Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 53 of 107 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563103 ... LastLast
Results 1,301 to 1,325 of 2666

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #1301
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    590

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    I didn't make that connection between Crete and Hurrite but that's super interesting. There's also a theory that Artemis comes from Hurrians or Urartians.

    I just wanted to point out that Hurro-Urartians were not related to the northern Caucasian peoples for sure. The theory is actually that the proto-Hurro-Urartians came from the South Caucasus (maybe as Kura-Araxes) and perhaps had contacts with Caucasian peoples. The connection between Hurro-Urartian and Northern Caucasian is likely overblown.

    I like the Greco-Armenian theory modeled by Eric Hamp and others, which suggests that Armenian and Greek came from a Steppe derived population (perhaps Catacomb) and split off from one another in Georgia or NE Turkey (they might have separated before that, but stayed in the same relative area until the Greeks went west while Armenians stayed in the general Caucasus region). Perhaps Phrygian broke off at this time too.

    There was some speculation that Alaca Hoyuk might not have been Anatolian related, but was Indo-European. Perhaps it was constructed by the Greeks on their way to the Western Anatolian coasts? If so, the separation of Armenian and Greek would have had to have occurred by 2400 BCE.

    The Caucasus route for the proto-Greeks is supported by genetics, which is a big reason why I find it so attractive. Also, the fact that nearly identical grave goods were found in Mycenaean tombs and MBA Armenian (Trialeti-Vanadzor) tombs, suggesting at least trade contacts.

    The Caucasus/Armenian connection is discussed here: https://images.nature.com/full/natur...re23310-s1.pdf

    Are there any theories about what Ahhiyawa/Hiyawa/Achaean means? Could they be related to Armenian Haya/Hayo, which may come from this PIE *h₂éyos/*áyos (metal)?
    Hurrian mythology includes a lot of volcanoes and lava giants as well, not so sure about Artemis though. The Hurro-Urartian homeland is considered to be around the lakes Van and Urmia, a very active volcanic region. The aforementioned volcanoes and lava giants bring to mind the Greek myth of Cabeiri, sons of Hephaestus, associated with metallurgy and the known mysteries. Also, according to an hymn of Callimachus, we also have Cyclopes (giants) that were Hephaestus' helpers at the forge. The Cyclopes were said to have built the "cyclopean" fortifications at Tiryns and Mycenae in the Peloponnese. The noises proceeding from the heart of volcanoes were attributed to their operations. By the way, the Greek word for volcano is "ηφαίστιο/hephaisteio", which is a cognate of the God "Ήφαιστος/Hephaestos". So you see, Hurrian mythology is not that much isolated after all. The Aegean that is associated with both Cabeiri and Cyclopes also had/has a lot of volcanoes, and at least one of the two aforementioned groups, namely the Cabeiri, we can associate with pre-Greek people. By the way, Cabeiri were associated in the past with Kourites, Telchines, and Korybantes as well.

    Well, whether Hurro-Urartians were related to Northern Caucasians or not we cannot be certain at the moment. Further research is needed. But it is a hypothesis nonetheless. Again, i am not dogmatic about anything.

    Regarding Graeco-Armenian, they are indeed related, but i find it more likely that the group ended up in the Balkans, and split there. Armenians (linguistically) appear to be related with an Iron Age Balkanic migration. Other than the obvious linguistic similarities, we also have ancient authors confirming this. Herodotus wrote that the Phrygians had originated as the Bryges of the Balkans, before migrating to western Anatolia and establishing the kingdom of Phrygia. After the collapse of the kingdom in the late 7th century BCE (following an invasion by Cimmerians), some of the Phrygians migrated eastward and settled in Armenia. We read specifically in Herodotus' "Histories" 7th Book, paragraph 73, "
    The dress of the Phrygians closely resembled the Paphlagonian, only in a very few points differing from it. According to the Macedonian account, 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. The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were armed in the Phrygian fashion. Both nations were under the command of Artochmes, who was married to one of the daughters of Darius.".

    I am not so sure about Alaca Höyük, unless we go with an Anatolian (Renfrew) hypothesis for PIE, which i am not so fond of personally.

    Actually genetics support a northern route more than a southern one, bearing in mind that the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) autosomal component that was found in Mycenaeans is absent from the Hittites and other Anatolian IEs. In any case, it's not rationally impossible to have had a southern route as well, and this is also written in the study, specifically "
    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.". Trade contacts between the Aegean and Transcaucasia were most certainly a phenomenon as i have written in a previous post. Here it is again. Have a look at these following articles, namely "The Maikop Copper Tools and Their Relationship to Cretan Metallurgy" by Philip P. Betancourt here, https://www.jstor.org/stable/503131 (you need to have a free account), as well as "Indications of Aegean-Caucasian relations during the third millennium BC" by Lorenz Rahmstorf here, https://www.academia.edu/1491114/Ind..._millennium_BC. I also found an interesting segment that relates in the following, namely "In search of the origins of metallurgy – An overview of South Caucasian evidence" (real origins of metallurgy can be traced to the central Balkans such as modern Serbia, not south Caucasus, but let's read on) by Mikheil Abramishvili here, https://www.academia.edu/3023029/Mik...asian_evidence. Specifically we read, "The second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture show exceptionally close relations with the Aegean and therefore deserve special emphasis. Although it is not a subject of this paper, I still want to emphasize that, besides archaeological facts, there are also linguistic data and mythological tales, which make it obvious that relations between South Caucasia and the Aegean existed in one way or another well before the Classical Period, and which reflect a historical reality. There should be no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted with South Caucasia since ancient times. The myth of the Argonauts, which describes the journey of Jason and other Greek heroes to the land of Colchis (a country rich in gold, according to Apollonius of Rhodes) and the myth of Prometheus, who was chained in the Caucasus Mountains by Hephaestus, the patron of smiths, would be sufficient to pose for historical consideration the question of South Caucasian-Aegean relations, in which metals apparently played a pre-eminent role. Although the Bronze Age period in the Black Sea area of western Georgia is fairly well-known, no material evidence has been discovered that proves there were contacts between this region and the Aegean. On the other hand, as I already mentioned, the Trialeti culture, which is spread throughout South Caucasia, demonstrates relations with this remote area. Therefore, I suggest that these relations were realized not along the Black Sea routes, but through eastern Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean. Interconnections between these regions coincide with the second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, the end of the Middle Minoan period in the Aegean and the beginning of the Mycenaean Age on mainland Greece. The existence of ca. 1 m-long thrusting bronze swords with high midribs, so-called rapiers, in South Caucasia (Fig. 2,15) and the Aegean is the most striking evidence for relations between the two regions. The rapiers of South Caucasia come from contexts of artefacts that belong to the second phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, thus predating even the earliest (A-type) longswords of the Aegean that we know from the ruins of the first palace of Mallia, thus ascribing them either to the end of Middle Minoan II or to the beginning of Middle Minoan IIIB. Furthermore, South Caucasian rapiers have their prototype in the first phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture. The sword from Saduga Kurgan 2 in East Georgia has similar morphological characteristics (except for its length) and is considered as a prototype of South Caucasian rapiers.". This is just a sample, if you read the others as well you understand of these relations between the Caucasus and the Aegean possibly going as far back as 3,000 BCE, and even earlier. But again, this doesn't necessarily suggest that the proto-Greeks had taken a southern route. I am mostly sharing this to show that relations were strong and early. Proto-Greeks could have taken a northern route, settled in north-western Greece, and then began following the same example as their fellow Minoans had done even earlier.

