Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

Other slightly later tombs with similar metalwork have been discovered at sites which are closer to the Black Sea coast than Alaca, and it has been suggested that the Alaca tombs show the temporary extension of a northern culture into Anatolia [...] If so, the occupants of the Alaca tombs, which show many kurgan features, may also have been a kurgan people, speaking an Indo-European language. But there is no sign of any spread of this kurgan culture further south in Anatolia, so it cannot be linked to the spread of Hittite, to say nothing of Palaic or Luwian. The language of the rulers who were buried in the Alaca tombs, although probably Indo-European, was almost certainly not Proto-Hittite.

Macqueen, J. G. (1996 edition) The Hittites, and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor, revised and enlarged, Ancient Peoples and Places series (ed. G. Daniel), Thames and Hudson, ISBN0-500-02108-2. Page 32.

If Macqueen is correct about the Alaca tombs (and the other Anatolian Black Sea tombs), then a Steppe-derived (or at least a culturally Steppe-connected) Indo-European people are buried at Alaca who were not Anatolian Indo-Europeans. That leaves three logical options for those who built Alaca and the related southern Black Sea sites, 1) Proto-Greeks 2) Proto-Phyrgians (possibly) or 3) a Steppe Indo-European people who died off without leaving records.

In neither the Balkan model nor the Caucasian model of Armenian migration were Armenians likely in that part of Asia Minor by the 24th-22nd centuries BCE, which is when the Alaca tombs are dated to. But if the Greco-Armenians entered Asia Minor sometime before 2400 BCE, it's possible that the Proto-Greeks had made it to north-central Asia Minor by the time frame that the Alaca tombs were constructed.

Here is the location of Alaca:

View attachment 11308

Here is the migration route of the Proto-Greeks, according to Hamp:

View attachment 11309

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp259_tocharian_origins.pdf (page 13)

According to Hamp's model, the Proto-Greeks would have passed right through the Alaca region on their way to the coast. The Phrygians were in the right place geographically as well to be an option, albeit during the Iron Age, but we don't know enough about who the Phrygians actually were--they themselves could have theoretically been other descendants of the Proto-Greeks.
 
I am also of the mind of a broader connection between Hurro-Urartians and NE-Caucasians. As for the Kura-Araxes culture (3,500-2,000 BCE), i believe it was mixed. I believe it also included Indo-Europeans who were the precursor of Anatolian IEs. For example don't forget the Soyuqbulaq village at the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, in which at 2006, a French-Azerbaijani team discovered nine kurgans at the local cemetery. They were dated to the very beginning of Kura-Araxes, namely the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE, and this date makes it the oldest kurgan cemetery in Transcaucasia by the way. But i am still emphasizing the mixed part because there is a big lack of unity in funerary monuments. More about the Kura-Araxes funerary practices here https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2014_num_40_2_5644.

You write, "I also think that it's possible that there was a genetic relationship between Hurro-Urartian, Indo-European, and various Caucasian languages 5000+ years ago.".
This comment is very accurate mate. Indeed, that's what it appears to have happened. I want to draw your attention to the "Caucasian substrate hypothesis" by Allan Bomhard. I have personally discussed this hypothesis with a couple of linguists and they find it very likable. Furthermore, even David Anthony cautiously supports it. Let me simply give a quote of the study in order to present the general idea of what it discusses, "Evidence will be presented to demonstrate that Proto-Indo-European is the result of the imposition of a Eurasiatic language — to use Greenberg’s term — on a population speaking one or more primordial Northwest Caucasian languages.". Maybe at the outlier of the Maykop region, i ask based on what i have studied? Although Bomhard gives a different scenario which is also interesting. Furthermore, he gives some interesting insights on NE and NW Caucasian as well, and their relationship, such as, "One of the principal points made in Chirikba’s 2015 paper “From North to North-West” is that Northwest Caucasian was transformed over time from a typical North Caucasian branch to a separate phylum in its own right — one that was markedly different from the branch(es) that went on to form the Northeast Caucasian languages. Here, one cannot help thinking that the contact between Pre-Proto-Indo-European and Pre-Proto-Northwest Caucasian might have had an equally transformative effect (“contact-induced language change”) on what was to become Proto-Northwest Caucasian.". By the way, the appearance of distinct settlements/fortresses, during the pre-Maykop period (4,500-4,000 BCE) seems to give some hints into all of these. More about it in this paper, namely "A Generalized Assessment of Cultural Changes at Stratified Sites: The Case of Chalcolithic Fortresses in the Northwestern Caucasus" by Alexander Kozintsev, https://www.academia.edu/32375631/A_Generalized_Assessment_of_Cultural_Changes_at_Stratified_Sites_The_Case_of_Chalcolithic_Fortresses_in_the_Northwestern_Caucasus_2017_. Taken from the abstract we read, "The earlier culture, associated with the constructors of the Meshoko fortress, shows no local roots, and was evidently introduced from Transcaucasia.".

In regards to the Phrygian endonym, i believe that's how they were called. If you read Herodotus carefully, that's what he says actually. That was the name they bore for themselves, "the Phrygians, during the time that they had their abode in Europe and dwelt with them in Macedonia, bore the name of Brygians; but on their removal to Asia, they changed their designation at the same time with their dwelling-place.". Unless there are any other sources that contradict this, which i am totally unaware of.

You write, "Herodotus says, "the Armenians were equipped like the Phrygians, being Phrygian colonists," which is why I assumed he was referring to clothing.".
Yes you are correct, i forgot this part. But still he wouldn't say colonists if he didn't base it on some information he had. For example he doesn't say Phrygian colonists for the Paphlagonians who were dressed very similar to the Phrygians per his account as well. He is obviously basing this on some knowledge he has, be it a result of a local interview or broader historical knowledge.

You write, "I do think that there were Phrygians who settled in the vicinity of Armenia, but I do not believe that they brought the Armenian language or that Armenians are an offshoot of them.".
Again, i am not suggesting they are an offshoot of them, but that they were an additional element of their ethnogenesis. Armenians are obviously related to other earlier Transcaucasian people as well.

As for the Mushki, i am personally more of the mind that they were Kartvelian people. Though i am not saying that some didn't get absorbed by Armenians.

You write, "
This name has been theorized as being of Indo-European origins, related to Rama, possibly related to Romulus.".
To tell you the truth i am equally open to an IE origin for the name Arama, bearing in mind the early IE presence in the region.

Regarding the quote of the Biorvix paper you shared, what the genetic study refers to has to do with what it terms the "Caucasus ancestry profile", which the paper describes as "a dual origin involving Anatolian/Levantine and Iran Neolithic/CHG ancestry, with only minimal EHG/WHG contribution possibly as part of the Anatolian farmer-related ancestry". That's the eastern influence it writes of, which by they way was also present in non-IE Minoans. But again, the genetic data also shows that the EHG component is universally absent in pre-Iron-Age Anatolia but very present in the Bronze Age Mycenaean samples, which suggest a northern steppe route, even though again, a southern Armenian/Transcaucasian route isn't excluded, just diminished in probability.

