http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/bronze/nytheory.htm

Theory of Language Formation
       The efforts of Edo Nyland in translating ancient inscriptions have resulted in the development of a controversial theory on the origin of languages.  The main hypotheses and theory are shown as follows: [also see Linguistics & Human Migrations & Language]

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

       Hypothesis 1: The Saharan language was the language of the peoples living in the Sahara during the last Ice Age.  They had created the first true civilization on earth, possibly centered on lake Chad. As a result of deglaciation, starting about 16,000 bce., resulting in ever expanding desertification, these tribes were forced to flee for their lives, creating an exodus culminating between 7,000 and 3,500 bce (see Climate).  These refugees created four main secondary civilizations in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley and Anatolia.


       Hypothesis 2: Portions of the Saharan language is still spoken as Dravidian in India (170 million speakers), as Ainu on the island of Hokkaido (18,000 speakers in 2005) and as Basque in Euskadi, Spain (800,000 speakers in 2005). Basque is likely the closest resembling the original language of the exodus.


       Hypothesis 3: The people of the exodus from the Sahara brought with them a matrilineal organized society, the nature based Goddess religion and the first highly developed language, maintained by very strong oral traditions.


       Hypothesis 4: As a result of several major advances in a number of fields such as agriculture, metallurgy, domestication of the horse and camel, astronomy etc. the female-based religion was weakened and male domination arrived ca 3,000 bce. in Egypt, Mesopotamia and Anatolia, and about 1,500 bce. in India. The newcomers brought along learned priesthoods who proceeded to invert all aspects of the old religion, society, language, legends etc. A new language was invented for each large area and placed under the control of a king, e.g., Sumerian and Akadian in Mesopotamia, Old Egyptian in Egypt, Sanskrit and Hindi in India, Hebrew in Palestine, Hittite and Luvian in Anatolia etc. All these were the product of formulaic distortion and scholarly manipulation of the original Saharan language. The Bible repeats the command to distort the original language in Genesis 11:7.


       Hypothesis 5: These newly created languages were then introduced to the local populations by taking young boys into residential schools and forcing the new order onto them, where they were often brutally treated. The purpose was to destroy the old religion and language and the traditional oral teaching of wisdom, religion and legends, replacing it with a patriarchal vision of the world and civilization. They almost succeeded. The hidden sentences in the invented words can be decoded ) with the use of the Basque dictionary and a simple formula (see Saharan).


Theory:


       Nyland (2001) proposed that all highly developed languages on earth (except possibly Chinese) might have been developed from the original Saharan language, which in itself was also scholarly enhanced from the Neolithic substratum. There exists no "family" of Indo-European or Semitic languages. There are no Indo-European or proto-Indo-European languages.  All these unstable languages were invented by scholars. Only Saharan has remained relatively unchanged and is now spoken as Basque.

 

[Please also see Evolution of Human Languages and The Indo-Europeans and the Concept of Language Families]

 

 

Bibliography

 

==========================================

For further detail, please refer to:

 

 

          Nyland, Edo.  2002.  Odysseus and the Sea Peoples: A

               Bronze Age History of Scotland  Trafford Publ., Victoria,
               B.C., Canada.  307 p.   [see abstract & summary].
 

But in the first century BC, Dionysos of Hallikarnas said the Etruscans came from nowhere, being the natives of Italy, before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans, that brought the Latin language in the peninsula. In this case, the theory of their relativeness with the Basque should stand, even if the probability that Indigenous pre-Indo-European people could have survived the massive Indo-European invasion for so long and even dominate after is relatively low.

What is certain is that the Etruscans were registered by history as appearing around 800-750 BC in Tuscany, the Italian region that was named after the Tuscans (Etruscans).

The Tyrrhenian Sea could also have a name with Etruscan roots. In fact, Etruscans were not only farmers, but also skilled sailors, who traded with the Greeks and Cartagena and the God of the Sea, Neptunus, was important in their religion.

The sailing abilities support not just the Lydian theory, but also that of the "People of the Sea", seafaring raiders that were at war with the Egyptians in the 12th century BC. Their civilization was centered in Crete (now an island in southern Greece) and this people spoke a non-Indo-European language.

There are significantly increasing proofs that match the Crete and Minoan civilization to Atlantis and its decline to a huge ancient tsunami. Etruscans were good riders and maintained a well instructed army, but Romans conquered their city-states one by one between 358-265 BC. These city-states were at war themselves and this lack of unity eased the Roman conquest.

In 87 BC the Etruscans were given the same rights as the Romans and this eased their assimilation.

There are over 10,000 Etruscan inscriptions known by now, most of them short. But except about 200 words known to be human names, the meaning of the others is hard to decode.

A paradoxical thing is that their language is very easy to read, as they borrowed and adapted the Greek alphabet in the eighth-seventh centuries BC, but it is almost impossible to understand their texts. Their language seems not to belong to any known group. A bilingual document like that used Champollion to decode the Egyptian hieroglyphs would help.


atlants always settled on beaches so they were decimated by successives floods everywhere they landed. then wars obliterated them

Gene Study Shows Ties Long Veiled in Europe
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: April 10, 2001

 

The richest archaeological site to be found in years is the human genome. Its deep strata reach back to almost any date of interest. And although the only data it records are who is related to whom, this information can be leveraged into a vivid and otherwise unattainable account of the movement of different groups as people spread out across the globe.

From studying the present day population of the Orkneys, a small archipelago off the northeast coast of Scotland, geneticists from University College, in London, have gained a deep insight into the earliest inhabitants of Europe.