    Last "Achaeans" and its Hittite/Egyptian cognates, are most likely associated with the water element. So does the other common ethnonym of the Mycenaean Greeks, "Danaans". For "Achaeans" specifically, we can trace its root word to the Greek rivers of Acheloos and Acheron, which by the way are two of the three main rivers in the proto-Greek region, namely the Pindus mountain range of north-western Greece. The third river is "Aoös" (which could also be related but also maybe not). 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.
    As for the ethnonym "Danaans", which in Greek is "Δαναοί/Danaoi-Danai", this is as well related to the water element. The root word "danu" can be found throughout the Indo-European world. For example, look at the water goddesses Danu (Hindu), Dewi Danu (Balinese Hindus), Danu (Irish), Don (Welsh), etc.. As a word for water, "danu" is compared to Avestan "dānu" (river), Scythian "danu" (water and river), Ossetian "don/dan" (water), and further to steppe river names like Don, Donets, Danube, Dneiper, Dniestr, etc.. There is also a Danu river in Nepal. In short, "danu" is found in relation to water, throughout the whole Indo-European world, with an interesting concentration in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is where the Indo-European migrations most likely began from.

  2. #1302
    Regular Member Fegalevac's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-08-19
    Posts
    10


    Country: Austria



    Interesting. Thank you very much for the information.

  3. #1303
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    When I read Cyrus' posts, I always wonder if there is anything and anyone in Europe that didn't start in Iran or has a direct connection with Iran, having come directly from there already with their defining characteristics (I could take it more seriously if he were just proposing that the earliest stage of PIE was spoken in North Iran, but it's clearly something much more recent than that, as late as the Iron Age, and that just can't be taken seriously without severely distorting or even ignoring the scientific evidences available, with a lot of wishful thinking)​.
    As I said in my previous, I don't believe that the same European culture existed in Iran but a proto-Culture which was probably closer to proto-IE existed here.
    The important point is that when we say Iran was the original land of Indo-Europeans, it doesn't mean that all IE people migrated from a region in the center of this country. There were certainly early migrations to different parts of Iran or neighborhood lands and then India, Europe,...

  4. #1304
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    How do you link Mazandaran or Mazania to Mycenae? Sound similarity alone or is there something else? The two words do not even sound very similar in fact, because Ancient Greek would have Mycenae being pronounced [mykenaj] (in IPA transcription), and one would really have to suspend one's disbelief to think that, without any other evidence, that's so obviously a cognate of [mazandaran] or even [mazanja].
    I actually link Mazania to Mukania, an ancient land in the north of Iran which has been mentioned in Akkadian sources, the name of Mycenae in the ancient Greek was also the same Μυκῆναι. I think you know about sound changes in IE languages, for example Avestan zereda "hearh" is cognate with Greek kardia.

  5. #1305
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Hurrian mythology includes a lot of volcanoes and lava giants as well, not so sure about Artemis though. The Hurro-Urartian homeland is considered to be around the lakes Van and Urmia, a very active volcanic region. The aforementioned volcanoes and lava giants bring to mind the Greek myth of Cabeiri, sons of Hephaestus, associated with metallurgy and the known mysteries. Also, according to an hymn of Callimachus, we also have Cyclopes (giants) that were Hephaestus' helpers at the forge. The Cyclopes were said to have built the "cyclopean" fortifications at Tiryns and Mycenae in the Peloponnese. The noises proceeding from the heart of volcanoes were attributed to their operations. By the way, the Greek word for volcano is "ηφαίστιο/hephaisteio", which is a cognate of the God "Ήφαιστος/Hephaestos". So you see, Hurrian mythology is not that much isolated after all. The Aegean that is associated with both Cabeiri and Cyclopes also had/has a lot of volcanoes, and at least one of the two aforementioned groups, namely the Cabeiri, we can associate with pre-Greek people. By the way, Cabeiri were associated in the past with Kourites, Telchines, and Korybantes as well.

    Well, whether Hurro-Urartians were related to Northern Caucasians or not we cannot be certain at the moment. Further research is needed. But it is a hypothesis nonetheless. Again, i am not dogmatic about anything.

