Talk:Mycenaean Greece/Archive 1

Archive 1

Historical overview

The "Archaeology" section was almost all a summary of Late Helladic pottery and of its use in chronology. While very good, much of it overlapped the Helladic period article. Also, this article should concern primarily Greece itself. I've moved most of this article's "Archaeology" section over there. This "Archaeology" section can remain as a discussion of the history and methods of excavating in Bronze Age sites of Greece; and studies of trade in LH IIIA, IIIB ware etc. But researches specific to LH chronology should be directed over to Helladic period. Zimriel 06:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "historical overview" on the model of the Minoan Crete site? We can have another heading for "archaeology" which is actually about the archaeology... (Zimriel 22:55, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

The

"The palace" is like "the dog" in "The dog has great powers of endurance." "The" refers to a class. See this. "Palaces" means that, too, but it doesn't work so well in the sentence "The organization of artisanal labor is especially well known in the case of the palace" because "case" is singular. --Milkbreath 17:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Mycynaens in Epirus

A Historical Greek Reader: Mycenaean to the Koine,by Stephen Colvin,ISBN-10: 0199226601,2008,Page 40,"... (innovations) until the post-Mycenaean period.' In the late second millennium the proto- Aeolians seem to have occupied the regions between Epirus and Thessaly, ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 4,"... 9mbracian V r 0 10 20 30 km I Gulf 32 Figure 1: Map of Epirus showing the locations of known sites with Mycenaean remains. ..."       

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 6:

"... and the mechanisms by which such interactions took place. The strongest evidence for Mycenaean presence in Epirus is found in the coastal zone of the lower Acheron River, ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 17:

"... The Mycenaean Presence in Southwestern Epirus Taking into account the discoveries of the Nikopolis Project, remains of Mycenaean provenience or inspiration are known

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 18:

"... and more gently on the south and west. From this acropolis-like settlement comes the strongest evidence for Mycenaean presence in Epirus. A circuit wall employing Cyclopean masonry, muCh of which can still be traced, ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 22:

"... a fragmentary condition, it appears that the assemblage conforms in chronological and formal terms to Mycenaean pottery already known from Epirus. The kylix is the most commonly identifiable shape, with fewer sherds belonging to stirrup jars, kraters, cups, and other shapes. ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 23:

"... at Mazaraki in the interior of northern Epirus, of Aegean pottery and bronze objects as burial goods in Gist graves (Wardle 1977, 177, fig. 10 nos. 476, 477; ...

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001, Page 24:

"... There is no reason to imagine that these constructions in Epirus would have been among the first, although construction dates in the first half of LH IIIB are not unlikely. ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 27:

"... GLYKYS LIMIN /23 of domesticated cattle are found in excavated contexts in Epirus from late Neolithic times (Douzough and Zachos 1994, 17); Ephyra and the adjacent Nekyomanteion site have produced them alongside those ..."

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 30:

"... or luxury items of Mycenaean type-imported pottery and bronze weapons and utilitarian objects-were deposited primarily in graves and hoards throughout Epirus, ...

Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Page 34:

"... desires of those who possessed them to constrain or mobilize social action. In the case of Mycenaean engagement in coastal Epirus, ..."

 Prehistory and History by David W. Tandy ,ISBN-10: 1551641887,2001,Table of Contents:

"... A Mycenaean Port of Trade in Southern Epirus?

Megistias (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

However, the majority view is that the Greek gods are descended from Indo-European religion. Which modern mythographer would this be referring to then? Wetman 05:53, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole sentence which is speculation and not very relevant to the topic anyway. This article needs more work. Adam 06:00, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I've deleted 24.23.21.77's edit of "Bronze Age" Greece, which was "Golden Age" for him. The Philistines live on, I fear... (Zimriel 23:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

When I added the map, it made the photo layout look funny, and since I'm still a bit of an HTML retard, I can't seem to make it line up well. Any help would be appreciated. Nine999999999s 00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the: "Wikimedia Commons has media related to:" box of Mycenean Civilisation as the link was dead, if anyone wants to put it back in and fix up the commons article as well then feel free. 58.167.193.62 11:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The link is to Category:Mycenaean culture. It works from fr:Wiki, but I can't make the connection from here. --Wetman 14:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC). Pay no mind: I did it! --Wetman 14:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

/new comment/ The picture with the caption, 'mycenean woman', is inaccurate. I have seen pictures of a similar nature in Greece, and they refer to a similarly clad woman as being from Crete (Minoan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.205 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Identity

I tagged the "Identity" section unreferenced. I think perhaps it should be deleted entirely, as it seems to be from a school essay or similar. From the way it is worded, it seems like the theory advanced could be the writer's own, not a credentialed historian. Any thoughts? --RhoOphuichi (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The Article is Internally Inconsistent

"Apollo may be recognized at Knossos as PA-JA-WO ... with the "Two Goddesses", apparently Demeter..."

is followed below by

"Notably absent are Apollo, Aphrodite, Demeter"

Perhaps the apodictic tone of the latter sentence needs softening, but I'm no expert, only noting the inconsistency here... 173.21.106.137 (talk) 11:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Mycenaean Death Mask

The Myceneaen Death Mask,was not identified by Schlieman as the death mask of Agamemnon. He believed it to be so and sent a telegram to this effect to the King of Greece. However, he got his time periods wrong by about 200 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.132.146.150 (talk) 13:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Linear B tablet in Heidelberg

I know nothing about mr Palaima, but a quick glance at his CV makes me think he's serious. Yet, it seems to me as if this article of his is a joke.

First and foremost:

- He says that he found the Linear B tablet during a Graecist conference in Heidelberg. How convenient!

- He says he dropped it due to excitement and that it vanished in the mud, but he seems to remember it photographically since he has drawn it. What a great guy!

- The tone is pretty jocular: "Then follow entries wherein officials who are known elsewhere as 'mayor' and 'vice-mayor' are listed by personal names: lukwos = Wolf and the notorious ra-pi-ne-u, who is also attested on a Linear B text from Corsica which is suspected of being a forgery. It is reported that this personal name also occurs in Tasmanian aboriginal inscriptions."

Boldface and italics are all mine. This article is clearly a joke and therefore I remove the reference to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtensson (talk • contribs) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it back, Thomas G. Palaima is a well known Mycenologist. A Macedonian (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL, Palaima is indeed one of the foremost Mycenaeologists, but this is just a well known hoax/joke disseminated through the internet. For this and other similarly hilarious hoaxes see [[1]].

Thanks for pointing this out, but can you please provide a valid source for it, since this one doesn't really help ? A Macedonian (talk) 09:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

A valid source for what? That this was just a joke? Palaima was just playing a joke to the members of the conference. This was published at the end of the volume and it is plain obvious that it was meant as a joke. --Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just came back home and I 'll try to further dispell any doubts that this is just a joke by Palaima. Appart from these quite illustrative concluding remarks in Palaima's paper: "The tablet concludes in typically fragmentary fashion with an ideogram for a cup, partially preserved, preceded by the phonetic abbreviation ka. After much pondering, I propose that these be taken together as a reference to another custom which we might be surprised to find attested in such early times: ka = kaphes + BROKEN CUP signifies coffee break. Such a custom would seem to have been necessary as ra-pi-ne-u and his WOLF led their contingent of men, women and young assistants through the various stages of the ptoliteia-festival. " I should point out that the editors of the volumes and organisers of the proceedings, Robert Laffineur and Wolf-Dietrich Niemeier are alluded to in the transcriptions ra-pi-ne-u = Laffineur and ru-qo = lukwos = Wolf (ha ha ha ha)... hope there are no doubts left.--Giorgos Tzimas (talk) 13:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, definitely not! A Macedonian (talk) 14:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

re BCE/CE at Mycenaean Greece

I have posted the following notice at User:Milkbreath's talkpage (Wetman 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)):

BC/AD is a convention always used in Wikipedia articles on specifically Christian subjects. In non-Christian subjects, however, changing established BCE/CE usage to BC/AD is a discourtesy, rather like "correcting" spelling to American practice. I'm sure you understand that whatever convention is established in an article, we simply go with it. Will you clean up your changes at your next edit at Mycenaean Greece. Thank you. --Wetman 22:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see, now that Ive checked ancient page history, that this article began with BC 10:41, 8 April 2004. So it's stuck in that mode. My error: you so rarely see "BC" in professional literature. --Wetman 22:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to ask what would be the issue with correcting the notation? The use of BC comes off as highly "unprofessional" considering the subject matter. FiReSTaRT (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Mycaenean collapse

THe Dorian invasions, presented as main stream here, is actually not the current concensus. Rather, internal discord, general brakdown of trade thru Meditteranean, blockage of access to mines, etc, brought about this general collapse. Hxseek (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Architecture: Palaces

The link to the source of that newly found palace near the village of Xirokambi seems to be faulty. It doesn't open for me at least. Can someone double-check that? Maybe someone has another link to the same information?

132.229.241.55 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Dialectological map

While a map of the dialects in Mycenean Greece prior to the "Dorian invasion" (or Bronze Age Collapse, whatever you choose to call it) seems like an interesting idea, the newly inserted map has several issues and needs work before it can be added to the article. Specifically:

• NW Greek in Epirus and southern Central Greece, but the area in between them is blank?
• "Cretan" in Thessaly? This is absolutely baffling.
• Ditto with Pamphylian in Thessaly.
• The shade of Thessalian used in the legend shows that it is spoken in Elis. Clearly incorrect use of color.
• What is "Lesbian" and where is it on the map?
• The shade of Boeotian used in the legend shows Boeotian spoken in Thessaly, while the shade used in Boeotia itself is different. This is confusing.
• What about the islands?

Moreover, there is the question of how so detailed a map can be produced for an era for which there is zero written evidence. For these reasons, the map should be removed and worked on, and only when a correct version is ready should it be inserted. Athenean (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the colours can be changed to be more clear. I accept that the this might not be a universally accepted reconstruction, but the caption states just that - a reconstruction according to Finkelberg. Essentially, she argued, prior to the Doiran invasions, there was a uniform dialectical continuum from Epirus to Peloponesse. She compared several features of the dialects known in historic times, grouped them into groupings and then 'worked backwards' to place them where they were most likely to have been. That is how she has come up with Cretan in Thssaly, eg, which then migrated to Crete. There's an entire chapter on this and how she came up with it in her book Greeks and pre-Greeks. I accpet that her findings are not universal, nor can they be given the dearth of evidence. However, I thought that if we clearly label this as hypothetical (whic it has been), it can be included for interest's sake Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I'm not opposed to the map itself, but even if we hedge it as hypothetical, it needs work before it can be included in the article. It has too many errors to be included in its present version. Athenean (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Apart from the colouring, what else ? And, I will re-check the original map, but i think she didn;t really include the islands, nor Aetolia for some reason !? Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Besides the coloring, the Cretan and Pamphylian spoken in Magnesia. Athenean (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am relatively coinfident that I transcribed the map accurately. Nevertheless I will double check (might be a while, the book is out currently); otherwise it might be a matter of whether you accept that Finkelberg's thoery is not too FRINGE in placing Pamhylian and Cretan where she has Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I will re-do the colours to be more contrastable. The source book has currently been borrowed by someone elst from my local library. So you can just removed it for now if you wish until I do the new one. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Looking forward to the next version. Athenean (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I have re-checked the map by Finkelberg, and what I have done above is true. Unfortunately, she has only focussed on the mainland, and excluded even Crete. I have touched -up the shading to make it more clear, and can upload a new version shosrtly Slovenski Volk (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Military

wheres the military section ☭ИΘИ ИΘЬЇS SΘLЦMтдлж^ЅТЦФФ 14:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Relevance of Manuel Robbins?

See talk page of Bronze Age collapse:

The relevance of Manuel Robbins is in question.

See the talk page.

Thank you. --Thorwald C. Franke (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

On the Historicity/Identification of Troy

I just wanted to say, as far as I understand from a colleague of mine, an extremely experience archaeologist, who has actually excavated at Troy, there is a general consensus among historians, that the Trojan war DID happen, and that "Troy" is the Troy of the Iliad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.241.31.99 (talk) 03:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I just read the entry and had a similar reaction. The passage about Mycenae and Troy conflates two subjects: the historicity of the Iliad and the historical fact (now overwhelmingly agreed to) on the positive identification of Troy where Schliemann excavated. This paragraph is not consistent with the content and tone of the entries concerning Troy and the Trojan war. The direction of this paragraph should be edited, as a debate about Troy isn't really germane to this entry. Made shorter, it should say something like: "Mycenae may have also conquered Troy, in the events described in the Iliad, which was once thought purely mythical. Though the historicity of the Iliad is still questionable, most scholars now agree that Troy was a historic city across the Aegean Sea in what is now modern-day Turkey and evidence suggests it may have been destroyed in a violent conflict." Pdwschmidt (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Fabric and its applications

204.38.52.66 (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC) Seafaring peoples must have had extensive weaving industries for sails. This is almost never identified in a discussion of a civilization. Yet we have the claim that Uluburun copper which has been identified as from the UP in American, must have been a product of trans oceanic sailing. Here this article for the first time states the large amount of weaving and claims it must have been an export product. Why would a civilization export wool to a wool producing country? Pottery yes, silk yes, dyes yes, wool no. The women did the weaving so shared power. Until slavery arrived.

Religion

The religion section offers too much detail and speculation about the supposed divine figures. A 50% trimming is unavoidable. However, the existing info can be presented in an article decicated exclusively to Mycenaean religion.Alexikoua (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mycenaean Greece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 08:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Will review now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the lemma. Why "Mycenaen Greece", and not "Mycenaean Civilization" as in other Wikipedias and in articles about similar topics (e.g., Minoan civilization)? What makes the difference here?

Entry is named "Mycenaean Greece", because it's part of an historical series about Greece. Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• This is a very important, central article. However, while reading I sometimes found it hard to follow, as it lacks a bit of stringency. Generally, it might be a good idea to add more background information before dealing with details, and provide more introductory sentences.

For now, prose is stringent enough and there is enough background information to help readers comprehend any details in the entry. Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Especially, I recommend to greatly expand the lead. The lead should summarize the whole article, and ideally give the reader a first good idea about the topic. It also would help the reader not to get lost in the main text.

For now, the lead is simple with enough substance to prepare readers for the remainder of the entry (lead can be expanded later if absolutely necessary). Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead with some additional info already found in the main text.Alexikoua (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

* The article seems to be both in British English and American English. E.g., sometimes it spelles "centre", sometimes "center". This needs to be unified.

 Done Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

* I'm not a native speaker, but language sometimes seems to be a bit odd and difficult to understand. A few examples:

• In ancient Greek tradition, there were several states, like the ones recorded in the Iliad's Catalogue of Ships, as well as discovered by archaeologists.
• Thus, in Boeotia, Gla, was part of the state of Orchomenos. – isn't that comma after "Gla" to much?
• If some kind of united political entity existed, the dominant center was probably located in Thebes or in Mycenae, with the last one being the most possible. – what do you mean with "most possible"? Most probable?

 Done Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

* In the lead, you mention the writing system as an important feature of this culture. Yet there is barely any information on this in the article. E.g., what was it based on? The article needs a section about this. On the other hand, there is a large section e.g. on "Figures and figurines", which appears to be very detailed.

 Done Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

* The article confronts the reader with "Mycenaean Linear B script" or the "Iliad" without providing much information on this. What about a section introducing the sources available to archaeologists? To give the reader an idea what we know and what not? And whether archaeology or traditions are the most important sources.

 Done Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• What about history of research? Might also need its own section.

Separate entry on research ("Mycenology" or "Mycenaean studies") can be made later with a brief mention added here in the future. Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added some piece of info about the excavations of the early modern era by Schliemann in the legacy section.Alexikoua (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

* Section "Vessels" needs a source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Theban Halberd (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, the article has been much improved. Thanks a lot to all of you. Will pass now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mycenaean Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060921201720/http://srb.stanford.edu/nur/EndBronzeage.pdf to http://srb.stanford.edu/nur/EndBronzeage.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mycenaean Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kranznet.indi.de/brzeit/goldfund/bernstei.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073634/https://books.google.gr/books?id=ES4bc6VQwuwC&dq= to https://books.google.gr/books?id=ES4bc6VQwuwC&dq=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929045527/http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum12%28pdf%29/Thomas.pdf to http://www2.ulg.ac.be/archgrec/IMG/aegeum/aegaeum12%28pdf%29/Thomas.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

PROBLEM

CAN'T RETURN THE PICTURE OF THE Charioteers from Tiryns 1200 BC., WITHOUT THE WORD FEMALE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.123.209 (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Steppe dogma"

A personal aversion against mainstream scholarly views ("steppe dogma") is not a good reason to remove sourced info and violate WP:NPOV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I respect your edits Joshua Jonathan, but a rational opposition to all dogmas (steppe, farmer, whatever) is not a "personal aversion" to mainstream scholarly views since Anthony and Drews do not represent the consensus view of mainstream Mycenologists on the origins of the Shaft Graves. In The Horse, the Wheel and Language (pages 368–369), Anthony's pro-steppe disposition is not only uncertain about the origins of Greek-speakers in general (i.e., "...the only major post-Anatolian branch that is difficult to derive from the steppes is Greek"), but is also uncertain about the specific origins of the Mycenaeans (i.e., "It is very difficult, however, to define the specific source of the migration stream that brought the Shaft Grave princes into Greece"). As for Drews, Mycenologists find that his "theory of Indo-European chariot warriors from eastern Anatolia...found[ing] the Shaft Graves dynasty —— is unsubstantiated" (see Littauer and Crouwel, page 299). So Anthony's uncertainty and Drews's unsubstantiated claims fail to represent any consensus on Mycenaean origins and represent views that mainstream Mycenologists reject wholesale. Even Lazaridis et al. acknowledge the simple truth that "the material culture relationship of Bronze Age populations of the Aegean with populations far to the north is very tenuous" (Supplementary Information, page 3). By far, Lazaridis is better than Anthony and Drews since he only reports scholarly views and is cautious not to take any tenuous/uncertain/unsubstantiated position on the subject of Mycenaean origins. So I'll go ahead and make some changes that hopefully will satisfy all parties involved. Homer Dromon (talk) 05:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Iranian origin of Mycenaeans

I don't know why it wasn't mentioned in this article, whether Proto-Indo-Europeans lived in the steppe or Iran, Lazaridis et al. page 36 and 54-55, clearly says that Mycenaeans were those who came from Iran in the Bronze Ages.--MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Lazaridis et al. (2017)

We show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean1,2, and most of the remainder from ancient populations like those of the Caucasus3 and Iran4,5. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6–8, introduced via a proximal source related to either the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1,6,9 or Armenia4,9.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we also read:

Note that a combination of EHG-related and Iran-related ancestry also existed on the Eurasian steppe in roughly equal proportions. However, we cannot model Mycenaeans as a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations (Table S2.13). This is due to the fact that Mycenaeans have more Iran-related than EHG-related ancestry (Table S2.2)..

--MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, Indo-European arrived i Greece from Iran? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

That is what Lazaridis says, of course historians and archeologists also talk about an Indo-European migration from Iran to Anatolia and Greece in the Middle Bronze Age but it is not clear they were the Hittites or Greeks: Middle_Bronze_Age_migrations_(Ancient_Near_East) --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 08:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Eh.... do they? From

The migration theory is elaborated on by recent genetics research. This has revealed that the ancient Mycenaean and Minoan populations were highly similar, but not identical, and that their ancestors had migrated from the Caucasus and Iran in the Bronze Age.

Sounds like a WP:REDFLAG; I'd love to see a source for that. @Florian Blaschke: what do you think of this? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Ah, you did, in an edit-summary diff:

Lazaridis et al. page 54-55: "Our results highlight the importance of haplogroup J chromosomes during the Bronze Age in mainland Greece, Crete, and Anatolia, in contrast to the earlier Neolithic populations that were dominated by haplogroup G2a2. [..] Our results suggest a later westward dispersal than the Neolithic farming expansion."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:OR. Ancient DNA analysis reveals Minoan and Mycenaean origins:

They likely migrated from Anatolia to Greece and Crete thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age.

Lazaridis has also contributed to this study: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/584714v1.full Just look at the Figure 1 (Timeline and geographical origins), Iranian-related ancestry came to Greece and Crete in 2,000 BC, not thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and they distinguish it from steppe-related ancestry, which they relate to PIE. They even give a Balkan-migration route for the steppe-related ancestry. NB: they give one big line for the start of the steppe-migrations, but they might as well have given two arrows. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranian-related (which would be unproblematic) or directly from the 2000 BC Iranian Plateau? That's the decisive question.

Mainstream scholarship says that Mycenaean Greeks came to Crete in the 15th century BC (see Minoan chronology § Late palatial period and Mycenaean Greece § Koine era (c. 1450 BC–1250 BC)), with the earliest Linear B tablets in Mycenaean Greek (those from the "room of the chariot tablets") being dated to c. 1420–1400 BC, and the immigration of speakers of an early stage of IE Greek to Greece not significantly predating 1700 BC (see pp. 136f., and p. 148 for the dating of the "room of the chariot tablets"), with c. 2000 BC still being plausible enough and widely named; however, the immediate origin of the Greek language, for linguistic reasons, is considered to be in Southeast Europe, in the Balkan peninsula. By 2000 BC, the Iranian Plateau appears to have still been dominated by non-IE languages, with the earliest infiltration by IE, specifically Indo-Iranian, speakers from Central Asia possibly already starting around that time.

2000 BC (or 2500–2000 BC) is also the conventional estimate for the absolute date of Proto-Indo-Iranian, the proper, final stage immediately before its dissolution; this proto-language is well reconstructed and at least on the phonological-phonetic level sharply distinct from Greek. While it is sometimes suggested that Indo-Iranian and Greek are particularly closely related among the IE languages (Graeco-Aryan hypothesis), this suggestion is highly problematic and the evidence is thin and controversial or rejected. Mainstream scholarship (Ringe and Anthony) dates the most recent common ancestor of Indo-Iranian and Greek (and most other IE branches) to c. 3000 BC and places it in the Ponto-Caspian steppes. The idea of a migration in c. 2000 BC immediately from the Iranian Plateau to the Aegean does not seem to be supported by any compelling or even suggestive evidence and even conflicts with existing knowledge and well-supported hypotheses. It would be inconceivable how Proto-Indo-Iranian could have developed into Mycenaean Greek, and there is no known trace of an ancestral stage of Greek in (Middle) Bronze Age West Asia (well within the scope of the Ancient Near East), which is fairly well known. A spectacular migration like this should probably even have left known traces, depending on the migration route, so the hypothesis is not only poorly supported or unsupported but also made implausible by an absence of expected evidence. The hypothesis also seems oddly vague in its details. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So the proposed migration route is from the Iranian Plateau via the Armenian Plateau (/Caucasus region) and Anatolia to the Aegean? I wonder if the migration in question, if real, could either relate to non-Greek IE, especially Anatolian IE (Luwic?), with a substratum like this being plausible at least for mainland Greece (see especially Parnassós, which could well have a Luwic/Luwian etymology), though hardly for Crete – or a non-IE language (Minoan, the language of the Linear A material, resembles Hattic typologically). However, a migration like this at such a late date would still be at the margins of known history (Assyria), and if the DNA evidence proves solid, there should be corroborating non-DNA evidence as well. However, I'm sceptical – the DNA evidence could have been misinterpreted. Even if not, the hypothesis of an Iranian origin of the Greek language is not supported by DNA research, since the genetic component in question is also found in the Minoans, not known to be of IE origin. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of Mycenaean samples in Lazaridis et al. are from 15th to early 12th century BC, if Mycenaeans came from the steppe then they should be a mixture of Anatolian Neolithic and steppe populations but as you read they are not, we read at page 35 that Mycenaeans received EHG-related ancestry from Armenians who themselves have some EHG-related ancestry. And we also see that Minoans had no EHG-related ancestry but both Mycenaeans and Minoans had Iran-related ancestry, it seems to be clear that Mycenaeans came also from the east but their original land was just more northern than Minoans. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Page 36:

the majority (~56-63%) of the ancestry of Mycenaeans was Anatolian Neolithic-related

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes and you also mentioned that it dates back to thousands of years prior to the Bronze Age, in fact a long time before the appearance of Proto-Indo-European culture, so it has nothing to do with this discussion. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 07:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That still leaves open the question what "Iranian-related" means exactly. There might have been some migration, but it may not have been connected with Indo-European at all, given that Linear A inscriptions have never been successfully interpreted as Indo-European, despite their tremendously high age compared to other IE texts (the earliest traces of Hittite and Luwian at Kültepe are contemporary with the Linear A inscriptions). The idea of a migration from Anatolia to Crete c. 2000 BC is one that I'm a bit sceptical about, but there seems to be an archaeological correlation, so maybe a (non-IE) language related or typologically similar to Hattic was imported at that time. Chronologically, it's possible and can make sense. It could also have been imported to the mainland, maybe along with Luwic, and formed the Pre-Greek substratum, or part of it, with Greek itself only entering Central Greece around 1700 BC, and Crete around 1450 BC.

The idea that Mycenaeans came directly from Iran is, as I have shown, far-fetched. The linguistic gulf between Greek and Indo-Iranian is too large. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranian culture in the northwest of Iran dates back to about the 8th century BC, even in this period Assyrian sources talk about a land with the name of Mukania (Ancient Greek Μυκήνη) in this region, for example in 735 BC Tiglath Pileser III (745–727 BC) talks about the conquest of Mukania after Urartu. In 2,000 BC the ancestors of Iranians were probably somewhere in the Central Asia and Indo-Europeans who lived in Iran were Centum-speaking people like Greeks and Hittites, of course it is possible that Indians had a role in the migration of these people to Anatolia and Greece, we see strong influence of Indian culture in Mitanni culture in the southeast Anatolia. Anyway we don't see any evidence of an Iranian culture in this region in this period. --MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

There is no known trace of (pre-Indo-Iranian or not, centum or not) IE speakers on the Iranian Plateau in 2000 BC, sorry to say. The Mitanni appeared 500 years later and their IE component is clearly Indo-Iranian. Mukania is far too late and random soundalikes prove nothing. Your reasoning makes no sense ... --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

But scholars already believe another thing, for example David Reich who was highlighted as one of Nature's 10 for his contributions to science, believes that Iran is the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language. Look at the latest volume of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, especially Alexander Kozintsev's article, we just read about early Indo-Europeans in Iran, not the steppe. You should update your info about Indo-Europeans. MojtabaShahmiri (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

No, you should; your insistence on Iranian origins of PIE isn't even WP:FRINGE, it's WP:OR. I've asked you before: don't use Wikipedia as a WP:FORUM for your personal ideas; it's WP:DISRUPTIVE. I don't doubt your good intentions, and I really hope you can find an audience for your ideas, but don't push it here - please! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Please be logical... Scienceandhistorygreat1 (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Endonym Ethnonym

"Mycenaean" is an English word. What did these people call themselves? 77.250.197.189 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

No one knows what the Mycenaeans really called themselves for certain. In the Homeric poems, which were probably originally composed in either late eighth or early seventh century BC (i.e. centuries after the Mycenaeans), they are called "Ἀχαιοί" (Akhaioí), "Δαναοί" (Danaoí), and Ἀργεῖοι (Argeĩoi). In ancient Hittite texts, which are contemporary to the Mycenaeans but which are written in the Hittite language and not Linear B, the Mycenaeans are referred to as "Ahhiyawa," which sounds very much like the Homeric name "Ἀχαιοί." My best guess is that they most likely called themselves something similar to "Ἀχαιοί," but, obviously, no one can be sure. In any case, we cannot put this information in the article unless we have source that explicitly says all this, since otherwise it would be original research. --Katolophyromai (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Intrestling, there was word from a linear-B tablet (the syllabic script of these early Greeks) that passingly refers to 𐀀𐀏𐀹𐀊𐀆 or, A-ka-wi-ja-de, perhaps referring to a state/site or of course a wider people group. Hope this helps! Ekwehalon1250 (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

(New account) One can also look to the Egyptian's "Tanaju", of course sounding (possibly) similar to dana, reminiscent of Homer's "danaans". Homer's usage of names should be recognized as significant, (with the likes of "cow-eyed", a very common epithet for Hera being found in linear-B, Potnia Atana being similar to his "mistress Athena, etc.). In my opinion it's likely that the Mycenaeans had a word that was either simply Achaeans or something quite similar. Ekhelawon1300 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)