Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 54 of 59 FirstFirst ... 4445253545556 ... LastLast
Results 1,326 to 1,350 of 1465

Thread: Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

  1. #1326
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    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).

  2. #1327
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    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

  3. #1328
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    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.

  4. #1329
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    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?

  5. #1330
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    19-05-19
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    77
    Points
    511
    Level
    5
    Points: 511, Level: 5
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 39
    Overall activity: 1.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    Eurasian
    MtDNA haplogroup
    Eurasian

    Ethnic group
    Caucasian
    Country: Afghanistan



    We have to answer the bigger questions first like did R1b in West asia came from Balkans or Caucasus? Minoans and Hurrians case is simple EEF came from East to Balkan to make future Minoans, Etruscans or part of their ancestry at least.

  6. #1331
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by nornosh View Post
    We have to answer the bigger questions first like did R1b in West asia came from Balkans or Caucasus?
    But this could be related to what we are talking about.

  7. #1332
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



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

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

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

    I do not connect 'Steppe admixture' to early / proto-Indoeuropeans. Data do not show any such connection, imo. Among the steppe-ists only Parpola has a scenario that seems plausible but my first option would be to invert it, at least.

  8. #1333
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Regarding the modern autosomal profile of Armenians, all these that you write are very realistic scenarios. But have you thought in terms of more recent events. For example it is known that medieval Armenia came to encompass much of eastern Anatolia (or more precisely modern eastern Turkey, not really Anatolia), and even before the genocide at the beginning of the 20th century, Armenians were all over the place. I don't know, did a considerable number of them manage to resettle in Armenia or were most of them massacred? If many of them managed to resettle in Armenia, then it could give an additional explanation to the ones you have suggested. Surely these displaced Armenians should have inherited additional Anatolian Neolithic ancestry.

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

    Which sample, can you give the designation?

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


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

  9. #1334
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    You write, "Well, the Achaei and Heniochi etc. are in the region where we can find Abkhazians, Adygei people today etc. and he doesn't call them Scythian, as far as I remember.".
    Well, in the same region we can also find Russians, Greeks, Tatars (Turks), Armenians, Kurds, etc., in addition to Adygei (or Circassians) and Abkhazians. The Caucasus has had probably the most diverse concentration of different ethnic groups throughout time. For example at the very center of the Caucasus we find the Iranian Ossetians (Scythian tribe). Furthermore, he doesn't call them Scythian per se neither does he call them anything else other than their tribal name. The "Scythian" characterization i wrote was more along geographical lines, since their abode falls within the Scythian region. Last, he doesn't call them Cercetae either, which is largely believed to be the ancestors of Adygei (Circassians).


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

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

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

    Evidence shows that there is a connection between Hurrians and Minoans. Go study the research of Dr. Peter van Soesbergen (https://minoanscript.nl/). Second, when did i associate Hurrians with NW-Caucasians? If anything i mentioned NE-Caucasians (Chechens and Ingush), in a way trying to associate the large concentration of J2a Y-DNA in both groups and to complement the work of Dr. Soesbergen. Nothing more than that. In any case, linguistic affiliations between the broader North Caucasian languages and Hurro-Urartian are all very hypothetical.

  10. #1335
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    But this could be related to what we are talking about.
    Regarding R1b-M269 i find this study interesting, namely the "Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/). It includes comparison between STR "Frequency" and "Variance". Here is a Figure from the paper, for Y-DNA haplogroups (A) R1b1a2 (R1b-M269), (B) J2, and (C) G.

  11. #1336
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    'North East Caucasians' do not have high concentrations of J2a, Nakhs do.

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

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

    In Bronze Age Crete there could have been multiple languages.

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

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

    Actually, it would be better to drop the term and talk about cultures. It's theoretically possible for example that 'Royal Scythians' descended from Srubnaya but considering it a given is problematic, calling all Srubnaya related cultures 'Scythian' is twice as problematic. Calling all 'steppe' people Scythian is 10 times more problematic.

  12. #1337
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    You write, "'North East Caucasians' do not have high concentrations of J2a, Nakhs do.".
    Nakhs are NE-Caucasians, and in addition to that i exclusively wrote Chechens and Ingush along with their respective frequencies for Y-DNA J2a. Please go read what i have written again.

