Origins of the Armenians during the Bronze Age

Sile

Banned
Messages
5,110
Reaction score
582
Points
0
Location
Australia
Ethnic group
North Alpine Italian
Y-DNA haplogroup
T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
mtDNA haplogroup
H95a1 ..Pannoni
This paper confirms what I wrote about the Proto-Armenians migrating to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE. They were the last major invaders to settle in Armenia, which explains why Armenians are still speakers of an Indo-European language. The other IE speakers in the region, be them Hittites, Lycians, Lydians or Phrygians, all had their language replaced by later conquerors, like the Persians, then the Greeks and Romans, and eventually the Turks, who were the last to impose their language in Anatolia to this day.

The paper mentions first signs of outside admixture between 3000 and 2000 BCE. This corresponds to the first invasions from the Yamna/Maykop and Catacomb cultures, but perhaps also indirectly from the Indo-Iranian peoples from Southern Central Asia (e.g. the Mitani).

I have analysed R1a and R1b subclades in Armenia here. I still believe that the Mitani or a related Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian tribe brought R1a-Z93 to Armenia. I proposed in 2013 that R1a-Z282 could have been brought by the Cimmerians. However there are other possibilities. I checked again the Armenian DNA Project and most members have had their deep Y-DNA subclades tested, which is amazing and very informative. What struck me is that the R1a-Z282 members are either Z282* or Z280*, which means they bifurcated from the Yamna or Corded Ware population quite early, during the Early Bronze Age. That does not concord with a Cimmerian origin in the Iron Age.

If Z282* or Z280* are also present in most of Anatolia, then we could very well imagine that the Hittites belonged to that clade. Unfortunately the Turkey DNA Project has 4x less members than the Armenian one, and few people tested for deep clades, which renders it useless to confirm this hypothesis.

I would have thought that the Hittites belonged to R1b-M269* or L23*, but linguistics indicate that they split from the IE core c. 4000 BCE, 500 years before Yamna, they could very well have been a primarily R1a tribe pushed out by the arrival of R1b in the Pontic Steppe. They would have wreaked havoc the eastern Balkans(destruction of the Gumelnița–Karanovo and other cultures of Old Europe) from 4200 BCE onwards, and may have remained in the Balkans until the 3rd millennium BCE. They would then have moved across Anatolia as far as Armenia, spreading Z282* and Z280* lineages around. In the Balkans, the Serbs seem to have inherited quite a lot of Z280*, which may also date from the initial Proto-Hittite invasion from 4200 BCE.
 
This paper confirms what I wrote about the Proto-Armenians migrating to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE. They were the last major invaders to settle in Armenia, which explains why Armenians are still speakers of an Indo-European language. The other IE speakers in the region, be them Hittites, Lycians, Lydians or Phrygians, all had their language replaced by later conquerors, like the Persians, then the Greeks and Romans, and eventually the Turks, who were the last to impose their language in Anatolia to this day.

The paper mentions first signs of outside admixture between 3000 and 2000 BCE. This corresponds to the first invasions from the Yamna/Maykop and Catacomb cultures, but perhaps also indirectly from the Indo-Iranian peoples from Southern Central Asia (e.g. the Mitani).

I have analysed R1a and R1b subclades in Armenia here. I still believe that the Mitani or a related Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian tribe brought R1a-Z93 to Armenia. I proposed in 2013 that R1a-Z282 could have been brought by the Cimmerians. However there are other possibilities. I checked again the Armenian DNA Project and most members have had their deep Y-DNA subclades tested, which is amazing and very informative. What struck me is that the R1a-Z282 members are either Z282* or Z280*, which means they bifurcated from the Yamna or Corded Ware population quite early, during the Early Bronze Age. That does not concord with a Cimmerian origin in the Iron Age.

If Z282* or Z280* are also present in most of Anatolia, then we could very well imagine that the Hittites belonged to that clade. Unfortunately the Turkey DNA Project has 4x less members than the Armenian one, and few people tested for deep clades, which renders it useless to confirm this hypothesis.

