Admixture history and endogamy in the prehistoric Aegean

Anfänger

Regular member
Messages
447
Reaction score
351
Points
63
Ethnic group
Iranian
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b-Z2103
mtDNA haplogroup
U7a4
Ancient DNA reveals admixture history and endogamy in the prehistoric Aegean


Abstract

The Neolithic and Bronze Ages were highly transformative periods for the genetic history of Europe but for the Aegean—a region fundamental to Europe’s prehistory—the biological dimensions of cultural transitions have been elucidated only to a limited extent so far. We have analysed newly generated genome-wide data from 102 ancient individuals from Crete, the Greek mainland and the Aegean Islands, spanning from the Neolithic to the Iron Age. We found that the early farmers from Crete shared the same ancestry as other contemporaneous Neolithic Aegeans. In contrast, the end of the Neolithic period and the following Early Bronze Age were marked by ‘eastern’ gene flow, which was predominantly of Anatolian origin in Crete. Confirming previous findings for additional Central/Eastern European ancestry in the Greek mainland by the Middle Bronze Age, we additionally show that such genetic signatures appeared in Crete gradually from the seventeenth to twelfth centuries BC, a period when the influence of the mainland over the island intensified. Biological and cultural connectedness within the Aegean is also supported by the finding of consanguineous endogamy practiced at high frequencies, unprecedented in the global ancient DNA record. Our results highlight the potential of archaeogenomic approaches in the Aegean for unravelling the interplay of genetic admixture, marital and other cultural practices.

Link:https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01952-3
 
https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/ejvs/article/view/19770

Evidence of Indo-Aryan dialect in 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions and Minoan Indo-Aryan etymologies of 16 Greek words

Abstract

This paper presents the analysis of 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions as grammatical Indo-Aryan statements. The paper demonstrates the historical plausibility of the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers on Crete circa the 17th c. BCE. The paper argues for the soundness of comparing Linear A words with very similar Indo-Aryan forms attested in later stages of Sanskrit: One cannot expect to find the same expressions attested both in Minoan inscriptions and in the Rigveda, even if they reflect dialects of the same language. This analysis of Linear A uses the same basic principles and phonetic values as Ventris & Chadwick’s analysis of Linear B. The basic principles of the syllabic sign system of Linear B are summarized, and the phonemic reading rules specific to Linear A are presented. The main body of the paper comprises the analysis of 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions as grammatical Indo-Aryan statements. Also, Minoan Indo-Aryan etymologies of 16 Greek words are proposed, including θαλασσα ‘sea’, λαβυρινθος (labyrinth), κυπάρισσος ‘cypress’, etc. As a “control group” test, an attempt to interpret a Linear B inscription, known to be Greek, as an Indo-Aryan statement fails. The paper concludes that the resemblances between the words in the Linear A inscriptions and the corresponding Sanskrit forms presented in this paper cannot be due to random chance coincidence, and thus that the 10 Linear A inscriptions presented in this paper must represent an Indo-Aryan dialect.
 
Could this explain the convergences between Greek and Indo-Iranian without it would imply a recent common genetic (linguistically) origin shared by them?
 
https://factly.in/this-rock-carving...hanuman-it-shows-mesopotamian-ruler-tardunni/

This rock carving doesn’t depict Lord Rama and Hanuman; It shows Mesopotamian ruler Tardunni

iraq-carvings-viral-post.png


iraq-carvings-originals.jpg


Fact: This rock carving doesn’t show Lord Rama and Hanuman. Though this site is in Iraq, according to archaeologists, the carving depicts the armed Mesopotamian ruler Tardunni who lived there 4000 years ago, and the images of people kneeled before Tardunni show the defeated Hurrian soldiers. Further, there is no archaeological evidence to prove that these carvings depict Lord Rama and Hanuman. Hence the claim made in the post is FALSE.

Yes, He is the great Indo-Iranian king Traituni who is associated with thunder gods and wind gods.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fereydun

tardunni_7kt4.jpg


Tardunni was actually the first Kassite king who is also known as dragon slayer (Greek Bellerophon), hero of Karanduniash/Kurduniash (Avestan Kuuirinta, Greek Corinth).
 
We found that the early farmers from Crete shared the same ancestry as other contemporaneous Neolithic Aegeans. In contrast, the end of the Neolithic period and the following Early Bronze Age were marked by ‘eastern’ gene flow, which was predominantly of Anatolian origin in Crete.

Tardunni (Avestan Thraētaona, Hittite Tarḫunna) had three sons, as you read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salm_(Shahnameh) When Fereydun (Tardunni) decides to divide his kingdom among his sons, he gives Salm (Avestan Sairima, Hittite Šarruma) Anatolia and West.

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

Labarna I was the traditional first king of the Hittites, c. early 17th century BC (middle chronology), the most accepted chronology nowadays. He was the traditional founder of the Hittite Old Kingdom (fl. c. 1680(?)-1650 BCE).[1]

Labarna was not the first in line to the throne. PU-Sarruma designated Labarna as his successor after his own sons revolted against him. Upon PU-Sarruma's death, Labarna and Papahdilmah, one of PU-Sarruma's sons, contended for the throne, with Labarna emerging victorious.

According to Shahnameh, Fereydun (Tardunni) was king of Kusar (Kassites, Greek Kossaioii, Lat. Coss(a)ei, Cossiaei: https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/kassites)

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

Kussara (Kuššar) was a Middle Bronze Age kingdom in Anatolia. The kingdom, though apparently important at one time, is mostly remembered today as the origin of the dynasty that would form the Old Hittite Kingdom
 
Minoans part of the original Proto-Indo-Anatolian (Lazaridis et al. 2022) push?

science.abm4247-fa.jpg
 
About Minoan: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Μίνως#Ancient_Greek

From the Cretan Ancient Greek word for "king." Appearing in Minoan Linear A tablets is mi-nu-te, which is possibly related.[1] The term is also possibly related to Sanskrit मुनि (muni, “ascetic”) (fitting the legend of Minos living in Cretan caves), which suggests a common Proto-Indo-European origin.


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

The name of Mannaea and its earliest recorded ruler Udaki were first mentioned in an inscription from the 30th year of the rule of Shalmaneser III (828 BC). Describing the march of Salmanasar III in the 16th year (843 BC), it was reported that the king reached the land of Munna, occupying the interior of Zamua.

Manna-map.jpg
 
https://hasp.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/ejvs/article/view/19770

Evidence of Indo-Aryan dialect in 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions and Minoan Indo-Aryan etymologies of 16 Greek words

Abstract

This paper presents the analysis of 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions as grammatical Indo-Aryan statements. The paper demonstrates the historical plausibility of the presence of Indo-Aryan speakers on Crete circa the 17th c. BCE. The paper argues for the soundness of comparing Linear A words with very similar Indo-Aryan forms attested in later stages of Sanskrit: One cannot expect to find the same expressions attested both in Minoan inscriptions and in the Rigveda, even if they reflect dialects of the same language. This analysis of Linear A uses the same basic principles and phonetic values as Ventris & Chadwick’s analysis of Linear B. The basic principles of the syllabic sign system of Linear B are summarized, and the phonemic reading rules specific to Linear A are presented. The main body of the paper comprises the analysis of 10 Minoan Linear A inscriptions as grammatical Indo-Aryan statements. Also, Minoan Indo-Aryan etymologies of 16 Greek words are proposed, including θαλασσα ‘sea’, λαβυρινθος (labyrinth), κυπάρισσος ‘cypress’, etc. As a “control group” test, an attempt to interpret a Linear B inscription, known to be Greek, as an Indo-Aryan statement fails. The paper concludes that the resemblances between the words in the Linear A inscriptions and the corresponding Sanskrit forms presented in this paper cannot be due to random chance coincidence, and thus that the 10 Linear A inscriptions presented in this paper must represent an Indo-Aryan dialect.


Mmmm... Does this paper enjoy any consensus? Linguistics, even at the academic level, has always produced the most disparate hypotheses, many of which have been discredited. If the paper enjoys no consensus, it is nothing, certainly not proof of anything.
 
Minoans have Iran_N and Anatolian haplogroups and relevant admixture.

I think an interesting goalpost regarding archaic Greece would be to establish an understanding of who were the Minoans and where they came from.

It's obviously an Anatolian-derived population, but what was the language they spoke? Was it part of the Proto-Indo-Anatolian grouping?

An interesting tidbit is that modern Greek speakers mostly call the water "Nero" (elemental god of water "Nereas" preceding "Poseidon") which is the pre-Greek word for water (Ýdor in Greek) which, funnily enough, is not very commonly used. A striking similarity to Hindi "Neer".
 
Minoans have Iran_N and Anatolian haplogroups and relevant admixture.

I think an interesting goalpost regarding archaic Greece would be to establish an understanding of who were the Minoans and where they came from.

It's obviously an Anatolian-derived population, but what was the language they spoke? Was it part of the Proto-Indo-Anatolian grouping?

An interesting tidbit is that modern Greek speakers mostly call the water "Nero" (elemental god of water "Nereas" preceding "Poseidon") which is the pre-Greek word for water (Ýdor in Greek) which, funnily enough, is not very commonly used. A striking similarity to Hindi "Neer".

No, they have not "relevant admixture", if by that you mean admixture that is indicative of Indian gene flow; there is no evidence whatsoever of any Indian gene flow into Greece or Crete during the BA or IA, and the modern Greek word for "water" comes from the expression "fresh water", and only by coincidence does it resemble the hindi word for "water".
 
No, they have not "relevant admixture", if by that you mean admixture that is indicative of Indian gene flow; there is no evidence whatsoever of any Indian gene flow into Greece or Crete during the BA or IA, and the modern Greek word for "water" comes from the expression "fresh water", and only by coincidence does it resemble the hindi word for "water".


Re-read my post, please.

Nowhere did I mention "Indian"geneflow, who might have got it from Proto-Indo-Anatolian themselves.

I mentioned Iran_N and Anatolian admixture, which they do (Minoans). You can open up Southern Arc supp material and read all about it, it's a fascinating paper.

Secondly, your translation of 'fresh water' (neologism, no such evidence/explanation in ancient texts) does not account for all relative words ("Neraida"=water/lake fairy, "Nereas"= god of water/ocean, "nerono"= verb, to water down, etc.) that have no relation to the adjective 'fresh'.

Better brush up on your Greek!

:p
 
No, they have not "relevant admixture", if by that you mean admixture that is indicative of Indian gene flow; there is no evidence whatsoever of any Indian gene flow into Greece or Crete during the BA or IA, and the modern Greek word for "water" comes from the expression "fresh water", and only by coincidence does it resemble the hindi word for "water".

Indian gene flow?! In the 2nd millennium BC Indo-Aryan culture existed in the east of Anatolia, not in India.

MITANNI-KRALLIGI-HARITA-650x520.png
 
Minoans have Iran_N and Anatolian haplogroups and relevant admixture.
I think an interesting goalpost regarding archaic Greece would be to establish an understanding of who were the Minoans and where they came from.
It's obviously an Anatolian-derived population, but what was the language they spoke? Was it part of the Proto-Indo-Anatolian grouping?
An interesting tidbit is that modern Greek speakers mostly call the water "Nero" (elemental god of water "Nereas" preceding "Poseidon") which is the pre-Greek word for water (Ýdor in Greek) which, funnily enough, is not very commonly used. A striking similarity to Hindi "Neer".
This is not correct. Νερό comes from Νεαρόν ύδωρ, young (fresh) water and both roots for νεαρόν and ύδωρ are IE, and therefore not pre-Greek.
As for the hypothesis that Minoans spoke IE or indo Anatolian, I think we would have deciphered it by now. There are claims that certain Linear A inscriptions actually are Greek but most can?t be deciphered anyway. Mycenaeans adopted Linear A from Minoans and modified it into Linear B which is undeniably greek so there is a chance a bunch of transitional Linear A texts are Greek from when Mycenaeans first came in contact with the script. That is as far as I would go. Wouldn?t be surprised if Minoan language is related to CHG or Iran Neolithic but I leave such theories to trained linguists.
 
This is not correct. Νερό comes from Νεαρόν ύδωρ, young (fresh) water and both roots for νεαρόν and ύδωρ are IE, and therefore not pre-Greek.

Neologism, there's no such link in any manuscript in relation to 'nearon', it's literally pulled out of thin air.

Read my post above or provide etymology of "Neraida", "Nereas", etc, in relation to "fresh".

You can't because there's not any.
 
Wouldn�t be surprised if Minoan language is related to CHG or Iran Neolithic but I leave such theories to trained linguists.



The whole point of the post was that Minoan could have already been Indo-Anatolian (Pre-PIE, if you may).


But,

. < the post.


. < your head.
 
The whole point of the post was that Minoan could have already been Indo-Anatolian (Pre-PIE, if you may).


But,

. < the post.


. < your head.

I already answered. If Minoan was an indo-Anatolian language related to Hittite, we would probably have deciphered Linear A by now. But you didn?t even read what I post, did you now.
 
Nereas/Nereus, pre-dates Greek incursion into the Helladic world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nereus
Let me elaborate on why this theory of νερό coming from Νηρευς makes no sense. Let?s suppose that Νηρευς is indeed of pre-Greek origin, it might or might not be, I won?t debate it, let?s say it is.
If Greek language picked on that and used it as a word for water, it would have happened in the early stages of the formation of Greek when yamnaya IE speakers merged with the Aegean locals. Indeed Greek has a well documented substratum of pre-Greek vocabulary, especially attested in toponyms. So the mycenean greek word of water would have already been νερό/νηρό from the get go.
It didn?t happen. The word for water was the IE derived ύδωρ for centuries until sometime during koine Greek times (probably early AD). It is implausible that suddenly, 17-20 centuries later when Christianity was starting to spread, Greeks decided to gradually swap to a word reminiscent of a pagan deity.
Academic consensus states that νερό comes from νηρο/νεαρό, meaning young/fresh, which was used to describe drinkable water ?νεαρον ύδωρ?. Eventually the second word was dropped since everyone understood what the context was. So let?s stop with the romantic nonsense and stick to data.
 
Academic consensus


Link, please.

With the rest of your post, I disagree.

It's a pre-Greek word that survived.

Hittite is Indo-Anatolian, indeed, but one of many?

Southern Arc has demonstrated that PIE absolutism is a thing of the past.
 

This thread has been viewed 9505 times.

Back
Top