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

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

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

    You write, "
    Actually, it would be better to drop the term and talk about cultures. It's theoretically possible for example that 'Royal Scythians' descended from Srubnaya but considering it a given is problematic, calling all Srubnaya related cultures 'Scythian' is twice as problematic. Calling all 'steppe' people Scythian is 10 times more problematic.".
    Actually we do talk of cultures, distinguishable tribes, and we do differentiate between the periods. Last, we call them Scythian because they were all related in one way or another. Nobody calls all the steppe people Scythian. For example we speak of Tocharians, Turks, etc. as well.

  13. #1338
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    In the broader meaning of the term Germanic people, Slavic people, Turkic people, Magyars etc. were also called 'Scythian' at some point. There is a reason someone in the 5th century BC makes a distinction between Scythians proper and Massagetae. Also the Budini in the forest steppe are not called Scythian either etc.

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

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

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

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

    Tocharians were not ''steppe people''.

  14. #1339
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    And in general there could have been more proximal sources for more eastern admixture (diluted ANE related), than what people ususally think.

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

    That to me does not look like a population that descends from early agriculturalists but not like a population that descends from steppe pastoralists either. What their autosomal profile would have been?

  15. #1340
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Recent events is a good possibility. I think it’s likely that as Armenian culture expanded (whether this was during the Mushki/Urumu/Transcaucasian expansion during the 12thcentury, during the expansion of Urartu, during the expansion of Mita’s Mushkis, or after the establishment of the Kingdom of Armenia—or some combination of these) other peoples were assimilated into the Armenian culture—Hattians, Hittites, Hurrians, Urartians, Luwians, etc. There was also a separate wave of migration of Armenians into central/southern Anatolia (Cappadocia/Cilicia) during/after the Seljuk invasion in the 11thcentury CE which would be unrelated to the initial Armenian expansion(s) during the Iron Age. I think something like 60% of modern Armenians in Armenia descend fully or partially from Western (i.e. Turkish) Armenians who moved there after the Genocide. Western Armenians also tend to be a bit closer genetically to Assyrians than Eastern (Russian) Armenians, which could be due to more recent intermarriages, or it could be due to assimilated locals during the Iron Age. Y-DNA J2 tends to be relatively high in modern Armenians (about 22% of Armenians), the second largest Y-haplogroup after R1b. G2 and J1 are present in a little bit more than 10% of modern Armenians. While some of these haplogroups could have been present in the proto-Armenians, I suspect that at least some of these haplogroups reached Armenians through absorbed peoples (Hurrians, etc).

    I meant the Armenian table samples, I should have been more clear. What I wanted to know is if they were found in northern Armenia or southern Armenia (for example, in the SW of Armenia, some of these could be explained by Indo-Iranian groups like the Mitanni potentially). The second excel seems to address this—two samples, Kalavan (dated to 2619-2465 BCE) and Nerquin Getashen (dated to 1906-1698 BCE) are of particular interest as they are both R1b1a1, which something like 30% of modern Armenians are. Both sites are located on the shores of Lake Sevan, which played a central role in the settlement of Proto-Armenians according to Hrachya Martirosyan (see page 10, although I suggest that you look at pages 7-10 for the purposes of the wider discussion in this thread as it touches upon the relationship between Proto-Armenians and Proto-Greeks, etc https://www.hse.ru/data/2014/09/01/1...20Handout.pdf) and also Armen Petrosyan’s “Gegh” theory: https://www.academia.edu/33109045/In...-2_pp._129-146.

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

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

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

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

    You might appreciate this article regarding early Anatolians in Armenia: https://www.academia.edu/10682326/Th...V_1_2009_63-72

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

  16. #1341
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    No, some people wanted to connect 'Minoans' to Kura-Araxes, for their own reasons, which is something I did not ever understand. We had a G2b labeled 'Kura-Araxes', a J1, there was an R1b of some short.
    To my understanding, it is J2 that is normally associated with Kura-Araxes, or at least Hurrians, but I could be wrong.

    Anyway, I know that there was an attempt to link the Etruscans and possibly the Eteocypriots to the Hurrians as well. I think people just want to bundle everybody together because it's easier to understand. I'm not saying that this is right or good though.