You write, "Trialeti-Vanadzor is often theorized as being an Indo-European culture, as are some of the other "Armenian" cultures from that time (starting around 2300-2200 BCE), for example Verin/Nerkin Navers.".
Again, this falls in line with what i have written earlier about the Kura-Araxes having an early presence of IEs, and also being the precursor of Anatolian IEs, in part. This view would also be compatible with the view that Anatolian IE should rather be considered a sister of PIE, rather than its daughter. This is also what a paper by Guus Kroonen, Gojko Barjamovic, and Michaël Peyrot presents, namely the "Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian (2018)" (https://zenodo.org/record/1240524),"the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. The period of Proto-Anatolian linguistic unity can now be placed in the 4th millennium BCE and may have been contemporaneous with e.g. the Maykop culture (3700–3000 BCE), which influenced the formation and apparent westward migration of the Yamnaya and maintained commercial and cultural contact with the Anatolian highlands (Kristiansen et al. 2018). Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. Our findings call for the identification of the speakers of Proto-Indo-Anatolian as a population earlier that the Yamnaya and late Maykop cultures.". A contemporaneous to Maykop culture points us to the Kura-Araxes, in addition to what i have written earlier about its association with IE cultural elements. But again, early IE presence in Transcaucasia which i am also a supporter of, doesn't imply that the Mycenaeans followed a southern route. The Balkans were full of steppe IEs likewise, and Mycenaeans evidently have the aforementioned EHG component, while Anatolian IEs didn't before the Iron Age.

You write, "A post 1200 BCE migration of the Armenian language, especially one as late as the 700s BCE, doesn't fit with the ethnogenetic model of Armenians (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015206), nor does it explain the early contacts between Armenian and Urartian or Armenian and Caucasian languages, both of which are widely accepted. For example, there are likely numerous loanwords from Armenian into Urartian from the Urartian language's first attestations in the 800s BCE. Direct Akkadian loans into Armenian is also suggestive of an earlier Armenian presence in Armenia/Urartu.".
It would be unfitting if i suggested that Phrygian colonists were proto-Armenians, but i have repeatedly denied that. Again, my view is that Phrygian derived colonists came eastwards and eventually mixed with the earlier locals therefore introducing the similarities present in the Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian languages, without excluding the similarities shared between Armenian and other earlier local Transcaucasian languages. I believe the confusion stems from the hypothetical grouping of Armenian very close to Greek, which it is, but still there are differences also. Last, whether "genetic signals of population mixture cease after ~1200 BCE" (per the paper you shared) is true or not, is also not indicative of linguistic and culture influence, but rather suggestive.

You write, "As for the Minoans and Mycenaeans, fair point. Perhaps what I should say is pre-Indo-European Minoan-like "native" peoples+(Indo-European?) LMBA Armenian-like people=Mycenaeans.".
Yeah, that is correct. Proto-Greek IEs appear to have been a minority (approximately a ratio of 1/5) that came and eventually assimilated much of the earlier pre-Greek people. The same happened with many other IEs as well with varying degrees in each case. They came as minorities and eventually managed to assimilate the earlier people, nonetheless producing distinct hybrid cultures wherever they went. As for LMBA Armenian=Mycenaean, not really. Go see the "Published ancient" samples in page 26 of the "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" study.

You write, "Why is it that as far as Iranian go, Herodotus relied on "folk etymologies" as an explanation for the origins of Iranians--an explanation we have long known is hogwash--but with Armenian he relied on "interviews" and "broader historical knowledge of the time"? Don't you think that's a little bit of a double standard?".
Not really a double standard. Herodotus simply recorded information, which could be from folk etymologies, from peoples he interviewed, from common historical knowledge, etc.. He recorded information. Furthermore, there is a difference between an etymology which can be considered folk and something which he obviously doesn't rely on an interpretation of an name, but rather is evidently knowledge from either an interview or from common historical knowledge.

You write, "Armenian, unlike Iranian, does not have 86 languages in its family to compare and contrast, or 2300 years of written records, or another accepted close language family with a long written tradition (Indic) so that makes tracing its origins significantly more difficult. If Armenian did, it might be clear whether Herodotus actually relied on interviews and historical knowledge or if he relied on "folk etymologies" like he did with Iranian. The fact that he connected Iranians to Greek origins should call into question his historical credibility, at least as far as the origins of ethnic groups go.".
Neither did Herodotus refer to Iranians, let alone in a broader collective sense. He referred to Persians and Medes. He didn't write the same stuff for Cimmerians, Saka, or Scythians for example. Second, have you actually read Herodotus in a broader sense, because he also mentions other accounts in terms of Perseus, such as for examples a Persian tale which speaks of Perseus being an Assyrian, who eventually became Greek. Numerous other stuff as well. He also writes that the Persians were formerly called by the Greeks Cephenes, but by themselves and their neighbors Artaei. And for the Medes he wrote that they were formerly called by everyone Arians. He even names all of their tribes by distinct names. In general, don't be so quick to judge his work from a relatively incomplete small sample. Herodotus is a recorder of broader information, some of which was not historical, but could be mythological as well. His account in regards to Armenians though doesn't appear mythological nor etymological for th
at matter. I am not just relying on Herodotus, neither do i have a dogmatic approach into all of these.

You write, "Plus, you have both the Armenian endonym (Hay=Hayasa) and exonym (Urumu and other similar names=(?) Aram, etc) represented in the Armenia-region well before the 700s BCE. Hayasa from the 16th century to the 13th century BCE, with names the reflect some Armenian names like gods Unag-Astuas, Baltaik, some city names such as Ura, and kings' names Hakkana (which has been connected to Armenian Hayk/Hayka (patriarch) and Luwian Huhaha (grandfather)), Karanni (Kar? Karen? This has also been connected to Greek Karannos and Macedonian Caranus). The city of Samukha, on the border of Hayasa and the Hatti lands, is theorized as having contributed to Somkheti, the Georgian exnonym for Armenians.".
You also have pre-Greek Cabeiri, Mycenae (possibly), etc., as well as a pre-Greek substrate and even Anatolian IE elements, that doesn't mean they were originally proto-Greek just because they were absorbed into their culture. The same in the case of Armenia. Hurro-Urartians were not IE but were eventually absorbed by IEs who in return conserved elements of their culture, language, etc.. IEs of Kura-Araxes, and then Hittites, Luwians, and Mitanni could have as well provided elements later absorbed by other IE people such as the Armenians (proper). That's why it is relatively difficult to linguistically, archaeologically, and historically assess the situation of the broader region, because it has had a rich history of migrations and cultures which all affected each other. Therefore i personally choose to be open-minded about any scenario. Neither do i exclude a southern route by the way, as i have repeatedly written. But in the case of Eric Hamp, his broader hypothesis is problematic, especially in terms of Cypriots and Pamphylians which are certainly later Greek settlers, and not proto-Greeks.
 
For a lot of these points, we are clearly in agreement. I think we may have possibly misunderstood each other...or at least I misunderstood you initially. Your views regarding Proto-Indo-European origins and interactions with one another are very in line with my own interpretations of recent studies.

