How much is known about pre-IE peoples of Europe?

youtube.com/watch?v=Dk65TbJRN_A

Watch this it explains more than genetics.

Were these wrapped around a corpse's head or were they straightened out like that?

Nah, OP really meant pre-Internet Explorer

Greeks are Indoeuropean you fucktard, maybe you meant Minoans

Minoans were Greek. The language of the Mycenaeans was pre-IE.

Another episode of finnish we wuzing

You got that completely backwards.

Why not write "pre-aryan"? Seriously.

Aryans were just one Indo-European tribe who lived by the Volga river.
Finnish word Orja, which means slave comes from Aryan as it was customary for Finns to enslave them in the ancient day.

How do we know societies that never spoke IE languages before the Iron Age like the Etruscans, the Minoans (and later the Eteocretans/Eteocypriots), the Lemnians, the extinct Basque relatives etc. weren't just living in continuum from Old Europe prior to the Roman Empire?

For Etruscans at least, they were probably a mixing of indigenous Villanovans with colonists from the Near East. There's too much evidence for both sides of the argument, so there's probably some truth in each case.

That doesn't explain if the Etruscan language was taken from that native group living in Italy though. As we see with Greece, the language of the invaders all but wiped out the indigenous ones.

Villanovians were Not indigenous, They invaded Italy around 1200-1100 BC , and there's 0 proof for an Anatolian origin of the Etruscan

The Helladic (Mycenean) civilization was IE, you're thinking of the Minoans and Cycledeans. Also of note are the Etruscans, the Vincya People and the Megalithic Culture of Atlantic Europe.

don't forget Malta with its temples and the Nuragic civilization of Sardinia

Because the Aryans went south into Iran and India, it was the Europeans who went west into Europe.

Greeks didn't write shit down before the Collapse.

Hittites and Minoans did, though the former was away from most of the action in Europe whilst the latter has yet to be deciphered.

Them too. Also, the Tartessians of souther Spain, the Vascones / Basques, and the Sidhe (hill folk) of Britain and Ireland.

>Greeks didn't write shit down before the Collapse.

Yes they did, after they conquered Crete circa 1400BC, they adapted the Minoan Linear A script to Linear B, which Ventriss famously proved was Greek.

Actually it looks like the Minoans, Etruscans, Eteocypriots and Lemnosii all actually spoke highly derived I.E. languages

Greeks (Myceneans) wrote a lot though all we have from them are mostly lists of goods such as Wine and slaves

Yeah no. Linear A remains undeciphered but plugging in the known letter values from Linear B produces nothing like an indo-european language.

The idea has always fascinated me that fairies are cultural memories of PIE peoples.

How much truth is there to the assertion that Picts were PIE?

Culturally the Picts seem to have been Celtic, but of course the Celts never invaded Britain or Ireland, and "racially" the Picts (and most living Britons or Irish) are aboriginal Mesolithic hunter gatherers who adopted first the bronze working culture of the Urnfield Culture and later the iron and chariot using culture of the Celts.

Resemblance has, however, been established at least tangentially to Etruscan, which is further supported by genetic evidence. And, as it stands now, it looks like the Tyhrsennian languages (Minoan, Eteo, Etruscan and Lemnosii) are an isolated form of the Anatolian languages, which are IE. They were probably a wave of IE farmers that followed the Basque (I.E. the Nuraghii)

>Resemblance has, however, been established at least tangentially to Etruscan

They use separate undeciphered scripts, no conclusions of any sort can be drawn about them. Certainly the place names the Etruscans left us and quite unlike the -ss- model of the pre-Helladic substrate. Nothing we now about their culture seems simmilar either, the Minoans didn't practise ancestor worship, didn't build necropoli, and didn't practise human sacrifice (gladiatorial funeral games). The Etruscans didn't hold religious gatherings in isolated caves far from settlements, didn't offer sacrifices of animals and valuable objects, and certainly didn't mingle the bones of their dead. Even in art, despite both being derived from Egyptian models, the graceful naturalism and focus on animals and nature of the Minoans contrasts with the human-focussed and formalised, "unrealistic" poses typical of the Etruscans. Even in arms, the Minoans were known for their ships and had nothing in the way of a standing military elite, whereas Etruria was from the earliest times divided into city-states that waged near constant war.

Well we know quite a bit about pre IE peoples actually. For example, in Scandinavia you had two separate cultures, sedentary farmers and mobile hunter gatherers, coexisting in the same regions for at least 600 years prior to the arrival of the first IEans.

>are an isolated form of the Anatolian languages, which are IE

Except no, this is wrong. Hittite is IE, but the Hatti who gave their name to the Hittite Empire spoke a non-IE language. We now this because the Hittites revered the Hatti, and adopted many religious ideas from them, and preserved several short passages of Hatti, most notably a bilingual myth in Hattic and Hittite. If Minoan is an "Anatolian" language, it is related to Hattic, NOT to Hittite.

I'm pretty sure Etruscan and therefore Lemnian are not IE, Minoan is still debated as it's not even decyphered but still it's unlikely it was.

