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

[spongetaro]

Haplogroup G and J2 are found nowadays among highest cast in India alongside with R1a. In the Dienekes blog it is called the Dagestan admixture. Is it an evidence that the Indo European that settled in Norhern India and Pakistan were those that ruled earlier the Kingdom of Mitanni (whose kings had sanskrit names). Why such a move ?

[Regulus]

They were both early Iranians and had languages that were very closely related. I will need to look that one up tonight.
I think that the Mitanni may have also had a Hurrian component.

[spongetaro]

The Aryan rule on the Mitanni was like the Norman rule on England. Common people spoke the Hurrian language but the elite seems to have spoken an Indo Iranian language.



"Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit an Indo-Aryan superstrate, suggesting that an Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion.
In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma and Matiwaza, ca. 1380 BC), the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked"
WIKIPEDIA

"
The ethnicity of the people of Mitanni is difficult to ascertain. A treatise on the training of chariot horses contains a number of Indo-Aryan glosses.[8] Kammenhuber (1968) suggested that this vocabulary was derived from the still undivided Indo-Iranian language,[9][10] but Mayrhofer (1974) has shown that specifically Indo-Aryan features are present.[11]
The names of the Mitanni aristocracy frequently are of Indo-Aryan origin, but it is specifically their deities which show Indo-Aryan roots (Mitra, Varuna, Indra, Nasatya), though some think that they are probably more immediately related to the Kassites.[12] The common people's language, the Hurrian language is neither Indo-European nor Semitic.[13] Hurrian, and thus the Hurrians, are relatives of Urartu, both belonging to the Hurro-Urartian language family"
WIKIPEDIA

[Regulus]

I got to check more on it later.

They did indeed have a Hurrian component. One source has the Kingdom of the Mitanni speaking Hurrian, which was a non- IE, non-Semitic, Caucasian language. I don't know if that would be correct, but there does appear to have been a coalescing of the two groups as the Iranian Mitanni moved in. The Aryans moving into India and the Mitanni into the Fertile Crescent can both be dated as happening by 1600BCE.

Their Iranian languages appear definitely to be closely related, even compared to other Iranian groups. They appear to fall in the Eastern sub-group of Iranian languages.


My thoughts are that the movements of the Aryans and Mitanni were part of a larger group of movement in multiple directions east and southward, comprising the first of several large-scale of Iranians to come later.
The next big movement does not occur until the Medes almost a millennium later.
Once the chariot and even more the horse itself were mastered to transport people, the steppe became a source for one large scale movement of people out of that area and into the more permanently settled regions. In the east it was the Iranians in various groups for years including Scyths and Sarmations, Yue-Chi (possible reflux Iranian movement) and Kushans. After that began the various Turco-Mongol groups.

There are a ton of theories on what caused the out-of-the-steppe migrations. I believe that there are articles on them in this forum. You could even start a whole new thread on Causes of migrations out of that area.

[Regulus]

I got to check more on it later.

They did indeed have a Hurrian component. One source has the Kingdom of the Mitanni speaking Hurrian, which was a non- IE, non-Semitic, Caucasian language. I don't know if that would be correct, but there does appear to have been a coalescing of the two groups as the Iranian Mitanni moved in. The Aryans moving into India and the Mitanni into the Fertile Crescent can both be dated as happening by 1600BCE.

Their Iranian languages appear definitely to be closely related, even compared to other Iranian groups. They appear to fall in the Eastern sub-group of Iranian languages.

I roped myself into reading more about this. The adoption of Hurrian as their language by the time that they are established in this area looks to be correct. This looks to be similar to what Maciamo posed in this forum on the situation with proto Italo-Celts merging in with Basque people.

For their language prior to this, it seems fairly certain that both it (Mitanni) and Aryan Sanskrit both come from the same older Iranian source and that for that reason they would be closely related.

[Goga]

Here are some maps for better understanding. Proto-Aryans came from West Asia!


http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab...gc.r_pw.&cad=b


http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab...gc.r_pw.&cad=b


http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab...gc.r_pw.&cad=b

[Maciamo]

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

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

[Goga]

When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex , they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.

