Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 425 of 604

Thread: Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

  1. #401
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    528


    Country: Portugal



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    As I said, it's David Anthony's theory. I got it from books, he must have written more about it.

    EDIT: So yeah, it might be interesting if someone started digging into the papers. But where to start?
    hummm. Fed up with David Anthony to tell you the truth.

    a. Boian and Gulmelnita (around 4600bc and related to Kum6) , rapidly mixed with Hamangia culture (from 5000bc) which was a related Anatolia people, as a differentiation of the others around and northwestern LBK, Starcevo type of people that were Early neolithic.

    b. In the awake of the southern movement, we rapidly see first the formation of the Pre-Cucuteni by merging this incoming people and a LBK/Starcevo local substratum.... and Cucuteni-Trypolie was born. Whatever you think of Cucuteni-trypillian culture impact this is the common knowledge of it. the "leftovers" of this mixing from new arriving people (related to Kumtepe, Kum6 people) is also Varna culture in 4300bc.

    c. First (thought of being) incoming "Steppe" eastern population is Cernovada culture which arrives at 4000bc, after the end of even Varna. Lets see if Cernovada doesn't turnout as GAC, with cultural "steppe" traits but no "steppe" aDna. most seem to believe Cernovada as steppe. that is fine.

    d. Ezero Culture, as Usatovo, much later by 3300bc, if anything, were related more to Baden and GAC than anything else. Naturally also related to whatever remains from the later Cernovada (steppe?) layers and probable all others I mentioned before. Here you have the later 10% steppe seen in Mycenaeans. However, the key note is: At most Cernovada was the one related to steppe. And they, in spite of coming after some cataclysm that wiped the region, didn't really made much impact in the region.

    e. There is no record of this millieu entering Anatolia.

    So, epoch, what do you add to this?

  2. #402
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,255


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    This is all I know Anthony to have said about connections between Ezero and Anatolia.

    "Beginning in about 3000 BC rich cultures emerged in the coastal steppes of the Crimea (the Kemi Oba culture) and the Dniester estuary northwest of the Black Sea (the Usatovo culture). They might have participated in seaborne trade along the Black Sea coast - artifact exchanges show that Usatovo, Kemi Oba, and late stages of the Maikop cultures were contemporary. Perhaps their trade goods even reached Troy I. A stone stele much like a Pit Grave marker was built into a wall at Troy I, and the Troy I ceramics were very much like those of the Baden and Ezero cultures in southeastern Europe (The stele is consistent with philological and mythological evidence that Troy was an outpost of Türkic settlement in Anatolia)."
    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ronzeAgeEn.htm

    Sounds like trade to me, not evidence of a migration, and I don't think Anthony proposed it as such.

    Also:
    "Steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200-4000 BCE, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe.[37]According to Anthony, their languages "probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian."[38] According to Anthony their descendants later moved into Anatolia, at an unknown time, but maybe as early as 3,000 BCE.[39] According to Anthony these herders, forming the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka complex,[note 3] probably were a chiefly elite from the Sredni Stog culture at the Dniepr valley.[41"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...,_and_Language

    The references are to page 229 and 262 of the book if anyone has it.

    As I remembered, it seems that Anthony uses a time frame of about 4200 BC for Pre-Anatolian, and speculates that the Suvorovo culture might have brought it to the Balkans. There's no proof of any kind proffered from what I remember.
    He doesn't propose any particular culture for the movement into Anatolia that I remember, but maybe there's something on page 262.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  3. #403
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    This is all I know Anthony to have said about connections between Ezero and Anatolia.

    "Beginning in about 3000 BC rich cultures emerged in the coastal steppes of the Crimea (the Kemi Oba culture) and the Dniester estuary northwest of the Black Sea (the Usatovo culture). They might have participated in seaborne trade along the Black Sea coast - artifact exchanges show that Usatovo, Kemi Oba, and late stages of the Maikop cultures were contemporary. Perhaps their trade goods even reached Troy I. A stone stele much like a Pit Grave marker was built into a wall at Troy I, and the Troy I ceramics were very much like those of the Baden and Ezero cultures in southeastern Europe (The stele is consistent with philological and mythological evidence that Troy was an outpost of Türkic settlement in Anatolia)."
    http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ronzeAgeEn.htm

    Sounds like trade to me, not evidence of a migration, and I don't think Anthony proposed it as such.

    Also:
    "Steppe herders, archaic Proto-Indo-European speakers, spread into the lower Danube valley about 4200-4000 BCE, either causing or taking advantage of the collapse of Old Europe.[37]According to Anthony, their languages "probably included archaic Proto-Indo-European dialects of the kind partly preserved later in Anatolian."[38] According to Anthony their descendants later moved into Anatolia, at an unknown time, but maybe as early as 3,000 BCE.[39] According to Anthony these herders, forming the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka complex,[note 3] probably were a chiefly elite from the Sredni Stog culture at the Dniepr valley.[41"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ho...,_and_Language

    The references are to page 229 and 262 of the book if anyone has it.

    As I remembered, it seems that Anthony uses a time frame of about 4200 BC for Pre-Anatolian, and speculates that the Suvorovo culture might have brought it to the Balkans. There's no proof of any kind proffered from what I remember.
    He doesn't propose any particular culture for the movement into Anatolia that I remember, but maybe there's something on page 262.
    Hm. Maybe I conjured it up myself from these two samples. I was citing from memory. Mind you, this route has another consequence: It would likely have left traces of another language in *all* Anatolian languages. I don't know if that is the case.

    EDIT: A southern origin and movement into the Steppe would have likely left a huge trace in late PIE. According to Agamemnon on AG one of the reasons PIE is considered an original language is that it fits rules almost mathematically. That was a response on my question if PIE might have been a mixed language like Michif.

  4. #404
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    449


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    A good paper about EBA W.Anatolia, presumably when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia. At first glance i didn't notice any references about Kurgan or Steppe influences...

    http://www.academia.edu/21769212/An_...rly_Bronze_Age

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  5. #405
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-Y31616>FT435332
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U2e1d

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    It is important to emphasize that at Ezero, the excavators Nikolai Merpert and Georgy Georgiev discovered a sequence of ceramics clearly ancestral to, and then contemporary with, those found in the Troy culture.
    -- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p. 239.

  6. #406
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    449


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    "Troy culture" should be a synonym of Yortan culture..they buried their deads into pithoi.

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  7. #407
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    449


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Maybe a Kurgan influence can be seen in the spread of the Megara in 3000-2700 BC ??

    "What should be emphasized at this point is that, from this period on, the megaron plan became characteristic throughout the region"...p.67

    apparently the Megaron originated in Neolithic Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaron

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  8. #408
    Banned
    Join Date
    12-10-16
    Posts
    182

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Y133384

    Country: Albania



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Mallory....


    The earliest Indo-European-speaking peoples to enter the historical record were the Anatolians who are first attested by about the nineteenth century BC. By this time Assyrian merchants had penetrated into south central Anatolia and established their karum or 'trading office' at Kanes, the modern Kultepe. Excavations at this site, and at several other Assyrian trading posts, have uncovered clay tablets in Assyrian cuneiform that record the daily business of the Assyrian tradesmen. In addition, they also mention personal names and places which are recognizably Indo-European. By far the best attested of these is Hittites. With their capital at Hattusa (modern Bogazkoy), the Hittites have left us over 25, 000 clay tablets spanning the period from about 1650 to 1200 BC. In addition, their archives contain tablets in two other Indo-European languages, Luwian and Palaic. They present us with a picture of Anatolia where the Hittites are master of the central region, the Palaic speakers subservient to their north, and the Luwians occupying the role of the traditional rival in much of the western and southern Anatolia. After the collapse of the Hittites about 1200 BC, Luwian seems to have prevailed widely over southern Anatolia and Luwian-related languages such as Lycian continued down into the last centuries of BC, only to be finally engulfed by the expansion of Greek colonists.


    It is most important for our purposes to inquire how autonomous were the Anatolian languages in their respective regions. The general opinion of both linguists and archaeologists would almost universally deny them a role as natives to Anatolia but cast them rather in the part of Bronze Age intruders who assimilated the indigenous non-Indo-European populations. The Assyrian merchants of the nineteenth century BC not only record the names of Indo-European peoples in their texts but make it quite clear that there was also a great body of non-Indo-European-speaking peoples in the region. The existence of these non-Indo-European peoples is undoubted since the Hittite archives themselves contain texts, translations of texts, and frequent borrowings from a language called Hattic. These Hatti are regarded as the predominant substratum, the aborigines if you will, of central Anatolia over whom the Hittites and Palaic speakers superimposed themselves. From the Hatti the Hittites borrowed not only many words, but also much of their culture, certainly much of their religion, and even the name Hittite derives from Hatti (the Hittites called themselves nes and their language nesili). Linguistically, Hattic is a non-Indo-European language with no certain close relationships, although there are some grounds (absence of grammatical gender, use of prefixes) to link it with the northwest Caucasian group of languages (Abkhaz) or perhaps Kartvelian, the major south Caucasian linguistic group.


    Further to the east, on the fringes of Anatolia and north of Syria, lay another major non-Indo-European people, the Hurrians. Hurrian texts maintained in the Hittite archives, coupled with Hurrian loan words in Luwian and the Hurrians' own inscriptions and texts in north Mesopotamia which date as early as the twenty-third century BC, all speak for an additional non-Indo-European presence on the eastern borders of the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. To their south were the lands of Semites and (formerly) Sumerians, again non-Indo-European speakers. The natural conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians were intrusive into central Anatolia and were unlikely to have emigrated from directly east of southeast of this region were major non-Indo-European populations are historically attested. It is also clear from the abundance of mixed texts, foreign loanwords in Hittite and Luwian, and the entire cultural picture that emerges from the content of the texts, that the Indo-European Anatolians had already undergone considerable assimilation to the culture of the non-Indo-European Anatolians before they appear in history. Now what do linguistics and archaeology tell us about their origins?


    For the linguists, the existence of three Indo-European languages in Anatolia by the seventeenth century BC generates two issues of considerable historical importance. The firs is their relationship with the other Indo-European languages. Here there is fairly universal agreement among historical linguists that the Anatolian branch offers us some of the most extreme examples of archaism among all the Indo-European languages. By this is meant that they retain grammatical forms and constructions that disappeared very early on in other languages. Some would go further and argue that the Anatolian branch appears to lack some grammatical forms that developed in all the other Indo-European languages. This, they maintain, indicates that the Anatolian branch diverged from the rest of the Indo-European continuum before it had even evolved into the form of Proto-Indo-European that gave rise to all the other Indo-European languages. This view is not universally accepted, especially since most linguists admit that the Anatolian languages had already undergone vast changes under the influence of non-Indo-European languages native populations before they emerged into history. Although there is much finely argued controversy about the details of these linguistic issues, there would be few to argue against the conclusion that the Anatolian languages represent a very early separation or divergence from the common Proto-Indo-European continuum of dialects.


    The second major issue is the internal relationship among the Anatolian languages. With our evidence for the both Luwian and Palaic so meagre compared with Hittite, it is difficult to ascertain fully how divergent the three languages were. That differences did exist can easily be seen in comparing some of their vocabulary.


    But despite these differences, and some are more thoroughgoing than these, the three languages are vastly more similar to one another than they are to any of the other Indo-European languages, even those other languages which are also attested as early as the Bronze Age. They give all the appearance of being the result of linguistic differentiation across a broad band of common Anatolian dialects. Their divergence from one another must obviously have occurred before their earliest historical attestation, but not too long before or we would expect yet greater differences. Linguists normally provide a broad estimate that the ancestors of the different Anatolian languages penetrated into their respective territories some time during the third millennium BC, or possibly as early as the later fourth millennium. Where does all this leave the archaeologists?


    First, the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians are difficult to distinguish from their non-Indo-European neighbours or predecessors. They appear to have embraced thoroughly the local Anatolian Bronze Age cultures and they display no obvious cultural traits that mark them off as distinctly Indo-European. This is hardly surprising, as the basic social picture of Bronze Age Anatolia is of a series of city-states comprised of linguistically diverse populations sharing the same material culture. It has even been suggested that Hittite itself was not the language of the dominant group but rather a lingua franca, developed out of the close association of the earlier Hittites of Kanes with the Assyrian merchants, who were the first literate population in Anatolia and who used Kanes as a trading base.


    We must also remember that our knowledge of Anatolian archaeology is still quite inferior to many other areas of Eurasia and so any argument for ethnic intrusions are generally build on admittedly meagre evidence. This is more than compounded by the length of rope with which the linguist has provided the optimistic archaeology, because with a 1,500-year time span to seek intrusions, few archaeologists who believe that such phenomena are traceable in the archaeology record can resits discovering several possible invaders - both the west and the east.


    Probably the most widely accepted case for intrusion falls at the end of Early Bronze Age II, about 2700-2600 BC, when the evidence for population movement is coupled with destruction and abandonment. Beginning in western Anatolia we see destruction phases on every major site and abandonment of smaller sites. The Konya Plain is offered as the most convincing example since field surveys here have indicated a collapse from 100 Early Bronze Age II sites to a mere four in the following period. Some suggest that an infiltration by nomads who profoundly altered the sedentary economy of the region may be credited with this change. In addition, new ceramic elements which take their origin from northwestern Anatolia (Troy V) spread rapidly eastward as also does the classic form of status or ritual architecture - the megaron which was common at Troy and Beycesultan - which now begins to appear in central Anatolia at such sites as Kanes-Kultepe.


    The arguments for a west to east movement of intruders in the mid-third millennium BC accords well with some linguistic theories concerning the dispersion of the Anatolian languages. Essentially, the new horizon embraces the subsequent historical lands of the Luwians who maintained a west to east pressure throughout their existence. This crisis at the end of Early Bronze Age II may have been either the manifestation of the earliest Luwians or even the earliest Anatolian speakers, including the ancestors of the Hittites, who underwent subsequent linguistic differentiation. The abandonment and destructions may nevertheless have simply been the result of climatic or internal calamities while the spread of yet another ceramic style or architectural form may not have required a new people with a new language.


    The original nucleus of these proposed expansions is northwest Anatolia, which naturally includes Troy itself. Links between this region and Southeast Europe, especially in ceramics - including figurines - and architecture, have long been known, and until the past few decades generally attributed to an expansion of Near Eastern high culture to European barbarians. More recently there has been a recognition by some archaeologists that the direction of influence may require reversing, at least during the transition from the Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. This can be seen, for example, in the ceramics, metallurgy and architecture exhibited at Bulgarian sites such as Ezero which only appear later at Troy. These similarities are seen by some to be little more than a general cultural horizon embracing both sides of the Sea of Marmara while other argue for actual folk movements, possibly refugees, who abandoned the Balkans for northwestern Anatolia about 3500-3000 BC under either the pressure of leadership of the Indo-Europeans. The remains of horses - whether wild or domestic is not certain - at Anatolian sites such as Demirci Huyuk is also cited as evidence for intrusions from Southeast Europe where the domestic horse antedates the Anatolian evidence and is a known possession of the earliest Indo-Europeans. We are not yet prepared to follow such a trail so early in our enquiry since this concerns too closely the problem of the Indo-European homeland itself. Rather, we must briefly turn our attention to those who prefer to seek the origins of Indo-European-speaking Anatolians to the northeast.


    Most arguments for an Indo-European invasion from northeast concern the appearance of a new burial rite at the end of the fourth and through the third millennium BC. At this time, both north of the Black Sea and Caucasus, burials on the Russian-Ukrainian steppe were typically placed in an under-ground shaft and covered with a mound (kurgan in Russian). Before 3000 BC there begin to appear in the territory of the indigenous Transcaucasian (Kuro-Araxes) culture somewhat similar burials such as the royal tomb at Uch-Tepe on the Miliska steppe. As tumulus burials are previously unknown in this region, some would explain their appearance by an intrusion of steppe pastoralists who migrated through the Caucasus and subjugated the local Early Bronze Age culture. More importantly, a status burial inserted into a mound at the site of Korucu Tepe in eastern Anatolia has been compared with somewhat similar burials both in the Caucasus and Russian steppe. The discovery of horse bones on several sites of east Anatolia such as Norsun Tepe and Tepecik are seen to confirm a steppe intrusion since, as mentioned earlier, the horse, long known in the Ukraine and south Russia, is not attested in Anatolia prior to the Bronze Age. Continuing contacts or migrations are employed to explain subsequent similarities between the royal tombs of north - central Anatolia, such as their thirteen graves of Alaca Huyuk, with tombs formally similar to possessing related grave goods known north of the Caucasus.


    At present, a northeastern intrusion does not make quite so good a linguistic 'fit' as does the northwestern hypothesis. The evidence for intrusion is either confined to eastern Anatolia - lands historically attributed to Hurrian or Caucasian languages - or north-central Anatolia where we might expect Hattic or Kaskian, another apparently non-Indo-European linguistic group. The evidence of kurgan-related burials is generally absent from those territories were we find the major Indo-European peoples of our search, especially the Luwian of southern and western Anatolia. And even if our kurgan-entombed overlords are proximate to the Hittite's traditional territory, linguists adamantly oppose an eastern entry for the Hittities and a separate western entry for the Luwians. The languages seem to closely related, too similar to have experienced the degree of separation implied by each having taken an opposing course around the Black Sea. Furthermore, what similarity exists between royal burials both north and south of the Caucasus may have far more to do with the need to develop more impressive forms of entombment for the hierarchies that developed in the both regions during the Early Bronze Age, and which participated in mutual exchange networks of prestigious goods. At present, the scales are tipped in favour of a western entry.

  9. #409
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    449


    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Thanks Leka, however it seems to me that their traces are not as evident as in the Balkans and in the Danube plain, where hundreds of kurgans appeared suddently.

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  10. #410
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Leka View Post
    especially since most linguists admit that the Anatolian languages had already undergone vast changes under the influence of non-Indo-European languages native populations before they emerged into history.
    That is interesting, I would like to read about what those changes were, and if they can be linked to a known language or not. Also, thanks for the citation.

  11. #411
    Elite member holderlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    01-12-14
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    770


    Country: USA - Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyDonkey View Post
    -- J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans, p. 239.
    This is a good read

  12. #412
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    12-03-18
    Posts
    138


    Country: United States



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    Maybe a Kurgan influence can be seen in the spread of the Megara in 3000-2700 BC ??

    "What should be emphasized at this point is that, from this period on, the megaron plan became characteristic throughout the region"...p.67

    apparently the Megaron originated in Neolithic Russia

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaron

    Utilizzando Tapatalk
    https://www.britannica.com/technology/megaron

    ''It seemingly originated in the Middle East, attaining a peculiarly Aegean aspect because of its open porch...''

  13. #413
    Regular Member Cato's Avatar
    Join Date
    31-08-12
    Posts
    449


    Country: Italy



    Not unlikely, however it seems that it spread in Anatolia in a West to East movement..... (from the Balkans ??)

    From the post of Leka:
    "In addition, new ceramic elements which take their origin from northwestern Anatolia (Troy V) spread rapidly eastward as also does the classic form of status or ritual architecture - the megaron which was common at Troy and Beycesultan - which now begins to appear in central Anatolia at such sites as Kanes-Kultepe. "

    Utilizzando Tapatalk

  14. #414
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    It's not really related with the paper, but with a previous Kura-Araxes sample from " The genetic structure of the world's first farmers " of Lazaridis. They found an R1b labeled R1b-M415 (xM269) what is that sample ? I never heard of that M415 denomination. By barely searching on google i read that. Note, though, that R1b-M415, a branch ancestral to R1b-M269, was found as early as 14,000 ya in Italy and 7,000 ya in Spain.



  15. #415
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    18-08-15
    Posts
    1,499

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R-L2
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c5a

    Ethnic group
    Swiss
    Country: Switzerland



    Btw, i read an interesting idea from, i guess it was Agamemnon of Anthrogenica. He postulated the idea that in paleolithic. People with related CHG ancestry or Basal Eurasian might have been north of the caucasus up to the Manych-Kerch Spillway wich was a water flow going from the Caspian Sea to the Black Lake / Sea and formed a natural barrier with the eurasian steppe and the caucasus. Maybe people with haplogroup J1 found with 2 individuals of eastern europe 100% EHG were originally from that population.

  16. #416
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    15-12-17
    Posts
    73


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Cato View Post
    A good paper about EBA W.Anatolia, presumably when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia. At first glance i didn't notice any references about Kurgan or Steppe influences...

    http://www.academia.edu/21769212/An_...rly_Bronze_Age

    Utilizzando Tapatalk
    EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.

  17. #417
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,255


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.
    Yes, and they're all Anatolian farmer and Iranian farmer autosomally.

  18. #418
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Saetrus View Post
    EBA is not when the Anatolian branch entered Anatolia, the chalcolithic sample from western Anatolia 3800BC clusters autosomally with the Hittite samples, it's already Indoeuropean.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    Yes, and they're all Anatolian farmer and Iranian farmer autosomally.
    But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

    So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.

  19. #419
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    04-09-16
    Posts
    528


    Country: Portugal



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694
    So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.
    Special pleading.
    Using that logic almost all conclusions from adna can be ignored.
    Actually by some fluke of universe all the samples that do not support my claims are in fact born out of far away kidnapped girls by adventurous guys the brought those girls to be slaves. ...are you saying there is no slaves in history? ..:) see the fallacy?
    In fact not ro recognize the locality (broader area) of Hittites is something that eludes me completly. They were as local as they come. Highly developed and complex minded as the others that in circle them in the region from the east.

  20. #420
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

    So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.
    What type of exotic admixture do you expect if the Greeks were mostly ANF + CHG?

  21. #421
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    536


    Country: Greece



    By the way, we don't have autosomal DNA from Early Dynastic Egypt or the Old Kingdom, unless I have missed something.

    Every study Haak is involved has titles that are not supported by the data of the studies.

  22. #422
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    19,255


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by epoch View Post
    But we know that the Hittite empire was multi-cultural because its origin is described in cuneiform tablets, many of its deities are from other cultures and part of the liturgy was done in Hattic. And we can be absolutely undeniably sure that it's entirely possible that communities existed in Hittite rule that did not receive any gene flow because we have a more or less similar situation in Ptolemaic Egypt. The language of government was Greek, Alexandria was in majority Greek, there were Greek settlers. Yet in Abusir the genomes from mummies show no exotic gene flow from the New Kingdom until the Roman times.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms15694

    So it is quite clear that such conclusions can't be made.
    I'm sorry, I agree with Olympic Mons to the extent that this is special pleading. I've personally come to no actual conclusion yet. What I meant is that the samples we have so far are Anatolian and Iranian farmer genetically. If we get quite a few more samples, including ones from the royal Hittite tombs and that is still true, then there's an issue here. Plus, the Hittite area is not the only one where Anatolian languages were spoken, and so far there is nothing.

  23. #423
    Regular Member Sile's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-11
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,115

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    T1a2 -Z19945..Jura
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H95a1 ..Pannoni

    Ethnic group
    North Alpine Italian
    Country: Australia



    Quote Originally Posted by Leka View Post
    Mallory....
    The earliest Indo-European-speaking peoples to enter the historical record were the Anatolians who are first attested by about the nineteenth century BC. By this time Assyrian merchants had penetrated into south central Anatolia and established their karum or 'trading office' at Kanes, the modern Kultepe. Excavations at this site, and at several other Assyrian trading posts, have uncovered clay tablets in Assyrian cuneiform that record the daily business of the Assyrian tradesmen. In addition, they also mention personal names and places which are recognizably Indo-European. By far the best attested of these is Hittites. With their capital at Hattusa (modern Bogazkoy), the Hittites have left us over 25, 000 clay tablets spanning the period from about 1650 to 1200 BC. In addition, their archives contain tablets in two other Indo-European languages, Luwian and Palaic. They present us with a picture of Anatolia where the Hittites are master of the central region, the Palaic speakers subservient to their north, and the Luwians occupying the role of the traditional rival in much of the western and southern Anatolia. After the collapse of the Hittites about 1200 BC, Luwian seems to have prevailed widely over southern Anatolia and Luwian-related languages such as Lycian continued down into the last centuries of BC, only to be finally engulfed by the expansion of Greek colonists.


    It is most important for our purposes to inquire how autonomous were the Anatolian languages in their respective regions. The general opinion of both linguists and archaeologists would almost universally deny them a role as natives to Anatolia but cast them rather in the part of Bronze Age intruders who assimilated the indigenous non-Indo-European populations. The Assyrian merchants of the nineteenth century BC not only record the names of Indo-European peoples in their texts but make it quite clear that there was also a great body of non-Indo-European-speaking peoples in the region. The existence of these non-Indo-European peoples is undoubted since the Hittite archives themselves contain texts, translations of texts, and frequent borrowings from a language called Hattic. These Hatti are regarded as the predominant substratum, the aborigines if you will, of central Anatolia over whom the Hittites and Palaic speakers superimposed themselves. From the Hatti the Hittites borrowed not only many words, but also much of their culture, certainly much of their religion, and even the name Hittite derives from Hatti (the Hittites called themselves nes and their language nesili). Linguistically, Hattic is a non-Indo-European language with no certain close relationships, although there are some grounds (absence of grammatical gender, use of prefixes) to link it with the northwest Caucasian group of languages (Abkhaz) or perhaps Kartvelian, the major south Caucasian linguistic group.


    Further to the east, on the fringes of Anatolia and north of Syria, lay another major non-Indo-European people, the Hurrians. Hurrian texts maintained in the Hittite archives, coupled with Hurrian loan words in Luwian and the Hurrians' own inscriptions and texts in north Mesopotamia which date as early as the twenty-third century BC, all speak for an additional non-Indo-European presence on the eastern borders of the Indo-Europeans of Anatolia. To their south were the lands of Semites and (formerly) Sumerians, again non-Indo-European speakers. The natural conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians were intrusive into central Anatolia and were unlikely to have emigrated from directly east of southeast of this region were major non-Indo-European populations are historically attested. It is also clear from the abundance of mixed texts, foreign loanwords in Hittite and Luwian, and the entire cultural picture that emerges from the content of the texts, that the Indo-European Anatolians had already undergone considerable assimilation to the culture of the non-Indo-European Anatolians before they appear in history. Now what do linguistics and archaeology tell us about their origins?


    For the linguists, the existence of three Indo-European languages in Anatolia by the seventeenth century BC generates two issues of considerable historical importance. The firs is their relationship with the other Indo-European languages. Here there is fairly universal agreement among historical linguists that the Anatolian branch offers us some of the most extreme examples of archaism among all the Indo-European languages. By this is meant that they retain grammatical forms and constructions that disappeared very early on in other languages. Some would go further and argue that the Anatolian branch appears to lack some grammatical forms that developed in all the other Indo-European languages. This, they maintain, indicates that the Anatolian branch diverged from the rest of the Indo-European continuum before it had even evolved into the form of Proto-Indo-European that gave rise to all the other Indo-European languages. This view is not universally accepted, especially since most linguists admit that the Anatolian languages had already undergone vast changes under the influence of non-Indo-European languages native populations before they emerged into history. Although there is much finely argued controversy about the details of these linguistic issues, there would be few to argue against the conclusion that the Anatolian languages represent a very early separation or divergence from the common Proto-Indo-European continuum of dialects.


    The second major issue is the internal relationship among the Anatolian languages. With our evidence for the both Luwian and Palaic so meagre compared with Hittite, it is difficult to ascertain fully how divergent the three languages were. That differences did exist can easily be seen in comparing some of their vocabulary.


    But despite these differences, and some are more thoroughgoing than these, the three languages are vastly more similar to one another than they are to any of the other Indo-European languages, even those other languages which are also attested as early as the Bronze Age. They give all the appearance of being the result of linguistic differentiation across a broad band of common Anatolian dialects. Their divergence from one another must obviously have occurred before their earliest historical attestation, but not too long before or we would expect yet greater differences. Linguists normally provide a broad estimate that the ancestors of the different Anatolian languages penetrated into their respective territories some time during the third millennium BC, or possibly as early as the later fourth millennium. Where does all this leave the archaeologists?


    First, the Indo-European-speaking Anatolians are difficult to distinguish from their non-Indo-European neighbours or predecessors. They appear to have embraced thoroughly the local Anatolian Bronze Age cultures and they display no obvious cultural traits that mark them off as distinctly Indo-European. This is hardly surprising, as the basic social picture of Bronze Age Anatolia is of a series of city-states comprised of linguistically diverse populations sharing the same material culture. It has even been suggested that Hittite itself was not the language of the dominant group but rather a lingua franca, developed out of the close association of the earlier Hittites of Kanes with the Assyrian merchants, who were the first literate population in Anatolia and who used Kanes as a trading base.


    We must also remember that our knowledge of Anatolian archaeology is still quite inferior to many other areas of Eurasia and so any argument for ethnic intrusions are generally build on admittedly meagre evidence. This is more than compounded by the length of rope with which the linguist has provided the optimistic archaeology, because with a 1,500-year time span to seek intrusions, few archaeologists who believe that such phenomena are traceable in the archaeology record can resits discovering several possible invaders - both the west and the east.


    Probably the most widely accepted case for intrusion falls at the end of Early Bronze Age II, about 2700-2600 BC, when the evidence for population movement is coupled with destruction and abandonment. Beginning in western Anatolia we see destruction phases on every major site and abandonment of smaller sites. The Konya Plain is offered as the most convincing example since field surveys here have indicated a collapse from 100 Early Bronze Age II sites to a mere four in the following period. Some suggest that an infiltration by nomads who profoundly altered the sedentary economy of the region may be credited with this change. In addition, new ceramic elements which take their origin from northwestern Anatolia (Troy V) spread rapidly eastward as also does the classic form of status or ritual architecture - the megaron which was common at Troy and Beycesultan - which now begins to appear in central Anatolia at such sites as Kanes-Kultepe.


    The arguments for a west to east movement of intruders in the mid-third millennium BC accords well with some linguistic theories concerning the dispersion of the Anatolian languages. Essentially, the new horizon embraces the subsequent historical lands of the Luwians who maintained a west to east pressure throughout their existence. This crisis at the end of Early Bronze Age II may have been either the manifestation of the earliest Luwians or even the earliest Anatolian speakers, including the ancestors of the Hittites, who underwent subsequent linguistic differentiation. The abandonment and destructions may nevertheless have simply been the result of climatic or internal calamities while the spread of yet another ceramic style or architectural form may not have required a new people with a new language.


    The original nucleus of these proposed expansions is northwest Anatolia, which naturally includes Troy itself. Links between this region and Southeast Europe, especially in ceramics - including figurines - and architecture, have long been known, and until the past few decades generally attributed to an expansion of Near Eastern high culture to European barbarians. More recently there has been a recognition by some archaeologists that the direction of influence may require reversing, at least during the transition from the Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. This can be seen, for example, in the ceramics, metallurgy and architecture exhibited at Bulgarian sites such as Ezero which only appear later at Troy. These similarities are seen by some to be little more than a general cultural horizon embracing both sides of the Sea of Marmara while other argue for actual folk movements, possibly refugees, who abandoned the Balkans for northwestern Anatolia about 3500-3000 BC under either the pressure of leadership of the Indo-Europeans. The remains of horses - whether wild or domestic is not certain - at Anatolian sites such as Demirci Huyuk is also cited as evidence for intrusions from Southeast Europe where the domestic horse antedates the Anatolian evidence and is a known possession of the earliest Indo-Europeans. We are not yet prepared to follow such a trail so early in our enquiry since this concerns too closely the problem of the Indo-European homeland itself. Rather, we must briefly turn our attention to those who prefer to seek the origins of Indo-European-speaking Anatolians to the northeast.


    Most arguments for an Indo-European invasion from northeast concern the appearance of a new burial rite at the end of the fourth and through the third millennium BC. At this time, both north of the Black Sea and Caucasus, burials on the Russian-Ukrainian steppe were typically placed in an under-ground shaft and covered with a mound (kurgan in Russian). Before 3000 BC there begin to appear in the territory of the indigenous Transcaucasian (Kuro-Araxes) culture somewhat similar burials such as the royal tomb at Uch-Tepe on the Miliska steppe. As tumulus burials are previously unknown in this region, some would explain their appearance by an intrusion of steppe pastoralists who migrated through the Caucasus and subjugated the local Early Bronze Age culture. More importantly, a status burial inserted into a mound at the site of Korucu Tepe in eastern Anatolia has been compared with somewhat similar burials both in the Caucasus and Russian steppe. The discovery of horse bones on several sites of east Anatolia such as Norsun Tepe and Tepecik are seen to confirm a steppe intrusion since, as mentioned earlier, the horse, long known in the Ukraine and south Russia, is not attested in Anatolia prior to the Bronze Age. Continuing contacts or migrations are employed to explain subsequent similarities between the royal tombs of north - central Anatolia, such as their thirteen graves of Alaca Huyuk, with tombs formally similar to possessing related grave goods known north of the Caucasus.


    At present, a northeastern intrusion does not make quite so good a linguistic 'fit' as does the northwestern hypothesis. The evidence for intrusion is either confined to eastern Anatolia - lands historically attributed to Hurrian or Caucasian languages - or north-central Anatolia where we might expect Hattic or Kaskian, another apparently non-Indo-European linguistic group. The evidence of kurgan-related burials is generally absent from those territories were we find the major Indo-European peoples of our search, especially the Luwian of southern and western Anatolia. And even if our kurgan-entombed overlords are proximate to the Hittite's traditional territory, linguists adamantly oppose an eastern entry for the Hittities and a separate western entry for the Luwians. The languages seem to closely related, too similar to have experienced the degree of separation implied by each having taken an opposing course around the Black Sea. Furthermore, what similarity exists between royal burials both north and south of the Caucasus may have far more to do with the need to develop more impressive forms of entombment for the hierarchies that developed in the both regions during the Early Bronze Age, and which participated in mutual exchange networks of prestigious goods. At present, the scales are tipped in favour of a western entry.
    https://www.quora.com/How-credible-i...ated-to-Hattic
    The kaska people came from the north-caucasus .........they settled north of the hatti/hittite and could never be conquered.......in the end , their many, many raids into the hittite empire led to one reason for its downfall.
    The link is the most logical in regards to the linguistic side of the debate......that is , hatti and kaska are similar, hittite and luwian are similar....hittite imposed their language onto hatti area
    có che un pòpoło no 'l defende pi ła só łéngua el xe prónto par èser s'ciavo

    when a people no longer dares to defend its language it is ripe for slavery.

  24. #424
    Elite member epoch's Avatar
    Join Date
    13-09-13
    Posts
    779


    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    I'm sorry, I agree with Olympic Mons to the extent that this is special pleading. I've personally come to no actual conclusion yet. What I meant is that the samples we have so far are Anatolian and Iranian farmer genetically. If we get quite a few more samples, including ones from the royal Hittite tombs and that is still true, then there's an issue here. Plus, the Hittite area is not the only one where Anatolian languages were spoken, and so far there is nothing.
    Off course it isn't special pleading as we know from historic sources that the Hittite empire wasn't mono-cultural. In such a scenario firm Hattic continuity is expected, even required. Hell, I'd even go farther: If we would have found *all* Anatolian samples heavily loaded with steppe we'd have had a problem as we then needed to explain a *massive* immigration into Anatolia, which is in conflict with historic sources.

  25. #425
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    05-01-18
    Location
    Seattle, Washington (Ballard)
    Posts
    279

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I2-Y31616>FT435332
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U2e1d

    Ethnic group
    Irish/Scottish/British
    Country: United States



    We don't know where the Hittites were before about 1,650 BC. Heck, I'd like to see some Luwian samples (Troy I, c.3,000 BC)...

Page 17 of 25 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... 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
  •