WE WUZ MESOLITHZ N SHIIT

>Etruscan

Enough is known about it to be certain it's not IE. It's agglutinative, more like Japanese than Latin.

>Get a load of this guy.

The "Celts" most certainly did invade the British isles. Various tribes went different places, and (using the modern terms in a very liberal geographic sense) 'Irish', Welsh, English and Scottish dialects/ethnic groups differentiated themselves over time. As with many ancient waves of migration, a forceful number of enough newcomers with better technology dominated the natives and intermarried, whether peaceful or not.

>the only people writing things down in Europe before the Bronze Age Collapse were Greeks.
>Hittites and Minoans did
Danube civilization says Hi

I think you're jumping gun there, bud.

>Minoans were Greek
No they are not.
Greeks > Hellenes > Danae's > Israeli tribe of Dan

>"According to Dr. Gareth Alun Owens, Linear A represents the Minoan language, which Owens classifies as a distinct branch of Indo-European potentially related to Greek, Sanskrit, Hittite, Latin, etc."

Important word is "related" - which means "equal" only in WE WUZ GREEKS

>THE OLDEST WRITING IN THE WORLD
>The Tablet from Gradeshnitsa, found in the land of Ancient Thrace, predates similar artifacts found in Egypt by at least two millennia. Apparently, this particular type of Hieroglyphic Script had originated and was first used in Ancient Thrace, and it was later transferred and introduced in Ancient Egypt.

Google it

>and there's 0 proof for an Anatolian origin of the Etruscan
Wrong. Quite a few DNA tests of humans and cattle, along with the opinion of most ancient sources, are plenty of evidence for it.

And Villanova culture is related to Urnfeld so it cannot be from abroad.

The urnfield culture literally moved from Central Europe to Italy, it's a known fact, they were outsiders from Central Europe, probably the ones who brought the Italic languages to Italy.

In Ireland it's certain that legends about the Tuatha de Dannan are really about pre-Celtic inhabitants of the island.

It makes me wonder if in the future, when Europe is brown or black, if they will sit at fireplaces at night and talk about legendary "palefaces" that used to live in the woods and bogs.

Sure, but I wouldn't consider a short migration over the alps into the peninsula anywhere near the same as a migration from across the opposite side of the Mediterranean. Especially not compared to an advanced culture who were already proficient at urbanization and building fortresses on hills.

The urnfield culture produced the most effective and popular weapons of their time, the NAUE II swords of the urnfield culture were adopted by the Mycenean Greeks and probably they employed the Danubian armor as well, which was also one of the most excellent armors of the time, the urnfield people might have not been urbanized or proficient in building monuments or art but their weapons were the absolute best which gave them their upper hand military, hence why Italic people such as the Osci and other urnfield people were most likely employed by Myceneans and other Eastern Med civilizations as mercenaries.

Urnfield people invading the Italian pensinsula and dubjugating the local while creating a small elite/aristocracy makes much more sense than Anatolian migrating to Italy, where they would have had to deal witht he Urnfield people and other warring tribes.

It was the Anatolians who were getting invaded, not the opposite, this is confirmed by Egyptian texts which talk about the destruction of Arzawa and Hatti at the ends of the sea peoples (who, by the way, most likely had urnfield people among their ranks and employed urnfield armor, weapons and symbols, such as the vogel).

The Villanovian culture was a direct offspring of the larger Urnfield culture.

>It was the Anatolians who were getting invaded, not the opposite
Then how do you explain why Tuscan cattle are unrelated to the cattle everywhere else in Italy? And why do all the ancient historians believe the Etruscans were originally from Tyre or an offshoot of it? How is it just a coincidence "Etruscan" culture sprang up around the same time the Greeks and Phoenicians began setting up colonies in the Western Mediterranean?

>Then how do you explain why Tuscan cattle are unrelated to the cattle everywhere else in Italy?

Link to the article

>And why do all the ancient historians believe the Etruscans were originally from Tyre or an offshoot of it?

They actually said they were from Lydia and they did this parrotting Herodotus who si notorious for spouting bullshit, and Lydia doesn't have anything to do with Etruscans since their language was completely different and so was their culture.

>How is it just a coincidence "Etruscan" culture sprang up around the same time the Greeks and Phoenicians began setting up colonies in the Western Mediterranean?

It's not a coincidence because Phoenicians brought the alphabet and the presence of Phoenician and Greek merchants of course helped the spread of the idea of urbanization as well as the spread of new knowledge in various fields and new luxurious goods, Phoenicians and Greeks also brought urbanization to Sicily, South italy, Sardinia and Southern Iberia, intense trade with these civilized areas gave Etruscans the means to be civilized and urbanized, it's only logical that their culture flourished with the arrival of these new peoples.

Also Herodotus and the other historians who parroted him talked about a migration taking place from Lydia around the period fo the war of Troy (1200-1100 bc), but actually what we call the Etruscan culture didn't start until 800-700 bc

>Link to the article
rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/274/1614/1175

>Lydia doesn't have anything to do with Etruscans since their language was completely different and so was their culture.