As for the Phrygians...they may have called themselves Phrygians, but we do not know. We know that the Greeks called them Phrygians. The Assyrians differentiated between the Phrygians and Mushki, which adds to the confusion regarding these terms' relationship. Apparently Phrygian was also a personal name. Bryges has been connected to PIE bʰerǵʰ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰerǵʰ-) which exists in a number of Indo-European languages (as well as Urartian and Semitic languages!) According to modern linguistic consensus, from what I've read, Phrygian was probably closer to Greek than any other language. Personally, I wonder if there was a Greco-Phrygian clade (or sub-clade), and the Phrygians split off in the north or NW of Asia Minor and settled in the Troy area.

As far as the Mushki go, they're really two groups that may or may not have been related. There's a theory that at least the so-called "Western" Mushki conquered/imposed themselves over the Phrygians. The only attested Mushki name that has survived is Mita, which is a very Indo-European name and obviously comparable with Anatolian Mita and very likely with Greco-Phyrgian Midas. The name Mushki also has suitable potential Indo-European etymologies as well. Additionally, the western (Phrygian) ceramic ware from during the Bronze Age Collapse hasn't been found anywhere close to historic Armenia, whereas the Transcaucasian pottery (i.e. from the Armenia/northern Iran region) has been found as far west as Elazig at this time, which would mean that this culture (or these cultures) were present in most of historic Armenia by ~1200 BCE. This Transcaucasian pottery corresponds with the migration of the Mushki/Urumu/Kaska into the Assyrian-sphere. So there's actually more reason to believe the the Mushki were Indo-European than they were Kartvelian. If the Meshketi Georgians are connected to the Mushki, it could be because they were Indo-Europeans who were Kartvelian-ized (which we know has happened at other times, such as Georgian/Pontic Greeks who have become Laz far more recently).

As for Armenians, the point that I was making is that there are really only 3 names for Armenians--the endonym is Hay (from Haya/Hayo), the exonym is obviously Armenian (and variations such as Armani/Ermeni, etc), and then the Georgian name for Armenians, which is Somkheti. The first two are attested in the Armenia-region prior to the Bronze Age collapse (for example, Hay=Hayasa, which is etymologizes as "land of the Hay(a)"--incidentally the same meaning as the Armenian name for Armenia Hayastan), and various Arme/Armani, etc. Somkheti has either been identified as being derived from the city of Samukha (I think more likely) or from the Mushki (which doesn't explain the So- part of the name though). So the point that I was making was, if the two main names--Hay and Armenian--quite possibly have references in the region from prior to the Bronze Age Collapse, I don't think that it's too far fetched to suggest that Armenians were present in historic Armenia prior to the 600s BCE. It'd be like having records of both the Ellenes and the Greeks, but dismissing that these were Greek-speakers, and arguing that Greeks arrived much later. Armenians definitely have Hurro-Urartian, likely Mushki, likely Luwian and possibly Hittite, likely Hattic and Kaska (both non-Indo-Euros), and some other groups mixed in too, and nobody is denies this. But the issue is where the language came from and when it entered the Armenia region. Since Indo-Europeans were clearly living in historically/culturally important parts of Armenia by 2000 BCE, since Hayasa and Arme were attested in the Bronze Age, since the bulk of the Armenian ethnogenesis was completed by 1200 BCE and large-scale admixture has been scant since then, since Armenian and Hurro-Urartian had long contacts by the time of the establishment of Urartu, since Armenian and Kartvelian have had very long contacts, since there are likely loanwords from Armenian into the earliest attested Urartian, and since there are geographic names which could be of Armenian origins--Urartian Arzheshkun=Armenian=Arjesh (which has an IE etymology), the river Aratsani, potentially Urartian Melia (Melid) etc. and some of the Urartian given names like Arama, Argisti, possibly Menua (all of which have possible/probable Indo-European etymologies), I think it's likely that Armenians were present well before the 600s BCE.

Anyway, here's an article about the relationship of Armenian and Urartian languages, if you're interested. Petrosyan is Armenian, but I've been able to cross-check much of his claims with outside (i.e. non-Armenian) sources, so he is fairly objective​. https://www.academia.edu/2939663/The_Armenian_Elements_in_the_Language_and_Onomastics_of_Urartu
 
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't address these points:

"Last, whether "genetic signals of population mixture cease after ~1200 BCE" (per the paper you shared) is true or not, is also not indicative of linguistic and culture influence, but rather suggestive."

You're right, to an extent. But it's more suggestive of there not being a group (at least a significant group, Balkan or otherwise) mixing in after 1200 BCE. According to you (which I have no reason to doubt, mind you) the Proto-Greek IEs accounted for 1/5 of the total "Greek" (I use that in quotes not deridingly but to accommodate various linguistic/cultural groups living in greater Greece, IE or not) but their population was still detectable.

There was a significant rise in a Steppe-derived population during the MLBA, according to genetic research. This Steppe group, whoever they were, were genetically dissimilar from the previous, EBA inhabitants. There's a table in this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34041-Bronze-age-Trialeti-Culture-in-Transcaucasia

So the genetics shows a rise in Steppe ancestry in the MLBA and that admixture largely ceases after 1200 BCE. If there was a population that moved in after this, they must have been a very small group and must have abandoned their own ceramic culture and adopted native conventions very quickly and/or they were a population that didn't mix in at all, who were strong enough to impose their language and culture on the natives, but had such scant a material culture that they left no records of them having been there (besides their language, of course). None of this seems very reasonable to me.

Linguistic research suggests long contact between Armenian and Caucasian languages. Linguistic research also suggests early contact between Armenian and Hurro-Urartian languages. Armenian also has significant loanwords and influence from Akkadian, which ceased being used as a living/everyday language in the 9thcentury BCE.

The archaeological record isn’t suggestive of any “western” or “Balkanic” element in the greater-Armenia region between the Bronze Age Collapse and the 600s BCE. However, we have the intrusion of “Transcaucasian” pottery (i.e. of the Trialeti-Vanadzor type) throughout all of Eastern Anatolia (i.e. the Armenian Highlands/the extent of ancient Armenia) around 1200 BCE, which corresponds to the migration of the Kaska, Urumu, and Mushki tribes from modern Northeast Turkey into the Van area and southwest. This “Transcaucasian” ceramic ware was widespread and numerous enough that it’s estimated that there was a 50% increase in population into the Eastern Anatolian interior from the Caucasus at this time.

The reason I was saying “Armenian” for the Mycenaeans is because this is the exact wording used in Angela’s article from Nature to describe the possible source for the Steppe-derived population that separated the Mycenaeans from the “native” Minoan-like populations.
“Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia6, 7, 8, introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe1, 6, 9 or Armenia4, 9. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry.”
(https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...rq8WVAMpP-SfGerriklOb5-JK4PQu2o4hKeBf7fel4E9)(it’s in the abstract).

To me, this seems to compliment the southern/Caucasus migration route for the proto-Greeks and Proto-Armenians and also supports the argument that the Armenian-language was spoken in Armenia prior to the 600s BCE. It also potentially supports Hayasa being connected to Armenians.

You're clearly an intelligent person and I really respect your knowledge about and views on Greek history, and history of the region, but I think it's a lot more difficult to justify that Armenian-speakers entered the Armenia region in 600 BCE (something that has been an outdated model for about 50 years already--it was initially suggested to explain the transition from non-IE Urartu to IE Armenia) than it is to justify Armenian-speakers being present in Armenia by 1200 BCE at the latest. They were there, they just didn't leave any written records in Armenian, or the ones that they did leave haven't survived.