Of the medley of peoples who populated Britain, neither the Anglo-Saxons nor the Romans ever settled the distant Orkneys. The Romans called the islands' inhabitants picti, or painted people. The Celtic-speaking Picts dominated the islands until the arrival of the Vikings about A.D. 800. The islanders then spoke Norn until the 18th century when this ancient form of Norse was replaced by English, brought in with Scottish settlers after the Orkneys were transferred to Scotland in 1468.

Are the present day Orcadians descended from Picts, Vikings or Celts? Dr. James F. Wilson, himself an Orcadian, and Dr. David Goldstein analyzed the Y chromosomes of Orkney men and found they could distinguish a genetic signature typical of present-day Norwegians. The finding, reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the Vikings left a genetic mark on the islands, as well as their language and place names.

The geneticists could also distinguish a set of genetic markers associated with men who bore newer surnames, meaning ones associated with the Scottish settlers. This set of markers closely resembled one found in Welsh and Irish men, suggesting that all were descended from the same population. Where did that population come from?

Britain's first inhabitants are thought to have arrived in the Paleolithic era around 10,000 years ago. Later, whether by invasion or cultural diffusion, the Celtic language was established. Then, some 3,000 to 4,000 years ago, farming technology appeared in Britain.

Lacking ancient DNA from a pre- farming British population, Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Wilson chose to compare the common genetic signature of the Welsh, Irish and Scots with the next best thing, the DNA of the Basques who live in northern Spain. The Basques, because they speak an unusual, non-European language and are genetically distinct from other Europeans, have long been assumed to be descended from the continent's first modern human inhabitants.

Dr. Goldstein said he and his colleagues found the same genetic signature in Basque men, suggesting that the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Basques all derive from the same, possibly very homogeneous, population that inhabited Europe in Paleolithic times. This finding implies that the Celtic language must have arrived in Britain largely by cultural diffusion, displacing the original, presumably Basque-type language spoken by the first settlers.

These arguments are based on the male, or Y, chromosome and apply only to men. The study of mitochondrial DNA, a genetic element bequeathed solely in the female line, tells a different story. Women from Scotland, Wales and Ireland show no sharp genetic difference from women in the rest of northern Europe. "The implication is that somewhere along the line," Dr. Goldstein said, "whether willingly or unwillingly, females from the continent joined the population in Britain and swamped out the earlier genetic complement from the maternal side."

The women could have been captured, bought or traded. Or the genetic analysis could be reflecting the ancient custom of women's moving from their own villages to join their husbands in theirs, a tradition that could have continued despite the watery barriers between Britain and the continent.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/10/health/10GENE.html

This civilization flourished on the territory which is nowadays central Italy (from Po River to Naples) and besides the Greek one, was the most influential for Romans.

The Etruscans are still shrouded in mystery, even if there is a lot of data regarding their life, dances, or other habits, due to Roman writings and many archaelogical discoveries (frescoes, tombs, settlements and others).

Women were equal to men, a fact that shocked the "civilized" Greeks and Romans: they did not change their name after marriage, wore elegant clothes, participated in dances and sports. Women of high hierarchy had bronze boxes adorned with inscriptions, so they knew how to read.

The Etruscans had a perfected technique of processing bronze and iron. The Etruscan mystery is in connection to their unknown origin: where did they come and what language did they speak? All that is known is that their language was not Indo-European and knowing more about their language would dissipate their enigma.

Herodotus, the Greek historian of the 5th century BC, said that Etruscans came from Lydia, an ancient kingdom from present-day Turkey. Indeed, tombs discovered in ancient Lydia are extremely similar to those of the Etruscans.

A recent DNA analysis showed that cattle in central Italy seem indeed to have originated in modern Turkey and Middle East. As there is no link between these cattle and others from other European regions, they must have entered the peninsula by sea.

Rome is known to have been funded by Etruscans and the legend of its foundation points to the Lydian theory: they were survivors of the Troy war and Troy was located on the Asia Minor, inside the Lydian territory. But the Lydian theory has a weak point: the Lydian language was
Indo-European.

But in the first century BC, Dionysos of Hallikarnas said the Etruscans came from nowhere, being the natives of Italy, before the invasion of the Indo-Europeans, that brought the Latin language in the peninsula. In this case, the theory of their relativeness with the Basque should stand, even if the probability that Indigenous pre-Indo-European people could have survived the massive Indo-European invasion for so long and even dominate after is relatively low.

What is certain is that the Etruscans were registered by history as appearing around 800-750 BC in Tuscany, the Italian region that was named after the Tuscans (Etruscans).

The Tyrrhenian Sea could also have a name with Etruscan roots. In fact, Etruscans were not only farmers, but also skilled sailors, who traded with the Greeks and Cartagena and the God of the Sea, Neptunus, was important in their religion.

The sailing abilities support not just the Lydian theory, but also that of the "People of the Sea", seafaring raiders that were at war with the Egyptians in the 12th century BC. Their civilization was centered in Crete (now an island in southern Greece) and this people spoke a non-Indo-European language.

There are significantly increasing proofs that match the Crete and Minoan civilization to Atlantis and its decline to a huge ancient tsunami. Etruscans were good riders and maintained a well instructed army, but Romans conquered their city-states one by one between 358-265 BC. These city-states were at war themselves and this lack of unity eased the Roman conquest.

In 87 BC the Etruscans were given the same rights as the Romans and this eased their assimilation.

There are over 10,000 Etruscan inscriptions known by now, most of them short. But except about 200 words known to be human names, the meaning of the others is hard to decode.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Where-Did-the-Etruscans-Originated-54317.shtml
A paradoxical thing is that their language is very easy to read, as they borrowed and adapted the Greek alphabet in the eighth-seventh centuries BC, but it is almost impossible to understand their texts. Their language seems not to belong to any known group. A bilingual document like that used Champollion to decode the Egyptian hieroglyphs would help.