Central and South Asian DNA Paper

A. Papadimitriou said:

Also, the term Asia was originally used just for the West coasts of Turkey. Here it probably means something close to the modern term 'West Asia'.

Click to expand...

Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

Boreas said:

Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

Click to expand...

I believe that for Herodotus Asia was more or less synonymous with the Persian empire at its maximum extent, plus the Arabian peninsula perhaps and sans the the parts west of the Bosporus. Siberia would have been Europe more likely.

Boreas said:

Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

Click to expand...

Originally it was used probably for the Assuwa League in West Anatolia.

The term didn't have any negative connotations and it wasn't associated with race, for example Ionians were called occasionaly 'Asiatic Hellenes'.

The term 'Anatolia' wasn't used in Antiquity.

Saetrus said:

No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:

KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
etc.

So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.

The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.

Click to expand...

I agree with your first points, not your last observation. 5,000 years would be the very beginning of the expansion of the CWC horizon, and it would be still a completely undivided "Northern IE" that could've given birth not just to undivided Proto-Balto-Slavic but also - not immediately, I'm talking about descendants of CWC many centuries later - perhaps to Indo-Iranian. The dating of 1500 BC is for the split of Slavic and Baltic from their previous common ancestor, NOT from PIE directly.

There is no reason for us to believe that Baltic and Slavic would've necessarily split from their common ancestor immediately before CWC expanded, the process of diversification of languages is a bit longer, and also Balto-Slavic could be and probably was just one among many similar languages, like Latin was one among many Italic languages, and La Tène Celtic one among many former Celtic languages, so for some historical reason Balto-Slavic prevailed over others and erased part of the "linguistic structure", it didn't have to be there as the common language of the entire territory since the beginning (as in fact an expansion of "Balto-Slavic Scythian" would've done, too). In fact, Baltic "proper" (the extant tongues, at least) and Slavic seem to have developed originally in a quite eastern location, roughly to the east/southeast of the present Baltic states, so it certainly didn't represent "the CWC language" even if it were a language derived from the CWC horizon.

We can't simply assume that in the centuries of existence of CWC there was no language differentiation and no superseding of some weaker languages by more successful and expansive languages that, as such, would necessarily split further only much later, like Balto-Slavic by 1500 BC (actually, if Balto-Slavic indeed diverged into 2 different languages by 1500 BC we can reasonably presume that an early form of Balto-Slavic existed well into the CWC times, at least around 2500 BC, because languages don't appear, diverge and dissolve so fast).

A. Papadimitriou said:

The term Scythian today is used for cultures that probably were speaking multiple languages. The population Greeks called Scythians self-identified as 'Skoloti', according to the sources. People in the past have used that to connect them to Scots or to Slavs etc.The Sarmatians are more strongly associated with Iranic people, especially Medes. Diodorus mentions a colony of the Medes in Don.Sarmatians, Scythians, Massagetae etc. look like distinct groups in the sources, even though that depends on the author.Giving an Iranian identity to all Iron Age steppic groups is an ideological position, imo.

Click to expand...

They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian (that certainly happened later when most of them became Turkic speakers, but still divided into many different groups), because there is, especially not in pre-civilized and semi-nomad cultures, a strict correlation between one's language and one's sentiment of belonging to a certain ethnic identity or cultural group. Those peoples could speak related but quite dissimilar languages (when we say they were Iranic, we're talking about a language family that by the Middle Ages had more than 2,500 years old) and still, despite that linguistic connection, have distinct origins, even slightly distinct cultural traits (not much, because there is indeed a remarkably high, at least higher than expected, cultural homogeneity in the Iron Age steppe cultures for such a huge area). Besides, I'm pretty sure that for most of them, when they established their identity, their tribal affiliations and alliances were muuuuch more important than culture-based feelings of belonging to a common national community just because they spoke similar languages or prayed to the same gods, and so on.

By the way: I haven't seen, if there are any, results for Y-DNA of Iron Age people of the "core" region of the most possible earliest origins of Baltic and particularly Slavic tribes, that is, roughly the forest-steppe & forest zones of Belarus and Western Russia (which were also part of the CWC horizon, too)? I'd find that more interesting than results for Poland, since in any case nor Slavic nor Baltic seem to have come from there.

Milan.M said:

The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
They were "Turkified".

Click to expand...

Actually, Scythians and Sarmatians were related to Eastern Europeans, though they had very high Baloch. Anyway, nothing like Turkic or Mongolian tribes.


But were very related, and continuation of original Bronze Age Steppe inhabitants:

Boreas said:

Is it? Wasn't the term for West Coats of Turkey "Anatolia"? Even the the first world maps shows Asia as a massive continent till India

But if your reference is Roman Asia, you are right.

Click to expand...

1.
Asia is the true correct form of Sunrise,
Ανατολη Ανατολια means re-work from Ανα + τελω
so Anatolia is a pure Greek word, meaning Sun is again in his 'job'
while Asia is proto-form of Sunrise more ancient closer to LPIE
maybe the Homeric Εως ???


2.
the first who mention the word Ασιη is Hesiodos
IN HOMER THE WORD DOES NOT EXIST
But the first who use it is Herodotos to describe the what is known as Asia minor of the time,
NOTICE THE ARZAWA - ASSUWA LEAGE

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assuwa



The yellow to the Left


3.
Homeric Aσις
but it means mud, Ασια Γη = clay mud land,
only for the areas around NW minor Asia can be used, around Troas 9Troy)


The Assuwa leage





The term Anatolia was used mainly by East Romans
and ment the land on the other side of Vosporos

So the first term was Asia and ment the West coach to Aegean Pelagos,
Then that become minor Asia and Asia was including the Plateu
When Asia become huge and continent, Anatolia was used to describe minor Asia and Anatolian Plateau

Ygorcs said:

They may well have been distinct ethnic and tribal groups, but still mostly Indo-Iranian.

Click to expand...

I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

(I may not agree with him on other things)

A. Papadimitriou said:

I don't know what proves that. They use things like toponyms, which could have been pre-Scythian, for example 'Cimmerian', or alternatively Sarmatian. Later there is also Greek presence in the coasts, possibly Thracian, maybe proto-Slavs were nearby etc.

The following article describes more or less the situation. He describes things which are apparent to those familiar with the primary sources:
https://borissoff.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/was-scythian-an-iranian-language/

(I may not agree with him on other things)

Click to expand...

I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests. Indo-Iranian is just a very general branch, it even subdivides into 3 extant language families, Indo-Aryan, Iranic and Nuristani.

Also, I didn't say that anything PROVES that, but, yes, there are definitely reasonable indications. I mean, if basing a hypothesis at the very least on toponyms, hydronyms and people's names (which are at least linguistic "fossils", not just speculations) is not the best path to find the truth, what would be enough? If those things that suggest an Indo-Iranian origin of their language are insufficient or misleading, then what proves that they WERE NOT Indo-Iranian? Is there anything better than those evidences from a linguistic point of view? I mean, it's not enough to state that there are no proofs that they were Indo-Iranian, that's well known, it's necessary to have at least a few better evidences to rennder that hypothesis not just unproved (all of them are), but in fact less plausible than others. Otherwise, we just get stuck in a zero-sum game.

Ygorcs said:

I don't understand your point well. Sarmatians and even, according to some linguists, Cimmerians (though others would say they were an intermediary branch, possibly between Daco-Thracian and Indo-Iranian) ARE REGARDED as Indo-Iranian peoples, and the genetic evidence is that Western Scythians were clearly distinct from Eastern Scythians, so in any case they may even have become "Scythianized" (assuming Scythians weren't an Indo-Iranian branch), but their genetics would remain in the local population, they weren't just annihilated and completely replaced, as that study also suggests.

