The Phoenicians were indo-Europeans as were the Jews
Agamemnon
Phoenician deity Lotan who is described as a sea monster or sea serpent in
the bible it is clear that the Phoenicians were originally indo-Europeans
since Lotan/Leviathan is the equivalent to the Greek Typhon who is also Set
or Satan as is Leviathan.
According to indo-European etymology the name Typhon derives from the root
*dhub(h)-n- meaning "deep" and the name Python derives from *b(h)ud(h)-n-
meaning "bottom" or "deep" therefore the root of the name (Le)viathan which
is referred to as a monster residing in the depths of the sea must also be
*b(h)ud(h)-n- which translates from the composite Greco-Phoenician as El
Bathon or God of the Deap.
(http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzd03100.html)
Since the Levites were originally the priests of Leviathan the Jews or at
least this particular tribe were originally indo-Europeans as well, most
probably Hittites.
Italo
> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which
> corresponds to the Phoenician deity Lotan who is
> described as a sea monster or sea serpent in the bible it
> is clear that the Phoenicians were originally
> indo-Europeans since Lotan/Leviathan is the equivalent to
> the Greek Typhon who is also Set or Satan as is
> Leviathan.
Maybe Leviathan was identified with Apep, but Apep isn't the
same as Set.
Typhon is Phoenician Baal Zaphon.
Apollonius Rhodius uses the name Ladon for the dragon
protecting the tree in the garden of the Hesperides.
Hesiod doesn't mention the serpents name but gives the sea
gods Phorkys and Keto as parents (influenced by the ocean
stream as a serpent? (Ophion,
Okeanos)).
> According to indo-European etymology the name Typhon
> derives from the root *dhub(h)-n- meaning "deep" and the
> name Python derives from *b(h)ud(h)-n- meaning "bottom"
> or "deep" therefore the root of the name (Le)viathan
> which is referred to as a monster residing in the depths
> of the sea must also be *b(h)ud(h)-n- which translates
> from the composite Greco-Phoenician as El Bathon or God
> of the Deap.
>
> (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzd03100.html)
That would imply Mount Zaphon also took its name from the IE
root for 'deep'.. IMO the name of the god and his
mountain(s) are no more related to this as to the Semitic
words for 'north' or 'hidden/covered'.
Typhon's description is of a volcano.
Greek <tuphôs> means smoke, vapour.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23106082
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tu%2Ffw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapinuwa
say that Hattic <sapu> means 'god' (or rather the name of a
specific god?) and that the city Sapinuwa may be named from
it. I can't find any other references for this.
> Since the Levites were originally the priests of
> Leviathan the Jews or
Maybe priests of Zaphon.
> at least this particular tribe were originally
> indo-Europeans as well, most probably Hittites.
If Dan represents Danaia then Levi can represent Luwiya.
Agamemnon
"Italo" <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6tj41$9es$1...@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which corresponds to the
>> Phoenician deity Lotan who is described as a sea monster or sea serpent
>> in the bible it
>> is clear that the Phoenicians were originally indo-Europeans since
>> Lotan/Leviathan is the equivalent to
>> the Greek Typhon who is also Set or Satan as is Leviathan.
>
> Maybe Leviathan was identified with Apep, but Apep isn't the same as Set.
>
> Typhon is Phoenician Baal Zaphon.
He can't be since Philo distinguishes Baal-Hadad (Adodus) from Typhon and
Cassius as three different entities. Typhon is obviously the serpent Lotan
in the Baal Epic who was destroyed by Baal. Typhon is associated with Set
the God of the underworld by the Greeks whereas Lotan is an ally of Mot the
God of the underworld in the Baal epic.
There is the possibility that the Greek version of Typhon is more closely
based on Egyptian history than Phoenician history, but I think Apepi/Apis
was associated with Osiris rather than Set.
On the other hand Dagon the father of Baal-Hadad was also called Siton which
equates to Set. There is also the Lake Typhon (deep lake?) described by
Herodotus which is the Dead Sea.
>
> Apollonius Rhodius uses the name Ladon for the dragon
> protecting the tree in the garden of the Hesperides.
Looks like Lotan, Ladon, Leviathan and Python are all related to the same
indo-European root.
The Greeks could have taken the original Baal epic and adapted it to their
own history in the cases of Python, Ladon and Typhon and Philo could have
incorrectly confused Typhon who dates to the time that Epaphus was murdered
with Lotan who is probably a generation or two eariler since Jehovah
(Yam/Pontus) a contemporary of Lotan appears in the Hyksos king list two
generations before Epaphus.
In the Greek version Typhon is the son of Tartarus the brother of Pontus.
Was Tartarus ever associated with Mot?
> Hesiod doesn't mention the serpents name but gives the sea
> gods Phorkys and Keto as parents (influenced by the ocean
> stream as a serpent? (Ophion,
> Okeanos)).
>
>> According to indo-European etymology the name Typhon derives from the
>> root *dhub(h)-n- meaning "deep" and the
>> name Python derives from *b(h)ud(h)-n- meaning "bottom"
>> or "deep" therefore the root of the name (Le)viathan which is referred
>> to as a monster residing in the depths
>> of the sea must also be *b(h)ud(h)-n- which translates from the
>> composite Greco-Phoenician as El Bathon or God of the Deap.
>>
>> (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzd03100.html)
>
> That would imply Mount Zaphon also took its name from the IE
> root for 'deep'.. IMO the name of the god and his
> mountain(s) are no more related to this as to the Semitic
> words for 'north' or 'hidden/covered'.
Zephyros in Greek is the West Wind.
> Typhon's description is of a volcano.
> Greek <tuphôs> means smoke, vapour.
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23106082
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tu%2Ffw
>
And volcanoes by their very nature are the deepest things you can find on
Earth since the go all the way through its crust.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language
> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapinuwa
> say that Hattic <sapu> means 'god' (or rather the name of a
> specific god?) and that the city Sapinuwa may be named from
> it. I can't find any other references for this.
>
>> Since the Levites were originally the priests of Leviathan the Jews or
>
> Maybe priests of Zaphon.
Zaphon ie. Kassius was an earlier deity dating to about 2050 BC and many
generations before Typhon dating to about 1628 BC.
izzy
for Hebrew LiVYaTan. It is a (sea) jackal (Hebrew TaN) that
accompanies you (as in L'ViYa) at sea, probably a pilot whale, where
pilot is a reversal of dolphin.
Both TaN (jackal) and TaNiN (crocodile) have very visible teeth
(SHeN) ... at a time when the Hebrew letter shin had a D/T-sound, as
in SHoR was ToR as in Taur(us).
So SHeN is cognate with Latin dent- = tooth. And the words "Latin",
the tongue of the Romans, and "Ladino" are cognate with Hebrew LaSHoN
= tongue.
With a mem-prefix, L'ViYa became Yiddish MaLveh which provided the
second element in gunmoll, where the "gun" is from Yiddish gonif =
thief ... that is the female who accompanies a thief.
> There is also the Lake Typhon (deep lake?) described by Herodotus
>which is the Dead Sea.
I agree with this. Another name for what Israelis call Yam haMelekh
(the Salt Sea) is Yam haSHFeLah = the fallen/sunken sea. Giving the
shin its ancient T-sound makes SHFeLah phonetically close to Typhon.
Asphalt was exported from yam haSHFeLadh.
ciao,
Izzy
Italo
>
> "Italo" <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f6tj41$9es$1...@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>>> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which
>>> corresponds to the Phoenician deity Lotan who is
>>> described as a sea monster or sea serpent in the
>>> bible it is clear that the Phoenicians were
>>> originally indo-Europeans since Lotan/Leviathan is
>>> the equivalent to the Greek Typhon who is also Set or
>>> Satan as is Leviathan.
>>
>>
>> Maybe Leviathan was identified with Apep, but Apep
>> isn't the same as Set.
>>
>> Typhon is Phoenician Baal Zaphon.
>
>
> He can't be since Philo distinguishes Baal-Hadad (Adodus)
> from Typhon and Cassius as three different entities.
> Typhon is obviously the serpent Lotan in the Baal Epic
> who was destroyed by Baal. Typhon is associated with Set
> the God of the underworld by the Greeks
Set was not a god of the underworld. The Hyksos brought
Baal-Zaphon/Typhon with them to Egypt where he was
syncretized with Set. Only afterwards Set became more
regarded as a destructive deity.
> whereas Lotan is an ally of Mot the God of the underworld
> in the Baal epic.
> There is the possibility that the Greek version of Typhon
> is more closely based on Egyptian history than Phoenician
> history,
It would've be part of the mythology of the earlier Danaoi
and Philistines/Pelasgians, Leleges, etc. if these took part
in the Hyksos confederacy.
Maybe it converged with the Egyptian view after the 8th c.
> but I think Apepi/Apis was associated with Osiris rather
> than Set.
Well there is Sarapis.
The bull Apis and king Apopis/Ephapos have nothing
to do with the serpent Apep/Apopis. In hieroglyphs their
names are spelled different.
If the Egyptians did associate the names despite the
different spelling, then they may've expanded the stories
about Apep just because of this, the same as with Set.
"Apep was first attested to during the Middle Kingdom, but
the New Kingdom texts provide the myths and legends of this
demon."
http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/apep.html
The name of king Apopis/Ephapos derives from Apis, because
Herodotus says that Ephapos = Apis.
The last mention of Apep:
"After that I sent Ephippas to fetch to me the demon that is
in the Red Sea"
The demon of the Red Sea is Typhon again, his pillar (of
fire and smoke - the pillar shrine at Baal-Zephon) was said
to have fallen into the sea.
> On the other hand Dagon the father of Baal-Hadad was also
> called Siton which equates to Set.
Siton ('grain') is a translation of Dagon.
I don't see resemblance to Set.
Dagon (the Philistine version) may be Triptolemos, IMO.
> There is also the Lake Typhon (deep lake?) described by
> Herodotus which is the Dead Sea.
No, he says Typhon hides in Serbonis. IMO Serbonis is the
Yam Suph (i.e. the Sea of Typhon) of Exodus.
Strabo confuses Serbonis with the Dead Sea once
(when he says that bitumen floats in the lake).
>> Apollonius Rhodius uses the name Ladon for the dragon
>> protecting the tree in the garden of the Hesperides.
>
>
> Looks like Lotan, Ladon, Leviathan and Python are all
> related to the same indo-European root.
No..
> The Greeks could have taken the original Baal epic and
> adapted it to their own history in the cases of Python,
> Ladon and Typhon and Philo could have incorrectly
> confused Typhon who dates to the time that Epaphus was
> murdered with Lotan who is probably a generation or two
> eariler since Jehovah (Yam/Pontus)
> a contemporary of Lotan appears in the Hyksos king list
> two generations before Epaphus.
I don't follow what you mean..
> In the Greek version Typhon is the son of Tartarus the
> brother of Pontus.
>
> Was Tartarus ever associated with Mot?
"..Muth, ..the Phoenicians call him Thanatos and Pluto".
"..Mot was produced, which some say is mud, and others a
putrescence of watery compound; and out of this came every
germ of creation, and the generation of the universe. So
there were certain animals which had no sensation, and out
of them grew intelligent animals, and were called
"Zophasemin," that is "observers of heaven"; and they were
formed like the shape of an egg. Also Mot burst forth into
light, and sun, and moon, and stars, and the great
constellations."
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_pe_01_book1.htm
>> Hesiod doesn't mention the serpents name but gives the
>> sea gods Phorkys and Keto as parents (influenced by the
>> ocean stream as a serpent? (Ophion, Okeanos)).
>>
>>> According to indo-European etymology the name Typhon
>>> derives from the root *dhub(h)-n- meaning "deep" and
>>> the name Python derives from *b(h)ud(h)-n- meaning
>>> "bottom" or "deep" therefore the root of the name
>>> (Le)viathan which is referred to as a monster
>>> residing in the depths of the sea must also be
>>> *b(h)ud(h)-n- which translates from the composite
>>> Greco-Phoenician as El Bathon or God of the Deap.
>>>
>>> (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/roots/zzd03100.html)
>>>
>>
>>
>> That would imply Mount Zaphon also took its name from
>> the IE root for 'deep'.. IMO the name of the god and
>> his mountain(s) are no more related to this as to the
>> Semitic words for 'north' or 'hidden/covered'.
>
>
> Zephyros in Greek is the West Wind.
Frisk's dictionary says zephyros belongs with zophos,
"dark, darkness, the West", zopheros "misty, gloomy".
>> Typhon's description is of a volcano. Greek <tuphôs>
>> means smoke, vapour.
>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23106082
>>
>>
>> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/morphindex?lang=greek&lookup=tu%2Ffw
>>
>>
>
> And volcanoes by their very nature are the deepest things
> you can find on Earth since the go all the way through
> its crust.
>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language and
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapinuwa say that Hattic
>> <sapu> means 'god' (or rather the name of a specific
>> god?) and that the city Sapinuwa may be named from it.
>> I can't find any other references for this.
>>
>>> Since the Levites were originally the priests of
>>> Leviathan the Jews or
>>
>>
>> Maybe priests of Zaphon.
>
>
> Zaphon ie. Kassius was an earlier deity dating to about
> 2050 BC and many generations before Typhon dating to
> about 1628 BC.
Yahweh also resides on Mt.Zaphon, Job 37:22 "Out of Tsaphon
comes golden splendor; Around God is awesome majesty."
Agamemnon
> Agamemnon wrote:
>>
>> "Italo" <ola...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:f6tj41$9es$1...@news1.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>>
>>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which
>>>> corresponds to the Phoenician deity Lotan who is
>>>> described as a sea monster or sea serpent in the
>>>> bible it is clear that the Phoenicians were
>>>> originally indo-Europeans since Lotan/Leviathan is
>>>> the equivalent to the Greek Typhon who is also Set or
>>>> Satan as is Leviathan.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe Leviathan was identified with Apep, but Apep
>>> isn't the same as Set.
>>>
>>> Typhon is Phoenician Baal Zaphon.
>>
>>
>> He can't be since Philo distinguishes Baal-Hadad (Adodus)
>> from Typhon and Cassius as three different entities.
>> Typhon is obviously the serpent Lotan in the Baal Epic
>> who was destroyed by Baal. Typhon is associated with Set
>> the God of the underworld by the Greeks
>
> Set was not a god of the underworld. The Hyksos brought
> Baal-Zaphon/Typhon with them to Egypt where he was
> syncretized with Set. Only afterwards Set became more
> regarded as a destructive deity.
Lotan was descrived as the serpant in the Baal Epic and since Baal-Hadad
(lord of Mt Zaphon) killed Lotan he can't be Typhon.
>
>> whereas Lotan is an ally of Mot the God of the underworld
>> in the Baal epic.
>
>> There is the possibility that the Greek version of Typhon
>> is more closely based on Egyptian history than Phoenician
>> history,
>
> It would've be part of the mythology of the earlier Danaoi
> and Philistines/Pelasgians, Leleges, etc. if these took part
> in the Hyksos confederacy.
The Danaoi and Pelasgians and Leleges do not appear until after the Hyksos
were destroyed. The Hyksos included Zeus/Sheshi/Saasi--,
Khyan/Beon/Telegonus, and Yakubher/Ieuo/Yah/Yam/Jehovah.
Remove the vowels and both names are identical. There were lots of Mittani
kings that took the name Saturn as did the kings of the Minoans who called
themselves Satur.
> Dagon (the Philistine version) may be Triptolemos, IMO.
No. Triptolemos is dated to 1400 BC. Dagon dates to 1700.
>
>> There is also the Lake Typhon (deep lake?) described by
>> Herodotus which is the Dead Sea.
>
> No, he says Typhon hides in Serbonis. IMO Serbonis is the
> Yam Suph (i.e. the Sea of Typhon) of Exodus.
> Strabo confuses Serbonis with the Dead Sea once
> (when he says that bitumen floats in the lake).
>
>>> Apollonius Rhodius uses the name Ladon for the dragon protecting the
>>> tree in the garden of the Hesperides.
>>
>>
>> Looks like Lotan, Ladon, Leviathan and Python are all
>> related to the same indo-European root.
>
> No..
>
>> The Greeks could have taken the original Baal epic and
>> adapted it to their own history in the cases of Python,
>> Ladon and Typhon and Philo could have incorrectly
>> confused Typhon who dates to the time that Epaphus was
>> murdered with Lotan who is probably a generation or two eariler since
>> Jehovah (Yam/Pontus)
>
>> a contemporary of Lotan appears in the Hyksos king list
>> two generations before Epaphus.
>
> I don't follow what you mean..
1774 Sheshi/Zeus, then....
Yakubher/Jehovah
Khyan/Telegonus
Apepi I/Epaphus
Apepi II/Apis
Nope. God in Hebrew is Adonai not Jehovah. Adonai was Baal-Hadad. Baal-Hadad
have been regarded as Typhon by some but Philo's reference to Typhon in his
Phoenician history must refer to someone else since Baal-Hadad/Adodus is
already mentioned in a different place and Pontus/Jehovah is made the
brother of Typhon.
asteropaeus
The phoenicians were a mixture of people. Semitic and non-semitic. There
could be even doubt they had an national identity. Tyre, Arwad, Byblos and
Sidon were all very independent cities. Even rivals, which rarely worked
together. There is no fixed moment in time where Canaänite culture changed
into Phoenician culture, which points out to us that Phoenician culture was
as diverse as her predecesser. Even more so since more ethnic groeps had
setteld in the region, or influenced the region around the time that the
"shift" too Phoenicia is supposed to have happened. This shift is actually an
invention of historians who read about this people in Greek texts and came
across the name of sea-traders in the Levant being Phoenicians.
The fact that historians still use this, very often confusing, names of
ancient times complicates things. We should look at the name "Phoenicians" as
we now a days look at, for example, "the Balkans". It is a region with
certain mutual aspects. But if we focus on one specific area or detail within
its culture, it becomes clear that in the end there are more differences then
common aspects.
Because of its location, Phoenicia will have absorbed many gods and myths of
Hettite, Ugaritic, Canaänite, Babilonian, Assyrian, Egyptian and even Aegean
origin. Most of those would have an original background even further away.
Now tell me.. What is this discussion about?
Ego?, Anti-Semitism?, Pro-Semitism?, Indo-European self-awareness? Who
actually, would want to prove that Phoenicians are entirely Indo-European?
Such a thing is unprovable. Even Khadaffy and Hitler had some 'unclean' blood,
that they probably didn't know about themselves, how do you want to prove
this about people that lived 2500 years ago. And Why?
Their religion had all kind of influences, not one. As does Christianity by
the way, (Semitic/ Indo-european), is that an etnical marker?
Still fun to read your discussion though, if the goal was entertainment, or
just fun, you succeded.
PS. Agamemnon, the problem of the historic naming is also true for the
Mycenaeans (or however you want to write it) The name is chosen badly, since
it implies things that we do not know for shure, namely:
1) That this people had one national identity
2) That they had one king
3) That this king held court at Mykene (as I spell it)
Non of this is proven and actually of some of them, the opposite is proven or
bound to be proven. Still it is easy to make mistakes here, because of the
náme we gave this people. (in a time by the way, we now refer to as "the
romantic period")
Italo wrote:
>>>> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which
>>>> corresponds to the Phoenician deity Lotan who is
>[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>>
>> Zephyros in Greek is the West Wind.
>
>Frisk's dictionary says zephyros belongs with zophos,
> "dark, darkness, the West", zopheros "misty, gloomy".
>
>>> Typhon's description is of a volcano. Greek <tuphôs>
>>> means smoke, vapour.
>[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message news:759c6a64ac1f4@uwe...
> The whole point of this discussion is wrong..sorry to say.
> The phoenicians were a mixture of people. Semitic and non-semitic. There
> could be even doubt they had an national identity. Tyre, Arwad, Byblos and
> Sidon were all very independent cities. Even rivals, which rarely worked
> together. There is no fixed moment in time where Canaänite culture changed
> into Phoenician culture, which points out to us that Phoenician culture
> was
Yes there is. The advent of Proto-Sinaitic and then the adoption of
Phoenician script, ie 1800-1400 BC. 1430 BC is the date which Jerome says
that Cadmus founded Thebes and brought Phoenicians script to Greece and 1450
is when he says Phoenix founded Phoenicia therefore this is when we can
start talking about Phoenicians proper.
> as diverse as her predecesser. Even more so since more ethnic groeps had
> setteld in the region, or influenced the region around the time that the
> "shift" too Phoenicia is supposed to have happened. This shift is actually
> an
> invention of historians who read about this people in Greek texts and came
> across the name of sea-traders in the Levant being Phoenicians.
> The fact that historians still use this, very often confusing, names of
> ancient times complicates things. We should look at the name "Phoenicians"
> as
> we now a days look at, for example, "the Balkans". It is a region with
> certain mutual aspects. But if we focus on one specific area or detail
> within
> its culture, it becomes clear that in the end there are more differences
> then
> common aspects.
>
> Because of its location, Phoenicia will have absorbed many gods and myths
> of
> Hettite, Ugaritic, Canaänite, Babilonian, Assyrian, Egyptian and even
> Aegean
> origin. Most of those would have an original background even further
> away.
> Now tell me.. What is this discussion about?
That is absolute POPPYCOCK.
We know exactuly who the gods of the Phoenicians were and they were not the
same gods as those of the Hittites, Ugaritic, Canaanite, Babylonian,
Assyrian or Egyptian. They were their own gods made out of their own deified
kings.
http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/PhoenicianChronology.htm
> Ego?, Anti-Semitism?, Pro-Semitism?, Indo-European self-awareness? Who
> actually, would want to prove that Phoenicians are entirely Indo-European?
> Such a thing is unprovable. Even Khadaffy and Hitler had some 'unclean'
> blood,
> that they probably didn't know about themselves, how do you want to prove
> this about people that lived 2500 years ago. And Why?
> Their religion had all kind of influences, not one. As does Christianity
> by
> the way, (Semitic/ Indo-european), is that an etnical marker?
>
> Still fun to read your discussion though, if the goal was entertainment,
> or
> just fun, you succeded.
>
>
> PS. Agamemnon, the problem of the historic naming is also true for the
> Mycenaeans (or however you want to write it) The name is chosen badly,
> since
> it implies things that we do not know for shure, namely:
> 1) That this people had one national identity
> 2) That they had one king
> 3) That this king held court at Mykene (as I spell it)
> Non of this is proven and actually of some of them, the opposite is proven
> or
> bound to be proven. Still it is easy to make mistakes here, because of the
> náme we gave this people. (in a time by the way, we now refer to as "the
> romantic period")
Mycenae was the dominant city state at the time and that is why they are
called Myceneans. They were all unified by one king Agamemnon at the time of
the Trojan War. "Aga" is probably a corruption of Wa-Na-Ka(s) since Ga and
Ka were represented by the same symbol.
The period should really be called the Heroic period or Bronze Age on
condition that the period before it is renamed the Golden and Silver age or
the Age of the Titans and Gods.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
from that it is not an argument
Have you ever been on a archeological site in Lebanon? I guess not. Since the
art of discussion whould have got in your skin. And that clearly did not
happen.
And do you really want to rely on ancient greek mytology for conclusions in
history. Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
Macedonian!!!!!
Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind of complex here in your
answer."King of the Greeks"
Try Christofer Mee. P.A Mountjoy on the Myceanaean subject and try to do some
real allround research, instead of boasting around. We do NOT know exactly
what influences were upposed, on the Gods of the Phoenicians by the way.
Anyone who says he does clearly does not have all information, or does not
understand the tricky part of history in general. Since it would make him
humble on the subject and not arrogant.
Agamemnon wrote:
>> The whole point of this discussion is wrong..sorry to say.
>> The phoenicians were a mixture of people. Semitic and non-semitic. There
>[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> into Phoenician culture, which points out to us that Phoenician culture
>> was
>
>Yes there is. The advent of Proto-Sinaitic and then the adoption of
>Phoenician script, ie 1800-1400 BC. 1430 BC is the date which Jerome says
>that Cadmus founded Thebes and brought Phoenicians script to Greece and 1450
>is when he says Phoenix founded Phoenicia therefore this is when we can
>start talking about Phoenicians proper.
>
>> as diverse as her predecesser. Even more so since more ethnic groeps had
>> setteld in the region, or influenced the region around the time that the
>[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>> away.
>> Now tell me.. What is this discussion about?
>
>That is absolute POPPYCOCK.
>
>We know exactuly who the gods of the Phoenicians were and they were not the
>same gods as those of the Hittites, Ugaritic, Canaanite, Babylonian,
>Assyrian or Egyptian. They were their own gods made out of their own deified
>kings.
>
>http://www.enthymia.co.uk/myths/bible/PhoenicianChronology.htm
>
>> Ego?, Anti-Semitism?, Pro-Semitism?, Indo-European self-awareness? Who
>> actually, would want to prove that Phoenicians are entirely Indo-European?
>[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>> náme we gave this people. (in a time by the way, we now refer to as "the
>> romantic period")
>
>Mycenae was the dominant city state at the time and that is why they are
>called Myceneans. They were all unified by one king Agamemnon at the time of
>the Trojan War. "Aga" is probably a corruption of Wa-Na-Ka(s) since Ga and
>Ka were represented by the same symbol.
>
>The period should really be called the Heroic period or Bronze Age on
>condition that the period before it is renamed the Golden and Silver age or
>the Age of the Titans and Gods.
>
>>>>>> Based on biblical references to Leviathan which
>>>>>> corresponds to the Phoenician deity Lotan who is
>[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
>>>>> If Dan represents Danaia then Levi can represent
>>>>> Luwiya.
--
Message posted via HistoryKB.com
http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/ancient-history/200707/1
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
news:759db17d685dc@uwe...
> Poppycock is not a word that tells me anything about your intelligence.
> Apart
Poppycock is describing you intelligence in making unsubstantiated, not
backed up by historical evidence, speculations.
> from that it is not an argument
> Have you ever been on a archeological site in Lebanon? I guess not. Since
> the
Why would I need to go to an archaeological site in Lebanon. This is a
History newsgroup. Archaeology is not history. It's digging things up.
> art of discussion whould have got in your skin. And that clearly did not
> happen.
> And do you really want to rely on ancient greek mytology for conclusions
> in
It is history. Nobody disputes the historical authenticity of the Trojan War
anymore and nobody ever did except for a brief interval during the period of
Victorian historical fantasy and revisionism.
> history. Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
Everyday, since that's my family.
> that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
> Macedonian!!!!!
Oh.... so that's it.... You are a Skopjian. The Macedonians were described
as being Greeks. The Skopjians are Bulgarian Slavs that have nothing to do
with Alexander or the Macedonians. Alexander being a descendent of Herakles
was a Dorian Greek.
> Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind of complex here in your
> answer."King of the Greeks"
>
> Try Christofer Mee. P.A Mountjoy on the Myceanaean subject and try to do
> some
Who are these people? They do not sound like historians. Lets try Eusebius,
Jerome, Pausanius, Herodotus, Diodorus, Apollodorus, and Plutarch shall we,
since they give first hand historical descriptions based on historical fact
not some fancy archaeological categorisation of everyone as Mycenaean's with
no reference to the actual political divisions that are know to have existed
at the time.
> real allround research, instead of boasting around. We do NOT know exactly
I have already done my research. It seems that by their connection with you
that Christofer Mee. P.A Mountjoy have not so why should I take any notice
of them.
> what influences were upposed, on the Gods of the Phoenicians by the way.
Oh yes we do. We have the Ras Sharma Tablets including the Baal Epic which
confirm the Phoenicians history of Philo where the origin of the Phoenician
Gods is fully explained in that they were all defied Phoenician kings who
were contemporary with the Greek Gods who were also deified kings as
testified by Herodotus, Plato, Eusebius, Diodotus and every other ancient
writer and historian. Egyptian Hyksos and Minoan period inscriptions confirm
the existence of the kings these Gods were based on both Greek and
Phoenician.
> Anyone who says he does clearly does not have all information, or does not
> understand the tricky part of history in general. Since it would make him
> humble on the subject and not arrogant.
How about you try reading some real history books for a change instead of
modern authors who make their money by giving their own personal opinion of
earlier modern authors personal opinions, who made their money giving their
own personal opinion of earlier authors personal opinions, most of which
have been proven to be wrong since they had no respected for the history
books of the ancients but went around trying to revise them with their own
made up ideas and speculations which were completely unsubstantiated and
totally false.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
report about the Mycenaean grave you posted. It is interesting information,
although i do not know what to make of it. Look at my reply ( which does not
mean to be hostile at all). Is there any more info. I cannot find any?
asteropaeus wrote:
>Poppycock is not a word that tells me anything about your intelligence. Apart
>from that it is not an argument
>Have you ever been on a archeological site in Lebanon? I guess not. Since the
>art of discussion whould have got in your skin. And that clearly did not
>happen.
>And do you really want to rely on ancient greek mytology for conclusions in
>history. Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
>that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
>Macedonian!!!!!
>Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind of complex here in your
>answer."King of the Greeks"
>
>Try Christofer Mee. P.A Mountjoy on the Myceanaean subject and try to do some
>real allround research, instead of boasting around. We do NOT know exactly
>what influences were upposed, on the Gods of the Phoenicians by the way.
