Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: Y-DNA of the earliest known Indo-European people (Hittites, Mycenaeans, Luwians,...)?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Y-DNA of the earliest known Indo-European people (Hittites, Mycenaeans, Luwians,...)?

    In the recent years we see different studies about ancient DNA of different people in Eurasia but I think if we want to know who these people were, we should focus on known people, what are the Y-DNA of earliest known Indo-European people which have been found so far?

  2. #2
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    35,916
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,916, Level: 58
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Hittites, Mycenaeans, Luwians, Vedic Indians were too late to be meaningful to the PIE homeland and expansion question. Especially Anatolian IEs (Hittites, Luwians etc.), who spoke a language that probably split off from PIE before 4000 B.C., too early even for Yamnaya and CWC. All those were MLBA people living in historically very populous and already civilized areas 2,000 years after the PIE people. This would be a bit like those people who still insist on drawing conclusions about the origins of Proto-Turkic language and people in the Y-DNA haplogroup makeup of modern Turks, Turkmens, Azeris, Uzbeks etc. Those people may have kept the language and even some (or much) of the original genetics, but they are very different from each other and from their earliest ancestors about 2,500 years ago, including in Y-DNA makeup.

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

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Hittites, Mycenaeans, Luwians, Vedic Indians were too late to be meaningful to the PIE homeland and expansion question. Especially Anatolian IEs (Hittites, Luwians etc.), who spoke a language that probably split off from PIE before 4000 B.C., too early even for Yamnaya and CWC. All those were MLBA people living in historically very populous and already civilized areas 2,000 years after the PIE people. This would be a bit like those people who still insist on drawing conclusions about the origins of Proto-Turkic language and people in the Y-DNA haplogroup makeup of modern Turks, Turkmens, Azeris, Uzbeks etc. Those people may have kept the language and even some (or much) of the original genetics, but they are very different from each other and from their earliest ancestors about 2,500 years ago, including in Y-DNA makeup.
    I said the earliest known Indo-European people, not modern people. Some Pan-Turk Azeris claim Proto-Turkic was spoken in Azerbaijan and Sumerians who also worshiped Dingir/Tengri, were originally Turks but we know the earliest known Turkic languages were spoken somewhere in the north of China, but again these Pan-Turk Azeris mention some similar Sumerian and Elamite words and say 2,000 years earlier they lived in Azerbaijan and then they migrated to China. They may be right but the main point is that there should be also genetic evidences for this migration.

    Hittites, Mycenaeans, Indo-Iranian Mitanni, ... are the earliest known Indo-European people, no miracle happened, if you believe they migrated from the steppe then there should be genetic evidences for this migration.

  4. #4
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    35,916
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,916, Level: 58
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    I said the earliest known Indo-European people, not modern people. Some Pan-Turk Azeris claim Proto-Turkic was spoken in Azerbaijan and Sumerians who also worshiped Dingir/Tengri, were originally Turks but we know the earliest known Turkic languages were spoken somewhere in the north of China, but again these Pan-Turk Azeris mention some similar Sumerian and Elamite words and say 2,000 years earlier they lived in Azerbaijan and then they migrated to China. They may be right but the main point is that there should be also genetic evidences for this migration.

    Hittites, Mycenaeans, Indo-Iranian Mitanni, ... are the earliest known Indo-European people, no miracle happened, if you believe they migrated from the steppe then there should be genetic evidences for this migration.
    Oh my God, you clearly didn't understand my point. Let me make it simpler:

    Totally undivided PIE (Anatolian+all other branches): 3,500-4,500 BCE
    Earliest attested IE-derived languages from Hittites, Mycenaeans, Mitanni etc.: ~1,600-1300 BCE
    Chronological difference: ~1,900-3,200 years

    Undivided Proto-Turkic: ~500 BCE - 1 CE
    Modern Turkic speakers: ~2000 CE
    Chronological difference: ~2,000-2,500 years

    Is it clearer now? Did modern Turks come straight from the Proto-Turkic homeland and are direct, unmixed, immediate descendants of the early speakers of Proto-Turkic in that very far homeland? No, they aren't. The same thing almost certainly is true for PIE speakers and their descendants many centuries, even millennia later. Your reasoning is very weak from a historical and linguistic point of view.

  5. #5
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    35,916
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,916, Level: 58
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    Hittites, Mycenaeans, Indo-Iranian Mitanni, ... are the earliest known Indo-European people, no miracle happened, if you believe they migrated from the steppe then there should be genetic evidences for this migration.
    There is: steppe ancestry, EHG+CHG admixture. More often than not there are also uniparentals, but those aren't 100% necessary, because everyone knows the profound effects of drift in uniparental lineages and ABOVE ALL in Y-DNA haplogroups, because of the way ancient societies worked regarding males and their marriage and breeding prognostics.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh my God, you clearly didn't understand my point. Let me make it simpler:

    Totally undivided PIE (Anatolian+all other branches): 3,500-4,500 BCE
    Earliest attested IE-derived languages from Hittites, Mycenaeans, Mitanni etc.: ~1,600-1300 BCE
    Chronological difference: ~1,900-3,200 years

    Undivided Proto-Turkic: ~500 BCE - 1 CE
    Modern Turkic speakers: ~2000 CE
    Chronological difference: ~2,000-2,500 years

    Is it clearer now? Did modern Turks come straight from the Proto-Turkic homeland and are direct, unmixed, immediate descendants of the early speakers of Proto-Turkic in that very far homeland? No, they aren't. The same thing almost certainly is true for PIE speakers and their descendants many centuries, even millennia later. Your reasoning is very weak from a historical and linguistic point of view.
    These dates are hypothetical, the earliest known Turkic language is Orkhon Turkic (Gokturk) which was spoken in Mongolia, so it is generally believed that Turkic language originated somewhere near to Mongolia.

    I don't know why you talk about modern Turks, did I talk about Brazilians or other modern Indo-Euroepan speaking people? The question is about the earliest known Indo-European people, the only thing which can help us to find where they originally lived is Genetics.

    About the Turkic people, haplogroup N has been found in the earliest known Turkic people in the north of China and Mongolia, so it is believed that this haplogroup relates to original Turkic migration, however most of modern Turkic people have different haplogroups.


  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    There is: steppe ancestry, EHG+CHG admixture. More often than not there are also uniparentals, but those aren't 100% necessary, because everyone knows the profound effects of drift in uniparental lineages and ABOVE ALL in Y-DNA haplogroups, because of the way ancient societies worked regarding males and their marriage and breeding prognostics.
    It is not a complicated issue, some people thought the spread of IE culture relates to steppe-related ancestry, so first they focused on ancient Anatolians, as the earliest known Indo-European people and said steppe-related ancestry moved through southeast Europe into Anatolia, now geneticists say "No evidence that steppe-related ancestry moved through southeast Europe into Anatolia" (The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe), we also read "Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG-related ancestry, they have neither the EHG-related ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG-related ancestry that is ubiquitous in Neolithic southeastern Europe. An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo-European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran."

    The fact is that genetic science doesn't support the steppe theory at all but those who still believe this theory, try to support it in another ways, some of them say there was a "Proto-Proto-Indo-European" language in Caucasus/Iran as the ancestor of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian language!! Some other one says Indo-European spread in the whole Anatolia without any migration!! ...

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-05-18
    Posts
    168
    Points
    3,178
    Level
    16
    Points: 3,178, Level: 16
    Level completed: 32%, Points required for next Level: 272
    Overall activity: 33.0%


    Country: Turkey



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    Oh my God, you clearly didn't understand my point. Let me make it simpler:

    Totally undivided PIE (Anatolian+all other branches): 3,500-4,500 BCE
    Earliest attested IE-derived languages from Hittites, Mycenaeans, Mitanni etc.: ~1,600-1300 BCE
    Chronological difference: ~1,900-3,200 years

    Undivided Proto-Turkic: ~500 BCE - 1 CE
    Modern Turkic speakers: ~2000 CE
    Chronological difference: ~2,000-2,500 years

    Is it clearer now? Did modern Turks come straight from the Proto-Turkic homeland and are direct, unmixed, immediate descendants of the early speakers of Proto-Turkic in that very far homeland? No, they aren't. The same thing almost certainly is true for PIE speakers and their descendants many centuries, even millennia later. Your reasoning is very weak from a historical and linguistic point of view.
    I think that Proto-IE have a lot of similar language. Proto-IE is part of language family.I think that this language family is designate by linguist later.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    About Mycenaean Greeks, it seems to be J2a-Z6057: https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...Pre-Phoenecian



    But two Minoan samples (I0070 and I0073) are J2a-Y151557, a subclade of J2a-M319, in fact they are from different branches.

    Mycenaean J2a-Z6057 and Indian J2a-Y21500 have the same origin, we read about the Indian one: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...J2_Y-DNA.shtml "Y21500 has a TMRCA of 3700 years and is also found in Russia, which suggests an Indo-Aryan origin - perhaps one of the J2a1 subclades assimilated by R1a invaders in Central Asia before conquering the Indian subcontinent."

  10. #10
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered5000 Experience Points
    Joey37's Avatar
    Join Date
    11-06-18
    Location
    Coventry, Rhode Island
    Posts
    439
    Points
    7,344
    Level
    25
    Points: 7,344, Level: 25
    Level completed: 59%, Points required for next Level: 206
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a-YP445
    MtDNA haplogroup
    J1c2b

    Ethnic group
    Celto-Germanic
    Country: USA - Rhode Island



    I think most of the Greek J2a is Neolithic in origin and connected to the Minoan and early Helladic Civilizations and that I9041 is an assimilated native; the Proto-Greek people would have been J2b along with some E-V13, R1b-Z2103, and perhaps some R1a-Z93* from the Catacomb Culture. J2a also made it into India in the Neolithic period.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Joey37 View Post
    I think most of the Greek J2a is Neolithic in origin and connected to the Minoan and early Helladic Civilizations and that I9041 is an assimilated native; the Proto-Greek people would have been J2b along with some E-V13, R1b-Z2103, and perhaps some R1a-Z93* from the Catacomb Culture. J2a also made it into India in the Neolithic period.
    Would you please mention some J2 samples in Greece which date back to before 2,000 BC?

  12. #12
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    35,916
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,916, Level: 58
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    Would you please mention some J2 samples in Greece which date back to before 2,000 BC?
    There are zero aDNA samples from Greece between the Neolithic and the BA (Minoans and Mycenaeans), so you won't find them... for now.

    But J2a was already even in Italy in the NEOLITHIC era, let alone by the 3rd millennium B.C., and tha was many hundreds of kilometers further from the East Mediterranean coast of Asia than Greece is. Also, J2a was also found in at least one Anatolia_N individual, and it is mainly through Anatolia that Europe was colonized by farmers. So, J2a clades were found in at least parts of Europe since the early Neolithic era and probably increased even more after the arrival of more CHG/Iran_N-shifted populations in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

    Read: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    There are zero aDNA samples from Greece between the Neolithic and the BA (Minoans and Mycenaeans), so you won't find them... for now.

    But J2a was already even in Italy in the NEOLITHIC era, let alone by the 3rd millennium B.C., and tha was many hundreds of kilometers further from the East Mediterranean coast of Asia than Greece is. Also, J2a was also found in at least one Anatolia_N individual, and it is mainly through Anatolia that Europe was colonized by farmers. So, J2a clades were found in at least parts of Europe since the early Neolithic era and probably increased even more after the arrival of more CHG/Iran_N-shifted populations in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age.

    Read: https://science.sciencemag.org/conte...Antonio_SM.pdf
    According to "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans", before the Bronze Age, Greece and western Anatolia were dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup G2, as I see there is at least one Minoan sample (#I9130) which has been dated to before 2,000 with haplogroup G2a2b2.
    There could be certainly different migrations in different periods, J2 originated in a vast region and it has many different subclades, just some of them relate to Indo-Europeans.

  14. #14
    Moderator Achievements:
    Tagger Second ClassThree Friends25000 Experience PointsVeteran

    Join Date
    21-10-16
    Posts
    2,228
    Points
    35,916
    Level
    58
    Points: 35,916, Level: 58
    Level completed: 39%, Points required for next Level: 734
    Overall activity: 13.0%


    Ethnic group
    Multiracial Brazilian
    Country: Brazil



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    According to "Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans", before the Bronze Age, Greece and western Anatolia were dominated by Y-chromosome haplogroup G2, as I see there is at least one Minoan sample (#I9130) which has been dated to before 2,000 with haplogroup G2a2b2.
    There could be certainly different migrations in different periods, J2 originated in a vast region and it has many different subclades, just some of them relate to Indo-Europeans.
    The Neolithic Anatolians that expanded into Europe during ~8500-7000 years ago were mainly G2, but they also had (as it's been documented by aDNA findings so far) lower proportions of haplogroups like E1b1b, H2, T1, J2, J1, C1a2... and later if not even in Anatolia itself they also got some I2 and R1b (not M269, though). Like virtually all populations ever, except very small clans and tribes, they certainly didn't all belong to just 1 haplogroup.

    The authors of that study could only claim what they could say based on the handful of Neolithic Greece samples, which IIRC don't even amount to 10 samples in total. Too little to make a really accurate guess. I'd say it's an incomplete truth to say the least.

  15. #15
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,666
    Points
    47,404
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,404, Level: 67
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 946
    Overall activity: 54.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Ygorcs View Post
    There is: steppe ancestry, EHG+CHG admixture. More often than not there are also uniparentals, but those aren't 100% necessary, because everyone knows the profound effects of drift in uniparental lineages and ABOVE ALL in Y-DNA haplogroups, because of the way ancient societies worked regarding males and their marriage and breeding prognostics.

    I agree very often with you.
    But here I think Y-haplo's, if not THE key, are still interesting concerning male elites and transmission of language, spite famous exceptions. Y-HG's can reinforce other elements of proof in some cases, I think. The question of marriages and alliances exists, but it concerns more the autosomes, and concerning times when males clannic systems existed, the Y lineages have some importance for language. The mixing of diverse Y-haplo's in the elites appeared more or less soon><lately according to type of societies, it's true.

  16. #16
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,666
    Points
    47,404
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,404, Level: 67
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 946
    Overall activity: 54.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    ........
    The fact is that genetic science doesn't support the steppe theory at all but those who still believe this theory, try to support it in another ways, some of them say there was a "Proto-Proto-Indo-European" language in Caucasus/Iran as the ancestor of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian language!! Some other one says Indo-European spread in the whole Anatolia without any migration!! ...
    You strike very strongly!
    Todate, nothing is sure about I-Ean craddle, proto- or proto-proto-...
    But genetics + archeology and logics seems confirming a stage of early I-Ean or late proto-I-Ean on the Steppes.
    To me, an I-Ean under ur form clearly separated and identifiable born South the Caucasus is hard to swallow when I count the number of already different families of languages which are there, their type, and the seemingly deep links with Uralic's, but I am not a specialist.

  17. #17
    Elite member Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    25-10-11
    Location
    Brittany
    Age
    71
    Posts
    4,666
    Points
    47,404
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,404, Level: 67
    Level completed: 33%, Points required for next Level: 946
    Overall activity: 54.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b - L21/S145*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H3c

    Ethnic group
    more celtic
    Country: France



    1 members found this post helpful.
    @Shahmiri:
    I add I speak of a certain stage of the I-Ean, the Steppes one, what doesn't exclude completlety an earlier proto-form south the Caucasus, whatever I think personally, which is not too important on the matter because I have no clue to date.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Quote Originally Posted by MOESAN View Post
    You strike very strongly!
    Todate, nothing is sure about I-Ean craddle, proto- or proto-proto-...
    But genetics + archeology and logics seems confirming a stage of early I-Ean or late proto-I-Ean on the Steppes.
    To me, an I-Ean under ur form clearly separated and identifiable born South the Caucasus is hard to swallow when I count the number of already different families of languages which are there, their type, and the seemingly deep links with Uralic's, but I am not a specialist.
    What are these different families of languages? Elamite in the southwest of Iran? Semitic in Mesopotamia and Arabia? Hurro-Urartian in Anatolia and Levant? Kartvelian in the Caucasus?



    What was the main language of people who lived in Iran? We just know in south of modern Khuzistan province (about 5% of the total area of Iran) some people spoke Elamite, what about other regions? Indo-Iranian influence on Hurro-Urartian Mitanni came from where?

  19. #19
    Regular Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-19
    Posts
    207
    Points
    795
    Level
    7
    Points: 795, Level: 7
    Level completed: 23%, Points required for next Level: 155
    Overall activity: 24.0%


    Country: Iran



    Some people say in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, all people of Iran spoke Elamite, so were they these Elamite people who migrated to India and Europe? So why we can't find any element of Elamite culture even in other parts of Iran?

  20. #20
    Junior Member Achievements:
    3 months registered500 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-09-19
    Posts
    1
    Points
    714
    Level
    6
    Points: 714, Level: 6
    Level completed: 82%, Points required for next Level: 36
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: Austria



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    Some people say in the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age, all people of Iran spoke Elamite, so were they these Elamite people who migrated to India and Europe? So why we can't find any element of Elamite culture even in other parts of Iran?
    All of present-day Iran underwent cultural and linguistic transformation
    In southwestern Iran, after the Elamites, the Khozi language was common, which is considered to be an extension of the Elamites
    And now the Elamite culture is seen among some people of Zagros and nomads of southwestern Iran

  21. #21
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    266
    Points
    2,531
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,531, Level: 14
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 219
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    What are these different families of languages? Elamite in the southwest of Iran? Semitic in Mesopotamia and Arabia? Hurro-Urartian in Anatolia and Levant? Kartvelian in the Caucasus?

    What was the main language of people who lived in Iran? We just know in south of modern Khuzistan province (about 5% of the total area of Iran) some people spoke Elamite, what about other regions? Indo-Iranian influence on Hurro-Urartian Mitanni came from where?
    Mannaeans from the Lake Urmia area probably spoke Kassite (which seems to have been a Hurro-Urartian language or dialect of Hurrian with an Indic superstratum) and later (by after around 1000 BCE) spoke at least one Iranic language (based on personal names, such as Iranzu and especially Bagdatti). There may also have been an early Armenian-speaking population in the region (meaning, prior to 600 BCE--I say this due to the archaeological and genetic data). Urartians are also thought to have come from the northern Iran/Iraq border originally.

    The name Mannaea could very likely be an Indo-European or Hurro-Urartian name (a variation of the name was Minyas). Compare to Greek Minos/Minas. Urartian Menuas (the modern Armenian form of the name is Manavaz). Maybe Sanskrit Manu. Maybe Germanic Mannaz.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Tagger Second Class1000 Experience Points1 year registered

    Join Date
    12-06-19
    Posts
    266
    Points
    2,531
    Level
    14
    Points: 2,531, Level: 14
    Level completed: 27%, Points required for next Level: 219
    Overall activity: 3.0%


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Shahmiri View Post
    I said the earliest known Indo-European people, not modern people. Some Pan-Turk Azeris claim Proto-Turkic was spoken in Azerbaijan and Sumerians who also worshiped Dingir/Tengri, were originally Turks but we know the earliest known Turkic languages were spoken somewhere in the north of China, but again these Pan-Turk Azeris mention some similar Sumerian and Elamite words and say 2,000 years earlier they lived in Azerbaijan and then they migrated to China. They may be right but the main point is that there should be also genetic evidences for this migration.
    The Proto-Turkic form of Tengri is "Teŋri/Taŋri." Similarities between Sumerian "Dingir" (Digir) and modern "Tengri" are superficial. This is a non-starter.

    I know that you're not suggesting that these terms are connected, I'm just noting how misguided those that say they are (directly) related are.

Posting Permissions

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