Click to expand...

They don't say it is 'Indo-Iranian' or at least some short of an Indo-European dialect but 'Eastern Iranian'. Can you mention 5 examples of etymologies you accept? If those are etymologies of personal names or toponyms are they linked to Scythians in the sources or to other groups (like Massagetae or Sarmatians) or maybe to no group at all?

A. Papadimitriou said:

They don't say it is 'Indo-Iranian' or at least some short of an Indo-European dialect but 'Eastern Iranian'. Can you mention 5 examples of etymologies you accept? If those are etymologies of personal names or toponyms are they linked to Scythians in the sources or to other groups (like Massagetae or Sarmatians) or maybe to no group at all?

Click to expand...

I still don't see how that ultimately is relevant to Ossetian not being "Iranic" or "Eastern Iranian" at all, since the Caucasian populations seem to derive mostly from the broad label "Western Scythian" which includes the Sarmatian samples, so if anything that would just reinforce that, Scythians' being Iranic or not, Sarmatians were and it really makes sense that, as per that study on ancient Western AND Eastern "Scytho-Sarmatian" Iron Age populations, the Caucasus and some Central Asian areas received influx mainly from the Western tribes (that included Sarmatians), whereas the Turkic tribes (certainly Turkified steppe peoples in a large part) are the ones that inherited most directly ancestry from the Eastern Scythians.

Also, what is your main point of contention with those reconstructions? The etymologies per se or the fact that those ancient terms are supposedly linked not to Scythians, but to peoples that you think were not just another ethnic group, but also another language family with totally different linguistic origins? Could you give us one example of why those proposed etymologies made by linguists are false or weakly supported, and/or a more plausible explanation (linguistic identity) for them? In ancient linguistics we're stepping onto uncertain, barely known land, so I think that at least a higher degree of plausibility is already a big thing to get rid of earlier but weaker proposals.

Ygorcs said:

Also, what is your main point of contention with those reconstructions? The etymologies per se or the fact that those ancient terms are supposedly linked not to Scythians, but to peoples that you think were not just another ethnic group, but also another language family with totally different linguistic origins? Could you give us one example of why those proposed etymologies made by linguists are false or weakly supported, and/or a more plausible explanation (linguistic identity) for them? In ancient linguistics we're stepping onto uncertain, barely known land, so I think that at least a higher degree of plausibility is already a big thing to get rid of earlier but weaker proposals.

Click to expand...

Ossetians speak an Indo-Iranian language, certainly. And I am not one of those who were saying they were Iranized Caucasians.

The problem with Abaev's work is described reasonably well in the link. He made a dictionary in which he included everything he looked 'Scythian' enough to him.

Concerning personal names, if for example, the name of the queen of the Massageatae 'Tomyris' has an Indo-European, or specifically Indo-Iranian etymology doesn't mean anything for Scythians. Because Scythians weren't Massagetae.

The river names can be pre-Scythian or related to later movements. Basically in Greek sources, alternative names are used which are likely not Greek. Some people in the region may have used them. For example Dnieper is called Borysthenes.

A. Papadimitriou said:

Ossetians speak an Indo-Iranian language, certainly. And I am not one of those who were saying they were Iranized Caucasians.

The problem with Abaev's work is described reasonably well in the link. He made a dictionary in which he included everything he looked 'Scythian' enough to him.

Concerning personal names, if for example, the name of the queen of the Massageatae 'Tomyris' has an Indo-European, or specifically Indo-Iranian etymology doesn't mean anything for Scythians. Because Scythians weren't Massagetae.

The river names can be pre-Scythian or related to later movements. Basically in Greek sources, alternative names are used which are likely not Greek. Some people in the region may have used them. For example Dnieper is called Borysthenes.

Click to expand...

I see. So your hypothesis is that, firstly, Ossetians are Iranic but have nothing to do with the Scythians (but still would they be related to Sarmatians?), and secondly that Scythians were not Indo-Europeans at all (or just not Indo-Iranian)?

If there are slight evidences (toponyms, personal names, hydronyms, even a few inscriptions at least tentatively associated with Scythian archaeological sites) about the Indo-Iranian nature of the languages of Sarmatians and Massagetae, and definite written evidences of the Indo-Iranian quality of South Scythian (or "Sub-Scythian", this is better) languages like Sogdian and Bactrian, what would Scythian, right in the middle of those population groups, most possibly speak?

The supposedly Scythian names cited by Herodotus arguably sound at least Indo-European, most probably closer to Indo-Iranian than to other branches, though certainly not firmly within Indo-Iranian either in lexicon or in phonology. Do you think they were just non-IE, part of another existing IE branch (Balto-Slavic???) or another now extinct, branch of IE, like many - I don't know if most - linguists also hold that Cimmerians must've been?

markozd said:

I believe that for Herodotus Asia was more or less synonymous with the Persian empire at its maximum extent, plus the Arabian peninsula perhaps and sans the the parts west of the Bosporus. Siberia would have been Europe more likely.

Click to expand...

Without Siberia statement, I agree with you. Even North Caucausia (Russian Part) was part of Asia in many maps

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?...VvZ3JhcGhpY3VzXy1fV29ybGQyLWR1bm4tMTc5NC5qcGc

A. Papadimitriou & Yetos

Yes, it seems you are right. Thanks for the info. :grin:

LeBrok said:

Actually, Scythians and Sarmatians were related to Eastern Europeans, though they had very high Baloch.

Click to expand...

If the early Scythians and Sarmatians earned that much high Baloch admixture later, yes they would be related with Eastern Europeans. Otherwise I mean if they had Baloch structure from the begining, Eastern Europeans would be related with them

Saetrus said:

No, not really, after Corded Ware was kicked out of central Europe R1a does not come back until after 1000AD. No R1a in iron age and medieval Poland:
KO_55, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I1a3a1a1-Y6626
KO_45, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), I2a2a1b2a-L801
KO_22, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
KO_57, Kowalewko (100-300 AD), G2a2b-L30
ME_7, Markowice (1000-1200 AD), I1a2a2a5-Y5384
NA_13, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), I2a1b2-L621
NA_18, Niemcza, (900-1000 AD), J2a1a-L26
etc.
So all R1a, not just R1a-Z93, was contained in Scythian territory until after the Slavic expansion made inroads back to central Europe.
The importance of the 1500BC time Herodotus say Scythians invade the Steppe is that most estimates put Proto-Balto-Slavic branching out 3500 year ago, or at 1500BC, the exact same time. If Proto-Balto-Slavic descended from Corded Ware it would be 5000 years old instead.

Click to expand...

Such samples werent that related to the I-dont-know-which-long-Polish-name culture related to Goths?

Milan.M said:

The "original" Scythians,probably came from central Asia in Iron age and were nomadic tribes,they ruled the area for period of time in Ukraine where Cimmerians have been,similar story told by Herodotus.Later the name Scythians was applied to many tribes of various languages including Thracians,Goths,Bulgarians.The region was known as Scythia also,even thought they dissapeared,the region retained it's name.

In my oppion those "original" Scythians that came from Central Asia and their descendants are mostly today Tatars,like Volga Tatars,they have lineages associated with them including R1a-Z93.
They were "Turkified".

Click to expand...

"various "languages that all belonged to the same branch of the same family. Never heard that Thracians were included among Scythians. Only that some tribes within the Thracian are considered to be descend of Scythian or Scythian like groups. Such as the Getae being derived from the Massagetae. Bulgar were most likely turkified Scythians not vica versa. From your sentence it sounds like Scythians assimilated Bulgars.

And to be fair these non Scythians actually were never considered Scythians. Sarmatians-Alans, Massagetae, Cimmerians Dahae were clearly distinguished from Scythians. Instead of calling them "Scythians" it would be much more appropriate to talk about "People of Scythia".