Yes but the Lydia contemporary with those writers did not exist yet when Etruscan cities were already popping up in Italy, so it would make sense they would have nothing to do with each other.
>Also Herodotus and the other historians who parroted him talked about a migration taking place from Lydia around the period fo the war of Troy (1200-1100 bc)
That could be chalked up to ancient historians having a very muddled idea of time spans. In reality they could have easily migrated sometime in the centuries succeeding the Bronze Age collapse, especially since so many other migrations were happening in every direction. No need to take his word 100%.

>intense trade with these civilized areas gave Etruscans the means to be civilized and urbanized
But Etruscan cities were not built in the same manner as Phoenician or Greek ones, and neither culture were established on the Italian peninsula by the time Etruscan cities were being built.

>and neither culture were established on the Italian peninsula by the time Etruscan cities were being built.

Greeks had already built a colony in Pitekousa (Ischia) and I think near Cuma too by the time the Etruscan culture began, while there were a few Phoenicized cities in Sardinia also by that time(Sulky and Othoca)

> In reality they could have easily migrated sometime in the centuries succeeding the Bronze Age collapse

There is no evidence of such a migration though, and the Luwian city states in Western Anatolia spoke Luwian, an indoeuropean language, not Etruscan, so why would they be from there?

Their language is different and their material culture too, their pottery was influenced by the Greeks merchants who came later.

Do you have Danube era writings?

>the Luwian city states in Western Anatolia spoke Luwian
Some, not all, spoke Luwian. The main sphere of its influence was still in central Anatolia. There were probably hundreds of sites in western Anatolia that spoke something other than Luwian. Why would the migrants necessarily have to have spoken it?

>Ischia
Not sure but a quick wiki search says:
>Euboean Greeks from Eretria and Chalcis arrived in the 8th century BC to establish an emporium for trade with the Etruscans of the mainland.

>There were probably hundreds of sites in western Anatolia that spoke something other than Luwian.

There's no proof of it, every single document from the Western Anatolian city states is in Luwian, while the Hittities in Central Anatolia spoke Hittitie and sometimes the original language of the natives, Hatti.

small example
hint : fucking minoan and mykene writing developed from it
(except for diskos of phaistos hyroglyph like writing that developed independently)

Nigga, that's proto-writing.

It's interesting, and it makes a new chapter in the development of civilization, but it doesn't help us learn anything about the civilization, because we can't read it.

>we can't read it thus it's no writing
m8 it is writing since what is and isn't writing is based on scientific consents due to the sloppy definition of what writing is
and the scientific community is pretty unanimous when it comes to danubian scribbles
A) being writing
B) being the origin of linear A and B

>and the scientific community is pretty unanimous when it comes to danubian scribbles
>A) being writing
>B) being the origin of linear A and B

Genuinely curious m8.

I thought they were a runic thing similar to the Jiahu symbols.

My understanding was that Etruscans are proto-IE in genetic make-up, almost certainly meaning they have Near East origins. If it wasn't via Anatolia, then it was western Asian steppe origins. However, since they were descended of farmer cultures, this would point to an ultimately Anatolian origin...

We're not talking in absolutes, either. Clearly even for 'highly' IE-derived populations, it's not like they came upon a European terra nullis. There would have been some degree of mixing with indigenous populations one way or another.

I recall reading about Ötzi for example, that his paternal genetics explicitly imply Near East origins (already present in the area for a few thousand years). Although, his maternal lineage seemed to be an isolate, likely from an indigenous Alpine population, or from a now-extinct separate group of Near East wanderers... that part's not clear.

Greeks were IE, you dolt.

There were advanced calcolithic and bronze age pre-IE civilizations in the Balkans, Italy and Spain. Most of what is known about them comes from archeological findings and investigations, so not a lot.

Nothing credible comes up. Also, cuneiform is older than Egyptian.

Scholars who conclude that the inscribed symbols are writing base their assessment on a few assumptions which are not universally endorsed. First, the existence of similar signs on other artifacts of the Danube civilization suggest that there was an inventory of standard shapes used by scribes. Second, the symbols are highly standardized and have a rectilinear shape comparable to that manifested by archaic writing systems. Third, the information communicated by each character was specific, with an unequivocal meaning. Finally, the inscriptions are sequenced in rows, whether horizontal, vertical or circular. If they do comprise a script, it is not known what kind of writing system they represent.

Proto IE doesn't mean Near Eastern, neolithic farmers came from Anatolia and mixed with the local Mesolithic hunter gatherers creating European Neolithci farmers, genetically very close to modern day Sardinians and Iberians

>Proto IE doesn't mean Near Eastern,
Thanks captain obvious. My words were chosen intentionally.

But anyway, I don't think were differing in much in conclusion. Where Etruscans own ancestors came from a few thousand years before (more than a thousand years longer than the Magyars have been in Hungary, for example) is interesting, but sort of irrelevant. Obviously the peoples themselves were already a bit of a genetic patchwork. I don't think farming techniques were a totally secret mystery only ancient Near Eastern people had access to. After a while, the 'process' most certainly spread beyond their original discoverers.

not at home rn so here are two examples from my lecture
right danube "scribbles" left linear A
makes kinda sense too seeing how both cultures weren't that far apart and well connected via water

remembered a few more