>Anyone who says he does clearly does not have all information, or does not
>understand the tricky part of history in general. Since it would make him
>humble on the subject and not arrogant.
>>> The whole point of this discussion is wrong..sorry to say.
>>> The phoenicians were a mixture of people. Semitic and non-semitic. There
>[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
>>>>>> If Dan represents Danaia then Levi can represent
>>>>>> Luwiya.
--
Message posted via http://www.historykb.com
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
which means German. Now,.... my silly countrymen do everything they can to
show they are everything but German, a futile attempt of national
identification. Anyway we have to agree the geographic location of Holland
and Germany are not the same. This is an interesting way of looking at your
Linguistic and Mythelogical approach. Books and (your) intelligence are no
garantee to grasping reality.
asteropaeus wrote:
>Poppycock is not a word that tells me anything about your intelligence. Apart
>from that it is not an argument
>Have you ever been on a archeological site in Lebanon? I guess not. Since the
>art of discussion whould have got in your skin. And that clearly did not
>happen.
>And do you really want to rely on ancient greek mytology for conclusions in
>history. Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
>that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
>Macedonian!!!!!
>Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind of complex here in your
>answer."King of the Greeks"
>
>Try Christofer Mee. P.A Mountjoy on the Myceanaean subject and try to do some
>real allround research, instead of boasting around. We do NOT know exactly
>what influences were upposed, on the Gods of the Phoenicians by the way.
>Anyone who says he does clearly does not have all information, or does not
>understand the tricky part of history in general. Since it would make him
>humble on the subject and not arrogant.
>>> The whole point of this discussion is wrong..sorry to say.
>>> The phoenicians were a mixture of people. Semitic and non-semitic. There
>[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
Martin Edwards
> Poppycock is not a word that tells me anything about your intelligence. Apart
> from that it is not an argument
> Have you ever been on a archeological site in Lebanon? I guess not. Since the
> art of discussion whould have got in your skin. And that clearly did not
> happen.
> And do you really want to rely on ancient greek mytology for conclusions in
> history. Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
> that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
> Macedonian!!!!!
> Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind of complex here in your
> answer."King of the Greeks"
>
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
JTEM
> asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com wrote:
> > Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind
> > of complex here in your answer."King of the Greeks"
>
> Greek-Cypriot. They are often the worst afflicted.
Careful, the Greek star is rising.
Turkey has cast it's lot against the west, and is placing
itself in conflict with even NATO. As Turkey sinks,
Greece must rise.
Italo
> Martin Edwards <big_mart...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind
>>>of complex here in your answer."King of the Greeks"
>>
>>Greek-Cypriot. They are often the worst afflicted.
>
>
> Careful, the Greek star is rising.
>
> Turkey has cast it's lot against the west
"the west" only exists in the minds of pro-american imbeciles.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
Italo wrote:
>>>>Maybe you are Greek yourself I smell the same kind
>>>>of complex here in your answer."King of the Greeks"
>[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> Turkey has cast it's lot against the west
>
>"the west" only exists in the minds of pro-american imbeciles.
>
>> , and is placing
>> itself in conflict with even NATO. As Turkey sinks,
>> Greece must rise.
--
JTEM
> "the west" only exists in the minds of
> pro-american imbeciles.
Well you're certainly an imbecile, so does that
mean you're also pro-American?
JTEM
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote:
> Funny enough from a America-centric view
> we are talking East.
What does that mean in English?
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
their culture got its roots West or East?
JTEM wrote:
>> Funny enough from a America-centric view
>> we are talking East.
>
>What does that mean in English?
--
JTEM
> Think ! it is not difficult. From Americas point of view,
> from were does their culture got its roots West or
> East?
Turkey? The NATO member? The country that wants to
join the European Union?
Matt Giwer
Not being a linguist and knowing the problems transliteration, the more I have
seen of the so-called Indo-European, aka Aryan, languages and Semitic languages
have a common root. The only significantly different language group is the
oriental tonal languages.
One thing not yet related to languages are the studies of genetic groups which
"founded" populations. They are commonly so few it is difficult to see how so
few could have more than a few language groups. It sort of says there were
multiple separate inventions of human speech which does not make sense in terms
of evolution.
Granted the world is huge and there were few people and languages could drift
for thousands of years without people in different regions significantly
interacting. But those are not the IE and Semitic languages which have been in
the same part of the world as far back as there is history.
--
The Iraqi government has not prosecuted a single Iraqi for killing American
troops. At least the government supports its citizens.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3832
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
Humanoids (versus) Apes, pointed out that the advanced process that lead to a
straight neck position .( this seems to be a marker for human evolvement and
is nessecary for speach), did occur in the same time on different
geographical locations. Which also does not make sense in terms of evolution.
I am out of my league here......never really studied this subject, just
stumbled on it some year ago.
Matt Giwer wrote:
> Not being a linguist and knowing the problems transliteration, the more I have
>seen of the so-called Indo-European, aka Aryan, languages and Semitic languages
>have a common root. The only significantly different language group is the
>oriental tonal languages.
>
> One thing not yet related to languages are the studies of genetic groups which
>"founded" populations. They are commonly so few it is difficult to see how so
>few could have more than a few language groups. It sort of says there were
>multiple separate inventions of human speech which does not make sense in terms
>of evolution.
>
> Granted the world is huge and there were few people and languages could drift
>for thousands of years without people in different regions significantly
>interacting. But those are not the IE and Semitic languages which have been in
>the same part of the world as far back as there is history.
>
--
JTEM
> But those are not the IE and Semitic languages
> which have been in the same part of the world
> as far back as there is history.
In the grand scheme of things, "History" doesn't go
back very far at all. Depending on whether or not
you want to count the Egyptians as Semetic (and
currently they are counted as Semetic), "History"
starts about 5,500 years before the present.
The oldest preserved remains of modern humans in
Europe go back about 35,000 years before the
present, and the oldest African remains of an early
modern are believed to date close to 200,000 years
before the present.
Given that culture & language are fluid -- ever
changing, not stagnent -- and new concepts are
born all the time (while old ones die), there seems
time enough for whole languages to rise and fall.
JTEM
> Actually, a recent study on the position of the head towards
> the neck on Humanoids (versus) Apes, pointed out that the
> advanced process that lead to a straight neck position .( this
> seems to be a marker for human evolvement and is
> nessecary for speach), did occur in the same time on
> different geographical locations.
Cite, please.
> Which also does not make sense in terms of evolution.
Not that I would even comment on your specific claim
without first seeing a cite, but to respond in a general
sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
Far from not making sense, convergent evolution is not
all that remarkable. We even see outside of biology.
One often claimed example is printing. Many claim that
the Chinese inventing printing, and that Europeans later
invented it independently.
BernardZ
jte...@gmail.com says...
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > But those are not the IE and Semitic languages
> > which have been in the same part of the world
> > as far back as there is history.
>
> In the grand scheme of things, "History" doesn't go
> back very far at all. Depending on whether or not
> you want to count the Egyptians as Semetic (and
> currently they are counted as Semetic), "History"
> starts about 5,500 years before the present.
You don't have history until people write things down.
>
> The oldest preserved remains of modern humans in
> Europe go back about 35,000 years before the
> present, and the oldest African remains of an early
> modern are believed to date close to 200,000 years
> before the present.
>
> Given that culture & language are fluid -- ever
> changing, not stagnent -- and new concepts are
> born all the time (while old ones die), there seems
> time enough for whole languages to rise and fall.
>
>
The problem is that language is much older then writing.
JTEM
> > In the grand scheme of things, "History" doesn't go
> > back very far at all. Depending on whether or not
> > you want to count the Egyptians as Semetic (and
> > currently they are counted as Semetic), "History"
> > starts about 5,500 years before the present.
>
> You don't have history until people write things down.
Um, yeah. That's the point. And "History" starts at
about 3,500 years before the present (give or take
a few hundred years).
> The problem is that language is much older then writing.
Um, right. Exactly. So, as I pointed out, "History"
starts tens of thousands of years after "moderns"
reached Europe.
xnic...@hotmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
You're advised to check "Agamemnon's" archives before wasting too much
time getting ensnared in a futile debate with him.
At least, if you imagine that you're going to convince him of
anything.
What's so laughable is that he claims to base himself on the classical
historians, yet peddles historical theories that derive from 19th
century racists!
- Heinrich Himmler as interpreted by Nikos Sampson.
In this thread, he's desperately trying to find an argument against
any semitic influence on the Greek language, which is fairly obvious
when you look at the vocabulary.
Just as it's obvious that Indo-European words made their way into the
Cannanite dialects, such as the biblical term for the overlords of the
Philistines, the seranim/(tyrannoi) .
The Phoenicians themselves believed they originally came from the
Persian Gulf area, Abraham was reputed to have originated from what is
now Turkey.
No doubt there were Indo-European Hurrians in the region, Scythians
from the South Russian Steppes, hence Scypotholis (Beit Shean), as
well as, Arameans, Canaanites, Egyptians and Arabs.
The area is after all, a major transit point connecting Europe, Africa
and Asia. All of which contributed to the mix, and all of which is
recorded by ancient writings.
VtSkier
The printing example is NOT convergent evolution. It
is independent invention. This has happened many times
and many places. It seems that the world is often
"ready" for something new and that "new" thing often
shows up in different places, sometimes at different
times, sometimes at or near the same time.
The PRIME example is Agriculture. There is clear
evidence that it was "invented" independently in at
least 5 different places. The evidence for independent
invention is differing primary food crops, geographical
isolation and age of remains of differing primary food
crops.
boras
> In article <1185355518.8...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> jte...@gmail.com says...
>> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But those are not the IE and Semitic languages
>>> which have been in the same part of the world
>>> as far back as there is history.
>> In the grand scheme of things, "History" doesn't go
>> back very far at all. Depending on whether or not
>> you want to count the Egyptians as Semetic (and
>> currently they are counted as Semetic), "History"
>> starts about 5,500 years before the present.
>
>
> You don't have history until people write things down.
Or you can excavate the remains of their culture.
Bones etc.
>
>
>> The oldest preserved remains of modern humans in
>> Europe go back about 35,000 years before the
>> present, and the oldest African remains of an early
>> modern are believed to date close to 200,000 years
>> before the present.
>>
>> Given that culture & language are fluid -- ever
>> changing, not stagnent -- and new concepts are
>> born all the time (while old ones die), there seems
>> time enough for whole languages to rise and fall.
>>
>>
>
> The problem is that language is much older then writing.
>
>
People often " write " down their history in their mythology.
Like where their gods got born and where their gods grow up later on etc.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
ones, before walking on. So, sorry, I do not remember where i saw it.
--
JTEM
> > Far from not making sense, convergent evolution is not
> > all that remarkable. We even see outside of biology.
>
> > One often claimed example is printing. Many claim that
> > the Chinese inventing printing, and that Europeans later
> > invented it independently.
>
> The printing example is NOT convergent evolution.
*Sigh*
Is anyone here *Not* autistic?
JTEM
> People often " write " down their history in their
> mythology.
How often? What would the percentage be?
VtSkier
Maybe, maybe not...
But we do understand the meanings of words
and concepts.
Convergent evolution such as
Wolflike marsupials occupying the large
canid ecological niche in Australia where
there were no wolves. This is convergent
evolution.
There is no "evolution" in the invention
of a concept. The concept may "evolve" as
in hand block printing to linotype, but
this occurs AFTER the concept has been
invented.
Your statement that, "convergent evolution is not
all that remarkable" is quite true. Only your
example of non-biological convergent evolution
is flawed.
VtSkier
I agree with your skepticism of this statement,
however, a similar statement is quite true...
People often write down their mythology as if
it were their history.
Agamemnon
<xnic...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185364441....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
What is laughable is that you have non concept of history let alone theories
about it. 19th Century. You are crazy.
<<<In this thread, he's desperately trying to find an argument against
any semitic influence on the Greek language, which is fairly obvious
when you look at the vocabulary.>>>
Twaddle.
<<<Just as it's obvious that Indo-European words made their way into the
Cannanite dialects, such as the biblical term for the overlords of the
Philistines, the seranim/(tyrannoi) .>>>
<<<The Phoenicians themselves believed they originally came from the
Persian Gulf area, Abraham was reputed to have originated from what is
now Turkey.>>>
BULLSHIT. Abraham came for the city of Ur. Adam came from Adana. The
Phoenicians originated from the region of India.
http://phoenicia.org/ethnlang.html
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
VtSkier wrote:
>>> People often " write " down their history in their
>>> mythology.
>>
>> How often? What would the percentage be?
>
>I agree with your skepticism of this statement,
>however, a similar statement is quite true...
>
>People often write down their mythology as if
>it were their history.
--
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
>>"People often write down their mythology as if
>>it were their history."
Finally some wise words in this thread.
>
asteropaeus wrote:
>Finally some wise words in this thread.
>
>>>> People often " write " down their history in their
>>>> mythology.
>[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>People often write down their mythology as if
>>it were their history.
--
Message posted via http://www.historykb.com
VtSkier
> Finally some wise words in this thread.
>
> VtSkier wrote:
>>>> People often " write " down their history in their
>>>> mythology.
>>> How often? What would the percentage be?
>> I agree with your skepticism of this statement,
>> however, a similar statement is quite true...
>>
>> People often write down their mythology as if
>> it were their history.
Thanks but I wasn't the original author. The orginal
quote came from "boras" with the comment from JTEM.
My reply was the last two sentences.
Also, I am neither the "wise man" nor the wise-guy here.
Matt Giwer
> Actually, a recent study on the position of the head towards the neck on
> Humanoids (versus) Apes, pointed out that the advanced process that lead to a
> straight neck position .( this seems to be a marker for human evolvement and
> is nessecary for speach), did occur in the same time on different
> geographical locations. Which also does not make sense in terms of evolution.
> I am out of my league here......never really studied this subject, just
> stumbled on it some year ago.
The idea of parallel evolution, the same change in populations without a common
ancestor which initiated the change is not shown in any gene study I am aware
of, rather exactly the opposite.
And that leads to a common original language when speech became possible.
Exactly what the original language was as an extension of meaningful noises we
can guess at a bit in the sounds we still make which, along with body gestures,
are rather similar. For the intelligent part we know every language has at least
the ability to construct logical statements while sounds and gesture are
sufficient for opinions.
And even where I suggested there are only tonal and atonal languages, the
meaning of sentences in atonal languages can be changed and even reversed by
tonal changes.