I would have thought that the Hittites belonged to R1b-M269* or L23*, but linguistics indicate that they split from the IE core c. 4000 BCE, 500 years before Yamna, they could very well have been a primarily R1a tribe pushed out by the arrival of R1b in the Pontic Steppe. They would have wreaked havoc the eastern Balkans(destruction of the Gumelnița–Karanovo and other cultures of Old Europe) from 4200 BCE onwards, and may have remained in the Balkans until the 3rd millennium BCE. They would then have moved across Anatolia as far as Armenia, spreading Z282* and Z280* lineages around. In the Balkans, the Serbs seem to have inherited quite a lot of Z280*, which may also date from the initial Proto-Hittite invasion from 4200 BCE.
horsepower%2520map%2520yamnaya.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
The Yamna culture 3500-2000 BC
Genetics

DNA from the remains of nine individuals assiciated with the Yamna culture from Samara Oblast and Orenburg Oblast has been analyzed. The remains have been dated to 2700-3339 BCE. Y-chromosome sequencing revealed that one of the individuals belonged to haplogroup R1b1-P25, one individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 and five individuals belonged to R1b1a2a2-Z2103. The individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroups U4a1, W6, H13a1a1a, T2c1a2, U5a1a1, H2b, W3a1a and H6a1b.[5]


Polish Michael gave these estimates R1a & R1b;
02-15-2015, 05:26 PM #157 - http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthr...riance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting/page15
I think the calculations that have been recently posted by Ebizur are very reasonable and I would definitely agree with most of his estimates. The only exception is that I consider L11 to be rather older than 5.1 ky, but I may be wrong about it. I am on vacation now, so don't have access to any details of my calculations, but here are my relatively recent rough estimates (in ky) taken from the notes I have with me:

R1b-M269 7.5 (7.0-8.1)
R1b-L23 7.2 (6.7-7.7)
R1b-Z2103 6.4 (5.9-6.9)
R1b-L51 6.7 (6.2-7.2)
R1b-L11 5.7 (5.2-6.2)
R1b-P312 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1b-U106 5.5 (5.0-6.0)

R1a-M417 6.2 (5.7-6.7)
R1a-CTS4385 5.8 (5.3-6.3)
R1a-L664 4.8 (4.3-5.2)
R1a-Z645 5.6 (5.1-6.1)
R1a-Z93 5.4 (4.9-5.9)
R1a-Z282 5.4 (4.9-5.9)

Yamnaya- R1b-Z2103+
Irish-Italians-Greeks-Anatolians-Albanians-Armenians-Ossetians-Jászság,Poles-Russian-Iranian/Kurds-Pakistani/Pashtun-Punjabi- All of these carry R1b Z2103 some only in trace amounts others in higher frequencies.
 
Obviously the Armenian ethno_linguistic forefathers are the Phrygians who came from the Balkans via Central Anatolia.
 
Alan, it is actually arguing the opposite. The article stresses the 1200 bc date as an end point to Armenian ethnogenesis; thus, giving credence to Armenian historian origins of Armenians, which is non-Phrygian. Even before this paper it is well known that the phrygian hypothesis was wrong. Just so you know your interpretation of results is wrong. Armenians are an admixture of ancient IE and indegenous populations that mixed together to repel invaders from the south at the time. Bel in our national story represents the southern invaders.
 
Phrygians came to Anatolia in 1600-1700 BC or even earlier
 
No, your dates are wrong. Revisisionist gennerally place Phyrigian in Armenian ethnogenesis at around 700 bc. The 1200 bc date actually coincides with mid evil Armenian historians.
 
Last edited:
Phrygians were also related to ancient Thracians and Macedonians for ancient Greek tradition. For Eric Hamp they were instead a branch of Italo-Celts. Now it seems that Phrygian language was close to ancient Greek.
 
The story of Hayk in the Armenian ethnogenesis reveals that there was a battle in the historical record of Armenians with "Bel". Also, the story of "Ara the handsome", reveals a story of "taking culture, genes, and beauty" by southern population.

