Genetic Origins of Minoans and Mycenaeans

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

 
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.
View attachment 11325

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.
 
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_Influences) 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).
 
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_Influences) 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
View attachment 11325

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
 
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

Kurds are linguistically NW Iranians. Maybe originally from eastern Iran who migrated to southwestern Iran and then moved north with the Persians or Medes.

I think that the original Kurdish speakers were the Mards (Amardi/Mardi) of southeastern Lake Van and/or the Kyrtis and/or Cadusii. I think it's unlikely that the Karduchoi were related to Kurds as, up until very recently (and in some cases, still are), Kurds were primarily nomadic and the Karduchoi, according to Xenophon, were very urban and wealthy. The Mards (which I believe means "warriors"), Kyrtis, and Cadusii were fierce mountain warriors of the northern Zagros.

Modern Kurds are primarily Iranicized natives with some Iranians. Their Y-DNA breakdown reflects this. J2 could be from Hurro-Urartians and Armenized/Hellenized/Arabicized Hurro-Urartians (and possibly Anatolians). R1b would be from Armenians. R1a would be from Indo-Iranians (i.e. this would, at least partially, represent the original speakers of Kurdish). J1 would probably be from Caucasians or Mesopotamian Semitic cultures. E could be from anybody.

http://kurdishdna.blogspot.com/2014/10/kurdish-y-dna-part-xi.html

In other words, Kurds are mostly Iranicized Anatolians/Caucasians/Middle Easterners, although some (about 10%) are of Indo-Iranian stock.
 
You write, "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.".
Well, in regards to the names addressing the Greeks they were multiple. For example, back in 1946, a bilingual Phoenician-Luwian inscription was found in Karatepe of Cilicia. The inscription is dated to the 8th century BCE, and the person speaking in it, ’-z-t-w-d (Phoenician) / Azatiwada (Luwian), professes to be king of the d-n-n-y-m (Phoenician) / Hiyawa (Luwian), and describes his dynasty as "the house of M-p-š (Phoenician) / Muksa (Luwian)". Apparently, he is a descendant of Mopsus. The relationship between the earlier form Muksa, preserved in Luwian transmission, and the later form M-p-š / Mopsos, preserved in Phoenician transmission, is indicative of the evolution of Greek labiovelars and can hardly be explained otherwise. The Phoenician name of the people recalls one of the Homeric names of the Greeks, "Danaoi" with the -m plural, whereas the Luwian name Hiyawa probably goes back to Hittite Ahhiyā(wa), which is, according to most interpretations another Homeric name of the Greeks, the "Achaeans", or relates to a Mycenaean Greek settlement in Asia Minor. All these fall in line with the mythology which speaks of Mopsus leading the settlement and having been the founder of a royal house with a domain upon the coastal plains of Pamphylia and Cilicia. Keep in mind as well that it is around the Bronze Age collapse that we begin seeing a spike of Mycenaean pottery in the region of southern Anatolia.


As for their migration, they seem to be part of the broader Sea Peoples phenomenon. Which brings us to another huge subject. The Trojan War, Odysseus' journeys, Sea Peoples invasions/plunder, etc., seem to be very much correlated with the whole Epic Cycle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Cycle, which includes the Iliad and the Odyssey, but most of which is lost today, only small fragments exist. The Trojan war was not only the Iliad; the Iliad describes events of 50 days of the 10-year war. The war raged all over the place until it reached the events in the Iliad. Also, most of the Greek heroes of the war wandered after the city fell and didn't return; well what could a wandering army of hundreds of warships be doing i wonder. The navies of the peoples of the Trojan war is like the elephant in the room of the whole Sea Peoples mystery. In Odyssey's Book/Rhapsody 4 it shows Menelaus sharing the following, "Menelaus overheard him and said, "No one, my sons, can hold his own with Jove, for his house and everything about him is immortal; but among mortal men—well there may be another who has as much wealth as I have, or there may not; but at all events I have travelled much and have undergone much hardship, for it was nearly eight years before I could get home with my fleet. I went to Cyprus, Phœnicia and the Egyptians; I went also to the Ethiopians, the Sidonians, and the Erembrians, and to Libya where the lambs have horns as soon as they are born, and the sheep lamb down three times a year. Every one in that country, whether master or man, has plenty of cheese, meat, and good milk, for the ewes yield all the year round. But while I was travelling and getting great riches among these people, my brother was secretly and shockingly murdered through the perfidy of his wicked wife, so that I have no pleasure in being lord of all this wealth.". In Odyssey's Book/Rhapsody 14 it shows Odysseus sharing the following, "Mars and Minerva made me doughty in war; when I had picked my men to surprise the enemy with an ambuscade I never gave death so much as a thought, but was the first to leap forward and spear all whom I could overtake. Such was I in battle, but I did not care about farm work, nor the frugal home life of those who would bring up children. My delight was in ships, fighting, javelins, and arrows—things that most men shudder to think of; but one man likes one thing and another another, and this was what I was most naturally inclined to. Before the Achæans went to Troy, nine times was I in command of men and ships on foreign service, and I amassed much wealth. I had my pick of the spoil in the first instance, and much more was allotted to me later on.". All these and more correlate a lot with the Sea Peoples accounts. The descriptions of the Aeneid, presenting Trojan survivors under Aeneas could also correlate since we know he settled in Northern Africa for a period. Furthermore, regarding Sea Peoples, they were most likely a confederation of a number of people, comprised of Aegeans (Mycenaeans, etc.), Sicilians, and Sardinians that plundered the Bronze Age world, after some kind of administrative collapse probably in the region of western Anatolia, Greece, and southern Italy. Maybe this administrative collapse was the result of material exhaustion from the Trojan War between Mycenaeans and Trojans along with its allies (Troy had many allies). This in combination with other catastrophic events (droughts, famine, migrations/invasions, revolutions, disruption of trade, earthquakes, etc.) probably forced many of the involved people to migrate or simply travel and plunder (like Odysseus seems to have done even prior of the war) the Eastern Mediterranean. After all, the only people who match the characterization "Sea Peoples" most faithfully are the Mycenaeans. They ruled the seas, something which they had inherited from their fellow Minoans.

Last, regarding the Philistines, they were recorded as "P-r-s-t (conventionally Peleset)" in the
Egyptian records, and most certainly it refers to what we came to know as Philistines, which were also most likely a Mycenaean Sea People's group or even mixed with a strong Mycenaean element. Have a look at this presentation regarding them presented by Aren Maeir (a Jewish archaeologist), namely "New Perspectives on the Philistines in Light Recent Excavations at Tell Es-Safi/Gath", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJC8OAhm1f4. He proves their Mycenaean origin. Furthermore, Mycenaeans were not a unified people but comprised of different tribes and under different independent rulers. We have to view them as such and consider the multiple profiles of the Sea Peoples' groups in order to get a deeper understanding. Especially in the case of the Levant, we don't just have the Philistines (Peleset), but also the Danaoi (Denyen), Teukrians (Tjekker), and Sardinians (Sherden). There is evidence for all of them. For example, Danaoi (Denyen) which is the other main ethnonym of the Mycenaean Greeks, likely came to be known as the Biblical "tribe of Dan" in the region, here is an interesting article on them by an Israeli newspaper, https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/MAGAZINE-tribe-of-dan-sons-of-israel-or-of-greek-mercenaries-hired-by-egypt-1.5468423.

You write, "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.".
It negates his points in regards to the Pamphylians and Cypriots which appear in their respective regions much later than the initial settlement of proto-Greek people on the mainland of Greece. For example, archaeologically Greek presence on Cyprus seems to appear at approximately 1400 BCE. Unless i have totally misunderstood him, doesn't Hamp suggest that Pamphylians and Cypriots Greeks first appeared in their respective regions at around the same time proto-Greeks appeared on the mainland? Last, it doesn't negate the southern route hypothesis for proto-Greeks which is always on the table. I am not referring to that part. I agree with the dating you mention, i believe proto-Greeks first settled north-western mainland Greece, or more specifically the Pindus mountain range, between approximately 3000-2500 BCE.
 
Last edited:
Hamp seems to suggest, if I'm understanding him correctly, that the Greeks went their separate ways near Smyrna/Izmir. Some went south to Cyprus, some went to Crete (via Arcadia), and the remainders went to the mainland. But he classifies these as A, B, C groups, and I'm not sure if that's purely for categorization purposes or if that's also to denote some chronology/timeline (i.e. A=Cypriots so does this suggest that they split-off first, according to him).
 
About 2000 BC a wheel-made monochrome ware makes its appearance in Kanesh and other central Anatolian sites, and the ancestry of this pottery seems on the evidence of surface surveys to lie in north-west Anatolia, and particularly in the Tavşanlı-Kütahya region. The interesting point about it is that it is to be found in the earliest settlements of Boğazköy, a fact which suggests that the original settlement at this site was made by north-westerners who were presumably Indo-European, but not Hittite, in speech. This drive from the north-west may have been the occasion of the establishment of Palaic, another Indo-European dialect [...] No linguistic features in the Hittite texts from the Boğazköy archives can yet be ascribed to this wave of western influence.

J. G. MacQueen. The Hittites and Their Contemporaries in Asia Minor. (Ancient People and Places, volume 83.) Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press. 1996 ed. Pp. 32


Could these have been Greeks? Phrygians? Armenians? The first two seem more likely based on the geography.
 
Here i quote Eric Hamp from his "The Expansion of the Indo-European Languages: An Indo-Europeanist’s Evolving View" (2013) (http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp239_indo_european_languages.pdf) paper.
"
Helleno-Armenians (= Pontic Indo-Europeans): south and east of Kurgan [northeastcoast of the Black Sea and its hinterlands]
1. Via Batoumi and the southern Black Sea coast (Armenians left behind after Batoumi).
2. Greeks enter Aegean and Peloponnesus from Asia Minor, Cyprus via Pamphylia. Troyis a barrier to further migration directly west or to the northwest. So first the preCypriots and then other groups of pre-Hellenics are turned south at this point. Thepre-Cypriots continue south to Pamphyllia and ultimately Cyprus, the other groupscross the Aegean (Myceneans first).
3. Mycenean Greeks were in Thebes and Thessaly before the Aeolians; Myceneans werethe first Greeks on Crete.
"

Therefore he does suggest that linguistically affiliated pre-Cypriots settled Cyprus around the same time proto-Greeks settled on the Greek mainland. And he seemingly also suggests the same pre-Cypriot presence for Pamphylia if i understand correctly. The ABC is purely for categorization, not really chronological since he refers to all regions at once in his 2nd point. I don't know how he comes to these conclusions bearing in mind that at the very least archaeology contradicts all these. To me it seems more as conjecture rather than a hypothesis. I also have a problem with his 3rd point bearing in mind that Mycenaeans were not one people but diverse with Ionians and Aeolians, it is merely a collective name we have contemporarily assigned for a certain kind of people, namely the ones that participated in the Mycenaean civilization.

You write, "
Could these have been Greeks? Phrygians? Armenians? The first two seem more likely based on the geography.".
I believe they could be Palaic IEs as the quote suggests. But it would be interesting to know based on what evidence the Hittites are excluded.
Anatolian.jpg

I personally exclude Greek, Phrygian, and Armenian because of the genetic absence of steppe ancestry in the region during the approximate time of 2000 BCE, as this following paper suggests, namely "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia" (http://www.nielsenlab.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/science.aar7711.full_.pdf), and we know that both Greeks and Armenians had it.
 

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.

The term Scythian was used for many nomadic or seminomadic people irrespective of linguistics affiliations, especially after late antiquity. Originally, though, for a population in S. Ukraine, maybe Srubnaya related but I'm not sure without more Iron Age and later samples (because the accounts seem to imply movements at a relatively late date)

You can write 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic', for groups you think they were 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic'.
There is no reason to call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe' because:
= The term Scythian is an exonym, originally used for a population likely not that closely related to Ossetians.
= There are disagreements about how close Ossetian is to other 'Eastern Iranian' languages.

But, I would understand it if someone consistently used it for 'Eastern Iranian' speakers but you used it for the Achaei and Heniochi of Strabo, groups that are placed in a NWC speaking area (I don't know if someone can support an Iranic affiliation). Certainly they are presented as culturally different from Scythians proper, apart from the different mythological origins of the account.

The linguistic affiliation of Afanasievo is uncertain and with samples from actual Tocharians I think that this hypothesis will be refuted. Either way, they are more likely to have R1a than R1b in significant frequencies and most likely J2, with a South of Caspian through Tajikistan / Kyrgyzstan route possible.
 
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.



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.

I don't understand what Reich really believes. So my view is pre-PIE in a culture like Chatalhoyuk, late PIE in a culture like Cucuteni-Tripolye. I don't think that is necassarily correct, but for pre-PIE works better than the 'South of Caucasus' theory. South of Caucasus, where?

The Kelti in Strabo are presented as a population familar with agriculture, making cheese from milk etc., and the 'men of Britain' as partly similar, partly more 'simple' and 'barbaric'.

According to the account of Dionysius of Halikarnassus, Tyrrhenians took their name for being the first to build 'high wooden palisades resembling towers' in Italy and he compares these structures to those Mossynoeci were making in Anatolia.

I don't think that agriculturalists were making stilt houses. Did 'steppe pastoralists' do? We certainly know that in Central Europe they existed, afaik, from 5000 BC.
 
You write, "The term Scythian was used for many nomadic or seminomadic people irrespective of linguistics affiliations, especially after late antiquity. Originally, though, for a population in S. Ukraine, maybe Srubnaya related but I'm not sure without more Iron Age and later samples (because the accounts seem to imply movements at a relatively late date)".
What is late antiquity, and does it correspond to what i wrote? The broader Scythian designation is mainly assigned to Iranian speaking people of the steppes, if not altogether. I am not referring to later groups which might have been associated with Scythians because they had absorbed some of them.

You write, "
You can write 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic', for groups you think they were 'Iranic' or 'Eastern Iranic'.
There is no reason to call Ossetians a 'Scythian tribe' because:
= The term Scythian is an exonym, originally used for a population likely not that closely related to Ossetians.
= There are disagreements about how close Ossetian is to other 'Eastern Iranian' languages.
".
The Ossetians descend from the Alans, a Sarmatian tribe. The Sarmatians were part of the Iranian steppe peoples, among whom were also Scythians and Saka. These are also grouped together as "East Iranians". The fact the Scythian name has been generalized in order to designate all of these groups doesn't bother me at all, they were all related after all. If you don't want to use it, it's your right to do so. LOL, what are we keep discussing?

You write, "But, I would understand it if someone consistently used it for 'Eastern Iranian' speakers but you used it for the Achaei and Heniochi of Strabo, groups that are placed in a NWC speaking area (I don't know if someone can support an Iranic affiliation). Certainly they are presented as culturally different from Scythians proper, apart from the different mythological origins of the account.".
Actually i didn't mention Heniochi, you did. And second, Strabo doesn't elaborate on their linguistic affiliations in order to exclude them from being considered in the broader sense as Scythians. The NWC element of the area is essentially the Circassians (Adygei) people, who as a side note in the 19th century were largely displaced. Circassians (Adygei) as previously mentioned seem to descend from one of the numerous peoples that are mentioned in the area by Strabo, namely the Cercetae. And last, i am not really absolute about their (Achaei and Heniochi) affiliations. They could be Greek, Scythian, Caucasian, or a mix of them.

You write, "
The linguistic affiliation of Afanasievo is uncertain and with samples from actual Tocharians I think that this hypothesis will be refuted. Either way, they are more likely to have R1a than R1b in significant frequencies and most likely J2, with a South of Caspian through Tajikistan / Kyrgyzstan route possible.".
The problem with this is who can be considered actual Tocharian (or proto-Tocharian), and not be confused with later Indo-Iranian migrations who surely reached the area? Last, i also believe we will find J2 among them, as well as R1b, but i am referring to proto-Tocharians.
 
Scythians 'in the broadest sense' did not exist or they existed as much as 'East Asians' or 'Europeans' exist today.

You use the term Sarmatian as if it is something concrete, while that does not seem to be the case. For example, Herodotus uses it for a population east of Don, later Tacitus for a population that borders 'Germania' (east of Vistula).

I personally believe the first part of their name (sar-) is from the reconstructed root ǵʰelh₃ and therefore cognate with Sanskrit hari, Lithuanian zalias etc., which is consistent with the ancient accounts. (or Iron сырх but I am not sure what is the accepted etymology of that word)

And on the internet you may see maps like the following that are not based on anything other than modern myths build on ancient inconsistent accounts, which afaik though, do not place Sarmatians there but both east and west of that area.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythia#/media/File:Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png

If you want a parallel, calling a modern ethnic group Scythian or Sarmatian 'tribe' is like calling Albanians an 'Illyrian tribe'.
 
To get back to the paper, Davidski just keeps on keeping on with the disinformation and blatant and perhaps wilful ignorance of the findings of academic papers when they don't agree with his agenda.

"Minoans derive from a later stream of Anatolian ancestry than EEF does, with more CHG and Levant-related input, that's why they're so different from LBK, Iberian farmers, etc. Take a look at any decent PCA of West Eurasia."

NO, THAT IS ALL INCORRECT.

I don't know who this person is from anthrogenica who responded to set the record straight, but at least he or she reads papers and reports their findings honestly.

"EEF was admixed with WHG making it different from Barcin farmers. Minoans were a mix of Anatolian farmers and something Caucasus rich. No Levantine admixture was detected as for the original paper.


We estimated the fixation index, FST, of Bronze Age populations with present-day West Eurasians, finding that Mycenaeans were least differentiated from populations from Greece, Cyprus, Albania, and Italy (Fig. 2), part of a general pattern in which Bronze Age populations broadly resembled present-day inhabitants from the same region (Extended Data Fig. 7). [...] Other proposed migrations, such as settlement by Egyptian or Phoenician colonists, are not discernible in our data, as there is no measurable Levantine or African influence in the Minoans and Mycenaeans, thus rejecting the hypothesis that the cultures of the Aegean were seeded by migrants from the old civilizations of these regions.

[...]

The Mycenaeans settled all of mainland Greece up to Thessaly, and throughout the Aegean islands. There is evidence of extensive Mycenaean acculturation in Western Anatolia, Italy and Cyprus and trading relations with Egypt and the Near East. The Mycenaeans were literate and used for accounting purposes a syllabic script, Linear B, written in an early form of the Greek. They introduced this script into Crete after they occupied the island."

 

This thread has been viewed 1161999 times.

Back
Top