. This is not their natural, the women here think that they will attract us more this way (Hair paint companies must be getting very much profit from Greece :D). You will notice the men being dark haired  ;D.

The Arvanites are Albanians who became Orthodox Christians. They seperated from the Shqiptar Albanians and moved to Greece during Middle ages. They are about 1,5 million today. More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvanites

[Davidu]

Oh, yes... the cosmetics industry will ALWAYS be very profitable.

The things is that one way or another you'll always see behind the paint. ;D

[Kiyouta]

Hmmm...

Arian means "sacred people".

When I reffer to indo-europeans, I do not say that indo-europeans are better, or superior, to other people. That is moronic to say. Actually the indo-european DNA, with colored hair and colored eyes, is RECCESIVE. The DNA with dark hair/dark eyes is DOMINANT, meaning that the DNA of the non-indo-europeans is err... stronger.

It is not a theory. This group of peoples is an "anomaly".

You calling me an anomaly now eh? Anyway, what does this have to do with the Atreides...

[Davidu]

;D ;D Yeah, you freak! ;D ;D

Well, now it does... LOL it is extremely interesting to know if the greeks are or are not part of the indo-europeans. All that is today the western culture is based on the greek antiquity. So, I think it's quite importants.

And besides, I think this discussion is very much in the spirit of FH's theories about populations and genetics, etc. Don't you?

[nemafakei]

"I know that the structure of Latin is similar than the Greek because Latin is a language based in Greek."

Latin is not by any means a dialect of early Greek. They both descend independantly from a common ancestor - Proto-Indo-European.

Let us take the genitive plural of the first declension. The PIE ending is *asom. In greek, intervocalic s becomes h, before dropping out entirely, and final m becomes n. Hence -αων, which occurs in Mycenean and Homer, but then contracts into classical -ων. In Latin, intervocalic s rhotacises, while the o becomes a u, leaving you with -arum. There are many more such instances to show that they are distinct languages, and have been since well before Mycenean times. Greek and Latin have, of course, had many subsequent influences on each other - just as modern languages influence each other even when unrelated (Spanish has many Arabic words, for instance).

Regarding hair colours in mythology: Be aware that it is very difficult to map modern day values to colours without some constant reference - and even then, we speak of a grey, green or blue sea, for example. Hair colours are often also attributed as epithets out of metrical convenience rather than for any specific reason.

"akhigawa"

Sorry, could you point out when and where this word is used?

[Davidu]

I didn't say that latin was derived from greek, but that it was heavily influenced by greek, as was the whole roman culture.

So, greek is an indo-european language.  ;D

I found the word "akhigawa" in a book, but I don't recall it's name. I remember it because I was extremely intrigued as it didn't sound like any greek word I know.

I'll look more into it.