    Regarding Graeco-Armenian, they are indeed related, but i find it more likely that the group ended up in the Balkans, and split there. Armenians (linguistically) appear to be related with an Iron Age Balkanic migration. Other than the obvious linguistic similarities, we also have ancient authors confirming this. Herodotus wrote that the Phrygians had originated as the Bryges of the Balkans, before migrating to western Anatolia and establishing the kingdom of Phrygia. After the collapse of the kingdom in the late 7th century BCE (following an invasion by Cimmerians), some of the Phrygians migrated eastward and settled in Armenia. We read specifically in Herodotus' "Histories" 7th Book, paragraph 73, "
    The dress of the Phrygians closely resembled the Paphlagonian, only in a very few points differing from it. According to the Macedonian account, 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. The Armenians, who are Phrygian colonists, were armed in the Phrygian fashion. Both nations were under the command of Artochmes, who was married to one of the daughters of Darius.".

    I am not so sure about Alaca Höyük, unless we go with an Anatolian (Renfrew) hypothesis for PIE, which i am not so fond of personally.

    Actually genetics support a northern route more than a southern one, bearing in mind that the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) autosomal component that was found in Mycenaeans is absent from the Hittites and other Anatolian IEs. In any case, it's not rationally impossible to have had a southern route as well, and this is also written in the study, specifically "
    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.". Trade contacts between the Aegean and Transcaucasia were most certainly a phenomenon as i have written in a previous post. Here it is again. Have a look at these following articles, namely "The Maikop Copper Tools and Their Relationship to Cretan Metallurgy" by Philip P. Betancourt here, https://www.jstor.org/stable/503131 (you need to have a free account), as well as "Indications of Aegean-Caucasian relations during the third millennium BC" by Lorenz Rahmstorf here, https://www.academia.edu/1491114/Ind..._millennium_BC. I also found an interesting segment that relates in the following, namely "In search of the origins of metallurgy – An overview of South Caucasian evidence" (real origins of metallurgy can be traced to the central Balkans such as modern Serbia, not south Caucasus, but let's read on) by Mikheil Abramishvili here, https://www.academia.edu/3023029/Mik...asian_evidence. Specifically we read, "The second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture show exceptionally close relations with the Aegean and therefore deserve special emphasis. Although it is not a subject of this paper, I still want to emphasize that, besides archaeological facts, there are also linguistic data and mythological tales, which make it obvious that relations between South Caucasia and the Aegean existed in one way or another well before the Classical Period, and which reflect a historical reality. There should be no doubt that the Greeks were acquainted with South Caucasia since ancient times. The myth of the Argonauts, which describes the journey of Jason and other Greek heroes to the land of Colchis (a country rich in gold, according to Apollonius of Rhodes) and the myth of Prometheus, who was chained in the Caucasus Mountains by Hephaestus, the patron of smiths, would be sufficient to pose for historical consideration the question of South Caucasian-Aegean relations, in which metals apparently played a pre-eminent role. Although the Bronze Age period in the Black Sea area of western Georgia is fairly well-known, no material evidence has been discovered that proves there were contacts between this region and the Aegean. On the other hand, as I already mentioned, the Trialeti culture, which is spread throughout South Caucasia, demonstrates relations with this remote area. Therefore, I suggest that these relations were realized not along the Black Sea routes, but through eastern Anatolia and the eastern Mediterranean. Interconnections between these regions coincide with the second and the third phases of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, the end of the Middle Minoan period in the Aegean and the beginning of the Mycenaean Age on mainland Greece. The existence of ca. 1 m-long thrusting bronze swords with high midribs, so-called rapiers, in South Caucasia (Fig. 2,15) and the Aegean is the most striking evidence for relations between the two regions. The rapiers of South Caucasia come from contexts of artefacts that belong to the second phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture, thus predating even the earliest (A-type) longswords of the Aegean that we know from the ruins of the first palace of Mallia, thus ascribing them either to the end of Middle Minoan II or to the beginning of Middle Minoan IIIB. Furthermore, South Caucasian rapiers have their prototype in the first phase of the Trialeti Middle Bronze Age Culture. The sword from Saduga Kurgan 2 in East Georgia has similar morphological characteristics (except for its length) and is considered as a prototype of South Caucasian rapiers.". This is just a sample, if you read the others as well you understand of these relations between the Caucasus and the Aegean possibly going as far back as 3,000 BCE, and even earlier. But again, this doesn't necessarily suggest that the proto-Greeks had taken a southern route. I am mostly sharing this to show that relations were strong and early. Proto-Greeks could have taken a northern route, settled in north-western Greece, and then began following the same example as their fellow Minoans had done even earlier.

    Last "Achaeans" and its Hittite/Egyptian cognates, are most likely associated with the water element. So does the other common ethnonym of the Mycenaean Greeks, "Danaans". For "Achaeans" specifically, we can trace its root word to the Greek rivers of Acheloos and Acheron, which by the way are two of the three main rivers in the proto-Greek region, namely the Pindus mountain range of north-western Greece. The third river is "Aoös" (which could also be related but also maybe not). 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.
    As for the ethnonym "Danaans", which in Greek is "Δαναοί/Danaoi-Danai", this is as well related to the water element. The root word "danu" can be found throughout the Indo-European world. For example, look at the water goddesses Danu (Hindu), Dewi Danu (Balinese Hindus), Danu (Irish), Don (Welsh), etc.. As a word for water, "danu" is compared to Avestan "dānu" (river), Scythian "danu" (water and river), Ossetian "don/dan" (water), and further to steppe river names like Don, Donets, Danube, Dneiper, Dniestr, etc.. There is also a Danu river in Nepal. In short, "danu" is found in relation to water, throughout the whole Indo-European world, with an interesting concentration in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is where the Indo-European migrations most likely began from.
    Some very fascinating stuff, indeed. Thanks for the great write-up.

    Firstly, I just felt the need to clarify the Hurro-Urartian/NE Caucasian connection because I feel that there has been a lot of misrepresentation of that due to nationalism. I do think Wikipedia is at least partially to blame.