No, you're making a mistake. Somehow some folks (from Russia) made us all believe that hg. R1a was proto-Aryan.

Please for the sake of science, how do you (and we) know that R1a was proto-Aryan? It was only found among Iranic people in Central Asia. But who is saying these folks were proto-Aryans?

[Goga]

Like these maps suggest proto-Aryans were from West Asia. Migrated to Central Asia, mixed en route with R1a and became Iranias. Later this Iranians migrated from Central Asia into Pontic-Caspian steppes and mixed again with R1a people, but this time with European r1a folks. I believe ancient Aryans were assimilated by European R1a folks. All place from Pontic-Caspian steppes to Central Asia was R1a! Much later arrived Scythians from Central Asia, and also they were assimilated!

http://www.google.nl/#sclient=psy-ab...gc.r_pw.&cad=b

[Goga]

Btw, there's no European hg. I in Central Asia. So I don't think proto-Aryans came from Russia!

[Goga]

When the Proto-Aryan R1a people descended from Russia to southern Central Asia, more precisely in the region corresponding to the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex , they mixed with the local J2 and G people for a while, before carrying their expansion to Persia and the Indian subcontinent. Some G2a3b1a was already among the R1a people in Russia, but any other subclade (especially G1) would be of Central Asia origin.

Proto-Aryans came not from Russia. There's almost no 'Russian hg. I1 or I2' in Central Asia! Only Iranic R1a and NOT a Russian variant of it!!!!

"Both Gwozdz and Klyosov also note frequent close STR matching between part of the Indian R1a1a population, and part of the Russian and Slavic R1a1a population, indicating apparent links between these populations in a time-frame more recent than the age of R1a1a overall."
"R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)

[Maciamo]

Proto-Aryans came not from Russia. There's almost no 'Russian hg. I1 or I2' in Central Asia! Only Iranic R1a and NOT a Russian variant of it!!!!

"Both Gwozdz and Klyosov also note frequent close STR matching between part of the Indian R1a1a population, and part of the Russian and Slavic R1a1a population, indicating apparent links between these populations in a time-frame more recent than the age of R1a1a overall."

"R1a1a influence into India was not from Europe since the M458 marker is rare in India."

Haplogroup I has no connection with the Indo-European migrations. It is entirely pre-IE.

[Goga]

Haplogroup I has no connection with the Indo-European migrations. It is entirely pre-IE.

Well, hg. I is older than hg. R1a in Europe. So if 'native' Indo-Europeans from South Russia migrated into Central Asia, they would also carry some hg. I with them into Central Asia. But instead hg. I is very rare in Central Asia.

Or do you think that the proto-Indo-Europeans belonged only to one (hg. R1a) haplogroup? I don't understand you.

[Selim]

Mitannis were a Hurrian population with an İ.E dynasty,not a coalition of two groups.

[Kardu]

Lithuanians have lowest non-European admixture, they speak archaic Indo-European language with close affinity to Sanskrit and they have high R1a1. This must mean something...

[Goga]

Lithuanians have lowest non-European admixture, they speak archaic Indo-European language with close affinity to Sanskrit and they have high R1a1. This must mean something...

It means that they mixed with Russians, Poles and other Slavic folks a lot, nothing more.

There're only for about 3,200,000 folks in there. And North Europe in general is a very peripheral place for being the Urheimant of IE people. The density of population there is very low! No way the original IE folks are from there.

Also Lithuanians have 38% of R1a, while 42% ! of N1c1. And I believe that N1C1 was there even before R1a. So, If they were the original IE folks than all other IE peoples would have some N1C1 in them too. At least 5-10% or something, even in India! In India there's a lot G2, J2 (West Asian) instead and R1a in the upper classes!

No way the original IE folks are from the Baltics or Scandinavia (or even West Europe).

[Kardu]

It means that they mixed with Russians, Poles and other Slavic folks a lot, nothing more.

There're only for about 3,200,000 folks in there. And North Europe in general is a very peripheral place for being the Urheimant of IE people. The density of population there is very low! No way the original IE folks are from there.

Also Lithuanians have 38% of R1a, while 42% ! of N1c1. And I believe that N1C1 was there even before R1a. So, If they were the original IE folks than all other IE peoples would have some N1C1 in them too. At least 5-10% or something, even in India! In India there's a lot G2, J2 (West Asian) instead and R1a in the upper classes!

No way the original IE folks are from the Baltics or Scandinavia (or even West Europe).

N1c1 can simply be a legacy of a conquered population. Anyway, how do you explain that Lithuanian has the most archaic features among living Indo-European languages and has many parallels with Sanskrit?

[Goga]

N1c1 can simply be a legacy of a conquered population. Anyway, how do you explain that Lithuanian has the most archaic features among living Indo-European languages and has many parallels with Sanskrit?

Maybe it's the 'less evolved' language of all Indo-European languages? I don't know, but this means nothing.

All IE languages have many paralles with Sanskrit!

Kurdish dialect Gorani is very close to Avestani. And Avestani is almost the same as Sanskrit, at least for 99 %.

Lithuanians are Finno-Ugric people who speak an Indo European language. I mean they're very close to other Baltic folks the Estonians who're Finno-Ugric by ethnicity and by language. Lithuanians were (and still almost) the same as Estonians, but at one pont in history they adopted the IE language.

Remember that the oldest written Indo-European language is from Anatolia, the Hittite language.

[Kardu]

Maybe it's the 'less evolved' language of all Indo-European languages? I don't know, but this means nothing.

All IE languages have many paralles with Sanskrit!

Kurdish dialect Gorani is very close to Avestani. And Avestani is almost the same as Sanskrit, at least for 99 %.

Lithuanians are Finno-Ugric people who speak an Indo European language. I mean they're very close to other Baltic folks the Estonians who're Finno-Ugric by ethnicity and by language. Lithuanians were (and still almost) the same as Estonians, but at one pont in history they adopted the IE language.

Remember that the oldest written Indo-European language is from Anatolia, the Hittite language.

Law of economy would imply that it was R1a1 who brought IE language to the ancestors of modern-day Lithuanians. Anyway, if you say that Lithuanians are Finno-ugric people who adopted IE language, you will have to explain when did it happen and how come that it's so archaic. I don't say that historical Aryans were only R1a1, but it was certainly widespread among them.
As for Gorani, it is an old language indeed, but it can as easily be a cultural heritage rather than ethnic. Even in Georgian we have several Avestan loan-words, no surprise that on the territory of Iran proper it still survives.

[Alan]

Haplogroup G and J2 are found nowadays among highest cast in India alongside with R1a. In the Dienekes blog it is called the Dagestan admixture. Is it an evidence that the Indo European that settled in Norhern India and Pakistan were those that ruled earlier the Kingdom of Mitanni (whose kings had sanskrit names). Why such a move ?

Yes your right with that. The Aryans who ruled in India belonged to the same wave whom migrated into East Anatolia, North Mesopotamia. Maybe they were even descend of those Mitanni from West Asia. Between, the Idea that Hurrian was a Caucasian language is more and more disputed. New researches seem to support the Idea that Hurrian was rather a isolated language probably with an relation to Caucasians. No one really knows to which language family Hurrian belonged. It is even possible that the Indo-Iranian substratum in Mitanni wasnt the product of an "elite who migrated into Hurrian lands" but that this evolved from the early Hurrians and Hurrian language. Maybe the Hurrians were even one of the earliest Indo-Iranian languages. The Title Hurrian it self is very interesting because it was sometimes translated as Harri-Arri (Aryan). But without evidences this all are speculations.

[Goga]

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

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

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

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

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

[Goga]

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

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

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

[Taranis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Goga]

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


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

Thanks, I changed the link.

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

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

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

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

[Taranis]

Thanks, I changed the link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For J2, the jury is still out.