But bottom line is, even given huge drifts and languages where the common
origins are lost, IE and Semitic languages have been in proximity as far back as
we have history therefore certainly for a long time before that. Years ago we
were all over the idea of an IE expansion and nothing made sense. There is no
sign of a spread by conquest but even if so, English is the result of expansion
by conquest, a mixed language. Spread by farming does not exhibit a
preponderance of farming related words being of a common form and would have no
more than spread by conquest. And now that the evidence of farming having been a
slow change from all wild to a mixture to all cultivated over 6-8000 years there
would be no notable spread of farming.
> Matt Giwer wrote:
>> Not being a linguist and knowing the problems transliteration, the more I have
>> seen of the so-called Indo-European, aka Aryan, languages and Semitic languages
>> have a common root. The only significantly different language group is the
>> oriental tonal languages.
>> One thing not yet related to languages are the studies of genetic groups which
>> "founded" populations. They are commonly so few it is difficult to see how so
>> few could have more than a few language groups. It sort of says there were
>> multiple separate inventions of human speech which does not make sense in terms
>> of evolution.
>> Granted the world is huge and there were few people and languages could drift
>> for thousands of years without people in different regions significantly
>> interacting. But those are not the IE and Semitic languages which have been in
>> the same part of the world as far back as there is history.
--
In the US, AIPAC is the war lobby.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3829
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
Matt Giwer
I thought you were convinced I was insane?
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> But those are not the IE and Semitic languages
>> which have been in the same part of the world
>> as far back as there is history.
> In the grand scheme of things, "History" doesn't go
> back very far at all. Depending on whether or not
> you want to count the Egyptians as Semetic (and
> currently they are counted as Semetic), "History"
> starts about 5,500 years before the present.
History as meaning only what is written makes it obvious when it starts.
However archaeology and anthropology extend our knowledge of our history even if
we have no idea of who did what if anything at all. And that rarely shows sudden
change after the claims of it have been critically reviewed.
All together they show a transition from all wild plants cultivated over
thousands of years and by the time it is all cultivated cities and writing
appear. Not to say writing was suddenly invented but the idea of permanent
writing in stone or in quantities sufficient that some survive to be found
occurs. And of course the more that is written the more complex and formalized
writing becomes.
From what is known the peoples who are identified as Aryan and Semitic were
always a stone's throw from each other and often living in the midst of each
other. Therefore it strongly suggests they had a common origin within the
meaningful historical horizon of about ten thousand years.
And the ones the related to this thread, the Phoenician and Hellene and also
Egyptian and later Roman cultures were elbow to elbow and sea-faring in the
eastern Med. As long as no one invokes the magic sea people to explain it all it
makes no sense. Our arbitrary definition of continents does not explain anything.
Then Egypt was populated by people who did not leave Africa or by those who
left and returned. The only reason there are two possibilities is the assumption
"whites" evolved outside of Africa. Maybe those "uncoloreds" were driven out of
sub-Saharan Africa. But even with the left and returned they could not have gone
very far out of Africa and found their way back. And as with Ghandi, one can be
Caucasian and black at the same time.
Of course the whole Hebrew thing is a red herring. Those spoke Aramaic so far
as history is concerned. Hebrew appears out of no where as, my guess, an
invented language like Ladino and Yiddish. There are supposed to be many
examples of "Hebrew" words being Greek read backwards with suffixes as prefixes
and the rest Aramaic. The only written material found in the region older than
Aramaic is Phoenician. And that puts us right back into the above paragraph.
The problem with Aramaic being so widespread represents a third problem as the
only candidate nation to have spread it where it became the common language is
Persia, the country that put the Aryan in Aryan.
Unless something entirely new and different is discovered and I have no idea
what it could be we can't escape the conclusion that Aryan and Semitic languages
are in the same language group.
> The oldest preserved remains of modern humans in
> Europe go back about 35,000 years before the
> present, and the oldest African remains of an early
> modern are believed to date close to 200,000 years
> before the present.
Modern human for Europe is about that but only about 100,000 for Africa.
However for Europe Neanderthal and Hiedelberg/Archaic go back at least 100,000
and likely a lot longer if you can't find a way for them to have crossed at
Gibraltar. (If the Barbary Apes can get to Gibraltar so can they.)
> Given that culture & language are fluid -- ever
> changing, not stagnent -- and new concepts are
> born all the time (while old ones die), there seems
> time enough for whole languages to rise and fall.
Languages of course but this is a discussion of language groups.
My pet idea is that not just Arabic spread with Islam but only the dialect
spoken on the east coast of the Red Sea where Islam started. And as that region
was part of the Old Kingdom of Egypt Arabic can be viewed as archaic Egyptian.
Our idea of Egyptian is Rosetta Stone Egyptian only. The pronunciation came from
finding some backwater tribes that sort of still spoke it. And if I remember
correctly one of those groups was in Syria not Egypt. And today the only native
speakers of Aramaic are elderly so is is ready to pass.
--
The purpose of peace talks between Palestine and Israel is to prevent
Palestine from ever being free of the Israel occupation.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3842
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
book review http://www.giwersworld.org/israel/willing-executioners.phtml a7
Matt Giwer
...
> The problem is that language is much older then writing.
However it is only with phonetic written languages that we can even guess at
the language group the written language represents. Non-phonetic languages do
not show how sentences are structured or concepts are formed.
--
In the US, AIPAC is the war lobby.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3829
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
Matt Giwer
> VtSkier wrote:
>>>> People often " write " down their history in their
>>>> mythology.
>>> How often? What would the percentage be?
>> I agree with your skepticism of this statement,
>> however, a similar statement is quite true...
>> People often write down their mythology as if
>> it were their history.
> Finally some wise words in this thread.
However it does not let us discriminate between mythology and a creation at a
particular time. Every few years someone logs in here posting as though Middle
Earth had an historical existence.
However the inability to discriminate between history and mythology only exists
at the time the people took up writing. When a mythology appears in writing
millenia after the people took up writing then we assume the simplest, that it
was a creation rather than a mythology. Thus the OT is a creation.
--
One finger is all a real American needs.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3838
Matt Giwer
Their gods are their mythology. Kings and gods are the oldest things we find.
And that leads to Aggie's idea of the gods having been kings. That suggests the
kings actually recording their deeds was what separated them from the previous
gods.
--
Al Qaeda is back to its pre-911 strength of 300. I am so frightened I can
only laugh to relieve the anxiety. 300 is the highest US government estimate
of their numbers ever made public.
-- The Iron Webmaaster, 3831
JTEM
> Maybe, maybe not...
> But we do understand the meanings of words
> and concepts.
Then open your mouth & go down on this:
Convergent evolution is when two species, not
in any way closely related, develop similar forms.
Now why they do this is simple enough, as it
is usually a case where the two species are
faced with similar needs, so quite obviously if
the form was a good fit once it would be a good
fit to the environment/challenges elsewhere. We
can also see this very same idea at work in the
non- biological word, say printing for example.
People were faced with similar problems, had
similar needs, and their solutions took very
similar forms -- though they were widely
separated by place & time.
Now I did NOT call this "convergent technology"
because that has a different meaning all together.
"Convergent technology" was not the concept I
was addressing. Instead, what I was addressing
was the idea -- concept, if you will -- of solutions
("forms") being developed because they are
applicable to a given situation, and not because
they were inhereted or learned.
You are welcome.
JTEM
> The idea of parallel evolution, the same change in
> populations without a common ancestor which
> initiated the change is not shown in any gene
> study I am aware of, rather exactly the opposite.
This is completely irrelevant, and more than a
little dishonest.
It's irrelevant because the physical evidence is
abundent. Your argument amounts to denouncing
a murder conviction because, though you have
fingerprints, DNA evidence, ballistics, footprints and
a clear motive, you don't have any eye witnesses.
Here's a number of examples of parallel evolution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution
> But bottom line is, even given huge drifts and languages
> where the common origins are lost, IE and Semitic
> languages have been in proximity as far back as we
> have history
Which isn't very far at all. Not when the oldest "modern"
human remains are pushing 200,000 years in age.
For comparison, your "History" there starts at about
3,500 years ago.
This page lists 78 languages that have gone extinct
since the mid 1800s -- only the last century and a
half. What's 150 years compared to the 190,000 or
so spanning the time between your "History" starting
and the oldest preserved "modern" human remains?
And who says language began with "Modern" man,
anyway?
Homo Erectus is widely believed to have a language
skills, and they dated close to 2 million years before
the present.
http://home.ringnett.no/lars.finsen/language.htm
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
Yes. But the difference between your two
statements is that I know of ready examples
which strongly suggest that you statement
is true.
Religions are famous for this sort of thing, and not
just the biblically based religions. I can recall a
big issue in India a few years back where the
faithful -- not exacly neighborly towards Islam --
had only recently determined that a five or six
century old Mosque stood on the birth/whatever
spot of a favored local diety.
And it was the ancient Egypts, after discovery
the tomb of a long dead & even more ancient
Pharaoh, decided that it was instead the tomb
of their god Osiris.
What's ironic is, 'til this day there are those who
look upon the ancient Egyptians turning old kings
into gods and conclude that their old gods were
once actually kings.
JTEM
> The problem with Aramaic being so widespread represents a
> third problem as the only candidate nation to have spread it
> where it became the common language is Persia, the
> country that put the Aryan in Aryan.
Wow. Not even a clue, huh?
http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/maptext_n2/assyria.html
> > The oldest preserved remains of modern humans in
> > Europe go back about 35,000 years before the
> > present, and the oldest African remains of an early
> > modern are believed to date close to 200,000 years
> > before the present.
>
> Modern human for Europe is about that but only about
> 100,000 for Africa.
Wrong, again. I was taking my information from a June of
2005 paper by Erik Trinkaus, "Early Modern Humans." I
can e-mail the PDF to anyone interested (my copy came
via a person in another newsgroup who in turn got it from
Dr. Trinkaus himself.
http://news-info.wustl.edu/sb/page/normal/101.html
Of course, like everything else, there are many who
dispute the dating, placing it closer to 160,000 years.
Either way, the age is accepted to be far greater than
your 100,000 years before the present, as this competing
URL will establish:
http://www.johnhawks.net/weblog/reviews/early_modern/
> However for Europe Neanderthal and Hiedelberg/Archaic
> go back at least 100,000 and likely a lot longer
Considering how their artifacts date back 400,000 years,
I'd say that's a pretty safe bet:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v385/n6619/abs/385807a0.html
> > Given that culture & language are fluid -- ever
> > changing, not stagnent -- and new concepts are
> > born all the time (while old ones die), there seems
> > time enough for whole languages to rise and fall.
>
> Languages of course but this is a discussion of
> language groups.
Same thing, just a change in scale -- going from the
macro to the micro.
> My pet idea is that not just Arabic spread with
> Islam but only the dialect spoken on the east
> coast of the Red Sea where Islam started. And
> as that region was part of the Old Kingdom of
> Egypt Arabic can be viewed as archaic Egyptian.
Disproven by Coptic, which is the direct descendent
of ancient Egyptian.
Though, to be fair, there was clearly a lot of
cultural exchange in ancient times.
The practice of buring people on their side, for
example, which seems to have been a tradition
in Egypt Loooooooooong before Islam adopted
it.
Martin Edwards
Verb conjugations also. It is the only Indo-European language where the
perfect has reduplication of the first syllable.
--
Corporate society looks after everything. All it asks of anyone, all it
has ever asked of anyone, is that they do not interfere with management
decisions. -From “Rollerball”
JTEM
Eek!
JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > The idea of parallel evolution, the same change in
> > populations without a common ancestor which
> > initiated the change is not shown in any gene
> > study I am aware of, rather exactly the opposite.
>
> This is completely irrelevant, and more than a
> little dishonest.
>
> It's irrelevant because the physical evidence is
> abundent. Your argument amounts to denouncing
> a murder conviction because, though you have
> fingerprints, DNA evidence, ballistics, footprints and
> a clear motive, you don't have any eye witnesses.
>
> Here's a number of examples of parallel evolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution
>
> > But bottom line is, even given huge drifts and languages
> > where the common origins are lost, IE and Semitic
> > languages have been in proximity as far back as we
> > have history
>
> Which isn't very far at all. Not when the oldest "modern"
> human remains are pushing 200,000 years in age.
>
> For comparison, your "History" there starts at about
> 3,500 years ago.
That's 5,500 years before the present (3,500 BC).
Oops...
> This page lists 78 languages that have gone extinct
> since the mid 1800s -- only the last century and a
> half. What's 150 years compared to the 190,000 or
> so spanning the time between your "History" starting
> and the oldest preserved "modern" human remains?
> And who says language began with "Modern" man,
> anyway?
For got the stinking URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_language
> Homo Erectus is widely believed to have a language
> skills, and they dated close to 2 million years before
> the present.
>
> http://home.ringnett.no/lars.finsen/language.htm
Sorry.
Martin Edwards
developed into a sophisticated literary language, derived from Hindi,
but written in an adapted Arabic script.
Martin Edwards
This can happen quite quickly. The Lakota were from Minnesota, and had
only been in the Dakotas for about a century when they developed the
myth that their ancestor had been born in a cave in the Black Hills.
BernardZ
@tampabay.REMover.rr.com says...
> BernardZ wrote:
> ...
> > The problem is that language is much older then writing.
>
> However it is only with phonetic written languages that we can even guess at
> the language group the written language represents. Non-phonetic languages do
> not show how sentences are structured or concepts are formed.
>
>
Is there such a language as a totally non-phonetic language?
Martin Edwards
There is such a thing as a non-phonetic /written/ language eg Chinese.
Speakers of different dialects which are not mutually comprehensible can
write notes to each other.
VtSkier
Please read what I wrote regarding Convergent evolution
and "independent invention". There is no "evolution" of
forms in invention. The problem I have is with the word
"evolution", which is a change from something to something
else.
I see no change from something to something else in
"independent invention".
I agree with everything you've written above, except
what to call it. It seems to me to be two different
or only marginally similar concepts.
This is what I wrote before:
VtSkier
> VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Maybe, maybe not...
>> But we do understand the meanings of words
>> and concepts.
>
> Then open your mouth & go down on this:
I replied to this in a polite manner. Perhaps your
next reply to me could be the same.
(snip the rest)
VtSkier
> VtSkier <VtSk...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote:
>
>>> boras <pla...@dreft.org> wrote:
>>>> People often " write " down their history in their
>>>> mythology.
>>> How often? What would the percentage be?
>> I agree with your skepticism of this statement,
>> however, a similar statement is quite true...
>>
>> People often write down their mythology as if
>> it were their history.
>
> Yes. But the difference between your two
> statements is that I know of ready examples
> which strongly suggest that you statement
> is true.
Only the second statement was mine.
> Religions are famous for this sort of thing, and not
> just the biblically based religions. I can recall a
> big issue in India a few years back where the
> faithful -- not exacly neighborly towards Islam --
> had only recently determined that a five or six
> century old Mosque stood on the birth/whatever
> spot of a favored local diety.
>
> And it was the ancient Egypts, after discovery
> the tomb of a long dead & even more ancient
> Pharaoh, decided that it was instead the tomb
> of their god Osiris.
>
> What's ironic is, 'til this day there are those who
> look upon the ancient Egyptians turning old kings
> into gods and conclude that their old gods were
> once actually kings.
Hmm. This sounds a little like Aggie. Though
I'm not doubting your statement, I just think Aggie
takes it a bit too far.
JTEM
> Please read what I wrote regarding Convergent
> evolution and "independent invention". There is
> no "evolution" of forms in invention.
Oh. I see the problem...
The concept of evolution was not an issue here.
Nobody was disputing or questioning evolution.
My focus was on the problem: Convergence.
Now, to AVOID confusion I did not use the term
"convergent technology." I avoided it. after all, it
has an entirely different meaning.
Ironically, it seems my avoidance of a point of
confusion is exactly what caused your's...
VtSkier
Could be. Thanks for this.
JTEM
> > Yes. But the difference between your two
> > statements is that I know of ready examples
> > which strongly suggest that you statement
> > is true.
>
> Only the second statement was mine.
I know. I'm a poor typists, but the only letter I
missed was the 'r' in "your."
> > What's ironic is, 'til this day there are those who
> > look upon the ancient Egyptians turning old kings
> > into gods and conclude that their old gods were
> > once actually kings.
>
> Hmm. This sounds a little like Aggie. Though
> I'm not doubting your statement, I just think Aggie
> takes it a bit too far.
Definitely sounds like him, but he's hardly alone.
The ancients tried to turn their gods into history, and
plenty of people are willing to help them:
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/djertomb.htm
Even in alt.atheism, of all places, you have no trouble
finding people who try to turn biblical tales into
literal truths.
You know, like Noah's flood was really *This* or
*That* flood...
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> The idea of parallel evolution, the same change in
>> populations without a common ancestor which
>> initiated the change is not shown in any gene
>> study I am aware of, rather exactly the opposite.
> This is completely irrelevant, and more than a
> little dishonest.
> It's irrelevant because the physical evidence is
> abundent. Your argument amounts to denouncing
> a murder conviction because, though you have
> fingerprints, DNA evidence, ballistics, footprints and
> a clear motive, you don't have any eye witnesses.
If you do not have the DNA you have nothing. We do not have the DNA to support
parallel evolution. If you know of a study showing otherwise please post it.
> Here's a number of examples of parallel evolution:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_evolution
Pardon if educated people do not consider wikipedia any more authoritative than
any other encyclopedia.
>> But bottom line is, even given huge drifts and languages
>> where the common origins are lost, IE and Semitic
>> languages have been in proximity as far back as we
>> have history
> Which isn't very far at all. Not when the oldest "modern"
> human remains are pushing 200,000 years in age.
> For comparison, your "History" there starts at about
> 3,500 years ago.
One agrees what I wrote is no more than a guess based upon the available data.
You have only said the data is limited which everyone would agree to. However it
shows nothing contrary to what I wrote.
> This page lists 78 languages that have gone extinct
> since the mid 1800s -- only the last century and a
> half. What's 150 years compared to the 190,000 or
> so spanning the time between your "History" starting
> and the oldest preserved "modern" human remains?
> And who says language began with "Modern" man,
> anyway?
> Homo Erectus is widely believed to have a language
> skills, and they dated close to 2 million years before
> the present.
> http://home.ringnett.no/lars.finsen/language.htm
You present only the information to say there are possibilities but it support
no other possibility.
--
Essentially all peace treaties have been for the purpose of making war on
someone else. Why are they called peace treaties? Why do stupid voters
always fall for it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3833
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
Matt Giwer
And a dozen or more established pidgin Englishes around the world including,
according to the Brits, American English. And in American English we have
dialects of governmentese including DODese.
As I stipulated I am not a linguist and so will not attempt to cram Urdu to
comment on it. However I would expect it uses the same sentence structures as
the parent languages, form word variations the same ways and such.
--
Hodie septimo Kalendas Augustas MMVII est
-- The Ferric Webceasar
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
http://www.giwersworld.org
Matt Giwer
All the Chinese languages and those related to them are obviously not phonetic.
Babylonian is not only pictographs but the same symbol is used for words that
sound alike but have completely different meanings so the meaning has to be
derived from context. English has a few words like that. In Babylonian almost
all words are like that. And that was the diplomatic language of the region for
over a thousand years.
--
England suffered Irish terrorism for a century but not once did England
resort to the draconian measures of the US since 9/11.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3830
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Israel says no extermination
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a13
JTEM
> If you do not have the DNA you have nothing.
This is blatently false.
> We do not have the DNA to support parallel
> evolution.
Which would be interesting if any of us -- including
you -- had any idea what you're talking about.
What kind of DNA evidence? Describe this evidence
you seek? Not the conclusions, but the data itself.
Or you could just skip it. After all, parallel evolution
is established. Period. I already offered you a link
naming many known examples.
> One agrees what I wrote is no more than a guess
> based upon the available data. You have only said
> the data is limited which everyone would agree to.
> However it shows nothing contrary to what I wrote.
The data is not quite so limited, as I pointed out. What
is limited is the WRITTEN language.
But even this data -- the written word -- is not as useful
as you would have us believe. Because a written language
is standardized does not mean that a spoken language
is. You were already given the example of chinese.
Then there's the problem with alphabets & numerals:
Symbols.
The symbols used for communication can be adopted
by widely differing languages. One obvious example
would be the latin alphabet that we are using now, together
with the arabic numerals.
If you want to get austic on me you can claim that
numerals are totally different, but you would be wrong.
We're talking about language, communication, and we
can & often do construct sentences such as...
"He as born in 1973."
> > Homo Erectus is widely believed to have a language
> > skills, and they dated close to 2 million years before
> > the present.
> >http://home.ringnett.no/lars.finsen/language.htm
>
> You present only the information to say there are
> possibilities but it support no other possibility.
Huh? Can you rephase that one?
I can't tell you why you're wrong unless I know what
you're saying...
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> If you do not have the DNA you have nothing.
> This is blatently false.
What is there but DNA? Are you saying there is reason to believe DNA is not
heritable? Are you saying descent cannot be established by DNA?
>> We do not have the DNA to support parallel
>> evolution.
> Which would be interesting if any of us -- including
> you -- had any idea what you're talking about.
There are similar characteristics but the DNA shows it was achieved by a
different route meaning there were different ancestors. I don't remember the
details but there was a recent study showing adult lactose tolerance in Europe
and some other group arose from different genetic changes.
> What kind of DNA evidence? Describe this evidence
> you seek? Not the conclusions, but the data itself.
Those which show EXACTLY the same gene mutation to yield the characteristics
you are talking about while no other genes show a common ancestor. In fact no
one has found that. What has been found is different genes giving similar but
not identical results.
> Or you could just skip it. After all, parallel evolution
> is established. Period. I already offered you a link
> naming many known examples.
And I am asking you for the studies not wikipedia crap which support parallel
evolution.
>> One agrees what I wrote is no more than a guess
>> based upon the available data. You have only said
>> the data is limited which everyone would agree to.
>> However it shows nothing contrary to what I wrote.
> The data is not quite so limited, as I pointed out. What
> is limited is the WRITTEN language.
Mere assertion is not sufficient. You have made claims of specific findings and
I would like to know which studies you are talking about. I have merely said
there are none.
> But even this data -- the written word -- is not as useful
> as you would have us believe. Because a written language
> is standardized does not mean that a spoken language
> is. You were already given the example of chinese.
If there is enough of it we can come up with the ability to read it by
consistency of meaning. The written language never has the ability to accurately
express the spoken language. Ask any transcriptionist. However we do have
hundreds of languages which are both written and spoken and the correspondence
between them is about the same. There is no reason to assume it was different in
the past save in the very oldest material. But the very oldest does not attempt
to convey nuance. As soon as there is a decent quantity of writing it does
convey nuance in the same manner as written languages today.
BTW: If you already know people do not speak and write in the same way then if
you pay attention you will notice these kinds of communications are a third form
of communication as this is different from both.
> Then there's the problem with alphabets & numerals:
> Symbols.
> The symbols used for communication can be adopted
> by widely differing languages. One obvious example
> would be the latin alphabet that we are using now, together
> with the arabic numerals.
> If you want to get austic on me you can claim that
> numerals are totally different, but you would be wrong.
> We're talking about language, communication, and we
> can & often do construct sentences such as...
> "He as born in 1973."
What is your point? I already pointed out that emotion does not need speech
even today while language is required for logical statements. The use of symbols
is genetic whereas the meaning of symbols and the fear of them as in the
swastika is invented and learned.
If you are trying to say both letters and numbers are phonetic feel free. But I
advise you, when you are in a hole, don't dig. Glyphs and numbers are the same
as they both represent something that has to be memorized. Alphabets permit
people to read words they have not memorized unless you were taught to read in a
US public school by idiots. Numbers have no independent meaning rather only in
context of what it represents.
>>> Homo Erectus is widely believed to have a language
>>> skills, and they dated close to 2 million years before
>>> the present.
>>> http://home.ringnett.no/lars.finsen/language.htm
>> You present only the information to say there are
>> possibilities but it support no other possibility.
> Huh? Can you rephase that one?
>
> I can't tell you why you're wrong unless I know what
> you're saying...
You have only presented reasons not to take what I wrote as conclusive even
though I never said it was. You have presented no alternative. You have not
expressed any opinion as to whether or not they are different or the same
language groups.
We are dealing with languages which exist. It is not a matter of hypotheticals.
--
An entire cool summer is trumped by a warm day in January if you are a
global melter.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3836
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
antisemitism http://www.giwersworld.org/antisem/ a1
JTEM
Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
> > Which would be interesting if any of us -- including
> > you -- had any idea what you're talking about.
>
> There are similar characteristics but the DNA
> shows it was achieved by a different route meaning
> there were different ancestors.
So?
> I don't remember the details but there was a recent
> study showing adult lactose tolerance in Europe
> and some other group arose from different genetic
> changes.
They evolved independently, if that's what you mean.
> > What kind of DNA evidence? Describe this evidence
> > you seek? Not the conclusions, but the data itself.
>
> Those which show EXACTLY the same gene
> mutation
Huh? I never once bought into the DNA-centric view
on evolution.
The exact same gene mutation is not required, and
never was. You're simply imposing a standard that
doesn't exist.
> > Or you could just skip it. After all, parallel evolution
> > is established. Period. I already offered you a link
> > naming many known examples.
>
> And I am asking you for the studies
No, you're asking for crap.
NOBODY defines parallel evolution the way you're
pretending it's defined.
> > The data is not quite so limited, as I pointed out.
> > What is limited is the WRITTEN language.
>
> Mere assertion is not sufficient.
No was is offering "mere assertion." There really is
plenty of date -- everything from fossils to archaeological
finds -- to suggest relationships between populations.
> You have made claims of specific findings
Really? Can you quote me?
I mean, sure, I have introduced finds here, but I have
no idea what you're talking about now...
> > But even this data -- the written word -- is not as useful
> > as you would have us believe. Because a written language
> > is standardized does not mean that a spoken language
> > is. You were already given the example of chinese.
>
> If there is enough of it we can come up with the ability
> to read it by consistency of meaning.
Random... meaningless... okay....
> The written language never has the ability to accurately
> express the spoken language.
Nor does it necessarily REFLECT the spoken language.
Which was my point. Written history isn't as useful a
tool as you would have us believe...
> I already pointed out that emotion does not need
> speech even today while language is required for
> logical statements.
"Required," huh?
Depends on the circumstances...
> If you are trying to say both letters and
> numbers are phonetic feel free.
I said no such thing, and it's irrelevant.
Symbols & words are frequently adopted by one
population from another.
> Glyphs and numbers are the same as they both
> represent something that has to be memorized.
You're being autistic. You're insisting that we limit
ourselves to arithemtic.
A date hardly qualifies, for example. Even a person's
age often has significance well beyond a mere
number. I'm sure if you asked someone to put their
mind to it they could come up with further examples.
There are concepts behind the symbols.
> >> You present only the information to say there are
> >> possibilities but it support no other possibility.
> >
> > Huh? Can you rephase that one?
>
> > I can't tell you why you're wrong unless I know what
> > you're saying...
>
> You have only presented reasons not to take what
> I wrote as conclusive even though I never said it was.
Um, what?
I demonstrated several problems with your position, if
that's what you mean.
> You have presented no alternative.
So?
It's not like you have to be right unless I can come
up with the right answer.
> You have not expressed any opinion as to whether
> or not they are different or the same language
> groups.
You'll have to excuse me, but why do you think I
care?
The underlying premis is incorrect.... your premis.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Which would be interesting if any of us -- including
>>> you -- had any idea what you're talking about.
>> There are similar characteristics but the DNA
>> shows it was achieved by a different route meaning
>> there were different ancestors.
> So?
I don't know how to make it more obvious.
>> I don't remember the details but there was a recent
>> study showing adult lactose tolerance in Europe
>> and some other group arose from different genetic
>> changes.
> They evolved independently, if that's what you mean.
And they are only generally called lactose tolerance but they are not the same
thing. It is like the common term cancer when in fact there are seven distinctly
different "diseases" lumped under that name. Or all 126 different illnesses
called the common cold because the symptoms are similar.
>>> What kind of DNA evidence? Describe this evidence
>>> you seek? Not the conclusions, but the data itself.
>> Those which show EXACTLY the same gene
>> mutation
> Huh? I never once bought into the DNA-centric view
> on evolution.
Gene mutation is half of evolution. The other half is natural selection.
> The exact same gene mutation is not required, and
> never was. You're simply imposing a standard that
> doesn't exist.
However much you have devoted to evolution it has not been enough to understand
evolution.
>>> Or you could just skip it. After all, parallel evolution
>>> is established. Period. I already offered you a link
>>> naming many known examples.
>> And I am asking you for the studies
>
> No, you're asking for crap.
>
> NOBODY defines parallel evolution the way you're
> pretending it's defined.
I am discussing EVOLUTION as it exists. There is no evidence that parallel
evolution exists. There was still a possibility of it going into the 1990s but
genetic analysis shot it down.
>>> The data is not quite so limited, as I pointed out.
>>> What is limited is the WRITTEN language.
>> Mere assertion is not sufficient.
> No was is offering "mere assertion." There really is
> plenty of date -- everything from fossils to archaeological
> finds -- to suggest relationships between populations.
Those are two distinct things lumped under a layman's word.
>> You have made claims of specific findings
>
> Really? Can you quote me?
I could have sworn it was you claiming there is such a thing as parallel
evolution.
> I mean, sure, I have introduced finds here, but I have
> no idea what you're talking about now...
Perhaps because you do not understand what is meant by the different subjects
which are all called evolution by the layman.
>>> But even this data -- the written word -- is not as useful
>>> as you would have us believe. Because a written language
>>> is standardized does not mean that a spoken language
>>> is. You were already given the example of chinese.
>> If there is enough of it we can come up with the ability
>> to read it by consistency of meaning.
> Random... meaningless... okay....
>> The written language never has the ability to accurately
>> express the spoken language.
> Nor does it necessarily REFLECT the spoken language.
It is not necessarily spelled correctly nor grammatically correct but it is
intended to reflect the spoken language.
> Which was my point. Written history isn't as useful a
> tool as you would have us believe...
>> I already pointed out that emotion does not need
>> speech even today while language is required for
>> logical statements.
> "Required," huh?
Caveman?
> Depends on the circumstances...
For example?
>> If you are trying to say both letters and
>> numbers are phonetic feel free.
>
> I said no such thing, and it's irrelevant.
>
> Symbols & words are frequently adopted by one
> population from another.
If that is all, what is the point of saying it? Any modest study in math and
science finds all kinds of adopted symbols. Greek letters are the most common.
Einstein tried to introduce Hebrew in General Relativity. Physical diseases use
Latin roots. Freudian charlatans use Greek roots.
>> Glyphs and numbers are the same as they both
>> represent something that has to be memorized.
> You're being autistic. You're insisting that we limit
> ourselves to arithemtic.
> A date hardly qualifies, for example. Even a person's
> age often has significance well beyond a mere
> number. I'm sure if you asked someone to put their
> mind to it they could come up with further examples.
> There are concepts behind the symbols.
That is what I said. Numbers only have meanings in context of what they are
used to quantitatively expressed. 92 is only 92. 92 years of age is an old
person. 92 degrees body temperature is hypothermia. 92 dollars a week is illegal
immigrant pay.
>>>> You present only the information to say there are
>>>> possibilities but it support no other possibility.
>>> Huh? Can you rephase that one?
>>> I can't tell you why you're wrong unless I know what
>>> you're saying...
>> You have only presented reasons not to take what
>> I wrote as conclusive even though I never said it was.
>
> Um, what?
>
> I demonstrated several problems with your position, if
> that's what you mean.
All I find is misusing the concept of evolution, a negligible understanding of
genetics and a mystical interpretation of numbers. Have you considered 23?
>> You have presented no alternative.
>
> So?
>
> It's not like you have to be right unless I can come
> up with the right answer.
As you have not presented alternatives and what you have posted as "challenges"
do not evidence understanding of the subject matter I suggest the only way to
get at what you are trying to say is by presenting alternatives.
>> You have not expressed any opinion as to whether
>> or not they are different or the same language
>> groups.
>
> You'll have to excuse me, but why do you think I
> care?
>
> The underlying premis is incorrect.... your premis.
I notice you cared enough to take the time to post.
Spirit of Truth
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe>
wrote in message news:759db17d685dc@uwe...
> Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
> that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not a
> Macedonian!!!!!
Ther you go again with your stupid statements!
Please do not post in a history Ng here if you wish to propaganized
fyromian lies! It is bad enough that people like Pearse will not
stand up for the truth!
For fair use only:
"The Macedonian people and their kings were of Greek stock, as their
traditions and the scanty remains of their language combine to testify."
John Bagnell Bury, "A History of Greece to the Death of Alexander the
Great", The Modern Library, New Uork, 1913
"It seems more and more certain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe
related to the Dorians. However, as they stayed high up in the distant
north, they could not participate in the progress of civilization of the
Greek people that migrated southward...".
Ul. Wilcken, Alexandre le Grand, op. cit., p. 33:
"A strong Illyrian and Thracian influence can thus be recognized in
Macedonian speech and manners. These however are only trifles compared
with the Greek character of the Macedonian nationality; for example the
names of the true full blooded Macedonians, especially of the princes
and nobles, are purely Greek in their formation and sounds."
Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", Norton & Company, 1967
"And yet when we take into account the political conditions, religion and
morals of the Macedonians, our conviction is strengthened that they were a
Greek race akin to the Dorians."
Ulrich Wilcken, "Alexander the Great", Norton publications, 1967.
"the majority of the new generation of historians ......
agree, and rightly so, that the Macedonians were Greeks".
Herman Bengtson, Griechische Geschichte4, Muenchen 1969, p. 305:
"That the Macedonians were of Greek stock seems certain. The claim
made by the Argead dynasty to be of Argive descent may be no more
than a generally accepted myth, but Macedonian proper names, such as
Ptolemaios or Philippos, are good Greek names, and the names of the
Macedonian months, although differed from those of Athens or Sparta,
were also Greek. The language spoken by the Macedonians, which
Greeks of the classical period found intelligible, appears to have been
a primitive north-west Greek dialect,
much influenced by the languages of the neighboring barbarians."
J.R. Hamilton, "Alexander the Great", London, 1973
"These plains would be the envy of any Greek visitor who crossed their
southern border by the narrow vale of Tempe and the foot of Mount Olympus.
He would pass the frontier post of Heraclion, town of Heracles, and stop at
the harbour town of Dion, named after the Greek god Zeus, ancestor of the
Macedonian kings, and site of a yearly nine-day festival of the arts in
honour of Zeus and the nine Greek Muses. There he would walk through city
gates in a wall of brick, down the paved length of a sacred way, between the
theatre, gymnasiums and a temple with Doric pillars: suitably, the nearby
villages were linked with the myth of Orpheus, the famous bard of Greek
legend. He was still in a world of Greek gods and sacrifices, of Greek plays
and Greek language, though the natives might speak Greek with a northern
accent which hardened 'ch' into 'g'. 'th' into 'd' and pronounced King
Philip as 'Bilip'. Bearing on up the coast, he would find the plain no less
abundant and the towns more defiantly Greek."
Robin Lane Fox, "Alexander the Great", The Dial Press Publications, 1974
"In favour of the Greek identity of the Macedonians is what we know of their
language: the place-names, names of the months and personal names,
which are without exception Greek in roots and form. This suggests that
they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca, but spoke it as natives
(though with a local accent which turns Philip into Bilip, for example).
The Macedonians' own traditions derived their royal house from one
Argeas, son of Macedon, son of Zeus, and asserted that a new dynasty,
the Temenids, had its origin in the sixth century from emigrants from Argos
in Greece, the first of these kings was Perdiccas. This tradition became
a most important part of the cultural identity of Macedon. It enabled
Alexander I to compete at the Olympic Games (which only true Hellenes
were allowed to do).... The Macedonians, then, were racially Greek."
Richard Stoneman, "Alexander the Great", Routiledge, London and
New York, 1977
"Modern scholarship, after many generations of argument, now almost
unanimously recognizes them as Greeks, a branch of the Dorians and
"Northwest Greeks" who, after long residence in the north Pindus region,
migrated eastward. The Macedonian language has not survived in any written
text, but the names of individuals, places, gods, months and the like
suggest strongly that it was a Greek dialect. Macedonians institutes, both
secular and religious, had marked Hellenic characteristics, and legends
identify or link the people with the Dorians."
John V.A. Fine, "The Ancient Greeks a Critical History", Harvard University
Press, Massachusetts, 1983
Taken from N. G. L. Hammond's "The Macedonian State:
The Origins, Institution and History," Calrendon Press, Oxford,
1989, pp. 413.pp. 12-14:"
4. The Language of the Macedonians.
What language did these 'Macedones' speak? The name itself
is Greek in root and in ethnic termination. It probably means
'highlanders,' and it is comparable to Greek tribal names such
as 'Orestai' amd 'Oreitai,' meaning 'mountain-men.' A reputedly
earlier variant, 'Maketai,' has the same root, which means 'high,'
as in the Greek adjective 'makednos' or the noun mekos.'
The genealogy of eponymous ancestors which Hesiod
recorded (p. 3 above) has a bearing on the question of Greek
speech. First, Hesiod made Macedon a brother of Magnes;
as we know from inscriptions that the Magnetes spoke the Aeolic
dialect of the Greek language, we have a predisposition to
suppose that the Macedones spoke the Aeolic dialect.
Secondly, Hesiod made Macedon and Magnes first cousins
of Hellen's three sons -- Dorus, Xouthus, and Aeolus -- who
were the founders of three dialects of Greek speech, namely
Doric, Ionic, and Aeolic. Hesiod would not have recored this
relationship, unless he had believed, probably in the seventh
century, that the Macedones were a Greek-speaking people.
The next evidence comes from Persia. At the turn of the
sixth century the Persians described the tribute-paying peoples
of their province in Europe, and one of them was the
'yauna takabara,' which meant the 'Greeks wearing the hat.'
[27] There were Greeks in Greek city-states here
and there in the province, but they were of various origins
and not distinguished by a common hat, the 'kausia.'
We conclude that the Persians believed the Macedonians to
be speakers of Greek. Finally, in the latter part of the fifth
century a Greek historian, Hellanicus, visited Macedonia and
modified Hesiod's genealogy by bringing Macedon and his
descendants firmly into the Aeolic branch of the Greek-speaking
family.
[28] Hesiod, Persia, Hellanicus had no motive for making
a false statement about the language of the Macedonians,
who were then an obscure and not a powerful people.
Their independent testimonies should be accepted as
conclusive. That, however, is not the opinion of most scholars.
They disregard or fail to assess the evidence which I have cited,
[29] and they turn instead to 'Macedonian' words and names,
or/and to literary references. Philologists have studied words
which have been cited as 'Macedonian' in ancient lexica and
glossaries, and they have come to no certain conclusion; for
some of the words are clearly Greek, and some are clearly not
Greek. That is not surprising; for as the territory of the
Macedonians expanded, they overlaid and lived with peoples
who spoke Illyrian, Paeonian, Thracian and Phrygian, and they
certainly borrowed words from them which excited the authors
of lexica and glossaries. The philological studies result in a
verdict, in my opinion, of 'non liquet.' [30]
The toponyms of the Macedonian homeland are
the most significant. Nearly all of them are Greek: Pieria, Lebaea,
Heracleum, Dium, Petra, Leibethra, Aegae, Aegydium, Acesae,
Acesamenae; the rivers Helicon, Aeson, Leucus, Baphyras, Sardon,
Elpe'u's, Mitys; lake Ascuris and the region Lapathus.
The mountain names Olympus and Titarium may be pre-Greek;
Edessa, the earlier name for the place where Aegae was founded,
and its river Ascordus were Phrygian. [31]
The deities worshipped by the Macedones and the names
which they gave to the months were predominantly Greek,
and there is no doubt that these were not borrowings.
To Greek literary writers before the Hellenistic period the
Macedonians were 'barbarians.' The term referred to their way
of life and their institutions, which were those of the 'ethne' and
not of the city-state, and it did not refer to their speech. We can
see this in the case of Epirus. There Thucydides called the tribes
'barbarians.' But inscriptions found in Epirus have shown conclusively
that the Epirote tribes in Thucydides' lifetime were speaking Greek
and used names which were Greek. [32]
In the following century 'barbarian' was only one of the abusive
terms applied by Demosthenes to Philip of Macedon and his people.[33]
In passages which refer to the Macedonian soldiers of Alexander
the Great and the early successors there are mentions of
a Macedonian dialect, such as was likely to have been spoken in the
original Macedonian homeland. On one occassion Alexander
'called out to his guardsmen in Macedonian ('Makedonisti'),
as this [viz. the use of 'Macedonian'] was a signal ('symbolon') that
there was a serious riot.' Normally Alexander and his soldiers
spoke standard Greek, the 'koine,' and that was what the Persians
who were to fight alongside the Macedonians were taught. So the
order 'in Macedonian' was unique, in that all other orders were in
the 'koine.' [34] it is satisfactorily explained as an order in broad
dialect, just as in the Highland Regiment a special order for a particular
purpose could be given in broad Scots by a Scottish officer who
usually spoke the King's English.The use of this dialect among
themselves was a characteristic of the Macedonian soldiers
(rather that the officers) of the King's Army. This point is made
clear in the report -- not in itself dependable -- of the trial of
a Macedonian officer before an Assembly of Macedonians, in
which the officer (Philotas) was mocked for not speaking in dialect. [35]
In 321 when a non-Macedonian general, Eumenes, wanted
to make contact with a hostile group of Macedonian infantrymen,
he sent a Macedonian to speak to them in the Macedonian dialect,
in order to win their confidence. Subsequently, when they and the
other Macdonian soldiers were serving with Eumenes, they
expresed their affection for him by hailing him in the Macedonian dialect
('Makedonisti'). [36] He was to be one of themselves. As Curtius
observed, 'not a man among the Macedonians could bear to part
with a jot of his ancestral customs.' The use of this dialect was one
way in which the Macedonians expressed their apartness from the
world of the Greek city-states. [27] See J. M. Balcer in 'Historia' 37
(1988) 7.[28] FGrH 4 F 74 [29] Most recently E. Badian in
Barr-Sharrar 33-51 disregards the evidence as set out
in e.g. HM 2.39-54, when it goes against his view that the
Macedonians (whom he does not define) spoke a language other
than Greek. [30] The matter is dicussed at some length
in HM 2. 39-54 with reference especially to O. Hoffmann,
'Die Makedonen, ihre Sprache und ihre Volkstun' (Goettingen, 1906)
and J. Kalleris, Les Anciens Macedoniens I (Athens, 1954);
see also Kalleris II and R. A. Crossland in the CAH 3.1.843ff.
[31] For Edessa see HM 1.165 and for the Phrygians
in Macedonia 407-14. Olympus occurs as a Phrygian personal
name. [32] See Hammond, 'Epirus' 419ff. and 525ff.
[33] As Badian, loc. cit. 42, rightly observes: 'this, of course,
is simple abuse.'[34] Plu. 'Alex.'51.6[35] Curtius 6.8.34-6.
[36] PSI XII 2(1951) no. 1284, Plu. Eun.14.11.
Badian, loc. cit. 41 and 50 n.66, discusses the former
and not the latter, which hardly bears out his theory that
Eumenes 'could not directly communicate with Macedonian
soldiers,' and presumably they with him. Badian says in his
note that he is not concerned with the argument as to whether
Macedonian was a 'dialect' or 'a language.' Such an argument
seems to me to be at the heart of the matter. We have a
similar problem in regard to Epirus, where some had thought
the language of the people was Illyrian. In Plu.'Pyrrh.'1.3
reference was made to 'the local 'phone,'' which to me means
'dialect' of Greek; it is so in this instance because Plutarch
is saying that Achilles was called 'in the local 'phone' Aspestos.'
The word 'Aspestos' elsewhere was peculiar to Greek epic,
but it survived in Epirus in normal speech. It is of course
a Greek and not an Illyrian word. See Hammond, 'Epirus' 525ff.,
for the Greek being the language of central Epirus
in the fifth century B.C. "
"That the Macedonians and their kings did in fact
speak a dialect of Greek and bore Greek names
may be regarded nowadays as certain."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia",
Univ. of California Press, LA, 1990 Pg 3
Who Are The Macedonians 1995
Pgs 15/16
"Also, following Alexander's death, the rapid spread of Koine
based on Attic Greek made any distinction between Greek
and the language of 'the Macedonians' an academic one which
opposing camps continue to fight over. That Greek so easily
subsumed the local Macedonian dialect would indicate that
the dialect in Philip's time was not far removed from Greek
after all."
A.B. Boworth, "Conquest and Empire", Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998,
Canto Edition
"Alexander ruled the world as his father had ruled Macedon, concentrating
power in his own hands and office to his Companions. In nationality the
Companions remained overwhemingly Hellenic."
---From Cambridge, Ancient Histories.
The evidence for the language of the Macedonians has been reviewed
and discussed by Kalleris and Hammond, Griffith, and many others, all
contending that it was a dialect of Greek. The increasing volume of
surviving public and private inscriptions makes it quite clear that there
was no written language but Greek. There may be room for argument
over spoken forms, or at least over local survivals of earlier occupancy,
but it is hard to imagine what kind of authority might sustain that. There
is no evidence for a different "Macedonian" language that cannot be
as easily explained in terms of dialect or accent.
"Ancient allegations that the Macedonians were non-Greeks all had their
origin in Athens at the time of the struggle with Philip II. Then as now,
political struggle created the prejudice. The orator Aischines once even
found it necessary, in order to counteract the prejudice vigorously fomented
by his opponents, to defend Philip on this issue and describe him at a
meeting of the Athenian Popular Assembly as being 'Entirely Greek'.
Demosthenes' allegations were lent on appearance of credibility by the fact,
apparent to every observer, that the life-style of the Macedonians, being
determined by specific geographical and historical conditions, was different
from that of a Greek city-state. This alien way of life was, however, common
to western Greeks of Epeiros, Akarnania and Aitolia, as well as to the
Macedonians, and their fundamental Greek nationality was never doubted.
Only as a consequence of the political disagreement with Macedonia was
the issue raised at all."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", Univ. of California Press,
LA, 1990
"The Molossians were the strongest and, decisive for Macedonia, most
easterly of the three most important Epeirot tribes, which, like Macedonia
but unlike the Thesprotians and the Chaonians, still retained their
monarchy. They were Greeks, spoke a similar dialect to that of Macedonia,
suffered just as much from the depredations of the Illyrians and were in
principle the natural partners of the Macedonian king who wished to tackle
the Illyrian problem at its roots."
Malcolm Errington, "A History of Macedonia", California University Press,
1990.
"A new force began to make itself felt on the northern fringe of Hellas, the
kingdom of Macedon. Some people -Macedonians for the most part- claimed
it to be a Greek state and part of the Greek world. The Macedonians spoke
Greek and attended Hellenic festivals; their kings claimed to be descented
from Greek families- from Achilles, the great Achaean hero of the Iliad, no
less."
J.M. Roberts, "A Short History of the World", Oxford University Press, New
York, 1993
"Philip was born a Greek of the most aristocratic, indeed of divine,
descent... Philip was both a Greek and a Macedonian, even as
Demosthenes was a Greek and an Athenian...The Macedonians
over whom Philip was to rule were an outlying family member
of the Greek-speaking peoples."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Duckworth & Co. Ltd.,
London, 1994
"As subjects of the king the Upper Macedonians were henceforth on the
same footing as the original Macedonians, in that they could qualify for
service in the King's Forces and thereby obtain the elite citizenship. At
one bound the territory, the population and wealth of the kingdom were
doubled. Moreover since the great majority of the new subjects were
speakers of the West Greek dialect, the enlarged army was
Greek-speaking throughout."
NGL Hammond, "Philip of Macedon", Gerald Duckword & Ltd, London,
1994
MACEDON
"Outlying Greek kingdom north of Thessaly, inland from the Thermaic Gulf,
on the northwest Aegean coast...Its name came from an ancient Greek
word meaning highlanders...Macedon was inhabited by various peoples
of Dorian-Greek, Illyrian, and Thracian descent, who spoke a Greek dialect
and worshipped Greek gods...Unification and modernization came gradually,
at the hands of kings of Dorian descent."
David Sacks, "A Dictionary of the Ancient Greek World.", Oxford, 1995
"Certainly the Thracians and the Illyrians were non-Greek speakers,
but in the northwest, the peoples of Molossis {Epirot province}, Orestis
and Lynkestis spoke West Greek. It is also accepted that the Macedonians
spoke a dialect of Greek and although they absorbed other groups into
their territory, they were essentially Greeks."
Robert Morkot, "The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Greece",
Penguin Publ., 1996
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Spirit of Truth
"Martin Edwards" <big_m...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pGnpi.8752$%v3....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Instead of joining with the nonsense why don't you correct the lie!
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
legitimacy as heir to the throne. Since he was not was a true Macedonian, in
many peoples eyes.
Etnic reference is made by people, within their own context. Not by us in
overview and within a modern nationalistic landscape. Are Cretans Greek?...
they speak Greek. Ask them.
--
Message posted via HistoryKB.com
http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/ancient-history/200707/1
JTEM
> And they are only generally called lactose tolerance
> but they are not the same thing.
Um, being able to tolerate lactose is generally considered
the same thing as being able to tolerate lactose.
Here's the problem with what's passing for thinking in
your mind:
We could never know it was parallel evolution. If we're
talking about two populations of the same species in
a relatively close environment, we would never be able
to tell that it was parallel evolution, even if it was. Because
the DNA would be exactly the same -- and that is what
you're insisting on -- we couldn't tell it apart from
interbreeding between the two populations.
You'te pretending that a certain test result is needed to
establish parallel evolution, when such a test result
would mask parallel evolution.
JTEM
> For fair use only:
[---snip---]
You're talking culture. Other people are talking
genetics.
Spirit of Truth
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> Alexanders mother was from Epirus, this led to a dispute over Alexander's
> legitimacy as heir to the throne. Since he was not was a true Macedonian,
> in
> many peoples eyes.
Yes, but the Fyromian Slavs are trying to usurp the Greek's history and
heritage!
Even the Epirotes were Greeks.
In Herodotos time, shortly after the end of 600 B.C he talks as if it is
clearly well known that the Thesprotians were Greek speakers from
the earliest of times... from even before the Oracle at Dodona, look:
"[2.55] This was what I heard from the priests at Thebes; at Dodona,
however, the women who deliver the oracles relate the matter as
follows:- "Two black doves flew away from Egyptian Thebes, and while one
directed its flight to Libya, the other came to them. She alighted on an
oak, and sitting there began to speak with a human voice, and told them
that on the spot where she was, there should henceforth be an oracle of
Jove. They understood the announcement to be from heaven, so they set to
work at once and erected the shrine. The dove which flew to Libya bade
the Libyans to establish there the oracle of Ammon." This likewise is an
oracle of Jupiter. The persons from whom I received these particulars
were three priestesses of the Dodonaeans, the eldest Promeneia, the next
Timarete, and the youngest Nicandra - what they said was confirmed by
the other Dodonaeans who dwell around the temple.
[2.56] My own opinion of these matters is as follows:- I think that, if
it be true that the Phoenicians carried off the holy women, and sold
them for slaves, the one into Libya and the other into Greece, or
Pelasgia (as it was then called), this last must have been sold to
the Thesprotians.
Afterwards, while undergoing servitude in those parts, she built under
a real oak a temple to Jupiter, her thoughts in her new abode reverting
- as it was likely they would do, if she had been an attendant in a
temple of Jupiter at Thebes - to that particular god. Then, having
acquired a knowledge of the Greek tongue, she set up an oracle.
She also mentioned that her sister had been sold for a slave into
Libya by the same persons as herself.
[2.57] The Dodonaeans called the women doves because they were
foreigners, and seemed to them to make a noise like birds. After a while
the dove spoke with a human voice, because the woman, whose foreign talk
had previously sounded to them like the chattering of a bird, acquired
the power of speaking what they could understand. For how can
it be conceived possible that a dove should really speak with the voice
of a man? Lastly, by calling the dove black the Dodonaeans indicated
that the woman was an Egyptian. And certainly the character of the
oracles at Thebes and Dodona is very similar.
Besides this form of divination, the Greeks learnt also divination by
means of victims from the Egyptians."
There are several more descriptions in Herodotos which,
almost incidentally, mention the same type of fact as I posted above
re the Epirotes....that they are Greek. Here's another:
"XXXIII. But the Delians1 say much more about them than any
others do. They say that offerings wrapped in straw are brought from the
Hyperboreans to Scythia; when these have passed Scythia, each nation in
turn receives them from its neighbors until they are carried to the
Adriatic sea, which is the most westerly limit of their journey;
[2] from there, they are brought on to the south, the people of Dodona
being the first Greeks to receive them.
Here's another:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=3DPerseus%3Atext%3A1999.01
.0126&query=3Dchapter%3D%231032&layout=3D&loc=3D6.125.1
CXXVI. In the next generation Cleisthenes1 the tyrant of Sicyon raised
that house still higher, so that it grew much more famous in Hellas than
it had formerly been. Cleisthenes son of Aristonymus son of Myron son of
Andreas had one daughter, whose name was Agariste. He desired to wed her
to the best man he could find in Hellas. [2] It was the time of the
Olympian games, and when he was victor there with a four-horse chariot,
Cleisthenes made a proclamation that whichever Greek thought himself
worthy to be his son-in-law should come on the sixtieth day from then or
earlier to Sicyon, and Cleisthenes would make good his promise of
marriage in a year from that sixtieth day. [3] Then all the Greeks who
were proud of themselves and their country came as suitors, and to that
end Cleisthenes had them compete in running and wrestling contests.
CXXVII. From Italy came Smindyrides of Sybaris, son of Hippocrates, the
most luxurious liver of his day (and Sybaris was then at the height of
its prosperity), and Damasus of Siris, son of that Amyris who was called
the Wise. [2] These came from Italy; from the Ionian Gulf, Amphimnestus
son of Epistrophus, an Epidamnian; he was from the Ionian Gulf. From
Aetolia came Males, the brother of that Titormus who surpassed all the
Greeks in strength, and fled from the sight of men to the farthest parts
of the Aetolian land. [3] From the Peloponnese came Leocedes, son of
Phidon the tyrant of Argos, that Phidon who made weights and measures
for the Peloponnesians1 and acted more arrogantly than any other Greek;
he drove out the Elean contest-directors and held the contests at
Olympia himself. This man's son now came, and Amiantus, an Arcadian from
Trapezus, son of Lycurgus; and an Azenian from the town of Paeus,
Laphanes, son of that Euphorion who, as the Arcadian tale relates, gave
lodging to the Dioscuri, and ever since kept open house for all men; and
Onomastus from Elis, son of Agaeus. [4] These came from the Peloponnese
itself; from Athens Megacles, son of that Alcmeon who visited Croesus,
and also Hippocleides son of Tisandrus, who surpassed the Athenians in
wealth and looks. From Eretria, which at that time was prosperous, came
Lysanias; he was the only man from Euboea. From Thessaly came a Scopad,
Diactorides of Crannon; and from the Molossians, Alcon.
CXXVIII. These were the suitors. .............
> Etnic reference is made by people, within their own context. Not by us in
> overview and within a modern nationalistic landscape. Are Cretans
> Greek?...
> they speak Greek. Ask them.
The ancient Macedonians identified _themselves_ as Greeks.
from: Spirit Of Truth
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> Alexanders mother was from Epirus, this led to a dispute over Alexander's
And Epirus was Greek you fool. Why do you think it was ruled by Phyrrus the
son of Achilles? Was Achilles not referred to by Homer as a Hellen.
> legitimacy as heir to the throne. Since he was not was a true Macedonian,
> in
> many peoples eyes.
> Etnic reference is made by people, within their own context. Not by us in
> overview and within a modern nationalistic landscape. Are Cretans
> Greek?...
> they speak Greek. Ask them.
Of course they're Greek.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
heritage!"
That is their problem.
"Even the Epirotes were Greeks."
That was precisely my point......If Macedonians were as well, why did they
consider his mother to be
of non-Macedonian blood?
If you defend your opinion against Fyromian slaves, o.k. but we are talking
history here, this is not a Nationality contest....
--
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> And they are only generally called lactose tolerance
>> but they are not the same thing.
>
> Um, being able to tolerate lactose is generally considered
> the same thing as being able to tolerate lactose.
To the layman.
> Here's the problem with what's passing for thinking in
> your mind:
> We could never know it was parallel evolution. If we're
> talking about two populations of the same species in
> a relatively close environment, we would never be able
> to tell that it was parallel evolution, even if it was. Because
> the DNA would be exactly the same -- and that is what
> you're insisting on -- we couldn't tell it apart from
> interbreeding between the two populations.
> You'te pretending that a certain test result is needed to
> establish parallel evolution, when such a test result
> would mask parallel evolution.
Without spending a penny you can google up and read enough about The Panda's
Thumb so that you don't have to read it to know its contents. Why not try that?
--
Essentially all peace treaties have been for the purpose of making war on
someone else. Why are they called peace treaties? Why do stupid voters
always fall for it?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3833
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Iraqi democracy http://www.giwersworld.org/911/armless.phtml a3
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
logic of your own theory. Apparently you do not think very long before you
reply, or say anything in general.
"Was Achilles not referred to by Homer as a Hellen"
Agamemnon, come of that throne and join the real world.
Agamemnon wrote:
>> Alexanders mother was from Epirus, this led to a dispute over Alexander's
>
>And Epirus was Greek you fool. Why do you think it was ruled by Phyrrus the
>son of Achilles? Was Achilles not referred to by Homer as a Hellen.
>
>> legitimacy as heir to the throne. Since he was not was a true Macedonian,
>> in
>[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> Greek?...
>> they speak Greek. Ask them.
>
>Of course they're Greek.
>
>>>> Ever talk to Greeks? Even now a days their inferiority-complex is
>>>> that great they want to prove that Alexander the Great was a Greek, not
>[quoted text clipped - 345 lines]
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
>I am not a fool. I am simply trusting on the fact that you understand the
> logic of your own theory. Apparently you do not think very long before you
> reply, or say anything in general.
>
> "Was Achilles not referred to by Homer as a Hellen"
>
> Agamemnon, come of that throne and join the real world.
>
Get an education. Achilles was a descendent of Hellen which means so were
all the kings of Epirus including the father of Olympias, Alexander's
mother.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
information you present yourself here. It just needs some thinking....
obviously...I'll spell it out for you:
Olympias was Greek......Philippus was.......Macedonians were.......
But Alexander was in some macedonian eyes not "macedonian" enough because of
his mother.......(?)....Hey....but she was also a Greek as all Macedonians
were, as was stated before......(happy buch of Greeks)......so why the throne-
problem?
Agamemnon wrote:
>>I am not a fool. I am simply trusting on the fact that you understand the
>> logic of your own theory. Apparently you do not think very long before you
>[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>>
>> Agamemnon, come of that throne and join the real world.
>
>Get an education. Achilles was a descendent of Hellen which means so were
>all the kings of Epirus including the father of Olympias, Alexander's
>mother.
>
>>>> Alexanders mother was from Epirus, this led to a dispute over
>>>> Alexander's
>[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> You are still missing the point. The point concludes itself out of the
> information you present yourself here. It just needs some thinking....
> obviously...I'll spell it out for you:
> Olympias was Greek......Philippus was.......Macedonians were.......
>
> But Alexander was in some macedonian eyes not "macedonian" enough because
> of
> his mother.......(?)....Hey....but she was also a Greek as all Macedonians
> were, as was stated before......(happy buch of Greeks)......so why the
> throne-
> problem?
The Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Achilles was an Aeolic Greek.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
time-frame here.
....how should i respond to this ........with something like "Ceasar was a
Thyrranian and so a Trojan and since Brutus killed him this man must have
been a Greek......and by the way a decendant of Hannibal, since he was a
Phoenician and Kadmos was as well.". What are you in that case?
Leave it .......you are etnically obsessed. Within its own framework your
logic makes sense...I must give you that.....you are consequent...the
framework seems to become somewhat of a tunnel-vision though.
discussion impossible.....thank's anyway....still think you should come of
that elaborate throne of yours.
Agamemnon wrote:
>> You are still missing the point. The point concludes itself out of the
>> information you present yourself here. It just needs some thinking....
>[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>> throne-
>> problem?
>
>The Macedonians were Dorian Greeks. Achilles was an Aeolic Greek.
>
>>>>I am not a fool. I am simply trusting on the fact that you understand the
>>>> logic of your own theory. Apparently you do not think very long before
>[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> Nice one......Dorian, Aeolian....Achilles,..... Alexander you are missing
> the
> time-frame here.
>
> ....how should i respond to this ........with something like "Ceasar was a
> Thyrranian and so a Trojan and since Brutus killed him this man must have
IDIOT. Caeser was a Trojan therefore a Cretan-Arcadian Greek. The
Tyrrhenians were Meonians.
> been a Greek......and by the way a decendant of Hannibal, since he was a
> Phoenician and Kadmos was as well.". What are you in that case?
>
> Leave it .......you are etnically obsessed. Within its own framework your
> logic makes sense...I must give you that.....you are consequent...the
> framework seems to become somewhat of a tunnel-vision though.
>
> discussion impossible.....thank's anyway....still think you should come of
> that elaborate throne of yours.
You are an idiot who knows nothing about ethnicity and nothing about
history. Shut up and don't open your mouth again until you get an education.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
enough...... Ceasar a Cretan Arcadian Greek????......man and I was trying to
be sarcasatic!
Agamemnon wrote:
>> Nice one......Dorian, Aeolian....Achilles,..... Alexander you are missing
>> the
>> time-frame here.
>>
>> ....how should i respond to this ........with something like "Ceasar was a
>> Thyrranian and so a Trojan and since Brutus killed him this man must have
>
>IDIOT. Caeser was a Trojan therefore a Cretan-Arcadian Greek. The
>Tyrrhenians were Meonians.
>
>> been a Greek......and by the way a decendant of Hannibal, since he was a
>> Phoenician and Kadmos was as well.". What are you in that case?
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> discussion impossible.....thank's anyway....still think you should come of
>> that elaborate throne of yours.
>
>You are an idiot who knows nothing about ethnicity and nothing about
>history. Shut up and don't open your mouth again until you get an education.
>
>>>> You are still missing the point. The point concludes itself out of the
>>>> information you present yourself here. It just needs some thinking....
>[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
>I was taking you on, IDIOT. The fact that you took this serious tells me
> enough...... Ceasar a Cretan Arcadian Greek????......man and I was trying
> to
> be sarcasatic!
Trying and failing because you haven't got a clue about Greek history.
We already know of the existence of all the Greek tribes because they are
mentioned by the Egyptians and Hittites, Achaeans (therefore Hellenes),
Danaioi, Spartans, Teucrians (Trojans), Teucrian Cypriots and Pelasgians.
This confirms the historical validity of the Trojan War and Menelaus and
Teucers presence in Egypt and therefore Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides as
being historically accurate.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
of
anything.
What's so laughable is that he claims to base himself on the classical
historians, yet peddles historical theories that derive from 19th
century racists!"
I think this guy nows you a lot better than I do.... He is so right.
Agamemnon wrote:
>>I was taking you on, IDIOT. The fact that you took this serious tells me
>> enough...... Ceasar a Cretan Arcadian Greek????......man and I was trying
>> to
>> be sarcasatic!
>
>Trying and failing because you haven't got a clue about Greek history.
>
>We already know of the existence of all the Greek tribes because they are
>mentioned by the Egyptians and Hittites, Achaeans (therefore Hellenes),
>Danaioi, Spartans, Teucrians (Trojans), Teucrian Cypriots and Pelasgians.
>This confirms the historical validity of the Trojan War and Menelaus and
>Teucers presence in Egypt and therefore Homer, Herodotus, and Euripides as
>being historically accurate.
>
>>>> Nice one......Dorian, Aeolian....Achilles,..... Alexander you are
>>>> missing
>[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
--
Message posted via http://www.historykb.com
JTEM
> I replied to this in a polite manner. Perhaps your
> next reply to me could be the same.
> (snip the rest)
I... I... I was a middle child... my blood sugar was
low...
JTEM
> JTEM wrote:
> > Um, being able to tolerate lactose is generally considered
> > the same thing as being able to tolerate lactose.
>
> To the layman.
To people awake.
> Without spending a penny you can google
> up and read enough about The Panda's Thumb
> so that you don't have to read it to know its
> contents. Why not try that?
So what you're saying is that you want me to
construct a postion for you, as well as a defense
for that position.
Look, any jackass can misunderstand something
they read, as you make a habit of proving.
I can't read your mind, so I can't know what it is
that you're misunderstanding until you tell me.
So spell it out. Don't tell me to go find something,
and then guess how you're misunderstaning it,
spell it out.
If you can't do that then you have no business
posting.
VtSkier
Hell, I forgot what this was about. I just
thought that we could have a good discussion.
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> "At least, if you imagine that you're going to convince him {Agamemnon
> red.}
> of
> anything.
> What's so laughable is that he claims to base himself on the classical
> historians, yet peddles historical theories that derive from 19th
> century racists!"
>
> I think this guy nows you a lot better than I do.... He is so right.
You are an idiot that knows nothing about history. Read the ancient
historians which all prove I'm right and get an education.
Matt Giwer
> Matt Giwer <jul...@tampabay.REMover.rr.com> wrote:
>> JTEM wrote:
>>> Um, being able to tolerate lactose is generally considered
>>> the same thing as being able to tolerate lactose.
>> To the layman.
> To people awake.
All cancers are the same disease because laymen call them cancer as the
knowledge of the different diseases are beyond normal experience. And all cars
are not the same because everyone is familiar with different types of cars.
>> Without spending a penny you can google
>> up and read enough about The Panda's Thumb
>> so that you don't have to read it to know its
>> contents. Why not try that?
>
> So what you're saying is that you want me to
> construct a postion for you, as well as a defense
> for that position.
I just made a suggestion of a simple and free and in fact easy way to see what
parallel evolution means as the panda's thumb is an extended wrist bone and not
one of the panda's five digits.
> Look, any jackass can misunderstand something
> they read, as you make a habit of proving.
>
> I can't read your mind, so I can't know what it is
> that you're misunderstanding until you tell me.
>
> So spell it out. Don't tell me to go find something,
> and then guess how you're misunderstaning it,
> spell it out.
>
> If you can't do that then you have no business
> posting.
I really do not care what you do. Petulance annoys me.
--
The families of every Iraqi we have killed has an absolute right in law and
morality to kill Americans to balance the scales.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3840
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Blame Israel http://www.ussliberty.org a10
Matt Giwer
> I am not a fool. I am simply trusting on the fact that you understand the
> logic of your own theory. Apparently you do not think very long before you
> reply, or say anything in general.
> "Was Achilles not referred to by Homer as a Hellen"
> Agamemnon, come of that throne and join the real world.
Last I heard all the way from Greece through southern "Turkey" to the Black Sea
east of the Bosporus is considered to have been included in the Hellene culture.
--
Jesus is no more than a hood orament on the auto of Christianity.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3834
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Zionism http://www.giwersworld.org/disinfo/disinfo.phtml a4
JTEM
> All cancers are the same disease because laymen
> call them cancer as the knowledge of [...]
That's great. But, turning back to the discussion here....
You demanded the EXACT SAME DNA. You're demanding
that two populations OF THE SAME SPECIES independently
develop a trait, and that any genetic mutations that give
rise to this trait be identical.
Now, as I keep pointing out -- and you refuse to grasp --
such a test would NOT "prove" parallel evolution, but would
conceal it.
The easiest, simplist explanation for your so-called
"test" would be interbreeding between the two populations.
That, there was gene flow and the fact that the trait rose
within the two population is a result of this gene flow.
On the other hand, an example where a trait arose in two
populations via a different mutation -- such as the lactose
tolerance which you raised -- CONFIRMS parallel
evolution.
Put another way: The test you demand DOES NOT
provide the answer you pretend it provides.
You are welcome.
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> "Yes, but the Fyromian Slavs are trying to usurp the Greek's history and
> heritage!"
>
> That is their problem.
>
> "Even the Epirotes were Greeks."
> That was precisely my point......If Macedonians were as well, why did they
> consider his mother to be
> of non-Macedonian blood?
Are you even stupider than I thought you were?
Why didn't the Athenians like the Spartans. Why didn't the Spartans like the
Messenians?
Why don't northerners like southerners. Are you are retard?
Matt Giwer
> "asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> news:75f066e706031@uwe...
>> "Yes, but the Fyromian Slavs are trying to usurp the Greek's history and
>> heritage!"
>> That is their problem.
>> "Even the Epirotes were Greeks."
>> That was precisely my point......If Macedonians were as well, why did
>> they
>> consider his mother to be
>> of non-Macedonian blood?
> Are you even stupider than I thought you were?
> Why didn't the Athenians like the Spartans. Why didn't the Spartans like
> the Messenians?
> Why don't northerners like southerners. Are you are retard?
;)
As with Babylon 5, you put too many people in a small space and they are always
at each others throats.
Which actually might help explain why they never managed to get along. When
kingdoms or whatever in other place decided to make peace the only people
affected were those few on the borders and could be ignored. In Greece making
peace affected a large fraction of both populations. Because of the small size
and extensive borders a large fraction of the populations of both would be
affected by becoming friendly, perhaps enough to cause internal unrest.
--
Al Qaeda is back to its pre-911 strength of 300. I am so frightened I can
only laugh to relieve the anxiety. 300 is the highest US government estimate
of their numbers ever made public.
-- The Iron Webmaaster, 3831
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
Israel says no extermination
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo3/holo-survivors.phtml a13
Matt Giwer
If you had the slightest hint what you are talking about, and I showed you an
easy route to it, you would use terms appropriate to the subject.
--
The number of people required to be involved to keep the JFK assassination
conspiracy a secret makes it highly improbable. And that is why we all know
about it.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3845
JTEM
> If you had the slightest
Are you retarded?
This shouldn't be difficult for you....
Even if a trait arose within two populations of the
same species as a result of parallel evolution,
if the genetic code responsible for this trait were
identical, we'd never know it was parallel evolution.
To us, it would look EXACTLY the same as
interbreeding. We would have NO evidence for
parallel evolution -- even though in our hypothetical
it is parallel evolution -- and every reason to assume
it is not.
Constructing a test which can actually result in a
useful answer may be a difficult concept for you,
but it's a pretty basic requirement for a real
scientist.
HTH.
JTEM
> As with Babylon 5,
So, going by your observations of bad fiction...
Matt Giwer
That was a throw away line and it was not bad fiction.
I am going by the common observation that the highest population densities have
the highest crime rates.
--
The families of every Iraqi we have killed has an absolute right in law and
morality to kill Americans to balance the scales.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 3840
nizkor http://www.giwersworld.org/nizkook/nizkook.phtml
flying saucers http://www.giwersworld.org/flyingsa.html a2
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
on Ancient historians.
You dit not prove THEY are right!.....the thing you should do, BEFORE you
rely on them completely.
I do not have to prove you are not right....I only have to prove your sources
are full of historical mistakes......
Agamemnon wrote:
>> "At least, if you imagine that you're going to convince him {Agamemnon
>> red.}
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>> I think this guy nows you a lot better than I do.... He is so right.
>
>You are an idiot that knows nothing about history. Read the ancient
>historians which all prove I'm right and get an education.
>
>>>>I was taking you on, IDIOT. The fact that you took this serious tells me
>>>> enough...... Ceasar a Cretan Arcadian Greek????......man and I was
>[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
--
Message posted via HistoryKB.com
http://www.historykb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/ancient-history/200708/1
Agamemnon
"asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com" <u36063@uwe> wrote in message
> You are turning things around....you feel to be right BECAUSE you only
> rely
> on Ancient historians.
> You dit not prove THEY are right!.....the thing you should do, BEFORE you
> rely on them completely.
Wrong. I have proven that they are right by showing that the people, tribes
and events are documented by the Egyptians.
>
> I do not have to prove you are not right....I only have to prove your
> sources
> are full of historical mistakes......
And you have failed to do so.
asteropaeus via HistoryKB.com
Agamemnon wrote:
>> You are turning things around....you feel to be right BECAUSE you only
>> rely
>> on Ancient historians.
>> You dit not prove THEY are right!.....the thing you should do, BEFORE you
>> rely on them completely.
>
>Wrong. I have proven that they are right by showing that the people, tribes
>and events are documented by the Egyptians.
>
>> I do not have to prove you are not right....I only have to prove your
>> sources
>> are full of historical mistakes......
>
>And you have failed to do so.
>
>>>> "At least, if you imagine that you're going to convince him {Agamemnon
>>>> red.}
>[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]