PDA

View Full Version : Origins of the Armenians during the Bronze Age



Sile
20-02-15, 09:44
see link

http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/18/015396.full-text.pdf+html

the ydna of the lebanon seem similar to the 2008/2009 numbers, below
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SopYW19qzQI/AAAAAAAAB9U/6cdlguuye-k/s1600-h/FigureS1.jpg

from
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SopYW19qzQI/AAAAAAAAB9U/6cdlguuye-k/s1600-h/FigureS1.jpg)Geographical Structure of the Y-chromosomal Genetic Landscape of the Levant: A coastal-inland contrast

Mirvat El-Sibai1,
Daniel E. Platt2,


(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SopYW19qzQI/AAAAAAAAB9U/6cdlguuye-k/s1600-h/FigureS1.jpg)

Maciamo
20-02-15, 11:24
This paper confirms what I wrote about the Proto-Armenians migrating to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Anatolian). 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 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28916-The-Indo-European-migrations-to-Armenia). 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 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject?iframe=yresults) 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 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#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.

Silesian
20-02-15, 17:08
This paper confirms what I wrote about the Proto-Armenians migrating to Anatolia c. 1200 BCE (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#Anatolian). 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 (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/28916-The-Indo-European-migrations-to-Armenia). 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 (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject?iframe=yresults) 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 (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1b_Y-DNA.shtml#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.
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/horsepower%2520map%2520yamnaya.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture
The Yamna culture 3500-2000 BC

Genetics

DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) from the remains of nine individuals assiciated with the Yamna culture from Samara Oblast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samara_Oblast) and Orenburg Oblast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b#R1b1_.28R-P25.29), one individual belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2a-L23 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29) and five individuals belonged to R1b1a2a2-Z2103 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R1b#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29). The individuals belonged to mtDNA haplogroups U4a1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29#Haplogroup_U4), W6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_%28mtDNA%29), H13a1a1a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29), T2c1a2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28mtDNA%29), U5a1a1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_U_%28mtDNA%29#Haplogroup_U5), H2b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29), W3a1a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_W_%28mtDNA%29) and H6a1b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29).[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamna_culture#cite_note-5)





Polish Michael gave these estimates R1a & R1b;
02-15-2015, 05:26 PM #157 (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-Mutation-Rates-amp-SNP-counting&p=69786&viewfull=1#post69786) - http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?828-STR-Wars-GDs-TMRCA-estimates-Variance-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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A1szs%C3%A1g),Poles-Russian-Iranian/Kurds-Pakistani/Pashtun-Punjabi- All of these carry R1b Z2103 some only in trace amounts others in higher frequencies.

Alan
24-02-15, 02:58
Obviously the Armenian ethno_linguistic forefathers are the Phrygians who came from the Balkans via Central Anatolia.

Batboy
21-03-15, 17:37
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.

Robert6
21-03-15, 17:44
Phrygians came to Anatolia in 1600-1700 BC or even earlier

Batboy
21-03-15, 17:56
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.

Hauteville
21-03-15, 18:15
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.

Hauteville
21-03-15, 18:18
Phrygians came to Anatolia in 1600-1700 BC or even earlier
Around 1100 BC they passed from Balkans to Anatolia.

Batboy
21-03-15, 18:38
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).

Robert6
21-03-15, 19:09
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stele) known as the Parian Chronicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parian_Chronicle), Deucalion's Flood was usually fixed as occurring sometime around c. 1528 BC. Deucalion's flood may be dated in the chronology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronicon_(Jerome)) of Saint Jerome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome) to c. 1460 BC. According to Augustine of Hippo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) (City of God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_God_(book)) XVIII,8,10,&11),

Batboy
21-03-15, 19:37
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.

Arame
22-03-15, 15:26
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
23-03-15, 02:41
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.

Alan
23-03-15, 02:44
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.

Alan
23-03-15, 02:47
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.

Arame
23-03-15, 07:26
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.

Maciamo
23-03-15, 09:49
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.

Arame
23-03-15, 10:34
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.

Arame
23-03-15, 10:45
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.

Robert6
23-03-15, 12:08
Armenian language is closer to Greek language than to other languages.
Today Greeks of Greece are a mix of Roman Slavic and some descedants of Ancient Greeks.
So we should look to Magna Grecia(South Italy)
You can find G2a-M406 E1b-V13 and G2a-L140*
and among western and central Armenians and among Southern Italians(Magna Grecia)
and in Greece


Also Armenians have UHG which are "Unknown"(Balkanian and west Anatolian) hunter gatherers more than other southern Caucasians
UHG is part of EEF
EEF corelates with G2a

Part of Z2103 is among Armenians from Indo-Iranized population that earlier was "Proto-Eastern Caucasians",
"Proto-Eastern Caucasians" came from Siberia and are part of Dene-Caucasians,
the other part of Z2103 is possibly from Urartians(also Dene-Caucasians)

Batboy
23-03-15, 12:20
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.

See Eric Hamp's 2012 map...

Eastward expansion and no slingshot around Balkens. If Greeks arrive in Greece at 3rd millennium bc then Armenian would have a much older presence in timeline.

Batboy
23-03-15, 12:37
That later point doesn't fit time line. If you look at timeline, Armenian exist before Iranian presence. It would mean that the roles you assign are reverse. There is Iranian contact but at a much later date.

I beleive everyone is trying their best to place Armenian much later in the timeline contrary to the evidence which points to a much earlier date.

Yetos
23-03-15, 12:48
Phrygians came to Anatolia in 1600-1700 BC or even earlier

nop

Historically they left just with the raise of Makedonian Kingdom meaning 750 BC, leaving behind Mygdonians
but evidences show same time with Dorian descend 1000-900 BC (911 BC)

Certainly after Troyan War which dates after 1200 BC

Yetos
23-03-15, 12:55
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.


Vrygian and Greek were isotones,
but Greeks call them Thracians,

not Celts but Thracians,
by their remain vocabulary
Tios Bakhos Διος Βακχου slavic Bog (God)
Bekos Germanic? bread Brot Slavic Pekara !!!

by times they connect them with Brigandi or with Burgundi, but since closer to Yamnaa I personaly belive that both Brigandi and Burgundi came from Thracian Brygians

Yetos
23-03-15, 13:02
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


there 2 major hypothesis in minor asian balkan caucas origin of IE,
1 is the Greco-Aryan the language from wich Homeric sprunk
2 is the Armenian hypothesis which is connecting Thracian and Armenian to an older language,

in both theories indo-Hettit is consider as a foreign language to area

Robert6
23-03-15, 13:02
nop

Historically they left just with the raise of Makedonian Kingdom meaning 750 BC, leaving behind Mygdonians
but evidences show same time with Dorian descend 1000-900 BC (911 BC)

Certainly after Troyan War which dates after 1200 BC
No, the Phrygians were in western Anatolia before the Deucalion's Flood (and not only, the Bryges were also in Balkans)
Annakos King of Phrygians lived in Anatolia before the ~1500BC


Also the Phrygians helped Troyans
when the Axaioi Danaoi Mirmidones and others attacked them

Yetos
23-03-15, 14:15
No, the Phrygians were in western Anatolia before the Deucalion's Flood (and not only, the Bryges were also in Balkans)
Annakos King of Phrygians lived in Anatolia before the ~1500BC


Also the Phrygians helped Troyans
when the Axaioi Danaoi Mirmidones and others attacked them

bryges bythini are mentioned to enter minor asia after Troyan war,
Gordium Γορδιον was build after 1200 BC meaning after Troyan war and took its high peak at 900-700 BC same times when Dorians descend to damaged S Greece from sea peoples, and same time that Sea peoples moved to West, and same time Argeiad Makedonians raise their Kingdom assimilating Mygdonians and Bottiaeans,

there is also the Moschoi(thracian in minor Asia) Moeschoi(moesian in Romania/bulgaria) case, and the possible connection with Mucenae and Myssia (the 4 Mycenae or 4 Muca or Mossia, compare Scottish Mc,)
a word that stll found in Armenian. (from Duridanovic work)

the assyrians call them Mushki
Makedonian infatry wear Brygian cap and claim relativity since they both lived for centuries beside,
Alexander respect and sacrifice to Gordion


but there is a mention that king Priam of troy raid against amazon with king Mygdon, in Homer's Iliad

but Mygdonia was next to Makedonia and assimilated by them before 5th century BC

Arame
23-03-15, 14:44
Yetos
Excuse me I didn't understand Your point quite well. Where is in Your opinion the most probable origin of Indo-European languages?

P.S. I am relying on Yamna-Steppe theory.

Yetos
23-03-15, 15:07
Yetos
Excuse me I didn't understand Your point quite well. Where is in Your opinion the most probable origin of Indo-European languages?

P.S. I am relying on Yamna-Steppe theory.


for me?
or about the linguistic theories?

for me is among Laz and Leyla teppe,

but the Linguistic Hypothesis have nothing to do, they just combine languages to a relativity to find previous forms
so the 2 compinations that are connecting Balkans with minor Asia, at least in Linguistic field are
Greco-Aryan Hypothesis
Armenian Hypothesis (Thracian)
so if I take the Armenian Hypothesis, there might be a possible genetic relativity among Thracians and Armenians
that is what I want to say,

I hope I did not confuse you more,

Arame
23-03-15, 15:25
Ok thanks Yetos. Now I understand Your point.
I have also some data in support of Leyla Tepe, but because this is another Big story so I don't want to start such a discussion here. I am waiting the result of ancient DNA from Armenia. Just now I am relying on the mainstream Steppe theory.

For the connection of Armenians and Balkans and Greece in general I am not denying such affinities. Hrachya Martirosyan is speaking about a general Mediterenean substatum that unites Armenian, Greece and even Latines. Greco-Aryan unity is also a possibilty. So all this are possibilities. But saying that Armenian language appeared after 1200 BC is a ultimate impossibility from every point ( linguistic, genetic ).

eismakedon
09-06-15, 18:06
Probably a bit earlier but for sure after 1200. They found the Hittite empire either collapsed or collapsing and took over it.

eismakedon
09-06-15, 18:12
Phrygian is closely related to Greek as is Paeonian and of course Macedonian, if it is even to be considered a separate language. I would not discount what Herodotus is saying about the linguistic and cultural affinity of the Armenians and the Phrygians. Today it is proven that Greek and Armenian are more closely related to each other than to any other language, despite the massive Iranian loanwords into Armenian. I have personally met Eric Hamp years ago who assured me that Greek and Armenian are sharing a vast lexicon and he jokingly mentioned a few including Arni (young sheep) which in Armenian is something like warnu, or similar (many years since), and he believed in what he calls a Greco-Armenian Group.

eismakedon
09-06-15, 18:15
Thracian cannot be proven related to Armenian, and there is simply no lexical or other proof of it. It can be proven to be related to Greek and Greek has been proven to be related to Phrygian, therefore Armenian is related to Phrygian, something that makes sence on a historical point too.

Yetos
09-06-15, 20:35
Phrygian is closely related to Greek as is Paeonian and of course Macedonian, if it is even to be considered a separate language. I would not discount what Herodotus is saying about the linguistic and culturalhttp://cdncache-a.akamaihd.net/items/it/img/arrow-10x10.png (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/#73241481) affinity of the Armenians and the Phrygians. Today it is proven that Greek and Armenian are more closely related to each other than to any other language, despite the massive Iranian loanwords into Armenian. I have personally met Eric Hamp years ago who assured me that Greek and Armenian are sharing a vast lexicon and he jokingly mentioned a few including Arni (young sheep) which in Armenian is something like warnu, or similar (many years since), and he believed in what he calls a Greco-Armenian Group.

Arni a Greek word?
Have you any source text even at koine that says the lamp Arni and not Amnos?

Ι admit I am surprised, since in all Ancient texts I read I find the word amnos αμνος,
Although it exists in Modern Greek, but in ancient,,, that is why I ask a text,
I really apreciate such text, cause can help a lot

Yetos
09-06-15, 20:47
nothing just misshandle