[quote="Aga Tentakulus" pid='60479' dateline='1720660768']
Maybe you'll learn something today.
[You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or
Login to view.
And the Celtic runes are documented in writing.
In the 4th century, the Eastern Roman emperor commissioned 2000 Celtic mercenaries to secure the border east of Ankara.
The mercenaries moved there with their families. It is estimated that there were around 12,000 Celts. The land was made available to them and they settled down.
Their mission. To protect the land for as long as possible until the imperial troops arrived.
Those who thought they were only dealing with peasants at the time did not have good prospects when they were suddenly faced with 2,000 battle-hardened mercenaries.
So it is written.]
Dear Tentakulus,
I am familiar with the article you mentioned and shared the link to because together with our researcher colleagues, we reviewed this article under the title "When It Comes to the So-Called Indo-European Root Language and Culture, Universities That Have Attempted to Manufacture History for Themselves Cannot Object to the Writing of Unscientific and Unsupported Articles".
First of all, the claim that Greeks lived in Cyprus during the Bronze Age is just that a claim. However, all the archaeological findings aimed at proving this point to the presence of Turks instead. In other words, none of the findings stamped as Greek from that period are Greek. Moreover, there is not a single scientific finding to prove the existence of Greeks in Cyprus during that time. Such historical writing is baseless and is nothing more than the so-called root culture fabricated by Europeans who couldn't find their roots.
Being able to suggest different transcriptions and readings for old texts consisting of (5 letters) one, or 20 words does not show that those readings are correct or that the assertion overlaps with what happened in the past. In this sense, there is not a single scientific element that shows us that the reading suggestions given in the articles you shared coincide with the reality of the past.
Regarding the reading of Luwian Hieroglyph writings, it is not only impossible to prove that the sound values assigned to the hieroglyphs functioned during the mentioned ancient times, but also the predicted sound values for each sign are highly Eurocentric and inconsistent. Such readings are far from scientific and are creatively fabricated constructive reading examples based on personal views. I had previously written an article criticizing the methods of reading Luwian and Hittite inscriptions, showing their unscientific aspects one by one, and explaining this matter here as well. Please read that again if you have free time.
For Indo-European homeland theories; we knew the three leading solutions to the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland history: the "Steppe model," the Anatolian model, and the Near Eastern (or Armenian) model.
The Steppe model, which places the PIE homeland around 4000 BCE in the "Pontic-Caspian" steppe, is the most supported theory by most scholars.
However, there is no scientific evidence proving the existence of Armenian people or language, Greek language, and people, or what we would call the "Caspian people" in the form of "Pontic" during the mentioned period.
All these are myths and theses created by individuals excitedly trying to fabricate history due to their Aryan-ethnocentric personal deductions that cannot find their past. These are just works made up of a salad of explanations with not a single bit of proof or consistent aspect. Because this is your history. As Europeans, the English, Germans, and French attempted to cling to Greek, Armenian, Persian, and Latin history since they could not find any artifacts of their own language and culture from 3 or 4 thousand years ago. This is the thought process served by all these theories.
Show a single piece of evidence that English, German, French, Greek, or Armenian languages existed during the Bronze Age. Or show a single piece of evidence proving the existence of these nations at that time.
Can you provide a single piece of evidence that the community that you believe is their common ancestor and that owns the PIE so-called root language existed? Please see, personal opinions and hypotheses are not evidence.
Moreover, you know, you haven't even been able to decide on the geography where your so-called PIE-speaking common ancestors lived. Now that the Göbeklitepe findings have recently been unearthed, as a final decision, some people who assume that your common ancestors settled in the north of the Black Sea are now moving the idea to the Göbeklitepe area. These same logic owners had been showing to Central Asia to the same old PIE groups as the oldest living area.
I think the easiest solution is to place your PIE-speaking ancestors in every geography (where all areas are architectural ancient structures superior to megalithic-large stone blocks). This way, you will have the opportunity to say "everywhere was ours" without having to change the geography that you say is the land of your ancestors every once in a while. Moreover, I present this idea to your scientists without charging you for this smart idea.
Your scientists have produced constructive readings using their imagination, that's all. These excite you because a common PIE history has been created for you. But the bad news is that there is not a single piece of consistent evidence that a PIE root language or community existed in history. Other than trying to falsely write history by showing the Scythians, Hittites, and, if possible, Egyptians as linguistically related to yourself, you have no other choice.
You claim to introduce old writings of three or five letters or 20 letters as the Old Germanic or Old French and claim to have read them. Yet you can write that the languages of ancient peoples, who lived for thousands of years and had thousands of pieces of texts and literary collections, with their vocabularies, have completely disappeared. The lack of logic in this approach shows itself immediately.
Although the oldest writing is Sumerian cuneiform writing, many people can shamelessly talk about Egyptian hieroglyphs or writings you call Greek being the oldest writings.
Like in the Copper Age Cyprus or the ancient Cypriot cultures, some Proto-Turkic civilizations' writings are presented as evidence on old inscriptions and are claimed to be Greek. None of these were PIE cultures and languages. You have a linguistics history that could not read these cultures' inscriptions but claimed to. That's all there is to it.
It is very simple to read the five-letter writing you showed in different ways with any language in the world and propose thousands of different transcriptions for the same word accordingly.
Numerous objects found in archaeological excavations in Cyprus have runic inscriptions on them. Reading all these with the same signs representing the same sound values is important.
Finding repetitions and connections in archaeological patterns and tracing historical continuity is important. The same applies to linguistics. It is not possible to trace this with Greek or Cypriot because historical ties and continuity in the language break off. However, in Turkish, these ties can be read and understood without interruption using the same sound values as the runic marks found in Central Asia.
It is not possible to read writings in hundreds or thousands of words in old languages by assigning different sound values each time. Our researchers read all the ancient runic writings found in Cyprus by giving the same sound value to the same sign. The same or very similar signs with the same sound value are already present in Central Asia. This type of reading is the real reading, and it has been proven that the origin is Proto-Turkic languages.
These are the facts.
Yes, these facts are very different from what is taught and perhaps painfully realistic for you, but they are supported by more consistent findings and overlaps.
Western linguists and historians; ' assertation that "the earliest writing systems emerged as early as the Stone Age" may be consistent and accurate, but the claim that "inventing writing system for recording property and other information on stone or clay tablets to aid memory " is illogical and absurd. (This may be relatively recent in time, and when the first mass settlements began to form and trade began to develop, but if we are talking about the cave age, we are talking about the period when people did not have modern-like trade and-or real estate.) Moreover, it is very difficult to prove whether these were written by the first people who used the mentioned caves or by nomadic groups that may have used the same caves for shelter throughout history. In the Stone Age, people did not have properties like land, houses, deeds, gold bars, grain, and stored game meats to record and remember, so they did not need to develop writing.
During the cave age, people fed on the plants and animals they gathered daily and did not have an environment or conditions to stock these and claim ownership to the extent that they would need to trade them.
For early writing, other carrier materials like bone, wood, leather, leaves, wax, metal, fabric, and papyrus are suggested. However, before these, cave walls used as shelters and flat rock surfaces suitable for writing on should have been preferred as writing surfaces. Moreover, this need to write on these surfaces is more conceivable for nomads than for settled people, and I have explained the reasons for this before.
Although Sumerian cuneiform writing in Mesopotamia is known as the oldest writing, there were still hieroglyphic forms of writing close to it by a few hundred years.
If there are two different writings, one of which includes syllabic sound values for some writing signs in addition to hieroglyphs, while the other only has hieroglyphic images and pictures:
1- Which of these two writings could be older?
2- Why?
During the transition process to today's alphabetic writing, writing signs evolved over thousands of years. If culture A's writing signs include tamga and syllable sound signs in addition to hieroglyphs, but the B culture with which we will compare it only has hieroglyph signs, which culture's writing could be older?
In this case, It should be that Culture A started using writing much earlier compared to Culture B.
You know the issue where you put the name "European Voynich Alphabet" into the alphabet that you cannot read even though you all were writing about many things in the VM issues a lot. You gave this name to this alphabet when it was not yet clear whether the alphabet was European or not. The same situation exists in your historiography of Indo-European languages and culture.
If artificial intelligence one day decides to make fun of people, it will do it by looking at people who feel obliged to speak just because they have a mouth, but not because they have knowledge.