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

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

    I do not connect 'Steppe admixture' to early / proto-Indoeuropeans. Data do not show any such connection, imo. Among the steppe-ists only Parpola has a scenario that seems plausible but my first option would be to invert it, at least.
    Okay. But are you talking about Pre-Proto-Indo-European (i.e. Indo-Hittite) or are you talking about Proto-Indo-European? The former seems to have been native to the South Caucasus. The latter seems to have been a mix of the former+EEHGs. Not all Indo-European groups came from the latter though, at least the Anatolians may not have (Reich asserts that they didn't, Damgaard also asserts that they didn't). The term Proto-Indo-European really should be changed to something like "Early Modern Indo-European" or "Steppe Indo-European" and the Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans (AKA Indo-Hittites) should be re-christened "Proto-Indo-Europeans".

    The problem with this is that it could be pushed back further, which means the terms would have to change/be reapplied yet again. If Laroche and Bomhard/Fornet are correct, the Hurro-Urartians were Indo-Europeans who broke off before the Anatolians. So the Indo-Hittites+Hurro-Urartians would be the real "Proto-Indo-Europeans". The Indo-Hittites would have to be renamed something like "Hattio-Indo-Europeans".

    Honestly, I think that PIE will be reapplied to the South Caucasus and the Yamnaya/Steppe derived groups (i.e. most/all surviving IE dialects) will be termed something like "Steppe-Indo-Europeans" at some point in the next few decades.

  17. #1342
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    And in general there could have been more proximal sources for more eastern admixture (diluted ANE related), than what people ususally think.

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

    That to me does not look like a population that descends from early agriculturalists but not like a population that descends from steppe pastoralists either. What their autosomal profile would have been?
    They almost sound Celtic to me, honestly. Although Celts are Steppe-derived. Tattooing, fierce warriors, pale complexion, apparent liberal views on sexuality, also I don't suppose that the Celts used olive oil (at least originally). We know that Celts were in central Anatolia by the 3rd century BCE. Perhaps this was an earlier group of Celts?

  18. #1343
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    You write, "In the broader meaning of the term Germanic people, Slavic people, Turkic people, Magyars etc. were also called 'Scythian' at some point. There is a reason someone in the 5th century BC makes a distinction between Scythians proper and Massagetae. Also the Budini in the forest steppe are not called Scythian either etc.".
    No they weren't, but many of them did eventually absorb what we would historically and broadly consider Scythian people. My understanding of the broader Scythian term corresponds to the Eastern-Iranian speaking steppe people from the Classical/Hellenistic periods. And in the end, if you don't like broader terminology, does this mean we should also cease calling the Germanic sub-groups such as the Germans, Norwegians, Danes, etc., as Germanic? Or maybe we should question why did the eastern nations began generalizing the Greeks with a name originally belonging to the Ionians (the first Greek sub-group they came into contact with), such as Yunani, Yunan, Yawan, etc.. In the end, generalization is only natural, and the existence/use of it doesn't mean we disregard the variations between each of the respective sub-groups.


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

    Yes, so what?

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

    I believe J-M319 may have come from Transcaucasia sometime during and after the Chalcolithic, along with the CHG/Iran_N autosomal component we tend to find in the Minoans. The J2's Eupedia article does include an interesting segment in terms of the associated haplogroups likewise, here i quote it.
    "It is very likely that J2a, J1-Z1828, L1b, T1a-P77 and G2a-L293 were the dominant male lineages the Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes culture (3,400-2,000 BCE), which expanded from the South Caucasus to eastern Anatolia, northern Mesopotamia and the western Iran. From then on, J2 men would have definitely have represented a sizeable portion of the population of Bronze and Iron Age civilizations such as the Hurrians, the Assyrians or the Hittites. It is very possible that bronze technology spread from the South Caucasus across the Iranian plateau until the Indus Valley, giving rise to the Harappan Civilisation (see below).
    The Minoan civilisation emerged from 2,700 BCE and could have been founded by colonists from the Kura-Araxes culture who would have brought bronze working with them. Modern Cretans have the highest percentage of G2a (11%), J1 (8.5%), J2a (32%), and L + T (2.5% together) in Greece (and the highest percentage of J1 and J2a in all Europe for that matter), the three haplogroups associated with the Kura-Araxes culture. Although little data is available at present about deep clades in Crete or Aegean Greece, the parts of Italy that were colonised by Ionic and Doric Greeks, notably Sicily, Calabria and Basilicata, possess substantial percentages of typically Caucasian haplogroups, such as G2a-L297, J1-Z1828 and J2a-L581, as well as considerable levels of Middle Eastern and Caucasian autosomal admixture by European standards. In fact, it seems that many branches of J2a (e.g. M319, Z7671, F3133, Z6046, L581) may have expanded from the South Caucasus from the Chalcolithic onwards. The presence of these haplogroups and admixtures in southern Italy almost certainly represent Kura-Araxes ancestry inherited from Minoan Greeks from the Aegean islands.".


    You write, "I don't trust the methodology that guy you posted follows.".

    Of Dr. Peter van Soesbergen? Did you actually study him to come to that conclusion or you refer to some other person of the ones i wrote of?

    You write, "Tocharians were not '"steppe people"".

    They most likely descended from the IE Afanasevans who migrated across the Eurasian steppes. In any case, i used it more as a figure of speech.

  19. #1344
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    These hypotheses are all very interesting. When i find some time i will look more into the works of Hrach Martirosyan and Armen Petrosyan that you shared.

    You write, "The Anatolian names are etymologized as being Indo-European, but the Hittites are assumed to have borrowed much of their pantheon from the Hattians.".
    I believe that's what mainly happened. Hittites had a standard appropriation of foreign Gods/Goddesses and related mythological aspects, which they willfully recorded upon their tablets. In fact, Hittite records are one of the most important sources we have for neighboring mythologies.

    You write, "So this connection seems to be contradictory/confused. A pre-2000 BCE contact between Hattians and Indo-Europeans (perhaps related to the metal trade) could explain this. If they weren't Anatolians, maybe they were Phrygians, Armenians, Greeks, or some other group. Perhaps Armi/Armani was a metal trading colony, acting as an intermediary between the north (Steppes/Caucasus) and south (Mesopotamia).".
    That's my view as well. It's not that improbable after all, i am referring to the intermediary scenario.


  20. #1345
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Regarding R1b-M269 i find this study interesting, namely the "Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/). It includes comparison between STR "Frequency" and "Variance". Here is a Figure from the paper, for Y-DNA haplogroups (A) R1b1a2 (R1b-M269), (B) J2, and (C) G.
    Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. This paper seems to support our mutual theories.

    I am curious about the Balkanic element around Lake Van. I wonder when that was dated too. If dated to the 1200s BCE or the 700s BCE, it could be from the Mushki or Phrygians. It could also be from Greeks.

    Apparently, according to Ivanov, "Ha-a" was mentioned in conjunction with "Armi" and "Azi" in the Ebla texts (this is referenced in that Petrosyan paper I shared--"Toward the Origins of the Armenian People" on page 44). As we now know, Armi/Armani was very likely Indo-European. Obviously "Ha-a" and "Azi" sound remarkably similar to not only "Hay" but also "Hayasa" and "Azzi." If true, this could support what you were saying about Armenian being an Anatolian language originally.

  21. #1346
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Sorry, I didn't see this post earlier. This paper seems to support our mutual theories.

    I am curious about the Balkanic element around Lake Van. I wonder when that was dated too. If dated to the 1200s BCE or the 700s BCE, it could be from the Mushki or Phrygians. It could also be from Greeks.

    Apparently, according to Ivanov, "Ha-a" was mentioned in conjunction with "Armi" and "Azi" in the Ebla texts (this is referenced in that Petrosyan paper I shared--"Toward the Origins of the Armenian People" on page 44). As we now know, Armi/Armani was very likely Indo-European. Obviously "Ha-a" and "Azi" sound remarkably similar to not only "Hay" but also "Hayasa" and "Azzi." If true, this could support what you were saying about Armenian being an Anatolian language originally.
    Yeah, it is indeed interesting. Here is what the original paper it cites from says, namely the "Regionalized Autosomal STR Profiles among Armenian Groups Suggest Disparate Genetic Influences" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51557004_Regionalized_Autosomal_STR_Profiles_among _Armenian_Groups_Suggest_Disparate_Genetic_Influen ces) study.

    "
    In particular, Sasun is distinguished by evidence for genetic contributions from Turkey, while a stronger Balkan component is detected in Lake Van, potentially suggestive of remnant genetic influences from ancient Greek and Phrygian populations in this region.".
    and
    "
    In Lake Van, prominent signals of contribution from all four parental populations are detected, with Iran (40.0%) being the largest, followed by commensurate degrees of affinity towards both Greece (24.8%) and Turkey (25.7%), and low levels of Georgian influence (9.5%).".
    and
    "
    Interestingly, in the collection from Lake Van, we observe a greater kinship with the Balkan Peninsula and Europe than is detected in the other three populations, particularly in the admixture analysis and MDS plot. Lake Van represents a particularly intriguing region of historical Armenia because of its role as the former capital of the Urartian Empire and as a center for trade between Armenia and the surrounding provinces (Piotrovsky, 1969; Payaslian, 2007). As a result, the detection of elevated levels of Balkan and European influence may possibly derive from a heightened presence by the Byzantine or Greek empires in the fertile regions surrounding Lake Van. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, these signals may represent remnants of ancient Greek or Balkan Phrygian influence during the Iron Age. While the absolute correlation of the European signals in Lake Van to Phrygian influences is, at this point, unclear, such an association is particularly fascinating as several authors have proposed that these tribes represent substantial contributors to the source population of the Armenian ethnicity (Diakonoff, 1984; Woodhouse, 2010).".

    In any case, nothing is yet final. As you see even the authors
    give additional hypotheses.

    As for the dating, they represent modern samples, not ancient ones. Specifically, samples from 404 unrelated individuals residing in the four historically Armenian regions of the Ararat valley (n=105), Gardman (n=95), Sasun (n=103), and Lake Van (n=101).

  22. #1347
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Yeah, it is indeed interesting. Here is what the original paper it cites from says, namely the "Regionalized Autosomal STR Profiles among Armenian Groups Suggest Disparate Genetic Influences" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51557004_Regionalized_Autosomal_STR_Profiles_among _Armenian_Groups_Suggest_Disparate_Genetic_Influen ces) study.

    "
    In particular, Sasun is distinguished by evidence for genetic contributions from Turkey, while a stronger Balkan component is detected in Lake Van, potentially suggestive of remnant genetic influences from ancient Greek and Phrygian populations in this region.".
    and
    "
    In Lake Van, prominent signals of contribution from all four parental populations are detected, with Iran (40.0%) being the largest, followed by commensurate degrees of affinity towards both Greece (24.8%) and Turkey (25.7%), and low levels of Georgian influence (9.5%).".
    and
    "
    Interestingly, in the collection from Lake Van, we observe a greater kinship with the Balkan Peninsula and Europe than is detected in the other three populations, particularly in the admixture analysis and MDS plot. Lake Van represents a particularly intriguing region of historical Armenia because of its role as the former capital of the Urartian Empire and as a center for trade between Armenia and the surrounding provinces (Piotrovsky, 1969; Payaslian, 2007). As a result, the detection of elevated levels of Balkan and European influence may possibly derive from a heightened presence by the Byzantine or Greek empires in the fertile regions surrounding Lake Van. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, these signals may represent remnants of ancient Greek or Balkan Phrygian influence during the Iron Age. While the absolute correlation of the European signals in Lake Van to Phrygian influences is, at this point, unclear, such an association is particularly fascinating as several authors have proposed that these tribes represent substantial contributors to the source population of the Armenian ethnicity (Diakonoff, 1984; Woodhouse, 2010).".

    In any case, nothing is yet final. As you see even the authors
    give additional hypotheses.

    As for the dating, they represent modern samples, not ancient ones. Specifically, samples from 404 unrelated individuals residing in the four historically Armenian regions of the Ararat valley (n=105), Gardman (n=95), Sasun (n=103), and Lake Van (n=101).
    Supposedly Tigranes the Great brought 10,000 Jewish slaves to the Van area, and later, during the Islamic conquests, a number of Christian Arabs sought refuge in Armenia. Perhaps some of these people had Greek ancestry (either from proper-Greeks or from the Philistines). Of course, these genes could also be from Alexander's conquests, or even from the Byzantines.

    What would be really interesting is to examine Cilician Armenian genes because, as I'm sure you know, there were large, and old, Anatolian and Greek populations in Cilicia. Most/all of these studies seem to ignore Cilician Armenians entirely.

  23. #1348
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered1000 Experience Points
    Demetrios's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-18
    Location
    Ἀθῆναι
    Posts
    234
    Points
    4,497
    Level
    19
    Points: 4,497, Level: 19
    Level completed: 62%, Points required for next Level: 153
    Overall activity: 7.0%


    Ethnic group
    Ἕλλην
    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by tyuiopman View Post
    Supposedly Tigranes the Great brought 10,000 Jewish slaves to the Van area, and later, during the Islamic conquests, a number of Christian Arabs sought refuge in Armenia. Perhaps some of these people had Greek ancestry (either from proper-Greeks or from the Philistines). Of course, these genes could also be from Alexander's conquests, or even from the Byzantines.

    What would be really interesting is to examine Cilician Armenian genes because, as I'm sure you know, there were large, and old, Anatolian and Greek populations in Cilicia. Most/all of these studies seem to ignore Cilician Armenians entirely.
    Yeah it would be interesting. In the Bronze Age collapse, Mycenaean Greeks were known to have settled among the native inhabitants in the southern coast of Anatolia, namely the regions of Pamphylia and Cilicia. There is even much archaeological evidence of this. Greek mythology records that Mopsus, a seer of the Greek world, lead the settlement and had been the founder of a royal house with a domain upon the coastal plains of Pamphylia and Cilicia. As an example, the cities of Mopsukrene and Mopsuestia in Cilicia were named after him, and translate as "Mopsus' fountain" and "house of Mopsus" respectively in Greek. This also falls in line with my earlier rejection of Eric Hamp's hypothesis, specifically for the cases of Pamphylian and Cypriot Greeks.

  24. #1349
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points3 months registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    221
    Points
    1,065
    Level
    8
    Points: 1,065, Level: 8
    Level completed: 58%, Points required for next Level: 85
    Overall activity: 15.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Yeah it would be interesting. In the Bronze Age collapse, Mycenaean Greeks were known to have settled among the native inhabitants in the southern coast of Anatolia, namely the regions of Pamphylia and Cilicia. There is even much archaeological evidence of this. Greek mythology records that Mopsus, a seer of the Greek world, lead the settlement and had been the founder of a royal house with a domain upon the coastal plains of Pamphylia and Cilicia. As an example, the cities of Mopsukrene and Mopsuestia in Cilicia were named after him, and translate as "Mopsus' fountain" and "house of Mopsus" respectively in Greek. This also falls in line with my earlier rejection of Eric Hamp's hypothesis, specifically for the cases of Pamphylian and Cypriot Greeks.
    Which would correspond to the mainland coastal Achaeans (Ahhiyawans) and could correspond to the Hiyawans (which is why I was asking about these names earlier as Hiyawa sounds similar to Haya/Hayo to me, but I guess that that's probably just a coincidence). As you know know, the Hiyawans were in Quwe (Cilicia). So it seems very possible that there were some Mycenaeans that migrated to the eastern Mediterranean coast--Cilicia, where they were called "Hiyawans" by the Hittites, and Lebanon/Israel, where they were called "Palestim" (Philistines) by the Jews.

    I guess I'm not following how this negates Hamp's hypothesis though? The Bronze Age Collapse (~1200 BCE) is well after when the proto-Greeks would have settled in Crete and mainland Greece. We know there were Greek-speakers on Crete by 1650 BCE at the latest. I don't know if Hamp dated when he thought the (proto)Greeks left the Caucasus region, but presumably it would have been during the 3rd millennium BCE, if not before.

  25. #1350
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered1000 Experience Points
    torzio's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-05-19
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    276
    Points
    1,998
    Level
    12
    Points: 1,998, Level: 12
    Level completed: 50%, Points required for next Level: 152
    Overall activity: 64.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2-Z19945
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Australia



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Demetrios View Post
    Regarding R1b-M269 i find this study interesting, namely the "Different waves and directions of Neolithic migrations in the Armenian Highland" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249771/). It includes comparison between STR "Frequency" and "Variance". Here is a Figure from the paper, for Y-DNA haplogroups (A) R1b1a2 (R1b-M269), (B) J2, and (C) G.
    I have checked this paper out a while ago and the Susan area has 20% of haplogroup T
    It is to do with IIRC, also part of Medes, Parthians and North-Cuacusus people ( eg Balkar ) as well as Kura-Axes
    you should also find R-V88 as part of it

    maybe we need to check ......who are the Kurds
    Fathers mtdna T2b17
    Grandfather mtdna T1a1e
    Sons mtdna K1a4o
    Mum paternal line R1b-S8172
    Grandmum paternal side I1d1-P109
    Wife paternal line R1a-Z282

Page 54 of 59 FirstFirst ... 4445253545556 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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