    As for the Balkan model of Armenian migration, I have a lot of issues with it. If it did occur, it would have had to have been during or before the Bronze Age Collapse (which is what Diakonoff suggests). But, besides Herodotus (and maybe Strabo?) there's no mention of Armenians coming from the Balkans. It doesn't exist in Armenian legends, it doesn't exist in the genetic input from the time in question (supposedly the Armenian ethnogenesis concluded by 1200 BCE according to the Nature genetic study from a few years ago), and the pottery culture doesn't support an expansion from the west reaching anywhere near Armenia (so if they came from the west and expanded further east than Cappodocia, which they would have had to have done, they would have had to adopt a new pottery style fairly quickly). Herodotus himself relies on clothing or weaponry as evidence of a Phrygian connection, but it seems that some of these conventions were widespread in greater Anatolia at the time. Additionally, Herodotus also claims that the Persians and Medes come from Perseus and Madea (?), which could mean that he asserted the Iranians came from Greeks too, something that no modern scholars believe.

    There was an expansion FROM the South Caucasus into the interior of modern Turkey (at least as far as Elazig) during the Bronze Age Collapse, as well as significant settlement from this eastern population (with estimates of up to 50% of an increase in South Caucasus-derived populations into Turkey). According to the Assyrians, these Caucasian migrants were the Urumu (which could be read as Arama, suggesting an Armenian element), Mushki (likely Indo-European, this is the group that Diakonoff connected to the Proto-Armenians), and the Kaskas (possibly Hattic or Caucasian). These groups settled in lands that would form the nexus of Armenian culture some centuries later. People tend to focus on the western ceramic ware (the so-called "Phrygian" ceramics) but don't pay attention to the "Transcaucasian" ceramic ware.

    Genetics suggests that the Mycenaeans were Minoans+a probable Indo-European element from MLBA Armenia (as in the study I linked in my previous post). It would stand to reason then that since the Mycenaeans were IE (whereas the Minoans were not) that their Indo-European language was likely introduced by the Armenian-like people, and since the Armenian and Greek languages are connected, that the Armenian language was being spoken in Armenia by this time as well (probably in the Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture), which is Hamp's model (although he doesn't specify Trialeti-Vanadzor as Proto-Armenian).

    Personally, I think it was something like Catacomb=Armenian/Greek/Phrygian/possibly Balkanic. Armenians/Greeks/Phrygians went south (Pontic Indo European=Greco-Armenians). Paleo-Balkanics may have gone north or south. Armenians/Greeks/Phrygians (and I suppose Macedonians if they were indeed a separate language and not a Greek dialect) broke off in the Caucasus or NE Turkey somewhere with Armenians remaining, Greeks/Macedonians moving westward, and Phrygians moving westward with the Greeks/Macedonians, but not as far west, the Phrygians would have stopped in Cappodocia or Troy.

    This article explains what I'm talking about well:

    http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/u...considered.pdf

    Hamp's model (see page 13):

    http://sino-platonic.org/complete/sp..._languages.pdf

    On Artemis:

    https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
    Last edited by tyuiopman; 16-08-19 at 01:02.

  6. #1306
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545


    Country: Iran



    About "White Devil" in Mazandaran: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Div-e_Sepid

    It is written in the Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society that the struggle between Rostam and the white demon represents a struggle between Persians and invaders from the north, from the Caspian provinces.[3]

    The Div Sefid is believed by Joseph J. Reed to have been a northern prince.[4] Warner believes that he is a personification of the Mazandaranians, who by their climate are an unhealthy pale colour.[5] Some scholars hold the opinion that these divs of Mazandaran are merely wild people of the forest.[6] Others are of the opinion that they are a group of enemy kings of ancient Mazandaran (which might have been different from its modern location) and Tabaristan.[7] Alexander Krappe theorized that Ahriman himself was believed to have white skin.[8] P. Molesworth Sykes believes that the name "White Div" represents a white nation.[9]

    According to one source Zal spoke of the horrid race of white-skinned people.[10] This however contradicts with the fact that Zal was an albino himself [11]

  7. #1307
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    I should also add, Kossian suggests that the Transcaucasian ceramic ware (dated to the expansion of the Urumu/Mushki/Kaskas) was derived from the Trialeti-Vanadzor ceramic culture.

    While the western pottery ware is called "Phrygian" there's actually no reason to believe that it was connected to the Phrygians specifically.

    For some reason, Hamp suggests that Phrygian was NW Indo Euro related to Galatian (Celtic). I don't know enough about this to form my own opinion. McQueen believed that Phrygians were Anatolians, possibly closely related to Luwian. It seems that the most mainstream modern consensus is that Phrygian is closer to Greek than anything else.

    Here's a paper by a Greek scholar who refutes Herodotus' claims and asserts that Phrygians were natives to Anatolia.

    https://www.academia.edu/4580510/The..._point_of_view

  8. #1308
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    As I said in my previous, I don't believe that the same European culture existed in Iran but a proto-Culture which was probably closer to proto-IE existed here.
    The important point is that when we say Iran was the original land of Indo-Europeans, it doesn't mean that all IE people migrated from a region in the center of this country. There were certainly early migrations to different parts of Iran or neighborhood lands and then India, Europe,...
    But this is basically what the modern consensus is though. This is what Reich has argued. This is what I think Wang has argued, if I remember correctly. I also think that this is what Damgaard et al argued. You're the one that has been arguing that Germanics, Greeks, Celts, and Balto-Slavics, as distinct languages and cultures, originated in Iran. You argued--quite matter-of-factly--that the Kassites were Slavic Indo Euros, even though the general consensus is that they were a language isolate, perhaps with a pre-split Indo-Iranian or Indic superstratum of sorts (much like Mitanni). If the "pure" Kassite language was connected with anything directly, it's thought that it was Hurro-Urartian. You've also dismissed that Indo-Iranian languages originated in Europe.

    And you've written off Armenian, which has an actual (albeit indirect) documented presence in at least the Urmia area of Iran for at least 2300 years (unlike Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, etc) suggesting that a) ancient Armenians were not the same as modern Armenians and b) that Armenian was either some minor "village language" from Armanum or descendants of Alexander's Greek mercenaries.

    You cannot act innocent and moderate when confronted with criticism when there is a record of what you've said in other threads. "Oh, I was just misunderstood! I believe in the Steppe theory! I merely was arguing for the Pre-Proto-Indo European theory!" isn't going to fly, it's a total misrepresentation of the arguments that you have posited in other threads, including your own various threads.

  9. #1309
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    590

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Some very fascinating stuff, indeed. Thanks for the great write-up.

    Firstly, I just felt the need to clarify the Hurro-Urartian/NE Caucasian connection because I feel that there has been a lot of misrepresentation of that due to nationalism. I do think Wikipedia is at least partially to blame.

    As for the Balkan model of Armenian migration, I have a lot of issues with it. If it did occur, it would have had to have been during or before the Bronze Age Collapse (which is what Diakonoff suggests). But, besides Herodotus (and maybe Strabo?) there's no mention of Armenians coming from the Balkans. It doesn't exist in Armenian legends, it doesn't exist in the genetic input from the time in question (supposedly the Armenian ethnogenesis concluded by 1200 BCE according to the Nature genetic study from a few years ago), and the pottery culture doesn't support an expansion from the west reaching anywhere near Armenia (so if they came from the west and expanded further east than Cappodocia, which they would have had to have done, they would have had to adopt a new pottery style fairly quickly). Herodotus himself relies on clothing or weaponry as evidence of a Phrygian connection, but it seems that some of these conventions were widespread in greater Anatolia at the time. Additionally, Herodotus also claims that the Persians and Medes come from Perseus and Madea (?), which could mean that he asserted the Iranians came from Greeks too, something that no modern scholars believe.

    There was an expansion FROM the South Caucasus into the interior of modern Turkey (at least as far as Elazig) during the Bronze Age Collapse, as well as significant settlement from this eastern population (with estimates of up to 50% of an increase in South Caucasus-derived populations into Turkey). According to the Assyrians, these Caucasian migrants were the Urumu (which could be read as Arama, suggesting an Armenian element), Mushki (likely Indo-European, this is the group that Diakonoff connected to the Proto-Armenians), and the Kaskas (possibly Hattic or Caucasian). These groups settled in lands that would form the nexus of Armenian culture some centuries later. People tend to focus on the western ceramic ware (the so-called "Phrygian" ceramics) but don't pay attention to the "Transcaucasian" ceramic ware.

    Genetics suggests that the Mycenaeans were Minoans+a probable Indo-European element from MLBA Armenia (as in the study I linked in my previous post). It would stand to reason then that since the Mycenaeans were IE (whereas the Minoans were not) that their Indo-European language was likely introduced by the Armenian-like people, and since the Armenian and Greek languages are connected, that the Armenian language was being spoken in Armenia by this time as well (probably in the Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture), which is Hamp's model (although he doesn't specify Trialeti-Vanadzor as Proto-Armenian).

    Personally, I think it was something like Catacomb=Armenian/Greek/Phrygian/possibly Balkanic. Armenians/Greeks/Phrygians went south (Pontic Indo European=Greco-Armenians). Paleo-Balkanics may have gone north or south. Armenians/Greeks/Phrygians (and I suppose Macedonians if they were indeed a separate language and not a Greek dialect) broke off in the Caucasus or NE Turkey somewhere with Armenians remaining, Greeks/Macedonians moving westward, and Phrygians moving westward with the Greeks/Macedonians, but not as far west, the Phrygians would have stopped in Cappodocia or Troy.

    This article explains what I'm talking about well:

    http://smea.isma.cnr.it/wp-content/u...considered.pdf

    Hamp's model (see page 13):

    http://sino-platonic.org/complete/sp..._languages.pdf

    On Artemis:

    https://pies.ucla.edu/IESV/1/VVI_Horse.pdf
    Regardind Hurro-Urartian/NE-Caucasian these are still all very hypothetical, but yet again, it wouldn't be so overwhelming to consider a relationship between the two. The proto-Northeast Caucasian language had many terms for agriculture, and Johanna Nichols has suggested that its speakers may have been involved in the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, and only later moved north to the Caucasus. Proto-Northeast Caucasian is reconstructed with words for concepts such as yoke, as well as fruit trees such as apple and pear, that suggest agriculture was well developed before the proto-language broke up.

    Regarding the Armenian migration, i am open to all scenarios, again nothing dogmatic about my way of thinking. Concerning the accounts of Herodotus he might not be referring directly to an Armenian migration from the Balkans, but that's what he indirectly writes in a couple of sentences. He says that Phrygians were originally Brygians, which by the way we did have in the Balkans even in the Classical period. And that then sometime during the late 7th century BCE some Phrygians migrated eastwards and colonized Armenia. The change of the name isn't that all strange, bearing in mind that even the Macedonians who used to dwell together with them in Macedon, had this peculiarity of changing Φ/Ph to Β, and back forth. For example the local Macedonians didn't say "Φίλιππος/Philippos" but "Βίλιππος/Bilippos", or "Φερενίκη/Pherenike" but "Βερενίκη/Berenike", or "κεφαλή/kephali" (head) but"κεβαλή/kebali" (head), etc.. Now, all these don't mean to suggest there were no earlier IE and non-IE people living in Armenia which they eventually might have mixed with the new migrants coming from the West, contributing to the ethnogenesis of the Armenians. Every scenario is on, especially in the case of Transcaucasia. By the way, Herodotus doesn't rely on clothing to write all these. First of all, the clothing relation that is recorded pertains to Phrygians and Paphlagonians. The Armenian record he gives is based on accounts of people he had interviewed OR even broader historical knowledge of the time. As for the Medes and Persians, well this is based on a folk etymology most likely. Herodotus did write a lot of stuff, some were most likely not historically accurate. He was the first to try and write objectively, therefore considered the father of history, but in reality this title belongs more faithfully to Thucydides, which in return is considered the father of scientific history, because of his approach of evidence-gathering and analysis of cause and effect, without reference to intervention by the deities. He is also considered the father of political realism. In the end, Herodotus simply gives us a window to look from in his period. It's our job to assess the information and try and complement it with other possible evidence from other fields of science.