The only other possibility I can think of is that Armenians and Greeks split north or to the east of the Black Sea, and Armenians migrated via the Caucasian-model whereas the Greeks migrated via the Northern model. But I don't know how possible or realistic this is.
 
Last edited:
One thing that I was thinking, and that I see you've suggested in a way too, is that perhaps some of the earlier "Armenian" Indo-European peoples were Anatolian speakers of some sort (or Proto-Anatolian speakers). But I think it's likely that the Armenian-speakers were present in Armenia by the 1500s BCE due to the name Hayasa, which corresponds to much of historic Armenia (Hayk'/Hayastan). Maybe the proto-Armenians were an infusion of Steppe-derived peoples who established themselves in Georgia (Trialeti) and then pushed or ventured further south and west. The burial practices in Verin and Nerkin Navers (2300BCE-1500 BCE) are in agreement with heroic burials in Armenian legends, and the vicinity of these sites were used as necropolises for historically attested Armenian nobility. Additionally, the region where Verin and Nerkin Navers are located, played a central role in Armenian origin myths. All of this suggests some cultural continuity to me. https://www.academia.edu/25264019/R...es_in_Nerkin_Naver_Armenia_middle_bronze_age_ Also, as I said before, the horses buried at these sites are Steppe-derived, which obviously means there was some sort of contact or relationship with the Steppe or the people that lived there. According to the Armenian tradition, the Armenian nation either formed in the 2400s or the 2100s BCE. These dates are in line with that Nature study that I linked previously:

We show that Armenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasian populations that occurred between ~3000 and ~2000 BCE, a period characterized by major population migrations after the domestication of the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advanced civilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals of population mixture cease after ~1200 BCE when Bronze Age civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly and violently collapsed.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2015206

Perhaps Armenian language came from the Balkans, but much earlier than the first millennium BCE. This could account for some of the possible Balkanic connected names in Hayasa, like Karanni (Karanos?), but this isn't the only possible explanation for these names (i.e they could have gone from east>west rather than west>east or they could have been mediated through Anatolians or Phrygians).

Some have suggested that Armenian is equidistant to both Greek and Indo-Iranian, which leaves the possibility of a Caucasus route open for Armenians--the pivot being in the North or NE Black Sea, with Proto-Greeks going west, Proto-Armenians going south, and Proto-Indo-Iranians going east (and possibly also west).
 
We are generally in agreement mate. I personally haven't misunderstood you, i see you are likewise open-minded about any scenario and just find the southern route more likable, which i respect since i also haven't excluded the possibility.

Regarding Graeco-Phrygian i do believe it was a thing. Personally i believe it was something like this following map shows, which i would date at approximately 2200 BCE, meaning at about the time of the southern expansion of
Greek tribes, namely Aeolic (Minyans, Arcadians, etc.) beginning from the region of Thessaly. Take note that i personally view Macedonian as a NW-Greek (Doric) dialect with an Aeolic and Phrygian substrate, depending on the side it bordered. I recently read a very interesting article on the subject. This also tends to be the prevalent view among the international community nowadays, based on the material we have. That's the only thing i would fix on the map, even though it is suggestive of that substrate the way it is presented.
PGkGeorgiev.jpg


Fair points regarding Mushki. As for pottery being found all the way to Elazığ, it isn't that surprising, bearing in mind that the region tended to be encompassed by all the big local cultures throughout time, such as the Kura-Araxes, Hurro-Urartians, and Mitanni. It obviously falls within this eastern sphere.

Likewise fair points regarding Armenians. The steppe ancestry of MLBA and MBA Armenian samples that you directed me to further complement all these (as a side note it's incredible how much less of it modern Armenians seem to possess). Unfortunately these samples are dated to approximately 1500 BCE, which do diminish the likelihood of a Phrygian influence, but not really of an earlier Balkanic migration. Although what you shared did open my appetite for some more research into earlier Armenian samples and i came by this study which does include a number of them, namely "Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5003663/), but unfortunately the results are based on a very poor selection of components in my opinion which don't really answer my questions. It seems the real steppe intrusion we are looking for only happened at around the MLBA, which largely points to a Greek source as we both seem to be suggesting as a scenario in the last paragraph which you will read below. It would be very interesting to see what these earlier Armenian samples produce in other autosomal calculators. One other interesting point in terms of Armenian, which could push back the date of its formation, is that dialects of it (among other IE branches) also show glottalization (associated with PIE). It has been argued to be recent influence from the other Caucasian languages, but Frederik Kortlandt argues glottalization cannot be considered a modern innovation and must be reconstructed with a wider dialectal distribution for older stages of Armenian.

You write, "You're right, to an extent. But it's more suggestive of there not being a group (at least a significant group, Balkan or otherwise) mixing in after 1200 BCE. According to you (which I have no reason to doubt, mind you) the Proto-Greek IEs accounted for 1/5 of the total "Greek" (I use that in quotes not deridingly but to accommodate various linguistic/cultural groups living in greater Greece, IE or not) but their population was still detectable.".
Not really bothered by the quote marks mate, that's exactly what i wrote. The same was true in many others as well. For example, Albanians, being genetically almost identical to the Greeks, also appear to have had a similar ratio of IE genetic intrusion. Other than the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" study which gives suggestions of this ratio based on the EHG ancestry, reaching approximately 16%, we also have this study, namely "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5048219/), which shows that in general modern southern Europeans tend to have preserved a more Neolithic autosomal profile. Again, these ratios are all suggestive of IE genetic influence, not indicative. As for the Armenian case, i agree with your point as i have aforementioned.
nihms801601f7.jpg


You write, "The reason I was saying “Armenian” for the Mycenaeans is because this is the exact wording used in Angela’s article from Nature to describe the possible source for the Steppe-derived population that separated the Mycenaeans from the “native” Minoan-like populations.".
That's actually word for word what the genetic study writes. By the way, i did address this very possibility in an earlier comment by sharing the same quote (two times i believe).

You write, "but I think it's a lot more difficult to justify that Armenian-speakers entered the Armenia region in 600 BCE".
Again, i have repeatedly denied that. My position was more along the lines of an influence upon the early IE language already being spoken in Armenia, not really an introduction of a new IE language between 700-600 BCE.

You write, "
The only other possibility I can think of is that Armenians and Greeks split north or to the east of the Black Sea, and Armenians migrated via the Caucasian-model whereas the Greeks migrated via the Northern model. But I don't know how possible or realistic this is.".
That has also passed my mind as a possibility, although for the split to have occurred more along the borders of Maykop and Yamnaya, or in general the Maykop outlier. With proto-Armenian/proto-Anatolian migrating south and representing the IE element of the Kura-Araxes culture, while Greek taking the northern route and ending up in the Balkans a little later. This has always been one of my numerous hypotheses likewise.

You write, "
One thing that I was thinking, and that I see you've suggested in a way too, is that perhaps some of the earlier "Armenian" Indo-European peoples were Anatolian speakers of some sort (or Proto-Anatolian speakers).".
Yes i have indeed made some remarks, as also mentioned above. I believe that Kura-Araxes' IEs might have influenced both the formation of Anatolian IE languages as well as Armenian. At least for the case of Greek i have read that Anatolian languages tended to be their closest IE relative, before they eventually became extinct by the expansion of Greek and the Anatolian Hellenization. If Greek was considered that close to the Anatolian languages, then i believe the same must be true for Armenian which is largely considered to be very close to Greek. Indeed, some even tried classifying Armenian as an Anatolian language in the past. Read this interesting article presenting an early hypothesis, namely "Is Armenian an Anatolian Language?" by William M. Austin, https://www.jstor.org/stable/409074, (you need to have a free registered account). But even the author concludes with the admission for the need of further research.

You write, "
Or perhaps the Armenian language came from the Balkans, but much earlier than the first millennium BCE, rather, sometime between 2000-1500 BCE. This could account for some of the possible Balkanic connected names in Hayasa, like Karanni (Karanos?) but this isn't the only possible explanation for these names (i.e they could have gone from east>west or been filtered through an Anatolian or Phrygian group).".
This is also a good hypothesis which based on the MLBA Armenian samples i tend to view as a more probable case. It can be justified by the fact that we see steppe ancestry in MLBA and MBA Armenian samples, but not in contemporary Anatolian ones, especially by taking into account the seafaring traditions of the Greeks (in contrast to the Transcaucasians), which could bypass an Anatolian land route, therefore explaining the absence of steppe ancestry in Anatolians IEs. Again, there was a Greek mythological/legendary expansion into the area of Transcaucasia, as i have previously pointed out in earlier comments, that is accompanied with archaeological similarities (especially with the Trialeti culture).
 
I think we have very much come to the same conclusions.

Interestingly, it looks like modern-Armenians are closer to EBA Armenians than they are to the Steppe-derived Bronze Age Armenians--but it seems that the Steppe-derived BA Armenians were a significant population at the time (throwing out the possibility that they were a minority ruling class imposed on a primarily native population). In that other thread I shared with you, there is a suggestion that the BA Armenians disappeared and there was an influx of genetically native peoples returning (and from this genetically native populations the majority of modern Armenians primarily derive). If Anatolian Indo-Europeans are not Steppe-derived (as Reich suggests based on genetic evidence, and that Damgaard paper suggests based on archaeological/linguistic evidence), or if Hurro-Urartians were a very early "Indo-European" dialect (i.e. they split off before Anatolian did), as Laroche, Bomhard, and Fournet suggest, perhaps the average modern Armenian derives from one of these groups, who subsequently "returned" to Armenia (perhaps after being pushed out by the earliest intrusions of Proto-Armenian speakers, or at least Steppe-peoples). If Kura-Araxes was Proto-Hurro-Urartian speaking (fully or partially) it would suggest that Proto-Hurro-Urartians could have been genetically similar to Proto-Anatolians also. If it was Anatolians who returned to Armenia (from which modern Armenians largely descend genetically), it could have been Hittites and/or Luwians (the Luwians are generally believed to have contributed to the Armenian ethnogenesis and also believed to have had an influence the Armenian language). The only other viable option (of historically attested peoples) is the Hattians. If the Kaska were a Hattic people, and if Hattians were of Anatolian Neolithic Farmer ancestry and EBA Armenians were as well (which seems to be the case as present-day Armenians are used as a modern analogy for the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers), at least partially, this could explain the re-emergence of this native ancestry.

It does look like the Steppe intrusions started in the MLBA, and increased in prevalence, reaching its height in the LBA, so perhaps this is indicative of multiple waves of migrations from a Steppe-derived group, or maybe even different Steppe groups. Perhaps some are connected to the Mitanni or another Indo-Iranian or Indic group, like whoever interacted with the Kassites (I'm not sure about those peoples' genetics though, so this might not be possible)?

It would be interesting to know where the samples in the table were found.

I’ve actually already read the Austin paper about Armenian being an Anatolian language that you linked. It’s interesting, and it’s a shame that more research wasn’t done following his. Potentially, the Armenian/Anatolian linguistic connection could be explained by influence/mixing with Luwians and Hittites though, rather than the Armenian language itself originally being an Anatolian language. An alternate explanation is that Armenian was originally an Anatolian language that was significantly altered by influence from Indo-Iranian and Greek/Proto-Balkan cultures. I’m still caught up in that Nature study though, which suggests that the Steppe (and Indo-European?) ancestry in the Mycenaeans came from BA Armenians. It would be interesting to find out if any of these Bronze Age Armenian samples from the table were similar to BA Greek samples or any Balkanic samples because then we could theorize that the Greco-Armenians left the Balkans for Armenia/the Caucasus, and then Proto-Greeks went back west. That BA Armenian>Mycenaean sample, as I understand it, seems to be the sticky-wicket, so to speak.

One of the popular earlier theories was that the Hay were a native population of some undetermined language who were conquered by a theoretical Armen people, who were Indo-Euros close to Greco-Macedonians and/or Phrygians (Diakonoff was a champion of this theory—he dated this occurrence to the early 12thcentury BCE). But there is little to no actual evidence of this. Conversely, we have a preponderance of Arme/Arman names present in the greater Armenia region by the mid-third millennium BCE. This is supported by Damgaard et al.’s assertions that the earliest recorded Indo-Europeans names are related to Arme/Armani (which is also Indo-European, according to them). They suggest that the language of Armi was an early Anatolian/proto-Hittite language that had Semitic influences. Damgaard, using Archi as a source, places Armani in the vicinity of modern Samsat, Turkey, which happens to be an important region in ancient Armenian myths and legends (it was close to the location of some of Aram's exploits). So what if the Armans were actually an IE Anatolian people, and the Hay were a Steppe-derived IE intrusion? One etymology for Hay is from PIE poti meaning “lords, masters” (poti>hoti>hati>hay…something like this) which could be explained by an imposition upon a native population (the Hay became the masters/lords of the land and the people living in it). Another option suggests that Hay came from PIE h₂éyos/*áyos meaning “metal”, which also points to a northern Anatolian or Caucasian origin (compare to Greek Chalybes, etc). The Assyrians call Armenians “Armani” to this day. Semitic/Assyrian traders would have encountered Damgaard’s Indo-Europeans in Armani, which was fairly close to the northern borders of the Assyrian Empire.

So Armenians then would be an IE Anatolian people called Armans plus a later Steppe-derived population (probably connected to Greco-Phrygians and Indo-Iranians) called Hatio originally, which became Hay.

It's a shame that more research wasn't done in Armenian and Greek linguistics. I think both peoples are proving to extremely important in studying Indo-European languages, cultures, and genetics. Both groups seem to be to be something of relics.
 
Last edited:

The same Indo-European root word also gave rise to Latin "aqua" (water). One other interesting fact, is that in the "Geography" of Strabo we find a Scythian tribe/region named "Achaei" in the north-western Caucasus, which by the way is how the Greek "Achaeans" is also pronounced in Greek, namely "Αχαιοί/Achaei". These Scythians were also related to the water element, since they lived by robberies at sea. Specifically it is found in Book 11, Chapter 2 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/11B*.html). Here is also a map which is based on Strabo's description.

In any case, later he also mentions an account that says that the name is traced to the expedition of Jason and his Argonauts, when he had visited the region of Colchis to steal/bring-back the "Golden Fleece", but this is not certain.

Well, the Achaei and Heniochi etc. are in the region where we can find Abkhazians, Adygei people today etc. and he doesn't call them Scythian, as far as I remember.

He believed that there was a movement from Greece to NW Caucaucaus, and that those who inhabited that area descended from Pthiotic Achaei and Laconians. That is the fact, his belief - assertion. It can be interpreted in various ways.

Concerning Hurrians and 'Minoans' there are no connections. 'Hurro-Urartians' are not related to North West Caucasians. If they are related to any Caucasian linguistic group these are the North East Caucasians, (especially Dagestanis imo) who have the highest Steppe EMBA admixture in the region afaik.
 
Concerning Hurrians and 'Minoans' there are no connections. 'Hurro-Urartians' are not related to North West Caucasians. If they are related to any Caucasian linguistic group these are the North East Caucasians, (especially Dagestanis imo) who have the highest Steppe EMBA admixture in the region afaik.

How does NE Caucasians having a high degree of Steppe admixture support their relationship to the Hurro-Urartians? If Hurro-Urartians were connected to Indo-Europeans, it was through a pre-pre-proto-Indo European language, which would have been well before Yamnaya, etc. See this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39063-Hurro-Urartian-as-a-sister-to-Indo-European

Wouldn't Steppe admixture in Daghestanis/NE Caucasians suggest influence from the north, rather than the south (i.e. Hurro-Urartians)?

EDIT: Just realized that maybe you were referring to Minoans being connected to NE Caucasians and not Hurro-Urartians?
 
We have to answer the bigger questions first like did R1b in West asia came from Balkans or Caucasus? Minoans and Hurrians case is simple EEF came from East to Balkan to make future Minoans, Etruscans or part of their ancestry at least.
 
How does NE Caucasians having a high degree of Steppe admixture support their relationship to the Hurro-Urartians? If Hurro-Urartians were connected to Indo-Europeans, it was through a pre-pre-proto-Indo European language, which would have been well before Yamnaya, etc. See this thread: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/39063-Hurro-Urartian-as-a-sister-to-Indo-European

Wouldn't Steppe admixture in Daghestanis/NE Caucasians suggest influence from the north, rather than the south (i.e. Hurro-Urartians)?

EDIT: Just realized that maybe you were referring to Minoans being connected to NE Caucasians and not Hurro-Urartians?

No, some people wanted to connect 'Minoans' to Kura-Araxes, for their own reasons, which is something I did not ever understand. We had a G2b labeled 'Kura-Araxes', a J1, there was an R1b of some short.

Now, if we assume that pre-PIE was spoken in S. Anatolia, there could have been early pre-PIE related expansions east and west but I wouldn't place any special importance on that.

Halaf culture btw, to me, always looked 'familiar' in a way. First we should understand the origins of Halaf, what changes during the Halaf-Ubaid transitional period if and when influences from the north appear etc

I do not connect 'Steppe admixture' to early / proto-Indoeuropeans. Data do not show any such connection, imo. Among the steppe-ists only Parpola has a scenario that seems plausible but my first option would be to invert it, at least.
 
Regarding the modern autosomal profile of Armenians, all these that you write are very realistic scenarios. But have you thought in terms of more recent events. For example it is known that medieval Armenia came to encompass much of eastern Anatolia (or more precisely modern eastern Turkey, not really Anatolia), and even before the genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians were all over the place. I don't know, did a considerable number of them manage to resettle in Armenia or were most of them massacred? If many of them managed to resettle in Armenia, then it could give an additional explanation to the ones you have suggested. Surely these displaced Armenians should have inherited additional Anatolian Neolithic ancestry.

Regarding the steppe intrusions, i also believe it might have been a result of different IE groups. This was after all a very interesting period, with Mycenaean Greeks evidently having strong relations with the region, Mitanni IEs coming and subjugating the earlier Hurrian people, and the mixed case of the second wave of Hyksos in Egypt which also has evidence of an IE presence, at least in the upper classes (ruling and military). I only stress the case of Greeks because of the linguistic commonalities.


You write, "It would be interesting to know where the samples in the table were found.".

Which samples are you referring to? The ones from the study i shared or from the thread? In any case, the supplementary information of the "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" does include all of them.
https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/98916/field_highwire_adjunct_files/3/322347-4.xlsx
https://www.biorxiv.org/highwire/filestream/98916/field_highwire_adjunct_files/4/322347-5.xlsx
The first excel includes the Armenian samples from the "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" study, while the second excel includes Armenian samples from other studies. Do a word search and you will find them along with all their respective information.


You write, "An alternate explanation is that Armenian was originally an Anatolian language that was significantly altered by influence from Indo-Iranian and Greek/Proto-Balkan cultures.".

That is my personal view in this. Specifically that the IE element found in Kura-Araxes eventually gave rise to Anatolian IE and maybe pre-proto-Armenian IE, while later migrations from the Balkans influenced the formation of proto-Armenian IE. All these are hypotheses in the end.

You write, "I’m still caught up in that Nature study though, which suggests that the Steppe (and Indo-European?) ancestry in the Mycenaeans came from BA Armenians.".
It suggests it as an option in addition to the northern route though. It simply gives the possible routes the steppe component might have taken to reach Greece. Specifically it writes, "However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter-gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia, introduced via a proximal source related to either the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe or Armenia.". Furthermore, the study writes, "could model Mycenaeans as a mixture of the Anatolian Neolithic and Chalcolithic-to-Bronze Age populations from Armenia" and "Mycenaeans can also be modelled as a mixture of Minoans and Bronze Age steppe populations, suggesting that, alternatively, ‘eastern’ ancestry arrived in both Crete and mainland Greece, followed by ~13–18% admixture with a ‘northern’ steppe population in mainland Greece only.". As a side note, by "eastern" they refer to the CHG/Iran_N component. I tend to go with the second scenario, again because we don't see the steppe component in the Anatolian IE samples which would be suggestive of a southern route being taken, and at the same time because we see the "eastern" (CHG/Iran_N) already being present not just in Minoans, but Bronze Age southwestern Anatolians, Neolithic Central Anatolians from Tepecik-Çiftlik, a Chalcolithic northwestern Anatolian, and western Anatolians from Kumtepe as well, meaning it was widespread even among non-IEs from early.


You write, "That BA Armenian>Mycenaean sample, as I understand it, seems to be the sticky-wicket, so to speak.".

Which sample, can you give the designation?

Regarding "Hay" i am beginning to see it more and more as a non-IE thing, related to the earlier Hattians. In the same way we see the non-IE Heteo-Cretans in Archaic/Classical Greece, even attested in the Homeric Epics (pertaining to LBA). This would also be able to explain the "eastern" CHG/Iran_N ( without an additional steppe ancestry) component which was widespread in the broader region of the Aegean, Anatolia, and Caucasus/Transcaucasia even among non-IE people. And as a suggestion it's not that exaggerated, bearing in mind that even IE Hittites adopted their kingdom's name, namely "Hattusa", from the earlier non-IE Hattians. As for "Chalybes", who were metal-smiths (hence our word for steel), i see them related to either Hattic or Hurrian-type of people likewise. In Hattic "ḫapalki" means "hard iron, steel" and in Hurrian "ḫabalgi" means "iron". Maybe the name Chalybes is a result of metathesis of some proto-root *χab/palʸ, at least that's what a knowledgeable linguist i discussed it with had written to me, namely Philippos Kitselis. But the broad appearance of seemingly related words in the IE world, such as the ones from the "h₂éyos/*áyos" you mentioned, obscures things. As a side note, Anatolia had probably the earliest steel production in history, namely from 2100-1800 BCE. Have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaman-Kaleh%C3%B6y%C3%BCk and here https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/anthroscape/iron-from-turkey-found-to-be-oldest-steel-t2477.html. Even older than the likewise ignored steel from Niger at 1500 BCE. It is my view that the Hittites who came in power later, inherited this knowledge and probably kept it as a State secret. Once the Hittite Empire collapsed at approximately 1180 BCE, this secret became public giving rise to the Iron Age (i give credit to Luis Aldamiz for this last conclusion which is very interesting).


You write, "It's a shame that more research wasn't done in Armenian and Greek linguistics. I think both peoples are proving to extremely important in studying Indo-European languages, cultures, and genetics. Both groups seem to be to be something of relics.".
I totally agree.
 
You write, "Well, the Achaei and Heniochi etc. are in the region where we can find Abkhazians, Adygei people today etc. and he doesn't call them Scythian, as far as I remember.".
Well, in the same region we can also find Russians, Greeks, Tatars (Turks), Armenians, Kurds, etc., in addition to Adygei (or Circassians) and Abkhazians. The Caucasus has had probably the most diverse concentration of different ethnic groups throughout time. For example at the very center of the Caucasus we find the Iranian Ossetians (Scythian tribe). Furthermore, he doesn't call them Scythian per se neither does he call them anything else other than their tribal name. The "Scythian" characterization i wrote was more along geographical lines, since their abode falls within the Scythian region. Last, he doesn't call them Cercetae either, which is largely believed to be the ancestors of Adygei (Circassians).


You write, "He believed that there was a movement from Greece to NW Caucaucaus, and that those who inhabited that area descended from Pthiotic Achaei and Laconians. That is the fact, his belief - assertion. It can be interpreted in various ways.".

Didn't i write that account as well, in terms of what he mentioned concerning the possible origin of the name?

You write, "Concerning Hurrians and 'Minoans' there are no connections. 'Hurro-Urartians' are not related to North West Caucasians. If they are related to any Caucasian linguistic group these are the North East Caucasians, (especially Dagestanis imo) who have the highest Steppe EMBA admixture in the region afaik.".

Evidence shows that there is a connection between Hurrians and Minoans. Go study the research of Dr. Peter van Soesbergen (https://minoanscript.nl/). Second, when did i associate Hurrians with NW-Caucasians? If anything i mentioned NE-Caucasians (Chechens and Ingush), in a way trying to associate the large concentration of J2a Y-DNA in both groups and to complement the work of Dr. Soesbergen. Nothing more than that. In any case, linguistic affiliations between the broader North Caucasian languages and Hurro-Urartian are all very hypothetical.
 
But this could be related to what we are talking about.
Regarding R1b-M269 i find this study interesting, namely the "Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/). It includes comparison between STR "Frequency" and "Variance". Here is a Figure from the paper, for Y-DNA haplogroups (A) R1b1a2 (R1b-M269), (B) J2, and (C) G.
13323_2014_15_Fig5_HTML.jpg
 
'North East Caucasians' do not have high concentrations of J2a, Nakhs do.

J1 is the major haplogroup in Dagestanians with significant frequencies of R1b-Z2103 in some of them. And 'Caucasian Albanians' are presented in Greek sources like Strabo as somewhat similar to 'nomads'.

Concerning Linear A, I have said that people have proposed Greek, Greek-like, Indo-Iranian, 'Luwian', Semetic readings etc. It's the nature of the script and the texts that give much creative freedom. Personally, I see IE-like features, but if Hurrian also has some they can be pre-PIE related.

In Bronze Age Crete there could have been multiple languages.

The term Scythian was used for a specific population originally, in parts of Southern Ukraine. Herodotus places Royal Scythians roughly in the region where we find Old Great Bulgaria much later.

Also, I would not call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe'. Alans were connected to Massagetae in some sources, which were not Scythian (not Scythian proper) according to Herodotus.

Actually, it would be better to drop the term and talk about cultures. It's theoretically possible for example that 'Royal Scythians' descended from Srubnaya but considering it a given is problematic, calling all Srubnaya related cultures 'Scythian' is twice as problematic. Calling all 'steppe' people Scythian is 10 times more problematic.
 
You write, "'North East Caucasians' do not have high concentrations of J2a, Nakhs do.".
Nakhs are NE-Caucasians, and in addition to that i exclusively wrote Chechens and Ingush along with their respective frequencies for Y-DNA J2a. Please go read what i have written again.

You write, "
Concerning Linear A, I have said that people have proposed Greek, Greek-like, Indo-Iranian, 'Luwian', Semetic readings etc. It's the nature of the script and the texts that give much creative freedom. Personally, I see IE-like features, but if Hurrian also has some they can be pre-PIE related.".
Essentially you write about Gareth Alun Owens' hypothesis. The idea that Minoan was some kind of IE language is practically dead since Hester put the last spike on that coffin. Owens made some statements back in the days, but if you hear his speeches today he avoids speaking of Indo-European when he refers to the language. That is for a reason. Personally, I do not know of any Indo-European language that has the features of Minoan. Linear A contains a high number of prefixes & suffixes indicating that it is agglutinative rather than conjugating. Greek has some prefixes and suffixes (affixes), but not in a systematic way like a agglutinative languages have. I think it was Duhaux who made some comparison showing that 60% of the Linear A words contained affixes and in Linear B that drops to 10% (normal for Greek and Anatolian, still high for the average Indo-European languages). That's what i have been told by speaking with actual linguists.

You write, "
In Bronze Age Crete there could have been multiple languages.".
I am already aware of that. In fact, i quoted Homer a few comments back, go read me again. In any case, i am not talking about any language but the one recorded in Linear A. Of course, Hurrian is not always doing the job in Linear A. Only in some cases. Minoan was initially not Hurrian either, but the two are related. Regarding the later settlers of the island, i am sure some were IE. Other than the obvious Greek presence, there is also a strong mythological association with IE Lycia.

You write, "
The term Scythian was used for a specific population originally, in parts of Southern Ukraine. Herodotus places Royal Scythians roughly in the region where we find Old Great Bulgaria much later.
Also, I would not call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe'. Alans were connected to Massagetae in some sources, which were not Scythian (not Scythian proper) according to Herodotus.".
Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Massagetae are all considered Scythians in the broader meaning of the term. Herodotus also writes accounts of Massagetae being regarded as a Scythian race. In any case, Ossetian is regarded as a Scythian language, and specifically a variant of its western Alanian variety, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_languages.

You write, "
Actually, it would be better to drop the term and talk about cultures. It's theoretically possible for example that 'Royal Scythians' descended from Srubnaya but considering it a given is problematic, calling all Srubnaya related cultures 'Scythian' is twice as problematic. Calling all 'steppe' people Scythian is 10 times more problematic.".
Actually we do talk of cultures, distinguishable tribes, and we do differentiate between the periods. Last, we call them Scythian because they were all related in one way or another. Nobody calls all the steppe people Scythian. For example we speak of Tocharians, Turks, etc. as well.
 
In the broader meaning of the term Germanic people, Slavic people, Turkic people, Magyars etc. were also called 'Scythian' at some point. There is a reason someone in the 5th century BC makes a distinction between Scythians proper and Massagetae. Also the Budini in the forest steppe are not called Scythian either etc.

In general, Greeks first used the term for a specific population in South Ukraine. Their endonym is recorded as 'Skolotoi'. (with Skolo- likely being the root and -toi the Greek suffix)

Prepalatial ''Minoan culture'' starts around 7000 BC. These people would have had some haplogroups. I don't know if M319, for example, is associated with a late movement -maybe-, but I have not seen anything that demonstrates that. And there were some people in the anthro-forums that were taking for granted a connection with Kura-Araxes, even when the data did not show anything to support that. (A movement from a third source to both Crete and Kura-Araxes, maybe but when exactly?)

I don't trust the methodology that guy you posted follows.

*There is the case of an Ukrainian archaeologist who thought Herodotus' Gelonos was near Poltava, and someone in Wikipedia has written something about 'the Scythian capital of Gelonus' even if according to the account:
- Budini were not Scythian (he says something like έθνος ουδαμώς Σκυθικόν)
- Gelonians were not Scythian
- Both of these people were not anywhere near Poltava, but east of Don, 15 days journey to the north, above the Sarmatian 'desert', in a heavily wooded #
area.

Tocharians were not ''steppe people''.
 
And in general there could have been more proximal sources for more eastern admixture (diluted ANE related), than what people ususally think.

See, for example, how Mossynoeci in N. Anatolia are described by Xenophon.
1) They were tattooing themselves
2) They lived in something like stilt houses
3) They did not practice agriculture.
5) They did not use olive oil but dolphin blubber
6) They were making a 'bread' from baked nuts.
etc

That to me does not look like a population that descends from early agriculturalists but not like a population that descends from steppe pastoralists either. What their autosomal profile would have been?
 
Recent events is a good possibility. I think it’s likely that as Armenian culture expanded (whether this was during the Mushki/Urumu/Transcaucasian expansion during the 12thcentury, during the expansion of Urartu, during the expansion of Mita’s Mushkis, or after the establishment of the Kingdom of Armenia—or some combination of these) other peoples were assimilated into the Armenian culture—Hattians, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartians, Luwians, etc. There was also a separate wave of migration of Armenians into central/southern Anatolia (Cappadocia/Cilicia) during/after the Seljuk invasion in the 11thcentury CE which would be unrelated to the initial Armenian expansion(s) during the Iron Age. I think something like 60% of modern Armenians in Armenia descend fully or partially from Western (i.e. Turkish) Armenians who moved there after the Genocide. Western Armenians also tend to be a bit closer genetically to Assyrians than Eastern (Russian) Armenians, which could be due to more recent intermarriages, or it could be due to assimilated locals during the Iron Age. Y-DNA J2 tends to be relatively high in modern Armenians (about 22% of Armenians), the second largest Y-haplogroup after R1b. G2 and J1 are present in a little bit more than 10% of modern Armenians. While some of these haplogroups could have been present in the proto-Armenians, I suspect that at least some of these haplogroups reached Armenians through absorbed peoples (Hurrians, etc).

I meant the Armenian table samples, I should have been more clear. What I wanted to know is if they were found in northern Armenia or southern Armenia (for example, in the SW of Armenia, some of these could be explained by Indo-Iranian groups like the Mitanni potentially). The second excel seems to address this—two samples, Kalavan (dated to 2619-2465 BCE) and Nerquin Getashen (dated to 1906-1698 BCE) are of particular interest as they are both R1b1a1, which something like 30% of modern Armenians are. Both sites are located on the shores of Lake Sevan, which played a central role in the settlement of Proto-Armenians according to Hrachya Martirosyan (see page 10, although I suggest that you look at pages 7-10 for the purposes of the wider discussion in this thread as it touches upon the relationship between Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks, etc https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/09/01/1313574129/Hrach Martirosyan - Handout.pdf) and also Armen Petrosyan’s “Gegh” theory: https://www.academia.edu/33109045/I...of_Indo-European_studies_2016_1-2_pp._129-146.

What’s interesting about the Kalavan sample is that it falls within the range of a) the Nature article’s findings regarding the formation of the Armenian nation sometime between 3000-2000 BCE and b) more surprisingly, it falls within the legendary date of the founding of the Armenian nation by Hayk in 2492 BCE, as recorded in the Middle Ages by Moses of Khorene. Fascinating stuff. I really appreciate you sharing these with me.

I guess I didn’t read that Mycenean Nature study closely enough. It seems that what’s it’s saying is that the Eurasian ancestry in the Mycenaeans could have come directly from the Steppes (potentially a Yamnaya-derived or connected population) or from Armenia. Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I’m fine with Hay coming from Hatti. This was proposed in that Austin article you linked way back in the 1940s. Diakonoff and Greppin ran with it and suggested that the Urartians called anybody to their west “Hatti” (i.e. Hittite, regardless of language/culture). We do know that Eastern Anatolia and the Caucasus were important for metallurgy and the metal trade (primarily tin but also other metals). Petrosyan had an issue with the Hatti etymology though mainly due to the relationship between kh and h (he’s a proponent of the PIE poti theory, which others take issue with). See pages 37-40: https://www.academia.edu/3657764/To...Proto-Armenians_A_Critical_Review_in_English_

Personally, I’m agnostic about these etymologies. I do think that there was likely Hattian contact with Indo-Europeans prior to the Hittites (or at least the recorded Hittites--it could have been Proto-Hittites or some sort of earlier or "Common" Anatolian group). For example, the Hattian storm god was Taru, which is equated with the Anatolian Tarhunna/Tarhunt. The Anatolian names are etymologized as being Indo-European, but the Hittites are assumed to have borrowed much of their pantheon from the Hattians. So this connection seems to be contradictory/confused. A pre-2000 BCE contact between Hattians and Indo-Europeans (perhaps related to the metal trade) could explain this. If they weren't Anatolians, maybe they were Phrygians, Armenians, Greeks, or some other group. If Damgaard's Armani were some sort of early Anatolian-speakers, it could have been these people. Perhaps Armi/Armani was a metal trading colony, acting as an intermediary between the north (Steppes/Caucasus) and south (Mesopotamia).

You might appreciate this article regarding early Anatolians in Armenia: https://www.academia.edu/10682326/T...urnal_of_Near_Eastern_Studies_IV_1_2009_63-72

(I share a lot of Petrosyan because, while I don't necessarily buy all his theories, his positions are a) not blinded by nationalism and b) are easily available in English)
 

This thread has been viewed 1161815 times.

Back
Top