You have Hittites using cuneiform (cultural exchange with Urartu/Sumarian cultures), you have a tri-lingual reference to Armenians (Uratu, Armenians, and "people of Ararat"), which is a third-party reference, and a northern invasion into the Armenian highlands by low-landers. Also, Urartu (Nairi confederacy) being Sumarian. Sumarians came from north.

If we put everything together you have your answer. That is what genetics is telling you. IE People in Anatolia mixed with Urartu (Sumarians) to form Armenians because of Southern Invasion (Semites).
 
No, your dates are wrong. Revisisionist gennerally place Phyrigian in Armenian ethnogenesis at around 700 bc. The 1200 bc date actually coincides with mid evil Armenian historians.
Phrigian tribes destroyed the Hittite empire in 1200 BC

Also
Nannakos Annakos King of Phrigians lived before the "Deucalion's flood" (before the 1528 BC)

On the basis of the archaeological stele known as the Parian Chronicle, Deucalion's Flood was usually fixed as occurring sometime around c. 1528 BC. Deucalion's flood may be dated in the chronology of Saint Jerome to c. 1460 BC. According to Augustine of Hippo (City of God XVIII,8,10,&11),
 
The dates don't reconcile nor does the language or culture. There is no credence given to Phyrigian connection except Herodotus's reference and he is unreliable. The most likely event is what I described. I am over simplifying. The reference to Hittites is more so done to reference cultural interactions with IE speakers and non-IE. Generally, I beleive my analysis is the best explanation. You wouldn't have a reference in middle-ages to a name place "bel" or even Assyrians otherwise. Genetics is telling us just that. Bronze Age IE people mix with indegenous population to form Armenians. The indegenous population would have to be people of Ararat valley, which were loosely a confederation of various people banding together to repel invaders from Asia and Southern Mesopotamia. The people from Ararat Valley spread civilization to Mesopotamia and to Hittites as evidenced by cuneiform use. Generally, this is again a very short conclusion across 6,000 thousand years of history.
 
The Balkanic theory was once very popular because it was thought that the origin of IE is in Balkan. So many linguists tried to reconstruct the routes of migrations for various languages. The evidence for Armenian was weak. Just a sentence from Herodotus and some toponomic links.
The Armenian language didn't help to understand the Phrygian inscriptions. Despite the fact that the hypothetical split of Phrygian and Armenian occured less than 1000 years ago. Less than the split of Romance languages. Later it appeared that Phrygian is much closer to Greek, so perhaps it was the an old split of proto-Greek people.

Now with Yamna R1b-Z2013 there is a further evidence that the South Caucase and Yamna have much closer and direct contacts than was thought before. And there is no a need to make a circle around Black Sea to come to Armenia from Yamna.

Also look at the mtDNA of Yamna people and compare it with South Caucasus.

p.s. I answered about this questions in more detaled way here. eupedia.com/forum/threads/28916-The-Indo-European-migrations-to-Armenia
 
Alan, it is actually arguing the opposite. The article stresses the 1200 bc date as an end point to Armenian ethnogenesis; thus, giving credence to Armenian historian origins of Armenians, which is non-Phrygian. Even before this paper it is well known that the phrygian hypothesis was wrong. Just so you know your interpretation of results is wrong. Armenians are an admixture of ancient IE and indegenous populations that mixed together to repel invaders from the south at the time. Bel in our national story represents the southern invaders.

The "Phyrgian hypothesis is not dead. contrary the date of 1200 bc fits perfectly with the establishment of the Phrygian empire in Anatolia. There are allot of linguists who put Armenian and Phrygian in the same category. Armenian and Greek share close relationship (Armenian has also Iranic elements most likely from Parthians and Cimmerians). Heredotus mentioned the close relationship of Phrygian, Greek and Armenian. I think everything fits.


Of course Armenians are not all Phrygians. Armenians are the result of Phrygians and Urartaens, and Iranic tribes merging.
 
No, your dates are wrong. Revisisionist gennerally place Phyrigian in Armenian ethnogenesis at around 700 bc. The 1200 bc date actually coincides with mid evil Armenian historians.

mid evil Armenian historians? I didn't understand that.

Phyrgian Empire went down roughly 700 BC. Just a few hundred years later the Armenian ethnogenesis starts to appear. I don't think that is coincidence.
 
The story of Hayk in the Armenian ethnogenesis reveals that there was a battle in the historical record of Armenians with "Bel". Also, the story of "Ara the handsome", reveals a story of "taking culture, genes, and beauty" by southern population.

You have Hittites using cuneiform (cultural exchange with Urartu/Sumarian cultures), you have a tri-lingual reference to Armenians (Uratu, Armenians, and "people of Ararat"), which is a third-party reference, and a northern invasion into the Armenian highlands by low-landers. Also, Urartu (Nairi confederacy) being Sumarian. Sumarians came from north.

If we put everything together you have your answer. That is what genetics is telling you. IE People in Anatolia mixed with Urartu (Sumarians) to form Armenians because of Southern Invasion (Semites).

It is likely that some Sumerians went North and admixed. It is unlikely that they became Urartains, Urartains are generally connected to Hurrians. Hurrians and Urartains are connected to Northeast Caucasic tongues (Lezgian as example) with Indo_Iranian charecteristics. Sumerian is an isolated language, therfore not ancestral to Urartaen.
 
This study shows one thing.
The starting point of Armenian ethnogenesis ( in genetic term ) is somewhere between 3000-2000 BC. The ending point is 1200 BC. Note the 1200 BC is the ENDING point not the starting point as it would be in the case of Phrygian theory.
This timeline fits exactly with archaeological data that we have in South Caucasus.
It's fiting well the Armenian medieval historic tradition.
It fits exactly what we know about Armenian language. A language that is neither in Iranic group neither in Greek group. Just in the middle of this two groups. With a lot of loanwords from ancient languages like Akkadian, Hattic, Hurrian and even some Sumerian words.
 
Last edited:
This study shows one thing.
The starting point of Armenian ethnogenesis ( in genetic term ) is somewhere between 3000-2000 BC. The ending point is 1200 BC. Note the 1200 BC is the ENDING point not the starting point as it would be in the case of Phrygian theory.
This timeline fits exactly with archaeological data that we have in South Caucasus.
It's fiting well the Armenian medieval historic tradition.
It fits exactly what we know about Armenian language. A language that is neither in Iranic group neither in Greek group. Just in the middle of this two groups. With a lot of loanwords from ancient people like Akkadians, Hattic and even some Sumerian words.

If the Phrygian or Proto-Armenian arrived in Armenia in 1200 BCE and they were the last major ethnic group to settle in Armenia, that would represent the ending point for the genetic admixtures in the region.
 
If the Phrygian or Proto-Armenian arrived in Armenia in 1200 BCE and they were the last major ethnic group to settle in Armenia, that would represent the ending point for the genetic admixtures in the region.

Maciamo
This cannot work because the hypothetic Proto-Armenians need some centuries to assimilate the autochtonous people. This is not a process of just one or two years even decades.
Also there is a huge Urartian problem. Where is the Urarteans signal in Marc Haber study? Urartu ends at 6-5 century BC. So where is this admixture in Armenians?

Also let's not forget from what point this discussion starts. We are linking the Armenian R1b with the introduction of IE into Armenia. You assumed that R1b-L23 was from Balkans. But now we see that there is another subclade called Z2013 that was present long before Balkans. So I think it's time to revise and admit the most obvious and propable scenario. That of direct invasion of Armenians from Yamna trough Caucasus.
 
There are plenty archaeological Bronze Age cultures in today's Republic of Armenia that can be associated with IE entrance from Eastern side. Transcaucasian Kurgans, Trialeti culture (in Armenia it's located at Vanadzor), Metsamor culture, Lchashen culture, Karmir Blur culture etc. One of them are the Proto-Armenians. I suspect that it is Trialeti but it can be another culture also. We are waiting the results from aDNA from Armenia this year. So we will have some clue on exact dates.
 

This thread has been viewed 25578 times.

Back
Top