    Regarding Urumu and in general cognates of Armenia, well it's what i have written above. I am not suggesting that Armenians were full new western plantations in the region. They are obviously related to other local people as well. Don't forget the non-IE Hurro-Urartians which Urumu is traced to .
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%8E%A0%F0%90%8E%BC%F0%90%8E%B7%F0%90%8E%A1%F 0%90%8E%B4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arame_of_Urartu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shupria
    The same situation is true with the proto-Greeks. They came and mixed with the earlier Neolithic people sometime between 3,000-2,200 BCE, and then even possibly absorbing some Anatolian IEs that were present in the Aegean and on the mainland when they began movin
    g in central and southern Greece during the 2,200-1,900 BCE.

    Regarding Mycenaeans being related to Minoans it doesn't suggest they were Minoans. They were simply related people of the broader region of the Aegean. The same relation is true for the Bronze Age western Anatolians. Their basic relation is that they all had inherited the local Neolithic ancestry. And besides the study does genetically differentiate Mycenaeans from Minoans by stressing that they also processed EHG ancestry, specifically 4-16% approximately, and even more specifically for each sample, 4.4%, 5.2%, 6.5%, 13,3%, and 16.1%. Minoan samples are in the range of 0.1-0.4%. Furthermore, again take note that even though Mycenaean Greeks had this considerable EHG component, Hittite and Anatolian IE tested samples didn't. In fact none south of the Caucasus had it during this Bronze Age period. Have a read of this related study presenting Anatolian samples from different periods, "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia." (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/science.aar7711.full_.pdf), as well as the Bronze Age Anatolian samples of the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/) study. Also have a look at the "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdf) study. There is no Steppe DNA among the pre-Iron Age Anatolian/Transcaucasian samples, in all studies we have till now. That is a big issue that we must seriously consider if we are to draw a realistic map for the Indo-European migrations.

    Last, i am aware of Eric Hamp's hypothesis but i am not very fond of it. He even suggests that Greek presence in Pamphylia and Cyprus appeared around the same time it also did for mainland Greece, which goes against the historical, mythological, archaeological material we have relating to Cyprus and not just Pamphylia but southern Anatolia in general. Again, we would also need to see identical to Mycenaean steppe ancestry likewise for the Anatolian Bronze samples, something which hasn't been seen till now. As for the Ivanov paper, i will look into it.

  10. #1310
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Regardind Hurro-Urartian/NE-Caucasian these are still all very hypothetical, but yet again, it wouldn't be so overwhelming to consider a relationship between the two. The proto-Northeast Caucasian language had many terms for agriculture, and Johanna Nichols has suggested that its speakers may have been involved in the development of agriculture in the Fertile Crescent, and only later moved north to the Caucasus. Proto-Northeast Caucasian is reconstructed with words for concepts such as yoke, as well as fruit trees such as apple and pear, that suggest agriculture was well developed before the proto-language broke up.

    Regarding the Armenian migration, i am open to all scenarios, again nothing dogmatic about my way of thinking. Concerning the accounts of Herodotus he might not be referring directly to an Armenian migration from the Balkans, but that's what he indirectly writes in a couple of sentences. He says that Phrygians were originally Brygians, which by the way we did have in the Balkans even in the Classical period. And that then sometime during the late 7th century BCE some Phrygians migrated eastwards and colonized Armenia. The change of the name isn't that all strange, bearing in mind that even the Macedonians who used to dwell together with them in Macedon, had this peculiarity of changing Φ/Ph to Β, and back forth. For example the local Macedonians didn't say "Φίλιππος/Philippos" but "Βίλιππος/Bilippos", or "Φερενίκη/Pherenike" but "Βερενίκη/Berenike", or "κεφαλή/kephali" (head) but"κεβαλή/kebali" (head), etc.. Now, all these don't mean to suggest there were no earlier IE and non-IE people living in Armenia which they eventually might have mixed with the new migrants coming from the West, contributing to the ethnogenesis of the Armenians. Every scenario is on, especially in the case of Transcaucasia. By the way, Herodotus doesn't rely on clothing to write all these. First of all, the clothing relation that is recorded pertains to Phrygians and Paphlagonians. The Armenian record he gives is based on accounts of people he had interviewed OR even broader historical knowledge of the time. As for the Medes and Persians, well this is based on a folk etymology most likely. Herodotus did write a lot of stuff, some were most likely not historically accurate. He was the first to try and write objectively, therefore considered the father of history, but in reality this title belongs more faithfully to Thucydides, which in return is considered the father of scientific history, because of his approach of evidence-gathering and analysis of cause and effect, without reference to intervention by the deities. He is also considered the father of political realism. In the end, Herodotus simply gives us a window to look from in his period. It's our job to assess the information and try and complement it with other possible evidence from other fields of science.

    Regarding Urumu and in general cognates of Armenia, well it's what i have written above. I am not suggesting that Armenians were full new western plantations in the region. They are obviously related to other local people as well. Don't forget the non-IE Hurro-Urartians which Urumu is traced to .
    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%F0%90%8E%A0%F0%90%8E%BC%F0%90%8E%B7%F0%90%8E%A1%F 0%90%8E%B4
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arame_of_Urartu
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shupria
    The same situation is true with the proto-Greeks. They came and mixed with the earlier Neolithic people sometime between 3,000-2,200 BCE, and then even possibly absorbing some Anatolian IEs that were present in the Aegean and on the mainland when they began movin
    g in central and southern Greece during the 2,200-1,900 BCE.

    Regarding Mycenaeans being related to Minoans it doesn't suggest they were Minoans. They were simply related people of the broader region of the Aegean. The same relation is true for the Bronze Age western Anatolians. Their basic relation is that they all had inherited the local Neolithic ancestry. And besides the study does genetically differentiate Mycenaeans from Minoans by stressing that they also processed EHG ancestry, specifically 4-16% approximately, and even more specifically for each sample, 4.4%, 5.2%, 6.5%, 13,3%, and 16.1%. Minoan samples are in the range of 0.1-0.4%. Furthermore, again take note that even though Mycenaean Greeks had this considerable EHG component, Hittite and Anatolian IE tested samples didn't. In fact none south of the Caucasus had it during this Bronze Age period. Have a read of this related study presenting Anatolian samples from different periods, "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia." (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/science.aar7711.full_.pdf), as well as the Bronze Age Anatolian samples of the "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5565772/) study. Also have a look at the "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus" (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdf) study. There is no Steppe DNA among the pre-Iron Age Anatolian/Transcaucasian samples, in all studies we have till now. That is a big issue that we must seriously consider if we are to draw a realistic map for the Indo-European migrations.

    Last, i am aware of Eric Hamp's hypothesis but i am not very fond of it. He even suggests that Greek presence in Pamphylia and Cyprus appeared around the same time it also did for mainland Greece, which goes against the historical, mythological, archaeological material we have relating to Cyprus and not just Pamphylia but southern Anatolia in general. Again, we would also need to see identical to Mycenaean steppe ancestry likewise for the Anatolian Bronze samples, something which hasn't been seen till now. As for the Ivanov paper, i will look into it.
    I think that there is a connection between Hurro-Urartian and NE Caucasian in a broad sense. I think its very possible (and even probable, if Kura-Araxes was proto-Hurro-Urartian and also if the Urartians made it as far as Karabakh and Javakh and encountered Lezgins) that these people interacted with one another. 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. But at the same time, I wanted to underscore that Hurro-Urartian is not a direct ancestor/relative of languages like Chechen, which is a common misconception/misrepresentation of the HU/NE Caucasian theory.

    The Phrygians did not call themselves Phrygians though. We don't know what they called themselves. That seems to be the name that the Greeks applied to them. Perhaps this exonym is related to the root of Bryges (I've seen this explained as meaning "hill people" or something along those lines) without the peoples being directly connected. Herodotus says, "the Armenians were equipped like the Phrygians, being Phrygian colonists," which is why I assumed he was referring to clothing. 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. I do think that at least the Eastern Mushki were connected to Armenians in some way, perhaps they spoke a now extinct Armenic language.

    I'm familiar with Arama, etc. I think that Arama is an Armenian name and that the Urartian king Arame might have been from an Armenian tribe (Arame lived in the 9th century BCE, well after Armenians would have entered according to most contemporary models). This name has been theorized as being of Indo-European origins, related to Rama, possibly related to Romulus. Arme (in the sense of Shupria) could be connected to Armenian or it could be connected to Anatolian (as stated by Damgaard et al.), I'm not too keen on a non-Indo Euro connection for this name. Urumu (the tribe) is mentioned in conjunction with the Mushki (a people may or may not have been Phrygians). Anyway, the king of the Mushki was named Mita, which is accepted as an Indo-European name. "Mushki" is likely some sort of Indo-European name with an Armenian plural suffix (ki/k).

    From the Biorvix paper that you linked:
    Perceiving the Caucasus as an occasional bridge rather than a strict border during the Eneolithic and Bronze Age opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus, which itself provides a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages. Geographically this would also work for Armenian and Greek, for which genetic data also supports an eastern influence from Anatolia or the southern Caucasus.
    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. These people buried their dead in kurgans, sacrificed genetically Steppe-derived horses, and left ceramic ware with images of spoked chariot wheels decorating them. Additionally, their burial practices are in line with hero burials in Armenian legends. There are three options for who these people were a) Armenian b) Anatolian IE or c) some culture that died off without leaving any records. And again, the Transcaucasian ceramic ware is, according to Kossian, a descendent/progression of the Trialeti ceramic ware. 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.

    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.

    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? 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.

  11. #1311
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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.

    So, with all due respect, I think a 700 BCE migration of Armenians into Armenia is really only possible with a considerable amount of mental gymnastics, no offense.

    Because of all this I believe the southern route of Greek migration (Hamp's model).

  12. #1312
    Moderator
    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,237


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I actually link Mazania to Mukania, an ancient land in the north of Iran which has been mentioned in Akkadian sources, the name of Mycenae in the ancient Greek was also the same Μυκῆναι. I think you know about sound changes in IE languages, for example Avestan zereda "hearh" is cognate with Greek kardia.
    Ah, now that sounds more interesting to be investigated, particularly because a southern route of dispersion for Graeco-Armenian cannot be ruled out. In any case, the Mukania > Mazania change just does not make sense ifit assumes that the change to Indo-Iranian languages only happened much later than the arrival of Mycenaeans in the Aegean area, as late as the IA, because languages do not have a "long-term memory" in order to apply sound changes that happened long ago well after they ceased to be productive. That is, the satemizing changes that characterize Indo-Iranian languages necessarily happened even before the divergence of the distinct II branches, therefore probably in the Early-Mid Bronze Age, but I gather that your position is that II speakers arrived in that region of Iran only much later. Thus they wouldn't apply the typical II sound changes to Mukania when they came to know the region and its people. Therefore, unless Mazania from Mukania was a term that appeared roughly when II was still spoken and undergoing satem changes (probably as early as the Early BA, ~2500 B.C.), their being cognates is not that likely.

    Languages do not go back, they move forward, and they do not apply past sound changes after they were fully completed in the language. For instance, Germanic people did not apply the k > h change to words they only imported in the Roman era (e.g.German Käse from Latin caseum), because that typical Germanic sound change had already happened many centuries before and had already been completed and, thus, made improductive in the language by that time.

  13. #1313
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    I actually link Mazania to Mukania, an ancient land in the north of Iran which has been mentioned in Akkadian sources, the name of Mycenae in the ancient Greek was also the same Μυκῆναι. I think you know about sound changes in IE languages, for example Avestan zereda "hearh" is cognate with Greek kardia.
    Wouldn't Iranian Mazania be Makhania or Magania in Greek? Iranian z=Greek kh or g.

  14. #1314
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Ah, now that sounds more interesting to be investigated, particularly because a southern route of dispersion for Graeco-Armenian cannot be ruled out. In any case, the Mukania > Mazania change just does not make sense ifit assumes that the change to Indo-Iranian languages only happened much later than the arrival of Mycenaeans in the Aegean area, as late as the IA, because languages do not have a "long-term memory" in order to apply sound changes that happened long ago well after they ceased to be productive. That is, the satemizing changes that characterize Indo-Iranian languages necessarily happened even before the divergence of the distinct II branches, therefore probably in the Early-Mid Bronze Age, but I gather that your position is that II speakers arrived in that region of Iran only much later. Thus they wouldn't apply the typical II sound changes to Mukania when they came to know the region and its people. Therefore, unless Mazania from Mukania was a term that appeared roughly when II was still spoken and undergoing satem changes (probably as early as the Early BA, ~2500 B.C.), their being cognates is not that likely.
    Languages do not go back, they move forward, and they do not apply past sound changes after they were fully completed in the language. For instance, Germanic people did not apply the k > h change to words they only imported in the Roman era (e.g.German Käse from Latin caseum), because that typical Germanic sound change had already happened many centuries before and had already been completed and, thus, made improductive in the language by that time.
    I certainly don't believe that Indo-Iranians lived anywhere other than northern part of South Asia and southern part of Central Asia in the 3rd millennium BC, if they lived more northern than this region then there should be some Altaic or Uralic words in this langauge and if they lived more southern, we should find some Dravidian words in II.
    About sound changes I have said several times that they just relate to phonology of languages, when you can't pronounce something, you change it another thing. It is clear that Greek k couldn't be changed to s/z in Iranian, unless it was proto-Greek or proto-IE ḱ/ǵ, anyway as I said Greeks didn't live in the north of Iran but a people who were closer to original IE people lived there.

  15. #1315
    Banned
    Join Date
    09-10-18
    Posts
    545


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Wouldn't Iranian Mazania be Makhania or Magania in Greek? Iranian z=Greek kh or g.
    Maz is a variant of mas in Avestan, cognate with Old Persian maθ (modern Persian mah) which means "big, long, strong", and ancient Greek mêkos‎ from proto-IE *meh₂ḱ- "long", compare to the names of Massagetae and Macedonia.
    Of course the change of u>a is important, Iranians usually build meaningful words from unknown words, Muzania means nothing but Mazania means "land of tall or big people".

  16. #1316
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Cyrus View Post
    Maz is a variant of mas in Avestan, cognate with Old Persian maθ (modern Persian mah) which means "big, long, strong", and ancient Greek mêkos‎ from proto-IE *meh₂ḱ- "long", compare to the names of Massagetae and Macedonia.
    Of course the change of u>a is important, Iranians usually build meaningful words from unknown words, Muzania means nothing but Mazania means "land of tall or big people".
    And in Armenian the equivalent word is mets, which, unsurprisingly, seems to be between the ancient Greek and the Avestan.

    So perhaps there was a sister language to proto-Armenian and proto-Greek (i.e. also derived from Greco-Armenian) that died out and either a) didn't leave any records at all and/or b) we haven't identified as being such whether we have their name or not.

    What if this the group in question were a people similar to the Cimmerians? The Assyrians and Armenians placed the Cimmerian homeland south of the Black Sea and south of the Caucasus, even though the Greeks (or at least Herodotus) placed their homeland on the north Black Sea. Perhaps the Greeks would know better since they were actually seafarers whereas the Armenians and Assyrians were not, maybe these latter groups were mistaking Cimmerian colonies for the Cimmerian homeland. Anyway, the Assyrians placed the Cimmerian homeland in Mannea (modern Iranian Azerbaijan). And while the Cimmerians are identified as Indo-Europeans, there is a debate whether they were Iranian or Thracian or Celtic, or something in between.

    So I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with your theory, nor am I saying that this hypothetical Greco-Iranian language you're looking for in Mazania is Cimmerian, but it could be from a similar Bronze or Iron Age group that doesn't fit nicely in our categories.

    Or an alternate theory could be that these areas were settled by the ancestors of the Tocharians, if they took the southern migration route (i.e. south of the Caspian). Tocharian is often believed to have been an early split off of PIE, so theoretically early dialects they would have been "close" to PIE.

    If the Cimmerians were a "missing link" between Iranian and Thracian maybe there was a quasi-Greco-Armenian/quasi-Tocharian cross group, or a quasi-Greco-Armenian/quasi-Thracian (or more broadly Paleo-Balkanic) cross group or a quasi-Greco-Armenian/quasi-Indo-Iranian cross group, depending on how closely these groups actually separated from each other.

  17. #1317
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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:

    Attachment 11308

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

    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.

  18. #1318
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    590

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    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_St ratified_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.

  19. #1319
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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/Recon...ean/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...tics_of_Urartu
    Last edited by tyuiopman; 18-08-19 at 01:39. Reason: formatting, typo

  20. #1320
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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/thread...-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/natu...4hKeBf7fel4E9)(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 by tyuiopman; 18-08-19 at 00:37. Reason: typo

  21. #1321
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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/Ro...le_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).

  22. #1322
    Regular Member Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    590

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2a-Y18331 > A2512*

    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    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.


    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.


    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).

  23. #1323
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    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 by tyuiopman; 18-08-19 at 23:57. Reason: typos

  24. #1324
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post

    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.

  25. #1325
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    268


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    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/thread...-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?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •