Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

[Demetrios]

All the more odd that Samaritans show up as part of the admixture, and Jews, and even Cypriots, who the amateur community in particular maintain have quite a bit of "Levantine" ancestry.

Indeed, when speaking of "Near Eastern" ancestry, one should be including Anatolian Neolithic, which is present to one degree or another in all Europeans. The term shouldn't be used to refer only to post Neolithic migrations.

I think everyone knows that the Slavic migrations had an impact on both Albanian and Greek genetics. The question is how much.

Thanks, but we've discussed the Antonio et al paper at length.

We also all know by this point that Ashkenazi Jews are most like the people of Cyprus, Crete, and southern Italy. It's how they got that way that has to be answered more definitively.

We've discussed extensively whether conversion played a big part. I'm skeptical, given Ashkenazi ydna, that there were a lot of male converts. As to whether it was a female influx through conversion of non-Jewish wives, I think more extensive mtDna analysis has to be done. There are lots of papers on the subject, but this is not the thread for that discussion.

I included the four Mycenaean samples (I9006, I9033, I9010, I9041) and the Armenoi (I9123) one in a Eurogenes K15 PCA, and that's what came out. The purple ones are the Mycenaeans, the circled purple is the Mycenaean who got the Samaritan result, and the gold one is the Armenoi sample.

Regarding the western-Jewish/southern-Italian/Cypriot/Cretan affinity, there was an interesting discussion here, https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14484-Could-Western-Jews-(Ash-and-Seph-)-descend-from-Aegeans-and-Levantine-admixture, which you probably already know of. Haven't gone through much of it, just 5 pages, but still some interesting ideas.

[Angela]

I included the four Mycenaean samples (I9006, I9033, I9010, I9041) and the Armenoi (I9123) one in a Eurogenes K15 PCA, and that's what came out. The purple ones are the Mycenaeans, the circled purple is the Mycenaean who got the Samaritan result, and the gold one is the Armenoi sample.

Regarding the western-Jewish/southern-Italian/Cypriot/Cretan affinity, there was an interesting discussion here, https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14484-Could-Western-Jews-(Ash-and-Seph-)-descend-from-Aegeans-and-Levantine-admixture, which you probably already know of. Haven't gone through much of it, just 5 pages, but still some interesting ideas.

Interesting. Thanks.

In the Dodecad calculator the Armenoi sample comes out more Tuscan than Abruzzese, and the Mycenaeans are closer to the Ashkenazim, but we're in the same general ball park. Two of those Mycenaeans are very close to Italian Jews. Perhaps quite a bit of Mycenaean like Southern Italian admixture in them.

No Island Greeks in there?

[Demetrios]

Interesting. Thanks.

In the Dodecad calculator the Armenoi sample comes out more Tuscan than Abruzzese, and the Mycenaeans are closer to the Ashkenazim, but we're in the same general ball park. Two of those Mycenaeans are very close to Italian Jews. Perhaps quite a bit of Mycenaean like Southern Italian admixture in them.

No Island Greeks in there?

Here is a print-screen from a video that included Cretan samples in the same PCA.

[Demetrios]

The scientist replied back. It seems we will have to wait for the aforementioned paper. My translation of the message.
"Good morning Demetrios,

As the program officially launches in a short time from now, and several institutions will be participating (ephorate of antiquities, university, etc), and there are also additional
samples for analysis, i can't give you a good estimate. I'd say within two-three years.

Sincerely,
Nikos"

[Dianatomia]

Okey Demetrios. Thank you. So in three years time we will know if some Dorians had some fun with Mycenaean women. And if that Armenoi sample mentioned above was a modern mainland Greek which came too early.

[blevins13]

A recent book 2017 that indicates the south Caucasian origin of the Proto-Greek speakersIMG_3925.jpgIMG_4192.jpgIMG_4193.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia ForumIMG_4194.jpgIMG_4195.jpg

[blevins13]

A recent book 2017 that indicates the south Caucasian origin of the Proto-Greek speakersIMG_3925.jpgIMG_4192.jpgIMG_4193.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia ForumIMG_4194.jpgIMG_4195.jpg

Considering the above ... this seems less probable.....



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

.

The author is either ignorant of additional crucial information that relate, very shallow in terms of information from different scientific fields (linguistic, archaeological, mythological, etc), or you haven't cropped all of the relevant pages in order to extract what the author actually elaborates on in previous and subsequent pages. I don't accuse you since you cannot include every page here, but it would be nice to have the previous page in case it relates and provides additional relevant information.

We have already discussed many pages ago that the southern Caucasus had established close relations with the Aegean, not from the 1600 BCE, but rather from the 3rd millennium BCE, which would and did include Cretan/Minoan contact as well, and of course Mycenaeans (proto-Arcadocypriot branch of the Greeks, not proto-Greeks) (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page51?p=583559&viewfull=1#post583559). There appears to have also been an Anatolian IE presence in Greece, that predated the arrival of the Greeks in central and southern Greece (recall the three pre-Greek maps i share here - https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page74?p=594240&viewfull=1#post594240), as well as a Hurrian presence (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page52?p=583622&viewfull=1#post583622). Do read these posts.
Sidenote: In this last old post of mine i quickly only traced one mistake or view that i don't have any more, namely that of the Hurrian association with the Northeast Caucasian people, while today i have a different view that associates it with IEs (either Anatolian or a different early branch), which i briefly mentioned in page 66, namely "As a sidenote to this, Hurrian seems to possess a huge amount of common roots with PIE, to the point that some scholars even suggest that Hurro-Urartian derived from PIE. Look for example at French linguist Arnaud Fournet, https://www.academia.edu/40055347/PIE_roots_in_Hurrian.".

In my updated view (since i have learned additional things since our last discussion on the subject), i find the Balkan route of Graeco-Phrygian almost certain. And even though the Balkan route is almost a certainty, the details are more complex. For example, in a previous comment of mine some pages ago i had totally excluded the use of tumuli among proto-Greeks and rather viewed it as a later adoption through trade with the western Balkans. I now have a somewhat different view, but not exclusive to proto-Greek.

The question we need to answer in my opinion, is who introduced the horse to Greece? The oldest horse bones in Lerna (Argolis) are dated shortly after 2000 BCE. But the earliest indication of horse knowledge in the southwestern Balkans is a horse-shaped scepter found at Porodin (ancient Pelagonia) around 2500 BCE. The logical conclusion is to suppose that the one who brought the horse to ancient Pelagonia from the steppes later introduced it into Greece.
https://i.ibb.co/ryYnd7G/horse-porodin-lerna.png
The Porodin Culture where the horse-shaped scepter was found belongs to the cultural horizon of Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno in Pelagonia, which is considered a branch of the Sălcuța-Krivodol-Bubanj Eneolithic complex that extends around the tripoint border of Romania-Serbia-Bulgaria and formed sometime after 3000 BCE. The culture of Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno also relates to the culture of Maliq II which in turn exhibits some relations with Thessaly.
https://i.ibb.co/R3kGCVY/c5a1upljevac-bakarno-gumno.png
https://i.ibb.co/t8HypZM/skb-sm2.png
I present a map with the names of the aforementioned cultures to make it easier for you. The red route represents the "journey of the horse".
https://i.ibb.co/4t6dD90/skb-sm.png
Returning to linguistics, Vladimir Georgiev observed that the so-called "pre-Hellenic" toponymes are becoming less and less as we move to the north and west of the Greek peninsula and disappear completely into Epirus where there are only Greek.
https://i.ibb.co/VvNkpXH/georgiev-nwgreece.png
This led him to conclude that northwestern Greece was the home of the proto-Greeks shortly before they spread into the main Greek peninsula.
Here i also have to mention what has been designated as the "Četina phenomenon", that we have already touched upon in previous comments relating to the early tumuli of Greece. At the same time that the horse descends to Greece, on the east coast of the Adriatic, a coastal civilization is formed that begins to export its pottery after 2200 BCE, through maritime trade. During these last 200 years of the 3rd millennium BCE the emergence of Četina pottery is intensified in the Peloponnese to such an extent that it has prompted Joseph Maran to assume the position of the establishment of naval populations in the region. Their motive was of course the Peloponnese’s location to link the maritime trade of the Adriatic-Ionian axis with the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. The map below is from a Joseph Maran article, it didn't originally include the arrow, namely it was added.
https://i.ibb.co/CwZRnHr/cetcult.png
https://i.ibb.co/qr31NY5/maran-cetina-migration.png
If one accepts the Maran hypothesis then the entry of the Proto-Greeks into southern Greece may hypothetically have arisen through the encouragement of the Četina traders. That is, the latter may have used the former as an equestrian army in which they conquered the naval bases of the Peloponnese that interested them. My view is that Vučedol/Četina were very likely linguistically related to the Balkano-Lower Danubian aforementioned complex at these early stages, within a broader Graeco-Phrygian continuum (which would possibly also include pre-proto-Albanian). I also like the Vučedol/Četina, especially concerning the proto-Mycenaeans/proto-Arcadocypriots, because of all the latter's tumuli having a coastal pattern (the apparent connection to Montenegro). Seamanship of both is also something that attracts me, although this last one could largely be of Minoan influence as well.
We may also consider the Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq complex by its own, which would better compliment Georgiev. In their original northwestern position, speakers of the Proto-Greek language would form a language continuum with the speakers of the Proto-Phrygian language residing in their respective northeast. In this early phase there were neither Greek nor Phrygian languages, but two poles within a Graeco-Phrygian continuum (Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq). Although the main Phrygian bulk migrated to Asia Minor shortly before 1000 BCE, the ancient Greek authors recorded traditions that place Phrygians first inhabiting Macedonia and southern Illyria, as well as reports of Brygian (Phrygian) surviving pockets in those areas. The Ohrid and Prespa lakes seem to have been the original Graeco-Phrygian boundary, hence why southwest of those lakes we find Epirotic Greek-speaking tribes. I attempted to use the previous map i shared, this time including some of the traditions regarding the historical presence of Greeks and Brygians/Phrygians, in order to try and make things more clear. The black-dotted line represents the border of Greek presence, while the purple-dotted line represents the border of Brygian/Phrygian surviving pockets as recorded by Greek authors. Regarding Greek presence, i excluded the Greek colonies north of Epirus, the Greek colonies of Chalkidiki, as well as later expansions of the Doric Macedonian ruling class towards Macedonia, bearing in mind that they all happened during the Iron Age and thus not deemed original presence. I also took the time to point out on the map each of the traditions that refer to Brygian/Phrygian presence, and where exactly. The region i have marked with a question mark between Epidamnus/Dyrrachium and Epirus might have been either Greek or Brygian/Phrygian before the Illyrian migration pushed everyone to the South or East and created this grey zone. I personally believe they were Dorians (Greeks) inhabiting this region originally, and then migrated towards the South.
https://i.ibb.co/gSSRcbv/skb-sm-Greek-and-Phrygian-presence.png
Compare and contrast with the Georgiev proto-Greek map. Doesn't have to be perfect (it actually is if we include some other toponyms), but you get the idea.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png

In summary, the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex (also known as Sălcuța-Krivodol-Bubanj and subsequent Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq), in addition to Vučedol and Četina are all crucial in my opinion in terms of the Graeco-Phrygians, proto-Greeks, and even the proto-Mycenaean/proto-Arcadocypriot Greek branch exclusively. Furthermore, the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex (approximately sometime after 3000 until 2100 BCE) is also contemporary to the Vučedol and the early Četina cultures. The introduction of the early Greek tumuli are also related with them, even though i didn't expand on it above. Last, regarding the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex we also have its pseudo-Minyan ware (mentioned in a page/image i shared above) which seems to be the predecessor of the Minyan ware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minyan_ware) later found in Greece (initially Tiryns of Argolis), which perfectly ties on with the seeming horse transmission from Porodin (ancient Pelagonia) to Argolis.

The above is too much as it is. I don't actually want to expand more into the subject these days because i am studying, but do contemplate the above information on your own.

[blevins13]

The author is either ignorant of additional crucial information that relate, very shallow in terms of information from different scientific fields (linguistic, archaeological, mythological, etc), or you haven't cropped all of the relevant pages in order to extract what the author actually elaborates on in previous and subsequent pages. I don't accuse you since you cannot include every page here, but it would be nice to have the previous page in case it relates and provides additional relevant information.

We have already discussed many pages ago that the southern Caucasus had established close relations with the Aegean, not from the 1600 BCE, but rather from the 3rd millennium BCE, which would and did include Cretan/Minoan contact as well, and of course Mycenaeans (proto-Arcadocypriot branch of the Greeks, not proto-Greeks) (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page51?p=583559&viewfull=1#post583559). There appears to have also been an Anatolian IE presence in Greece, that predated the arrival of the Greeks in central and southern Greece (recall the three pre-Greek maps i share here - https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page74?p=594240&viewfull=1#post594240), as well as a Hurrian presence (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34414-Genetic-Origins-of-Minoans-and-Mycenaeans/page52?p=583622&viewfull=1#post583622). Do read these posts.
Sidenote: In this last old post of mine i quickly only traced one mistake or view that i don't have any more, namely that of the Hurrian association with the Northeast Caucasian people, while today i have a different view that associates it with IEs (either Anatolian or a different early branch), which i briefly mentioned in page 66, namely "As a sidenote to this, Hurrian seems to possess a huge amount of common roots with PIE, to the point that some scholars even suggest that Hurro-Urartian derived from PIE. Look for example at French linguist Arnaud Fournet, https://www.academia.edu/40055347/PIE_roots_in_Hurrian.".

In my updated view (since i have learned additional things since our last discussion on the subject), i find the Balkan route of Graeco-Phrygian almost certain. And even though the Balkan route is almost a certainty, the details are more complex. For example, in a previous comment of mine some pages ago i had totally excluded the use of tumuli among proto-Greeks and rather viewed it as a later adoption through trade with the western Balkans. I now have a somewhat different view, but not exclusive to proto-Greek.

The question we need to answer in my opinion, is who introduced the horse to Greece? The oldest horse bones in Lerna (Argolis) are dated shortly after 2000 BCE. But the earliest indication of horse knowledge in the southwestern Balkans is a horse-shaped scepter found at Porodin (ancient Pelagonia) around 2500 BCE. The logical conclusion is to suppose that the one who brought the horse to ancient Pelagonia from the steppes later introduced it into Greece.
https://i.ibb.co/ryYnd7G/horse-porodin-lerna.png
The Porodin Culture where the horse-shaped scepter was found belongs to the cultural horizon of Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno in Pelagonia, which is considered a branch of the Sălcuța-Krivodol-Bubanj Eneolithic complex that extends around the tripoint border of Romania-Serbia-Bulgaria and formed sometime after 3000 BCE. The culture of Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno also relates to the culture of Maliq II which in turn exhibits some relations with Thessaly.
https://i.ibb.co/R3kGCVY/c5a1upljevac-bakarno-gumno.png
https://i.ibb.co/t8HypZM/skb-sm2.png
I present a map with the names of the aforementioned cultures to make it easier for you. The red route represents the "journey of the horse".
https://i.ibb.co/4t6dD90/skb-sm.png
Returning to linguistics, Vladimir Georgiev observed that the so-called "pre-Hellenic" toponymes are becoming less and less as we move to the north and west of the Greek peninsula and disappear completely into Epirus where there are only Greek.
https://i.ibb.co/VvNkpXH/georgiev-nwgreece.png
This led him to conclude that northwestern Greece was the home of the proto-Greeks shortly before they spread into the main Greek peninsula.
Here i also have to mention what has been designated as the "Četina phenomenon", that we have already touched upon in previous comments relating to the early tumuli of Greece. At the same time that the horse descends to Greece, on the east coast of the Adriatic, a coastal civilization is formed that begins to export its pottery after 2200 BCE, through maritime trade. During these last 200 years of the 3rd millennium BCE the emergence of Četina pottery is intensified in the Peloponnese to such an extent that it has prompted Joseph Maran to assume the position of the establishment of naval populations in the region. Their motive was of course the Peloponnese’s location to link the maritime trade of the Adriatic-Ionian axis with the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean. The map below is from a Joseph Maran article, it didn't originally include the arrow, namely it was added.
https://i.ibb.co/CwZRnHr/cetcult.png
https://i.ibb.co/qr31NY5/maran-cetina-migration.png
If one accepts the Maran hypothesis then the entry of the Proto-Greeks into southern Greece may hypothetically have arisen through the encouragement of the Četina traders. That is, the latter may have used the former as an equestrian army in which they conquered the naval bases of the Peloponnese that interested them. My view is that Vučedol/Četina were very likely linguistically related to the Balkano-Lower Danubian aforementioned complex at these early stages, within a broader Graeco-Phrygian continuum (which would possibly also include pre-proto-Albanian). I also like the Vučedol/Četina, especially concerning the proto-Mycenaeans/proto-Arcadocypriots, because of all the latter's tumuli having a coastal pattern (the apparent connection to Montenegro). Seamanship of both is also something that attracts me, although this last one could largely be of Minoan influence as well.
We may also consider the Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq complex by its own, which would better compliment Georgiev. In their original northwestern position, speakers of the Proto-Greek language would form a language continuum with the speakers of the Proto-Phrygian language residing in their respective northeast. In this early phase there were neither Greek nor Phrygian languages, but two poles within a Graeco-Phrygian continuum (Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq). Although the main Phrygian bulk migrated to Asia Minor shortly before 1000 BCE, the ancient Greek authors recorded traditions that place Phrygians first inhabiting Macedonia and southern Illyria, as well as reports of Brygian (Phrygian) surviving pockets in those areas. The Ohrid and Prespa lakes seem to have been the original Graeco-Phrygian boundary, hence why southwest of those lakes we find Epirotic Greek-speaking tribes. I attempted to use the previous map i shared, this time including some of the traditions regarding the historical presence of Greeks and Brygians/Phrygians, in order to try and make things more clear. The black-dotted line represents the border of Greek presence, while the purple-dotted line represents the border of Brygian/Phrygian surviving pockets as recorded by Greek authors. Regarding Greek presence, i excluded the Greek colonies north of Epirus, the Greek colonies of Chalkidiki, as well as later expansions of the Doric Macedonian ruling class towards Macedonia, bearing in mind that they all happened during the Iron Age and thus not deemed original presence. I also took the time to point out on the map each of the traditions that refer to Brygian/Phrygian presence, and where exactly. The region i have marked with a question mark between Epidamnus/Dyrrachium and Epirus might have been either Greek or Brygian/Phrygian before the Illyrian migration pushed everyone to the South or East and created this grey zone. I personally believe they were Dorians (Greeks) inhabiting this region originally, and then migrated towards the South.
https://i.ibb.co/gSSRcbv/skb-sm-Greek-and-Phrygian-presence.png
Compare and contrast with the Georgiev proto-Greek map. Doesn't have to be perfect (it actually is if we include some other toponyms), but you get the idea.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Proto_Greek_Area_reconstruction.png

In summary, the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex (also known as Sălcuța-Krivodol-Bubanj and subsequent Šupljevec-Bakarno Gumno-Maliq), in addition to Vučedol and Četina are all crucial in my opinion in terms of the Graeco-Phrygians, proto-Greeks, and even the proto-Mycenaean/proto-Arcadocypriot Greek branch exclusively. Furthermore, the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex (approximately sometime after 3000 until 2100 BCE) is also contemporary to the Vučedol and the early Četina cultures. The introduction of the early Greek tumuli are also related with them, even though i didn't expand on it above. Last, regarding the Balkano-Lower Danubian complex we also have its pseudo-Minyan ware (mentioned in a page/image i shared above) which seems to be the predecessor of the Minyan ware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minyan_ware) later found in Greece (initially Tiryns of Argolis), which perfectly ties on with the seeming horse transmission from Porodin (ancient Pelagonia) to Argolis.

The above is too much as it is. I don't actually want to expand more into the subject these days because i am studying, but do contemplate the above information on your own.

The previous page that starts the conclusions.
Here you go.....:IMG_4199.jpg
IMG_4201.jpg
Or buy this book and evaluate if I am missleading you

IMG_4200.jpg


While your conclusion that Robert Drews Is ignorant is far from truth.
You may say that he is wrong if you have similar expertise.

I have always thought that the Anatolian route is more probable for the Proto-Greeks.



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

.

I didn't write that you are misleading me, i actually emphasized that i am not accusing you for not uploading more pages. I also wrote that i cannot evaluate the credibility of his views without studying how he comes to such a conclusion. With all that said, Robert Drews actually writes in the last page, "The linguistic possibilities and impossibilities are far beyond my ability to see, and i must hope that an Indo-Europeanist will explore them.". I believe you take his word very seriously even though he is not an Indo-Europeanist and he says so. What you also excluded from your message is that Robert Drews places the homeland of PIE in the Armenian highlands, hence why he might be trying to explain the expansion of Graeco-Phrygian from southern Caucasus by giving too much value in what were probably trade relations between Aegean-Caucasus, i presume. Do you agree with that as well, namely for PIE to have originated from Armenia? Do you also agree with his view that Graeco-Phrygian has Indo-Iranian roots, because that is quite a stretch from a linguistic point of view. It is different to claim that the two groups are related, and different to claim origin of the former from the latter. For example, Graeco-Phrygian was centum, Indo-Iranian was satem. If i understand correctly, he also writes that Indo-Iranian originated somewhere within the modern region of Kurdistan, namely below Aras/Araxes river and upper Tigris river. You agree with that as well? Last, he also seems to disregard analysis of Greek dialects which are crucial for answering the origin of the Greeks (1600 BCE is too late for proto-Greek). By the way, does he mention any of the archaeological evidence that i shared in the previous post anywhere in his book? Because i personally do mention archaeological similarities between south Caucasus and the Aegean, which shows i am not ignorant of them. In the end, it appears Drews doesn't take a holistic approach to the question, which can easily derail you into all kinds of false conclusions. Anyway, you may believe what you want in the end. Just like with the case of Hammond and his tumuli analysis of Greece which is totally outdated bearing in mind that quite many examples of tumuli use exist in Greece after 1400 BCE.

[blevins13]

I didn't write that you are misleading me, i actually emphasized that i am not accusing you for not uploading more pages. I also wrote that i cannot evaluate the credibility of his views without studying how he comes to such a conclusion. With all that said, Robert Drews actually writes in the last page, "The linguistic possibilities and impossibilities are far beyond my ability to see, and i must hope that an Indo-Europeanist will explore them.". I believe you take his word very seriously even though he is not an Indo-Europeanist and he says so. What you also excluded from your message is that Robert Drews places the homeland of PIE in the Armenian highlands, hence why he might be trying to explain the expansion of Graeco-Phrygian from southern Caucasus by giving too much value in what were probably trade relations between Aegean-Caucasus, i presume. Do you agree with that as well, namely for PIE to have originated from Armenia? Do you also agree with his view that Graeco-Phrygian has Indo-Iranian roots, because that is quite a stretch from a linguistic point of view. It is different to claim that the two groups are related, and different to claim origin of the former from the latter. For example, Graeco-Phrygian was centum, Indo-Iranian was satem. If i understand correctly, he also writes that Indo-Iranian originated somewhere within the modern region of Kurdistan, namely below Aras/Araxes river and upper Tigris river. You agree with that as well? Last, he also seems to disregard analysis of Greek dialects which are crucial for answering the origin of the Greeks (1600 BCE is too late for proto-Greek). By the way, does he mention any of the archaeological evidence that i shared in the previous post anywhere in his book? Because i personally do mention archaeological similarities between south Caucasus and the Aegean, which shows i am not ignorant of them. In the end, it appears Drews doesn't take a holistic approach to the question, which can easily derail you into all kinds of false conclusions. Anyway, you may believe what you want in the end. Just like with the case of Hammond and his tumuli analysis of Greece which is totally outdated bearing in mind that quite many examples of tumuli use exist in Greece after 1400 BCE.

I can’t post the whole book here, it will be against copyright rules, you can buy and read it. What the book argues in general is the following.....his argument seemed reasonable in my eyes......

IMG_4202.jpgIMG_4203.jpgIMG_4204.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[blevins13]

If someone has read this book, it will be nice to have their opinions.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

I can’t post the whole book here, it will be against copyright rules, you can buy and read it. What the book argues in general is the following.....his argument seemed reasonable in my eyes......

IMG_4202.jpgIMG_4203.jpgIMG_4204.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

I will be honest with you. I cannot afford to buy that book now, nor does it attract my interest after reading these few pages you shared. I don't think there is any serious Indo-Europeanist that would claim for the Indo-Europeanization of Europe to have taken place after 1600 BCE, that's way too late.

[blevins13]

I will be honest with you. I cannot afford to buy that book now, nor does it attract my interest after reading these few pages you shared. I don't think there is any serious Indo-Europeanist that would claim for the Indo-Europeanization of Europe to have taken place after 1600 BCE, that's way too late.

Thanks for being honest, and without reading the bases of his argument, you claimed that the author (an academic) was ignorant, not holistic, and probably not to be taken seriously.....



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

Thanks for being honest, and without reading the bases of his argument, you claimed that the author (an academic) was ignorant, not holistic, and probably not to be taken seriously.....



Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Find me another serious academic that claims for the Indo-Europeanization of Europe to have began after 1600 BCE, or for Indo-Iranian to have originated in modern-day Kurdistan, or for Graeco-Phrygian to have originated from Indo-Iranian. Even his view on PIE originating in Armenia is not mainstream. Up until now, nothing from the pages you shared has attracted my interest in order to invest money and time in this book. And i asked, you who have supposedly read the book whether the author includes any of the archaeological evidence mentioned in comment #1987, all of which are validated by academics as well. If he doesn't then he is probably ignorant of them. Last, being an academic doesn't make you foolproof, therefore please don't use this as some kind of validation concerning his views. Most academics studying Indo-Europeans would disagree with the aforementioned views/conclusions of this guy.

[blevins13]

There is indeed a Classical Greek sample from ancient Ambracia (southern Epirus) shown in this following presentation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGKZKoH4yv0 (after 15:14), with Y-DNA as R1b1b (or R-P297) and mtDNA as H2a1. The date of the sample was 478-430 BCE.

Since Drews is not serious scholar, than let’s go back to this one and listen what is an haplogroup......enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Demetrios]

Since Drews is not serious scholar, than let’s go back to this one and listen what is an haplogroup......enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

Enjoy what?

[Alan]

As a sidenote to this, Hurrian seems to possess a huge amount of common roots with PIE, to the point that some scholars even suggest that Hurro-Urartian derived from PIE. Look for example at French linguist Arnaud Fournet,

I have been arguing with this for a very very long time. Hurrian being some kind of pre Northeast Caucasian language is merely a theory not backed by allot of evidence. it is generally still considered as an isolate language and if there is one thing what we know. Isolated language simply means in many cases, it hasn't been yet identified correctly. However culturewise all the way down to their deities they simply have too many elements that speak for a early PIE or at least related root. From the Thunder God Teshub, who predates the Hittite equivalent Taru. Yes we could argue the Hittite's simply adopted him from the Hattis but how could that be the case with the Celtic version Taranis and the Nordic Thor?
And that is just one example.

[Demetrios]

I have been arguing with this for a very very long time. Hurrian being some kind of pre Northeast Caucasian language is merely a theory not backed by allot of evidence. it is generally still considered as an isolate language and if there is one thing what we know. Isolated language simply means in many cases, it hasn't been yet identified correctly. However culturewise all the way down to their deities they simply have too many elements that speak for a early PIE or at least related root. From the Thunder God Teshub, who predates the Hittite equivalent Taru. Yes we could argue the Hittite's simply adopted him from the Hattis but how could that be the case with the Celtic version Taranis and the Nordic Thor?
And that is just one example.

Therefore you also agree, that's nice to read. But let's not diminish the role of Caucasian in the formation of PIE at least. An author that agrees with the IE classification of Hurro-Urartian, and mentioned in Fournet's paper as a co-author of another paper, namely Allan Bomhard, has also written the following paper, "The Origins of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis" (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335676918_The_Origins_of_Proto-Indo-European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_V olume_47_Number_1_2_SpringSummer_2019_pre-print). I have personally discussed this hypothesis with a couple of linguists and they find it very likable. The famous Indo-Europeanist David Anthony cautiously supports his views as well. Furthermore, the 2013 paper by Natalia Shishlina entitled "The Steppe and the Caucasus during the Bronze Age: Mutual Relations and Mutual Enrichments" fully corroborates his views as does the 2016 paper by Vjacheslav Chirikba entitled "From North to North West: How North-West Caucasian Evolved from North Caucasian". Autosomal DNA also seems to corroborate a crucial relation between PIEs and Caucasian people.

[blevins13]

I have been arguing with this for a very very long time. Hurrian being some kind of pre Northeast Caucasian language is merely a theory not backed by allot of evidence. it is generally still considered as an isolate language and if there is one thing what we know. Isolated language simply means in many cases, it hasn't been yet identified correctly. However culturewise all the way down to their deities they simply have too many elements that speak for a early PIE or at least related root. From the Thunder God Teshub, who predates the Hittite equivalent Taru. Yes we could argue the Hittite's simply adopted him from the Hattis but how could that be the case with the Celtic version Taranis and the Nordic Thor?
And that is just one example.

Drews who is clearly more specialized military history, backdates the movement of the carriers of the Celtic and italic language in the Carpathian Basin around 1600 BC with the logic that only than the horses the chariotes and the bronze weapons became a factor in the battle field. Drews indicate that they showed up in northern Italy around 1,500 BC. Hopefully the members who know more about Italian history can shed some light on this.


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum

[Alan]

Therefore you also agree, that's nice to read. But let's not diminish the role of Caucasian in the formation of PIE at least.

I am not diminishing that in fact Hurro_Urarteaen and Manneaen are the best candidates that show this early connection between some Caucasian groups and IE.

One of the most irrefutable connections imo is simply the deity Teshub. Some historians/linguists have tried it with the vague explaination that Teshub might be influenced by an Indo European group(the Hurro_Urarteaens having adopted him to their culture) but which people should that be? Hurrian Teshub clearly predates any other version of this Thunder Deity be it Hittite, Greek, Celtic or Germanic versions.
So for me at least there is absolutely no way this theory could work out. The Hurrian version predates all the other by at least 1000 years.

[Demetrios]

I am not diminishing that in fact Hurro_Urarteaen and Manneaen are the best candidates that show this early connection between some Caucasian groups and IE.

Hurro-Urartian appears to be an early branch of PIE, so does substratic Armenian which seems to fall in this branch. As for Mannaeans, they were part of the same Hurro-Urartian branch. So, PIE based on Fournet would be divided in Branch 1 (Hurro-Urartian) and Branch 2 (Eteo-Indo-European), which comprises the Anatolian and Post-Anatolian subbranches. I don't know the extent of Caucasian influence on Hurro-Urartian though, and whether we should associate it with indeed a PIE branch, or rather pre-Eteo-Indo-European, which would essentially translate to Hurro-Urartian (pre-Eteo-Indo-European)+Caucasian-substrate=PIE proper (proto-Eteo-Indo-European).

[Alan]

Some more things about Teshub.

The Hurrian myth of Teshub's origin—he was conceived when the god Kumarbi bit off and swallowed his father Anu's genitals, similarly to the Greek story of Uranus, Cronus, and Zeus, which is recounted in Hesiod's Theogony. Teshub's brothers are Aranzah (personification of the river Tigris), Ullikummi (stone giant) and Tashmishu.

This story is actually more derived from Sumerian legends.

Illuyanka


Myths also exist of his conflict with the sea creature (possibly a snake or serpent) Hedammu (CTH 348).

Thor and serpent jörmungandr ? Can this many overlaps actually be considered coincidence? I don't see how such a similar story could reach all the way up into North Europe without it coming from a common root.

Also a stone statue from 3000 BCwas found in the region of Tell Halaf . It depicts a proto version of Teshub.

[tyuiopman]

Hurro-Urartian appears to be an early branch of PIE, so does substratic Armenian which seems to fall in this branch. As for Mannaeans, they were part of the same Hurro-Urartian branch. So, PIE based on Fournet would be divided in Branch 1 (Hurro-Urartian) and Branch 2 (Eteo-Indo-European), which comprises the Anatolian and Post-Anatolian subbranches. I don't know the extent of Caucasian influence on Hurro-Urartian though, and whether we should associate it with indeed a PIE branch, or rather pre-Eteo-Indo-European, which would essentially translate to Hurro-Urartian (pre-Eteo-Indo-European)+Caucasian-substrate=PIE proper (proto-Eteo-Indo-European).

Actually, as fas as the Mannaeans go--they seem to have been Armenian or Iranian, or at least their ruling class was. It's generally thought that Mannae was multi-cultural, but names like Daiakku, Mitati, Bagdatti, Iranzu, and possibly Ullusunu seem to be Indo-European. Obviously Iranzu and Bagdatti seem Iranic. Personally, I think the others could be Armenic. There was apparently a population in the Mannae region with significant Yamna ancestry by 2200 BCE. I doubt that they were Iranic, I suspect they were either Armenian or some other group like Gutian.

[tyuiopman]

I am not diminishing that in fact Hurro_Urarteaen and Manneaen are the best candidates that show this early connection between some Caucasian groups and IE.

One of the most irrefutable connections imo is simply the deity Teshub. Some historians/linguists have tried it with the vague explaination that Teshub might be influenced by an Indo European group(the Hurro_Urarteaens having adopted him to their culture) but which people should that be? Hurrian Teshub clearly predates any other version of this Thunder Deity be it Hittite, Greek, Celtic or Germanic versions.
So for me at least there is absolutely no way this theory could work out. The Hurrian version predates all the other by at least 1000 years.

It's pretty clear to me that there was some sort of early Indo-European presence in the Caucasus region and also in northern Mesopotamia.

Teshub could have originated from a Common Anatolian or early Hittite culture. Additionally, I think it's pretty clear that there was some sort of early Armenian presence in the South Caucasus by 2000 BCE, so Teshub could have come from that. Armenian appears to have some loanwords from Sumerian, which are normally explained as being filtered through an intermediary (Akkadian) but the Armenian forms are closer to the Sumerian forms than the Akkadian forms often are, so I find this hard to believe. We also have groups like the Gutians, who many suspect were a (centum) IE language and the Mushki, who may have been another IE culture in the region (there is a lot of confusion about the Mushki though).

Remember, the earliest attestations of Hurrian that we have are from 2000 BCE. But we have some early Hittite names recorded in relatively close proximity to Urkesh (where the earliest recorded Hurrians were). These early IE names date to 2500-2300 BCE. But scholarship seems to be pushing the Anatolian IE presence in the Near East back a lot further. There seems to be renewed interest in linking them to Kura-Araxes.

I wouldn't write off Teshub being IE.

Uelikummi, for its part, seems to be a mixed Armenian and Hurrian name--Uelik being Armenian, -ummi being Hurrian. I suspect that Illuyanka derives from PIE "wel" just like Uel(ik) does. Or if "Ill" doesn't derive from "wel" it is related to it (one of the meanings of "wel" is "to twist, to coil"--think about snakes).