3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Dating of the various texts in relation to other sources, archaeology, geology, genetics etc.
User avatar
Kraftr
Posts: 151
Joined: 10 Apr 2023, 07:57

3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Kraftr »

1)Huntergatherers were more healthy then farmerculture (who are depicted as progress in school)

2)this man proves we have a wrong understanding of huntergatherer farming


Philip Forrer présente; "Le Jardin du Graal"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jk0h1laL-0



3)DNA shows Yamnaya invasion is not as thought, neolithic Germans were not replaced by them.

The Genetic Melting Pot of Europe… Corded Ware Culture DNA Revealed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNMWEXzHfDA
Last edited by Kraftr on 10 May 2024, 15:24, edited 1 time in total.
Er Aldaric
Posts: 36
Joined: 21 Jan 2023, 17:42

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Er Aldaric »

The third point on here is the most important. As the Oera Linda book gets more and more attention, its greatest adversary will be the 'melting pot' theory of ancient Europe. When I speak to others about the OL the fact that it doesn't line up with academia's current reconstruction is immediate grounds for dismissal in their view. Even those in 'alternative' spheres cannot recognize how subversive this idea of an ancient melting pot is - with articles from NatGeo called 'Ancient Europe was a melting pot from the start' and 'The New Europeans: how waves of immigrants are reshaping a continent' right next to each other on the shelf.

I don't think people realize how early we are in the early days of DNA studies and we actually don't have it all figured out. There are people like Thomas Rowsell (Survive the Jive on YT) who worship at the altar of indo-Europeans, and his holy book is whatever new study that comes out. This exactly why a primary source like the OL is so important. In a future where it is accepted, anthropologists can use it as a solid reference point from that time.

It's funny how the indo-European hypothesis was initially dismissed as Prussian fantasy and a longing for a greater past until linguistic and archeological evidence eventually proved it. Until the end of WWII and science concerning race was prohibited and anthropology went from physical to cultural, the depictions and reconstructions painted of the aryans were of a 'nordic' strain and 'civilizers' and morphed into something unrecognizable. Now the aryan is a nomad cow-farming asiatic horse warrior.

How Cro-Magnon from ~20k years ago (ancestor to 'WHG') depicted themselves:
Image
User avatar
Pax
Posts: 115
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 13:58

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Pax »

I agree that the “Indo-European” idea has to go. Regardless of whether it arose from misguided linguists or from a political push, it does not explain anything and is a distraction. The only useful work to come from the Indo-European academics are the etymological dictionaries, which, although they link to nonsense “Proto-Germanic” or “Proto-Italic” or “Proto-Indo-European” words that never existed, can be used to more easily find cognates between, say, German, Old Frisian and Latin, which is useful in Oera Linda research. Nordic also commented on this topic last year in response to a journal article:
Nordic wrote: 01 Sep 2023, 18:51
earlier reliance on modern phenotypes and ancient writings and artistic depictions provided an inaccurate picture of early Indo-Europeans
My bolding here. Considering that 'Indo-European' is a virtual (18th or 19th century?) creation, basically a theory trying to link up various peoples and their languages from an era before the DNA and blood stype studies, that doesn't exists as such anywhere, I would argue that ancient writings and DNA studies ought to be used to take the lead in research. If there is a mismatch with ancient accounts and DNA studies, then the follow-up question needs to be why the mismatch: ancient accounts remembering too old/young things in error, multiple different ethnicities dwelling in same geographical locality or some other reason.
We find that the modal phenotype of eye, skin, and hair pigmentation in ancient West Eurasians was brown-eyed, of intermediate complexion, and brown-haired—even among Yamnaya steppe pastoralists—contradicting stereotypical characterizations of Steppe peoples as being blue-eyed, pale-skinned, and light-haired.
If one looks at a map of Europe and Asia, especially in light of races dwelling therein, there should be nothing surprising here. Even Peter Frost above writes about it in the screenshots above.
light pigmentation in West Eurasia was the result of selection across time, which continued into the Historical period (43, 44), and not of the survival of supposed ancient Indo-European phenotypes as some 19th and 20th century writers supposed
One can wonder why there was a selection for light pigmentation in the first place and if it ties into the blue eyed 'gods' theme or e.g. tradition of kidnapping of Germanic or Fryan girls to Mediterranean regions as depicted in OL. ...

... Wouldn't the OL narrative Tartars and the peoples pushing Finns westward towards Scandinavia fit the descriptions here, perhaps representing newer era than the Yamnaya peoples? Can't the Asiatic whites and near-white be explained fully with likes of OL (Frisians in India, Phoenicia), Getica (Goths in Black Sea and Levant battling pharaohs) and European conqueror Krishna tale of Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar and Bock family saga (local ruling dynasty replaced by Nordic dynasty offshoot)?

I go even further and ask: what need is there in 2023 to retain the Indo-European spread idea that is so detached from actual traditions of specific movements of specific European peoples to specific Asian lands? And if there are tradition-wise unaccounted white-ish peoples in Asia, couldn't they be just offshoots of the ones the traditions are clear about? I want a total syncretic approach: primarily the DNA studies, secondarily the ancient reports back from the days of yore and only thirdly any theoretic considerations of yesteryear non-tradition based ideas. I often get the feeling some researchers and laymen have it backwards in sense that the theories (e.g. 'Yamnaya' dispersal as 'Indo-Europeans' ie. whites) seem to come first and any DNA studies or ancient sources are compared to those theories for veracity ratings..!
One fascinating subtopic is the origin of the Romans and the Latin language, which no-one to my knowledge has deciphered using the Oera Linda book as key evidence. In the Indo-European mindset, the Romans came from Etruscans who came from the Indo-European melting pot steppe peoples. Before Indo-European became trendy, Ernst Jäkel showed in 1830 in Der germanische Urspung der lateinischen Sprache that a lot of Latin vocabulary can be traced back to Old High German and Old Saxon. I showed in this post that with a few attested sound changes, Fryas HÁCHST/HÁGEST became Old Saxon hōchost which became Latin august-.

Although Old High German suits this analysis well, in ancient times, there must have been an Italian form of Fryas which was the precursor to Latin before the arrival of the Trojans. Their mixture with the Italian population created the Latin language. Considering that the Fryas themselves said (in ch. 19b) that they originally inhabited Italy, that various groups of Lydas and Findas settled in Italy over time (Etruscans would be one example) and that finally a group of Trojans came to settle and conquer the peninsula, it makes sense that we find so many words in Latin which can be traced back to Fryas via Old High German. The Romans themselves back it up with their founding myth in the Aeneid, in which the Trojan Aeneas flees Troy and travels to Italy.

The Trojans themselves were likely part Fryas who had lived in Greece since at least the time of Minerva's and Jon's settlement there (ch. 9d); the Finda part of them might have been a mixture of Greek and Slavic people, since there is strong overlap between Latin and Old Church Slavonic grammar, such as the highly inflected verbs and nouns, and many Greek words can be found in Latin. In the Iliad, the Trojans are portrayed as a noble and just people, respected by allies and enemies alike, whereas the Greeks (Achaeans) are prone to envy and petty rivalries. This character of the Trojans is similar to that of the Fryas, and the Greeks were indeed seen as a corrupt people by the Fryas as well (ch. 10b).
Vigtig Viden eller ligegyldig Info?
User avatar
Nordic
Posts: 147
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 11:08

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Nordic »

Good image find El Aldaric, had not seen that before. The August and Ermanaric name theories based on OL are fascinating.

The Italy case is intriguing. On one hand it's one of the Mediterranean locales inhabited by peoples native to those regions. But then we have the Sea Peoples in close vicinity that make appearance also in Levant, the Finnish tale of stone age Mediterranean Rasul peoples and early Egyptians (is that the Rasenna or Etruscan peoples?), the Frisian era, the Trojan era, the Greek era, the Roman competition against Phoenicians era and then the classical all-conquering imperium sine fine and Iupiter Optimus Maximus (I.O.M. or 'god') era that conquered at one time even the Frisian heartlands and ends up giving us the Roman Christian church. Then we have the Celts of Cisalpine Gauls of northern Italy and the stories of Phoenician Hannibal attacking Romans from northern direction with an army of Celtic soldiers.

In all of this, surely the Frisian (read: Germanic) episode must be quite archaic. Like, Goths of Jordanes long, long before anyone has heard of Lombards. Or even 2000 BC at the beginning of OL chronology, where the movements of various peoples are mentioned and how many Frisian lands are said in the most generic and vague manner to have been lost. That is a good contrast to OL Greece (far Greek lands), as it's inhabitation by Frisians, Finns (Toroni as Thyr's burg) at 2000 BC and then the later Frisian cultural founding of Athens, are described in much detail.

Whereas the 'near-Greece' or Italy doesn't even have a proper name to it (Ott notes that the Frisian name may be due from the Greek period of Italy) and its Frisian history is glossed over as something very generic aside the Troy mention (see more here on dating the Trojans). Hittites with their blue eyes and blonde golden haired sphinxes may also be some sort of reminder from those early Gothic ("Gutian"?) and Frisian days in Mediterranean area (link). Of sea peoples the Tyrrhenian Tiras/Teresh/Tursha (link, another link) may be the same as Old Norse þurs 'giant' and corresponding Finnish turilas, like the one in Fornjót 'ancient/eternal-giant' lineage (deified king þorri) that is the THÍR in OL in whose name a castle fort was founded in eastern Greece (the ancient harbour of Toroni).

Edit: off the coast of Toroni, is the Tyrrhenian island of Lemnos and from there (link) is found this seeming mixture language of Germanic and Finnic. E.g. the Germanic neef 'nephew' as "naφoθ" and the occasional Finnic ~lle or ~le dative suffix case as "Φukiasi-ale" 'for the Phocaean' (cf. Finnish Φukiasille 'for the Phocaean') and vuosi 'year' as "avis". Highly interesting in light of OL narrative on ancient Mediterraneans!
Lemnos.jpg
Lemnos.jpg (155.37 KiB) Viewed 728 times
User avatar
Pax
Posts: 115
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 13:58

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Pax »

Excellent reply, Nordic. Thank you for the links. Toroni is indeed an obvious match for 2000 BC THÍR.HIS.BURCH, based on the name, linguistic evidence and description in ch. 8d of the Oera Linda book. The Finnish link is very interesting. The poorly attested Thracian language may be related, due to the similar name (THÍR vs. Thrace) and close proximity. Thracian is, in turn, suggested to be related to Dacian. Perhaps you are in a better position to make sense of the surviving Thracian and Dacian names, given your Finnish knowledge. Both Magyars and Finns went with Nef-Tunis, so Magyar and Finnish (or some kind of Finno-Ugric) influence on these languages is possible. Some might have migrated independently from the north as well.

It is also mentioned in ch. 8d that many Fryas moved to Lydasland, in this case Anatolia. Given that the ruins of Troy are on the northwestern tip of Anatolia, perhaps those Frya migrants founded Troy, inevitably mixed with some of the Lydas and Findas and became the Trojans as we know them in the Epic Cycle and Oera Linda book. It could also have been founded by some of Nef-Tunis' people, as the name Troy may be related to THÍR; perhaps it was originally THÍRJA, then the trilled R naturally created THÍROJA, then it was shortened to THROJA, then the dental fricative TH was simplified to T, giving us TROJA/TRÔJE. Since it is situated near the Bosphorus Strait, it could also be related to THRVCH “through” with the -JA suffix, i.e. THRVCHJA → THRVJA → TRVJA → TROJA.

The Trojan War was an ignition of a dry forest long in the making; the Greeks wanted to destroy the Trojans and needed a casus belli. In the Iliad, it is Helen's escape (or abduction) to Troy, but it could just as well have been some other petty reason. This is part speculation, but my guess is that the Greeks were envious of the superior Trojans; or, after the Greek priests and princes had expelled the Geartmen, they had long resented that there were still Frya-like peoples outside their control in the Aegean Sea.

The Trojans may help solve another puzzle, which is the presence of Latin names in the Oera Linda book. For example, the Fryas write ALEXANDER (Latin Alexander), not *ALEXANDROS (Greek Ᾰ̓λέξᾰνδρος, Aléxandros). They write JES.US (Latin Jēsūs), not *JES.OS/JES.OUS (Greek Ἰησοῦς, Iēsoûs). They write many other names with -US/-VS, like PHONISIVS, NÉARCHUS, ÛLYSUS, ANTIGONUS, PTHOLEMÉUS, DEMÉTRIUS. In most of these cases, the Romans were only a minor power in Italy. It is possible that the past traces of Trojan, which would have looked similar to Latin and Greek, have been destroyed or “Greek-washed”, in the same way that all Frya inscriptions have been destroyed. Thus, theoretically, the Oera Linda book records these names in their original Trojan spelling, which would imply that Trojan was a prominent language in antiquity.

One more note: Laurent Guyénot suggests in Anno Domini (2023) that Dacian and Latin evolved from a single ancestor in Dacia, which is why Latin suddenly “replaced” Dacian under the Roman Empire and why the area is called Romania; because it was the ancestral home of the pre-Italian Romans. Thus, Rome was given its name to honour that ancestry. This would mean that the Trojans mixed with people from Thrace and Dacia, giving Trojan (and later Latin) its highly inflected grammar. The Romanian language has preserved features common to Latin, such as the many noun cases and the highly inflected verbs. I suspect that the Dacian ancestor language is Slavic in origin, since the Slavic languages have a similarly inflected grammar and share some cognates, e.g. Old Church Slavonic домъ dom' (“home”), Latin domus; or тебѣ tebě (“to you”), Latin tibi.
Vigtig Viden eller ligegyldig Info?
User avatar
Kraftr
Posts: 151
Joined: 10 Apr 2023, 07:57

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Kraftr »

so I derive from this that Thracian, Greek, Macedonian, 'Northling', Ostrogoth, Phoenician, Phrigian, Etruskans, Sicillians,, Tyrrians were different Frya-, Finda- and syrian/arab- mixes, highly Germanic/NHG european still in organisation and culture, and felt some kinship. Explaining why Greek writers would have given a 'pars pro toto' name to adversaries. I notice that the ragtag association of the seapeoples is much like germanic tribes would pull together for wars, and they were seafaring, mercantile and citystates. Many tribes also on mainland had splitoffs going everywhere, like Suebi and Vandals, which also explains diverse (re)mixing throughout of NHG Germanic/Gothic, Yamna(Finnic/Scythian/Ostrogoth, Anatolian(old Fryan) and Iranian. In a much more difuse manner than the official narrative of large invasion replacement events, to call back to my original post.
User avatar
Pax
Posts: 115
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 13:58

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Pax »

You summarise it well. The kinship between many of these subdivision of peoples, coupled with the frequent migrations and close proximity which made them mix with each other, makes it difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. For example, one could say that the early Romans were Trojan, Greek, Phrygian, Thracian, Dacian and even Gothic at the same time and it would probably be true.

Guyénot quotes the ancient historians Strabo and Herodian who respectively said that the Romans (Trojans) were Greek and Phrygian in origin. Guyénot himself suggests that the ancient Dacians, also known as the Getae, were identical to the Goths, and that they went on to found Byzanz, later renamed Constantinople. All these things can only be true at once if there were considerable mixing between peoples, and from this mix, the Trojan people emerged. Guyénot does not take the Oera Linda book into account, and he believes in the Indo-European idea, but I could be inaccurate in my own theories; for example, the many Frya (Germanic) loanwords in Latin could ultimately come from the Goths living in Dacia, rather than coming from Nef-Tunis' or Minerva's settlers or from mixing with the remaining Fryas still living in Italy. On the other hand, Ancient Greek has several Frya loanwords too (e.g. logos from LOGHA), so both Greek and Trojan were probably influenced by a common source.

Regarding the Sea Peoples, Alewyn J. Raubenheimer suggests in p. 174-175 of Chronicles From Pre-Celtic Europe (2014) that the Sea Peoples were the raiders from the Ionian Islands, who were descendants of Jon's people. During Minerva's and Jon's escape to Greece, some people from Tyrhisburg captured one of their ships; Jon wanted to exact revenge on the Tyrians. Over time, the Ionians raided other ships too and sometimes were mercenaries.

Simple but logical explanations like these can also be found for what we call the Vikings: after the west coast of Fryasland had been devastated by a natural disaster in 305 BC, which Frethorik writes about in ch. 14a, the Danes and Norwegians turned to piracy to help pay for the rebuilding of the southern areas. What started as a quick solution to an urgent problem became a profession for centuries, just as it happened to Jon's sailors. Modern historians will have you believe that the Norse one day randomly woke up and got bored or wanted more adventure in their lives. ... Of course, this only works when you move 305 BC closer to the first recorded raid on Lindisfarne in 793 AD, which is a separate can of worms. Gunnar Heinsohn's chronology research is useful in that case.
Vigtig Viden eller ligegyldig Info?
User avatar
Helgiteut
Posts: 84
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 13:48
Location: Melbourne, VIC

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Helgiteut »

As the Frya's had store houses for grains, it wouldn't seem right to call them Hunter Gatherers.
Brea, bûter en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk
User avatar
Kraftr
Posts: 151
Joined: 10 Apr 2023, 07:57

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Kraftr »

Helgiteut wrote: 14 May 2024, 04:55 As the Frya's had store houses for grains, it wouldn't seem right to call them Hunter Gatherers.
yes this is part of what my post was about; that one of our old genetic strains is being called huntergatherer is misleading our perception, and plays into the whole depiction of older Europeans as primitive cavemen. Note that Viking raiding and many other events are also called barbarian. If you question these pejoratives it helps to get a much more realistic paradigm of history.
User avatar
Helgiteut
Posts: 84
Joined: 31 Dec 2022, 13:48
Location: Melbourne, VIC

Re: 3 wins for neolithic huntergatherer

Post by Helgiteut »

I see now. I did like the video, We would call it permaculture in the english-speaking world.
Brea, bûter en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk
Post Reply