A. Papadimitriou said:

(Later sources identified the Massagetae with the Alans or the Huns. Today, some people may try to connect them to the Goths, or the Getae in Balkans or the Gutians in Iran. I think, Georgian scholars have supported they were the Moschoi of other sources, who are often thought to have been a Kartvelian tribe)

Concerning, the language Scythians were speaking, no text survives. That means they could have spoken anything. Most etymologies given to personal names etc. are speculative. If they really came from Iran though their language could have had Iranian elements even if they didn't have anything to do with the proto-Iranians in the first place. The identification of the language as 'Eastern Iranian' is based on the work of Abaev who was an Ossetian nationalist who wanted to make Ossetians descendants of the Scythians which is something most likely not true.

Click to expand...

That is some real nonsense here, especially considering the fact that this was all well discussed already.

There are surviving texts from Khotanese Scythian in West China. They were identified as East Iranic. It is historically well documented that Sogdhian is descend of Scythian and that Sarmatians are relatives of Scythians. Soghdian inscriptions are some of the best preserved in Central Asia and they have been identified as East Iranic. Ossetian being an East Iranic language that is descend of Alanic is not something made up by "Ossetian nationalists". Also Alans all the way up to Rostov turning up with yDNA G2a is also a well known fact, and until few years the yDNA G2a among Ossetians being used by Georgian nationalists to discredit Ossetian claims of Alan ancestry is also well known.

In short
1. Khotanese Scythian texts => East Iranic
2. Sogdhian historically documented descend of Scythians => East Iranic
3. Sarmatian, Ossetic and Jasz, close relatives of Scythians => East Iranic

So you have samples from all corners of Scythia

All you have to do is put 1 and 1 together. It is not that hard.

About the Massagetae. Them being identified with the Alans shouldn't be anything hard to understand considering that Alans came from the very same region East of the Caspian. Huns were a confederation of East Iranic, Mongol and Turkic tribes.

Alan said:

"various "languages that all belonged to the same branch of the same family. Never heard that Thracians were included among Scythians. Only that some tribes within the Thracian are considered to be descend of Scythian or Scythian like groups. Such as the Getae being derived from the Massagetae. Bulgar were most likely turkified Scythians not vica versa. From your sentence it sounds like Scythians assimilated Bulgars.
And to be fair these non Scythians actually were never considered Scythians. Sarmatians-Alans, Massagetae, Cimmerians Dahae were clearly distinguished from Scythians. Instead of calling them "Scythians" it would be much more appropriate to talk about "People of Scythia".

Click to expand...

Getae were Thracians and by no means are " derived " from Scythians, neither from Massagetae and their ancestry and language by all authors ancient and modern is considered Thracian.If you read my comment well I exactly say that Tatars perhaps not all of them,include for example Volga Tatars or call them Bulgar if you like were later on Turkified originally they were Scythians,perhaps of those that ancient authors firstly reffered as Scythians before applying that to other people that were or became nomadic or came from the region Scythia.I think the majority of their ancestry is Scythian with later Turkic gene flow,and yes Goths were called Scythians that is another example of "various" languages under label Scythian. That was most likely the nomadic culture ancient authors referred to as Scythian not specifically to certain language group.If "Sarmato-Alans" and Massagetae were also speaking Indo-Iranic why would they distinguished from Scythians,because you say is "language" label.

Boreas said:

Without Siberia statement, I agree with you. Even North Caucausia (Russian Part) was part of Asia in many maps

http://www.wiki-zero.com/index.php?...VvZ3JhcGhpY3VzXy1fV29ybGQyLWR1bm4tMTc5NC5qcGc

A. Papadimitriou & Yetos

Yes, it seems you are right. Thanks for the info. :grin:

Click to expand...

But that is an Anglo-Saxon map from 1800 C. E. . I thought we were talking about Herodotus: