Were the Aryan who ruled the Mitanni the same as those of India ?

Kardu said:

Anyway, if you say that Lithuanians are Finno-ugric people who adopted IE language, you will have to explain when did it happen and how come that it's so archaic. I don't say that historical Aryans were only R1a1, but it was certainly widespread among them.

Click to expand...

Lithuanian is not an 'archaic' language. It is a Baltic language, which in turn is a Balto-Slavic language. And Balto-Slavic is part (offspring) of the 'archaic' Indo European language family.

Sanskrit is one of the oldest Indo-Aryan (more archaic Indo-Iranian) languages. So Lithuanian and Sanskrit are not even from the same family, but both are part of the satem group though.

Baltic language was introduced in the Baltics during the Northern extensions of the Corded Ware culture horizon / Battle-Axen folks: 3300 - 1800 BCE.

I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2

There was even a Finnish Battle Axe culture, while people in Finland don't speak an IE language, but Finno-Ugric instead!

"It seems they may have actually brought some of the earliest ideas regarding irrigation canals and temple-centered worship with them; prehistoric pottery evidence links the Ubaid Period in southern Mesopotamia (5300-3900 BCE) with the Samara culture in the north, which itself was among the earliest of irrigation agriculturalists."

http://www.docudharma.com/diary/2178/

Goga said:

There was even a Finnish Battle Axe culture, while people in Finland don't speak an IE language, but Finno-Ugric instead!

"It seems they may have actually brought some of the earliest ideas regarding irrigation canals and temple-centered worship with them; prehistoric pottery evidence links the Ubaid Period in southern Mesopotamia (5300-3900 BCE) with the Samara culture in the north, which itself was among the earliest of irrigation agriculturalists."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltic_languages

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that link is completely very wrong about a lot of issues.

What really sparked my eye is the claim that the word 'Tauras' for 'bull' is non-indo-European, yet funnily it is attested in many branches of Indo-European:

- Latin 'Taurus', Oscan 'Taurom'
- Gaulish 'Tarvos', Irish 'Tarbh', Welsh 'Tarw', Breton 'Tarv'
- Lusitanian 'Taurom'
- Greek 'Tauros'
- Lithuanian 'Tauras'

In any case, the Proto-Uralic Comb Ceramic Culture (who were likely carriers of Haplogroup N) were influenced by the (Proto-Indo-European) Corded Ware Culture, which also explains ancient IE loans into the Finnic languages.

Goga said:

I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2

Click to expand...

Well, that is also impossible because G2 was in Europe since the Neolithic, and Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken in the Chalcolithic.

Taranis said:

Sorry, but that link is completely very wrong about a lot of issues.


Well, that is also impossible because G2 was in Europe since the Neolithic, and Proto-Indo-European was probably spoken in the Chalcolithic.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I changed the link.

There could be many waves of G2 into Europe. How do you know that G2 entered Europe ONLY during the Neolithic? It is still possible that it also entered Europe even before the Neolithic era and thousands years after that.
The fact is that there's G2 & J2 in Europe! And it is from West Asia.

Also if G2 migrated first into South Russia from the south, it could be assimilated by R1a folks, because among all other native R1a folks it was a minority there. And many years later from that point the new people emerged who absorbed G2 & J2 and migrated further into Northern Europe.

The proof is that there's J2 and G2 in Europe, while the 'European' N1c1 and I are very rare in other parts of the world, like India.

In India we find R1a & J2 + G2 and not R1a & N1c1 & I or something among the upper classes.

Goga said:

Thanks, I changed the link.

There could be many waves of G2 into Europe. How do you know that G2 entered Europe ONLY during the Neolithic?

Also if G2 migrated first into South Russia from the south, it could be assimilated by R1a folks, because among all other R1a it was a minority there. And many years later from that point the new people who absorbed G2 and J2 migrated into Northern Europe.

The proof is that there's J2 and G2 in Europe, while the 'European' N1c1 and I are very rare in other part of the world, like India.

In India we find R1a & J2 + G2 and not R1a & N1c1 & I or something.

Click to expand...

Let me say this: Maciamo believes (and I broadly agree with him) that there probably were several waves of Haplogroup G2 into Europe, and that one of the later waves also brought in Haplogroup G2. So yes, it's quite plausible that the Proto-Indo-Europeans had an admixture of G2 to them.

Haplogroup I is very likely indigenous to Europe. It's been there since at least the Neolithic, and is possibly Mesolithic or even Paleolithic in age. In the same manner, N1c1 is also in Europe since at least the Neolithic (though it originally migrated from Siberia). In any case, either Haplogroups certainly predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages.

For J2, the jury is still out.

Taranis said:

Haplogroup I is very likely indigenous to Europe. It's been there since at least the Neolithic, and is possibly Mesolithic or even Paleolithic in age. In the same manner, N1c1 is also in Europe since at least the Neolithic (though it originally migrated from Siberia). In any case, either Haplogroups certainly predate the arrival of the Indo-European languages.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I'm ruling out that the proto-Indo-Europeans are from North-Europe like many people wanted us to believe.

When I was a child (before the haplogroups) I heard many times that Aryan people are from North Europe, because folks in Europe are very pure and unmixed, and the proof that they're pure is in their looks. According to them their white skin and their light hair etc. was the proof that Aryans were from North Europe.

But haplogroups tell the different story. Xenophon (430 – 354 BCE) describes the Persian troops as white compared to the sun-tanned skin of Greek troops. And at that time Persians called themselves 'Aryans'.

Darius (550 – 486 BCE) : "An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock".

Goga said:

Lithuanian is not an 'archaic' language. It is a Baltic language, which in turn is a Balto-Slavic language. And Balto-Slavic is part (offspring) of the 'archaic' Indo European language family.

Sanskrit is one of the oldest Indo-Aryan (more archaic Indo-Iranian) languages. So Lithuanian and Sanskrit are not even from the same family, but both are part of the satem group though.

Baltic language was introduced in the Baltics during the Northern extensions of the Corded Ware culture horizon / Battle-Axen folks: 3300 - 1800 BCE.

I do also believe that R1a was important part of the Aryan people in EUROPE (Battle-Axe folks). But I don't think that the first 'proto'-Aryans were R1a folks, more likely G & J2

Click to expand...

That's exactly interesting that Lithuanian which is officially in a different branch of Indo-European language family has so many similarities with Sanskrit. There are many parallels between Lithuanian paganism and Vedic lore. So how did they get the archaic form of language and culture? from who and when?

Kardu said:

That's exactly interesting that Lithuanian which is officially in a different branch of Indo-European language family has so many similarities with Sanskrit. There are many parallels between Lithuanian paganism and Vedic lore. So how did they get the archaic form of language and culture? from who and when?

Click to expand...

There's a possibility of the existence of ergative in Lithuanian.
http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_04.htm

I think that Lithuanian was an ergative language in the past but that some time ago it lost this construction, like Persian and many other IE languages.

Most 'modern' IE languages don't have this contsruction. But Kurdish IS still an ergative language, Persian (Old Farsi) was an ergative language in the past but it 'lost' this construction.
This feature is most likely due to a Caucasian origin of Kurdish language. I want to note that Caucasian languages are ergative too!

Goga said:

There's a possibility of the existence of ergative in Lithuanian.
http://www.lituanus.org/1973/73_1_04.htm

I think that Lithuanian was an ergative language in the past but that some time ago it lost this construction, like Persian and many other IE languages.

Most 'modern' IE languages don't have this contsruction. But Kurdish IS still an ergative language, Persian (Old Farsi) was an ergative language in the past but it 'lost' this construction.
This feature is most likely due to a Caucasian origin of Kurdish language. I want to note that Caucasian languages are ergative too!

Click to expand...

Old Church Slavonic had Ergativity too and so does modern Bulgarian.
Anyway, now I am lost, if Kurdish has Caucasian origin as you propose, how is it Indo-European then?

Kardu said:

if Kurdish has Caucasian origin as you propose, how is it Indo-European then?

Click to expand...

Because according to me proto-IE and Caucasian language family are from the same source.
Like I said, proto Indo-Europeans (or at least the proto-Iranic folks) were from somewhere between Southwest Caucasus - NorthWest Iran. I believe that these people used an ergative language. Many of them lost this construction when they migrated into North Europe and Central Asia, when they mixed with R1a folks.

Persian is a good example of how a language can lose ergativity! Because it's proven that the old-Iranic languages had the ergative construction.

Sanskrit (old-Indic language) doesn't have an ergative constriction and is not an ergative language! The ergative construction in the modern Indic (Hindi) languages came much later.

Goga, there is no (undisputed) evidence that the Caucasian languages are related with Indo-European. I should also elaborate that there is not one Caucasian language family but three:

- Kartvelian (which includes Georgian 'Kartli' in their own language)
- Northwest Caucasian languages (which includes Abkhazi and the extinct Ubykh language)
- Northeast Caucasian languages (which most prominently include the Chechen language)

The exact relationship between these three language families is disputed in itself. Also, I find it questionable if PIE originally had Ergativity even if some branches of it have, this is by no means a consensual opinion.

Maciamo said:

There is nothing exceptional about the high frequency of G and J2 in Assyria/Northern Mesopotamia (where the Mitanni ruled). The intrusive outside element would be R1a. There is also a lot of R1b in Assyria and Kurdistan, but without knowing exactly what subclades we are dealing with, we cannot know if all of it is pre-IE or some of it is Indo-European.

As for the J2 and G found among higher caste Indians, there is an easy explanation, which I already suggested a few years ago. During the Neolithic G and J2 expanded eastward to what is now Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan. When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex , they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.

Click to expand...

I agree mostly with what you said (How haplogroups J2 and G being Neolithic markers that traveled east from West Asia), I also agree that the Indo-Iranians were likely a product of Indo-European folks from the Andronovo culture (Who carried a heavy amount of R1a1a) who mixed with the BMAC folks (Who likely carried a good chunk of J2, G, L3, and possibly some R2).

The important development that is happening right now with haplogroup R1a1a is very interesting, there seems to be a clear division between European and non-European R1a1a's, the non-European folks seem to be Z93+ dominant while the Europeans are Z93-, that's not to say that Z93+ does not exist in Europe nor is it correct to assume that all Asian R1a1a's are Z93+, but these occurrences are among the minority, so the question here is were the Andronovo folks Z93+ or not? If not, then the genetic impact of Indo-Europeans in Asia is rather weak compared to the language significance.

Goga said:

Because according to me proto-IE and Caucasian language family are from the same source.
Like I said, proto Indo-Europeans (or at least the proto-Iranic folks) were from somewhere between Southwest Caucasus - NorthWest Iran. I believe that these people used an ergative language. Many of them lost this construction when they migrated into North Europe and Central Asia, when they mixed with R1a folks.

Persian is a good example of how a language can lose ergativity! Because it's proven that the old-Iranic languages had the ergative construction.

Sanskrit (old-Indic language) doesn't have an ergative constriction and is not an ergative language! The ergative construction in the modern Indic (Hindi) languages came much later.

Click to expand...

You can not prove relatedness of language families based only on Ergative structure. Mayan in Mexico is ergative too and so are(or were) many other languages around the globe.
Taranis is right, it's not even proven that Caucasian languages are related to each other, not to mention Indo-European.
As for the topic of the thread I find it plausible that Mitanni Aryas and Aryas of Rigveda were different branches of the same folk, comprised mainly by R1a1 and to lesser degree G and J2.

Cobol19 said:

I agree mostly with what you said (How haplogroups J2 and G being Neolithic markers that traveled east from West Asia), I also agree that the Indo-Iranians were likely a product of Indo-European folks from the Andronovo culture (Who carried a heavy amount of R1a1a) who mixed with the BMAC folks (Who likely carried a good chunk of J2, G, L3, and possibly some R2).

Click to expand...

Dude, no way it's possible that there's so much of G2 and R2 from the Neolithic farmers and only in the upper classes in India!

You (as an Assyrian or maybe Armenian/Turkish?) just can't live with the fact that Kurds are Iranic and are native to Kurdistan. Somehow you printed in your mind that Kurds are 'immigrants' from Central Asia who killed the natives. That they are the same as Turks, who are also from Central Asia. And that the Turks can have Kurdish land and have the right to take it because Kurds are the same 'immigrants' from Central Asia as Turks. Or that Kurds live on the Assyrian and Armenian lands, lol. Keep dreaming!

I'm sorry to take you out your dream, but you are WRONG! Kurds are Iranic, and Kurds are native to their homeland Kurdistan!

And as far as I know the Andronovo culture was in Central Asia, on the eastern side of the Caspian Sea and that the BMAC folks were just an extension of these people in Northeast Iran!
Some cultures in the Zagros Mountains and Caucasus are much older! Halaf culture between 6100 - 5400 BCE and even the Ubaid culture between 5000 - 4000 BCE. Even Kurgans in South Russia are older than the Andronovo Culture!

People in the Androno Culture were already R2a, J2a , R1a, G etc!

Taranis said:

Goga, there is no (undisputed) evidence that the Caucasian languages are related with Indo-European. I should also elaborate that there is not one Caucasian language family but three:

- Kartvelian (which includes Georgian 'Kartli' in their own language)
- Northwest Caucasian languages (which includes Abkhazi and the extinct Ubykh language)
- Northeast Caucasian languages (which most prominently include the Chechen language)

The exact relationship between these three language families is disputed in itself. Also, I find it questionable if PIE originally had Ergativity even if some branches of it have, this is by no means a consensual opinion.

Click to expand...

Sure everything is possible. I'm just giving other possibilities and these are not only 'my' views, but also views of some other modern 'western' scientists.

Did you know that the Nazi Deutschland considered only the Battle-Axe folks in Europe the chosen one? They even considered the Battle-Axe folks even much superior to the Beaker people (R1b folks)? Accroding to them Battle-Axe folks were the true and purest Aryans.

What would they say if they knew that R1a is very high where Battle-Axe used to live, lol!

And here is the Halaf culture! The same shape as Kurdistan, lol. And also in the Zagros Mountains and Northern Kurdistan!

Goga said:

Sure everything is possible. I'm just giving other possibilities and these are not only 'my' views, but also views of other modern 'western' scientists.

Click to expand...

Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.

Did you know that the Nazi Deutsland considered only the Battle-Axe folks in Europe the chosen one? They even considered the Battle-Axe folks even much superior to the Beaker people (R1b folks)? Accroding to them Battle-Axe folks were the true and purests Aryans.

What would they say if they knew that R1a is very high where Battle-Axe used to live, lol!

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.

Taranis said:

Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.



Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.

Click to expand...

As far as I know are Caucasian languages very very old. SO it is possible.
Just look that according to this scheme Caucasian languages are older than IE languages!


And about the Nazi's. I think it's funny to know that the culture/people they considered 'superior' had much of R1a in them.

Taranis said:

Not "everything is possible". Any claim of a relationship between two languages or two language families must be testable and absolutely rigorous before it is accepted by the mainstream community.



Sorry, but the Nazi comparison is totally out of place here. They are not, and have never been, any authority on genetics or archaeology. Why you bring this up here eludes me.

Click to expand...

?
But there IS a relationship between Caucasian languages and Indo-European languages. But nobody knows to which degree. And Caucasian languages are very very old.
According to this scheme Caucasian languages are not so far placed from the more archaic the Nostratic language. And according to this scheme Caucasian languages (KartveloEusian) are ANCESTORS of IE languages!


http://grzegorj.w.interia.pl/lingwen/afil.html


And about the Nazi's, for me it's very funny to know after 50 years that people who they considered the chosen one and superior to all other Europeans - Battle-Axe warriors - had very much R1a in them. And that Slavic folks have much more R1a than the Germanic folks.

This is what I call the irony of history!

http://wdict.net/es/gallery/macrofamilia+nostr%C3%A1tica/n/3/