PDA

View Full Version : Are Armenians the original Indo-Europeans? [split] //mod



Pages : [1] 2

PBachman
2012-02-02, 16:39
Armenians are not Indo-Europeans, since you are not even close to Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Romance ethnic groups on a PCA plot (all of which are genetically close to each other).

You Armenians show more or less a clone-like degree of genetic similarity with Assyrians, and your "northern European" score is very low. Even Iranians have slightly higher northern European component than you do (and they're not proto-Indo-Europeans either).

We Assyrians represent the best preserved modern genetic group of the original proto-Afro-Asiatics, and this is not about increasing our age as a folk (we are already the oldest ethnic group in the world with a continuous ethnic identity any way). This is simply because we match all the genetic and linguistic arguments for proto-Afro-Asiatic, and we show no traces of Negroid and Mongoloid admixture.

Armenians are basically Assyrians who shifted to Indo-European after invaders from the Balkans.

And I don't need to distance Assyrians from Arabs, Africans and Semites: we Assyrians are the original Semites, we have no Negroid admixture whatsoever, and the ethnic Arabs have a low genetic similarity with us because they have Negroid admixture and so on. This is not about distancing Assyrians; it's about genetic facts. If you weren't an ignorant dumbass, you'd know why I'm telling you facts. The very same fact as when I tell you Armenians aren't ethnic Indo-Europeans.

Oh and, you're anti-intellectual.

:lol:

RIght ... you are delusional. Please cut the bullshit. The very fact that most "pure Assyrian" poster on these boards are mixed with Armenians, goes to show how illogical your argument. If anything, it is exactly the other way around. The modern Assyrian is an acculturated Armenian. That is exactly what the genetics studies tell us. Furthermore, claiming that Armenians have x amount of Northern European genes and y population does not have the same, does not disprove the theory that the IE homeland is in the Armenian highlands. It could be the case that what we know as IE spread to European population in form of culture, but not genetics. However, In any rate, the timeline, anthropological evidence, technological narrative, and historical narrative places the IE homeland in Armenia.

The Armenian people being the worlds oldest IE population. You have a population that by the 5th century BC was being referred to as Armenian or Urartuian by third parties. They were clearly homogenized by then and it would not take a few hundred of years, but rather, thousand of years to get to this point in a population, as even the Chinese and Indians only relatively recently developed their national identity.

Armenians go back even further, as I could show you pictures of Hittite reliefs that clearly show facial features that can only be found among Armenians. There is clear genetic and cultural continuity that only Armenians can claim that stems from Hurrians, Hittites, Mitani, Urartu, and the Proto-Greek-Phrygians. In fact, in some of the populations, like Urartu, Armenia and Urartu mean the exact same geographic location, as the archeological evidence that first mentions Armenia also uses the word Urartu in anther language to make reference to Armenia. Meaning, Urartu and Armenia are referring to the same place and population. Furthermore, there are older evidence that indicates a Proto-Armenian presence in the region. Additionally, you have the Armenian oral tradition that hints at the Hittite connection, as clearly, Hayk "fighting" Bel refers to the Hittite sacking of the various post-Sumarian city-states that sprang after the Semitic invasion. Most likely, it referes to the Hitite sacking of Babylon, as the Hittites and Hurrians were united against the invading Semitic populations. Later, a newer oral tradition, Ara the Handsome, is a story that reflects the tension between Armenian Highlanders and Assyrians in form of story. Therefore, Assyrians and Armenians were never allies. Armenians viewed Assyrians as a cruel invading population. In fact, most populations of antiquity considered Assyrians to be cruel and barbaric in many respects. This idea of a "Assyrian Superman" is ridiculous and to me, it is funny.

Essentially, going back, nothing mentioned by Armenians or other historical, linguistic, and anthropological sources hint at Armenians being a derivative of Assyrians. In fact, if anything, as Assyrians are a dying population, most likely, they are acculturated Armenians of the modern age. You are just trying to use modern genetic studies to recreate this fantasy narrative of yours that places Assyrians as a propagators of everything. It is more funny how you claim I am doing this when it is clear to everyone that you are doing this with your bullshit rants about Armenians, Afro-Asians, Semites, and etc.

You just can not muster the fact that Assyrians are a Semitic population that came from Africa. No, for you it is far better to claim Assyrians as natives and a reverse influence of culture into Africa, when it is clear that it is the other way around. Your ideology, aside from being historically false and bogus also hints at a intelligent form of racism and prejudice. The historical narrative clearly places the Semitic speaking populations as invaders into the region. Furthermore, the Sumarians were not themselves a Semites. Their culture was invaded by Semites. Most likely, they were of Hurrian or Proto-IE stock similar to the Proto-Armenians.

Again, you seem to discount the fact that Assyrians cluster close to Armenians because they have taken Armenian genes during the modern age. As if you can't see beyond this fact when it is a prevalent theme among Assyrian posters on this board then that is not my problem. Stop spread lies and bullshit theory in favor of Assyrians. You seem to be the hypocrite and anti-Intellectual here, certainly, not me.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-02, 23:57
All right, let's do this. I'm sick and tired of these ignorant Armenians and their uneducated, ethnocentric chauvinism and how they think Armenia is the proto-Indo-European urheimat. I know Polako backs me up on this one but I don't really need his help here.


:lol:

RIght ... you are delusional. Please cut the bullshit.Sorry, but I don't speak bullshit. I know you do.


The very fact that most "pure Assyrian" poster on these boards are mixed with Armenians, goes to show how illogical your argument.My argument is 110% logical. You're the one representing anti-logic here.

Assyrians and Armenians "mixing" isn't really a mix. We are too genetically similar to even count as a mix. And that's why I don't show any different ancestral components than other Assyrians who lack Armenian ancestry.

Also, you're bullshitting. There's only one Assyrian here who's "mixed" with Armenians, and that's me (Humanist doesn't count as 6% Armenian ancestry is irrelevant).


If anything, it is exactly the other way around.It's not. When you've finished reading this post, you'll know why it's not.


The modern Assyrian is an acculturated Armenian.That's ethnocentric self-aggrandising bullshit though. The high genetic similarity Armenians have with Assyrians is simply because both populations happen to originate from the same genepool. And a part of that genepool did not speak Indo-European until sometime after 1,000 BC.


That is exactly what the genetics studies tell us.Genetic studies you've pulled out of your ass? Genetic studies tell us that Assyrians and Armenians are two different people with extreme genetic similarity. We are not exactly 100% genetically identical (no one besides twins and clones are that genetically identical), but we are so genetically similar that your stupid bullshit is ridiculous.

You're also not referencing any genetic studies and so you're talking out of your ass, as usual.


Furthermore, claiming that Armenians have x amount of Northern European genes and y population does not have the same, does not disprove the theory that the IE homeland is in the Armenian highlands.The Indo-European homeland in Armenia has never actually been proven in the first place (nor has it been certainly located in Anatolia for that part either).

And yes, the low genetic similarity Armenians have with east Europeans, most definitely tells us, scientifically, that Armenians are not ethnic Indo-Europeans in any way and that you only speak a language derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans; a language that replaced the original non-IE language of your ancestors.

The reason for this is very simple, look here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/misc/EliasAlucard_Full_20111006234958BGA2.png

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5255/pcacaucasus.png

^^ See that, that's how non-Indo-European Armenians are. All European Indo-European speakers plot very close to each other. We have a closely related genepool that is European, and this genepool contains most of the Indo-European branches. It contains Romance, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian, Greek and historically also Iranian (Scythians) and most likely also Indian at some stage too. It most likely also contained the original proto-Armenians.

Point is, you cannot derive the entire European IE languages from the Armenian language alone, and even the Armenian language does have a Semitic substratum:


“It has been calculated that no more than 450, certainly no
more than 500, Armenian words are directly inherited from
Proto-Indo-European. The rest are from the unknown or very
imperfectly known languages that were in northeastern Asia
Minor when the ancestors of the Armenians arrived there,
from Iranian, from Greek, from Syriac, etc.”
— Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Indo-European_Culture), Mallory and Adams, 1997, p. 27

Moreover, ethnic Armenians lack the north-east European component that is the main autosomal marker of the proto-Indo-Europeans. Even south Europeans like Italians and Greeks have a stronger presence of this component than Armenians have:

Armenian_D / Assyrian_D / Turkish_D / Kurdish_D

Mediterranean 11.9 / 12.4 / 15.6 / 7.9
Far_Asian 0.2 / 0.1 / 2.3 / 1
Siberian 0.2 / 0 / 2.7 / 0.9
North_European 4.6 / 1.8 / 11.4 / 6.6
South_Asian 0.3 / 0.1 / 0.9 / 0.7
West_African 0 / 0 / 0.2 / 0
Caucasus 56.7 / 51.8 / 45.7 / 42.3
Gedrosia 12.5 / 14.4 / 9.5 / 25.5
East_African 0 / 0 / 0.3 / 0.4
Southwest_Asian 13.4 / 18.6 / 10.2 / 13.3
Southeast_Asian 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.6 / 0.6
Northwest_African 0.2 / 0.4 / 0.7 / 0.8

Source: Dodecad - K12a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0)

The "north European" component in Armenians at a weak 4.6% peaks in Lithuanians on Dodecad, at 73.7%. Not surprisingly, Lithuanian is probably the most conservative modern extant Indo-European language. Now, unlike what Dienekes says, this "north European" component is actually the main proto-Indo-European autosomal component, because it is found in Indians, and the Tocharians were red haired R1a north Europeans, and the Scythians also had blond hair and so on, and there's no other logical explanation as to why Kurds, Persians and even Indians in all their brown phenotypes, show a higher frequency of this "north European" component, than Assyrians do.

The explanation is simple: this autosomal component in these non-European populations (including Armenians), is derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a Europid population of non-Mediterranean stock.

So basically, Armenians are like, 5% Indo-European. In other words, you aren't an Indo-European people. You'd think that if Armenians were Indo-Europeans, you'd at least have a shitload of Indo-European genes, but you don't.

Armenian Y-DNA isn't particularly proto-Indo-European either:

Y-DNA evidence argues against Indo-European expansion into Europe from Armenia: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/y-dna-evidence-argues-against-indo.html

A Caucasus bereft of R1a1a-M198: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/05/caucasus-bereft-of-r1a1a-m198.html


It could be the case that what we know as IE spread to European population in form of culture, but not genetics. However, In any rate, the timeline, anthropological evidence, technological narrative, and historical narrative places the IE homeland in Armenia.That's wishful thinking (bullshit by any other name).

Nothing really places the Indo-European homeland in Armenia. It is extremely unlikely that proto-Indo-European was ever spoken in Armenia. Extremely unlikely. The horse was not domesticated in Armenia, and the wheel wasn't invented there either (the wheel could have been invented in southern Mesopotamia, but that's not certain either).

You don't understand the urheimat arguments that concern proto-Indo-European, and that's why you and other ignorant Armenians make these ignorant anti-scientific claims.


The Armenian people being the worlds oldest IE population.That's not really true. The Armenian language is a relatively recent newcomer in the Caucasus/Middle East (the Kartvelian languages, and most certainly Semitic, have a longer presence there). The Armenian language came from north of the Black Sea, and via the Balkans, to northern Mesopotamia and southern Caucasus. And the Balkan population who brought Armenian over to the Caucasus, only managed to influence the modern Armenian ethnic group, slightly, with their genes (it's shown in Y-DNA, that Armenians have some minor I2 and E-V13 frequencies; which Assyrians lack—at least I2).


You have a population that by the 5th century BC was being referred to as Armenian or Urartuian by third parties. They were clearly homogenized by then and it would not take a few hundred of years, but rather, thousand of years to get to this point in a population, as even the Chinese and Indians only relatively recently developed their national identity.The Urartians were not Indo-European speakers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language


Armenians go back even further, as I could show you pictures of Hittite reliefs that clearly show facial features that can only be found among Armenians.The Hittites were native Anatolians (Hattians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language)) who shifted to the Hittite language (which was either a descendant or cousin of proto-Indo-European) as a result of elite dominance or demic diffusion.

Furthermore, these traits amongst the Hittites, are not exclusively found amongst Armenians. They are also found amongst Assyrians, and that was also the case with the ancient Assyrians:


“The characters that have just been described are very close to those of the Armenid subrace of the Europid race. Facial characters of the Armenid type are illustrated in Figs 32A and 33. The Armenians themselves, from whom the name of the subrace is derived are of remarkably uniform physical type. A good description of the Armenians was published by Chantre in 1895. Essentially the same type was represented in ancient times by the Hittites and Assyrians; indeed, the type was named Assyroid by Deniker. It is thought, however that another subrace besides the Armenid enters into the composition of the European Jewish stock, and perhaps entered into that of the Hittites and Assyrians. This is the Orientalid subrace, which includes many of those commonly called by the vague name 'Arabs'.” — John R. Baker, "Race"

Race-Günther was of the same opinion:


Günther devoted a significant chapter of Racial Characteristics of the Jewish People to describing the traits of the Near Eastern race. Previous race theorists had referred to this group by a variety of labels, including Assyroid, Proto-Armenian, and Hittite. It had supposedly originated in the Caucasus and in the fifth and fourth millennia B.C.E. had expanded into Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, and eventually to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The original race, Günther maintained, was preserved in its most hereditarily unadulterated form in the modern-day Armenians. Günther adduced from this fact that the characteristics of the ur-race could be determined from close observation of contemporary Armenians. This circular logic was as absurd as it was common in such racist discourse. First it was designated the (supposed) characteristics of modern peoples as echoes of the attributes of ancient forebears, and then it cited the similarities between ancients and moderns as proof of hereditary continuity. People of the Near Eastern race, according to Günther, had been of medium physical stature, and had possessed short heads, moderately broad faces, and large, protruding, downwardly curving noses. The stereotypical Ashkenazic nose, Günther claimed, needed to be understood as a physiognomic legacy of the Near Eastern racial influence. It was not so much the size of the nose that Günther considered racially distinctive but its geometry and, more specifically, its “nostrility,” a term Günther borrowed from the article about “Nose” in the Jewish Encyclopedia. This feature, as Günther described it, derived from fleshy outher nostrils set conspicuously high on the face. Aside from the nose, other facial features of the Near Eastern race included fleshy lips, a wide mouth, and a weak, receding chin, which, in combination with the distinctive nose, were seen to give the Near Eastern face its unmistakable profile.
Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany, ISBN 067402205X, p. 28 (http://books.google.com/books?id=o2dxjEiycfcC&pg=PA28)

Armenians = Near Eastern race = Semites. And that's because the Assyrians are the original proto-Semites (and by extension, the original proto-Afro-Asiatics). Had Armenians not been so genetically similar to Assyrians, race theorists would never have used Armenians as a benchmark of the original Semitic "race".


There is clear genetic and cultural continuity that only Armenians can claim that stems from Hurrians, Hittites, Mitani, Urartu, and the Proto-Greek-Phrygians. In fact, in some of the populations, like Urartu, Armenia and Urartu mean the exact same geographic location, as the archeological evidence that first mentions Armenia also uses the word Urartu in anther language to make reference to Armenia. Meaning, Urartu and Armenia are referring to the same place and population.The Hurrians and Urartu populations, were not Indo-Europeans in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

Hurro-Urartian, Hattic or Semitic is what Armenians spoke before Armenians shifted to Indo-European. The shift was largely linguistic in nature only, and very little a shift in autosomal genes.


Furthermore, there are older evidence that indicates a Proto-Armenian presence in the region.What kind of evidence? Cite your sources, dipshit.


Additionally, you have the Armenian oral tradition that hints at the Hittite connection, as clearly, Hayk "fighting" Bel refers to the Hittite sacking of the various post-Sumarian city-states that sprang after the Semitic invasion. Most likely, it referes to the Hitite sacking of Babylon, as the Hittites and Hurrians were united against the invading Semitic populations.Semites were never invaders; Semites are the original Near Easterners. Sumerians were clearly native in the region too, as the Sumerian language is closely related to Afro-Asiatic. The ancient Middle East had lots of native languages; Afro-Asiatic was one of them, and other languages like Hurro-Urartian, Sumerian, Hattian and so on, were also native to the region.

But Indo-European certainly is an intrusive language in not only Armenia but also in the rest of the Middle East. And that's because it developed in the north of the Black Sea, possibly even as far north-west (from a Middle East POV) as Poland:

Is Central-Eastern Europe the proto-Indo-European urheimat? (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=25645)


Later, a newer oral tradition, Ara the Handsome, is a story that reflects the tension between Armenian Highlanders and Assyrians in form of story. Therefore, Assyrians and Armenians were never allies. Armenians viewed Assyrians as a cruel invading population. In fact, most populations of antiquity considered Assyrians to be cruel and barbaric in many respects. This idea of a "Assyrian Superman" is ridiculous and to me, it is funny.Yes, the ancient Assyrians were quite badass to say the least.

But that's ancient history.


Essentially, going back, nothing mentioned by Armenians or other historical, linguistic, and anthropological sources hint at Armenians being a derivative of Assyrians.You are derived from Assyrians in the sense that you are a non-Indo-European population whose ancestors were either originally ethnic Assyrians themselves (or proto-Semites for all I care), a closely related people such as Hurro-Urartians; Hattians or something else.

What Armenians never have been, however, is descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Well there's probably some descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in modern Armenians, but it's very low and insignificant, and that's because you Armenians are swarthy wogs.


In fact, if anything, as Assyrians are a dying population, most likely, they are acculturated Armenians of the modern age.Even if we Assyrians went extinct tomorrow, that still wouldn't change the scientific fact that Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. You Armenians are about as Indo-European as General Butt Naked is Indo-European (he speaks English):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked


You are just trying to use modern genetic studies to recreate this fantasy narrative of yours that places Assyrians as a propagators of everything. It is more funny how you claim I am doing this when it is clear to everyone that you are doing this with your bullshit rants about Armenians, Afro-Asians, Semites, and etc.Thing is, Assyrians really are the best modern representatives of the original Afro-Asiatics and even more so with the proto-Semites. I am not saying this as an attempt to aggrandise Assyrians; it just happens to be the case that Assyrians fit the bill quite well. But the same cannot be said about Armenians. And the reason for that is simply because proto-Indo-European diversified and spread in an entirely different way than Afro-Asiatic did.


You just can not muster the fact that Assyrians are a Semitic population that came from Africa.That's not really a fact, and you're full of shit as usual. It would perhaps be a fact if Assyrians showed any actual Negroid admixture, which we don't and no genetic test so far has shown any Negroid admixture in Assyrians.

So a) Assyrians do not have Negroid admixture; none whatsoever and b) Semitic doesn't actually come from "Africa" (whatever the fuck that means). I also have no problem with the Recent African Origin theory; in fact, I'm an ardent supporter of it (ask Lol_Race if you don't believe me) and I have a long history of bashing white nationalists who champion the bullshit polygenist/multiregional hypothesis.


No, for you it is far better to claim Assyrians as natives and a reverse influence of culture into Africa, when it is clear that it is the other way around.It's not the other way around. You'll have to find any Negroid admixture in Assyrians in order to have a valid point in the first place, and since there's no Negroid admixture in Assyrians, you're only arguing with strawman fallacies here.


Your ideology, aside from being historically false and bogus also hints at a intelligent form of racism and prejudice.I don't argue from ideological perspectives (except when I'm advocating ecofacism, but that's a different topic). I'm arguing scientific racism, and not really from an ideological point of view, but from a real scientific point of view.


The historical narrative clearly places the Semitic speaking populations as invaders into the region.That's an ideological point of view. Semites have always been native to the region. They probably did invade Sumer, but they certainly were native in the Levant and northern Mesopotamia, because it's in these regions where not only proto-Afro-Asiatic originated, but also proto-Kartvelian, proto-Sumerian and proto-Elamite originated.


Furthermore, the Sumarians were not themselves a Semites.No one ever said they were Semites.


Their culture was invaded by Semites. Most likely, they were of Hurrian or Proto-IE stock similar to the Proto-Armenians.No, Sumerian has always been a language isolate. Sumerian does, however, share a common ancestor with proto-Afro-Asiatic.


Again, you seem to discount the fact that Assyrians cluster close to Armenians because they have taken Armenian genes during the modern age.Not really. Aside from occasional marriages between Armenians and Assyrians (and that has mostly been during the Christian era, but even then it was quite rare), we have as populations been quite isolated from each other during most of our history. And yet Armenians are extremely genetically similar to Assyrians; more similar to Assyrians than Armenians are to any other ethnic group on this planet. You Armenians are more similar to us Assyrians than you are when compared with take say, Georgians.

And that's really why you aren't Indo-Europeans. Language aside, you are really not much different from Assyrians.


As if you can't see beyond this fact when it is a prevalent theme among Assyrian posters on this board then that is not my problem. Stop spread lies and bullshit theory in favor of Assyrians. You seem to be the hypocrite and anti-Intellectual here, certainly, not me.You're one of the worst offenders in anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectuals = people who more often than not, get it wrong. And that's your modus operandi: getting it wrong. Perhaps it's because you're ignorant? Or maybe just stupid? It's not really my problem.

PBachman
2012-02-03, 05:12
All right, let's do this. I'm sick and tired of these ignorant Armenians and their uneducated, ethnocentric chauvinism and how they think Armenia is the proto-Indo-European urheimat. I know Polako backs me up on this one but I don't really need his help here.

Sorry, but I don't speak bullshit. I know you do.

My argument is 110% logical. You're the one representing anti-logic here.

Assyrians and Armenians "mixing" isn't really a mix. We are too genetically similar to even count as a mix. And that's why I don't show any different ancestral components than other Assyrians who lack Armenian ancestry.

Also, you're bullshitting. There's only one Assyrian here who's "mixed" with Armenians, and that's me (Humanist doesn't count as 6% Armenian ancestry is irrelevant).

It's not. When you've finished reading this post, you'll know why it's not.

That's ethnocentric self-aggrandising bullshit though. The high genetic similarity Armenians have with Assyrians is simply because both populations happen to originate from the same genepool. And a part of that genepool did not speak Indo-European until sometime after 1,000 BC.

Genetic studies you've pulled out of your ass? Genetic studies tell us that Assyrians and Armenians are two different people with extreme genetic similarity. We are not exactly 100% genetically identical (no one besides twins and clones are that genetically identical), but we are so genetically similar that your stupid bullshit is ridiculous.

You're also not referencing any genetic studies and so you're talking out of your ass, as usual.

The Indo-European homeland in Armenia has never actually been proven in the first place (nor has it been certainly located in Anatolia for that part either).

And yes, the low genetic similarity Armenians have with east Europeans, most definitely tells us, scientifically, that Armenians are not ethnic Indo-Europeans in any way and that you only speak a language derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans; a language that replaced the original non-IE language of your ancestors.

The reason for this is very simple, look here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/misc/EliasAlucard_Full_20111006234958BGA2.png

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5255/pcacaucasus.png

^^ See that, that's how non-Indo-European Armenians are. All European Indo-European speakers plot very close to each other. We have a closely related genepool that is European, and this genepool contains most of the Indo-European branches. It contains Romance, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian, Greek and historically also Iranian (Scythians) and most likely also Indian at some stage too. It most likely also contained the original proto-Armenians.

Point is, you cannot derive the entire European IE languages from the Armenian language alone, and even the Armenian language does have a Semitic substratum:


“It has been calculated that no more than 450, certainly no
more than 500, Armenian words are directly inherited from
Proto-Indo-European. The rest are from the unknown or very
imperfectly known languages that were in northeastern Asia
Minor when the ancestors of the Armenians arrived there,
from Iranian, from Greek, from Syriac, etc.”
— Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Indo-European_Culture), Mallory and Adams, 1997, p. 27

Moreover, ethnic Armenians lack the north-east European component that is the main autosomal marker of the proto-Indo-Europeans. Even south Europeans like Italians and Greeks have a stronger presence of this component than Armenians have:

Armenian_D / Assyrian_D / Turkish_D / Kurdish_D

Mediterranean 11.9 / 12.4 / 15.6 / 7.9
Far_Asian 0.2 / 0.1 / 2.3 / 1
Siberian 0.2 / 0 / 2.7 / 0.9
North_European 4.6 / 1.8 / 11.4 / 6.6
South_Asian 0.3 / 0.1 / 0.9 / 0.7
West_African 0 / 0 / 0.2 / 0
Caucasus 56.7 / 51.8 / 45.7 / 42.3
Gedrosia 12.5 / 14.4 / 9.5 / 25.5
East_African 0 / 0 / 0.3 / 0.4
Southwest_Asian 13.4 / 18.6 / 10.2 / 13.3
Southeast_Asian 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.6 / 0.6
Northwest_African 0.2 / 0.4 / 0.7 / 0.8

Source: Dodecad - K12a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0)

The "north European" component in Armenians at a weak 4.6% peaks in Lithuanians on Dodecad, at 73.7%. Not surprisingly, Lithuanian is probably the most conservative modern extant Indo-European language. Now, unlike what Dienekes says, this "north European" component is actually the main proto-Indo-European autosomal component, because it is found in Indians, and the Tocharians were red haired R1a north Europeans, and the Scythians also had blond hair and so on, and there's no other logical explanation as to why Kurds, Persians and even Indians in all their brown phenotypes, show a higher frequency of this "north European" component, than Assyrians do.

The explanation is simple: this autosomal component in these non-European populations (including Armenians), is derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a Europid population of non-Mediterranean stock.

So basically, Armenians are like, 5% Indo-European. In other words, you aren't an Indo-European people. You'd think that if Armenians were Indo-Europeans, you'd at least have a shitload of Indo-European genes, but you don't.

Armenian Y-DNA isn't particularly proto-Indo-European either:

Y-DNA evidence argues against Indo-European expansion into Europe from Armenia: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/y-dna-evidence-argues-against-indo.html

A Caucasus bereft of R1a1a-M198: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/05/caucasus-bereft-of-r1a1a-m198.html

That's wishful thinking (bullshit by any other name).

Nothing really places the Indo-European homeland in Armenia. It is extremely unlikely that proto-Indo-European was ever spoken in Armenia. Extremely unlikely. The horse was not domesticated in Armenia, and the wheel wasn't invented there either (it could have been in south Mesopotamia, but that's not certain either).

You don't understand the urheimat arguments that concern proto-Indo-European, and that's why and other ignorant Armenians

That's not really true. The Armenian language is a relatively recent newcomer in the Caucasus/Middle East (the Kartvelian languages, and most certainly Semitic, have a longer presence there). The Armenian language came from north of the Black Sea, and via the Balkans, to north Mesopotamia and southern Caucasus. And the Balkan population who brought Armenian over to the Caucasus, only managed to influence the modern Armenian ethnic group, slightly, with their genes (it's shown in Y-DNA, that Armenians have some minor I2 and E-V13 frequencies; which Assyrians lack—at least I2).

The Urartians were not Indo-European speakers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartian_language

The Hittites were native Anatolians (Hattians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattic_language)) who shifted to the Hittite language (which was either a descendant or cousin of proto-Indo-European) as a result of elite dominance or demic diffusion.

Furthermore, these traits amongst the Hittites, are not exclusively found amongst Armenians. They are also found amongst Assyrians, and that was also the case with the ancient Assyrians:


“The characters that have just been described are very close to those of the Armenid subrace of the Europid race. Facial characters of the Armenid type are illustrated in Figs 32A and 33. The Armenians themselves, from whom the name of the subrace is derived are of remarkably uniform physical type. A good description of the Armenians was published by Chantre in 1895. Essentially the same type was represented in ancient times by the Hittites and Assyrians; indeed, the type was named Assyroid by Deniker. It is thought, however that another subrace besides the Armenid enters into the composition of the European Jewish stock, and perhaps entered into that of the Hittites and Assyrians. This is the Orientalid subrace, which includes many of those commonly called by the vague name 'Arabs'.” — John R. Baker, "Race"

Race-Günther was of the same opinion:


Günther devoted a significant chapter of Racial Characteristics of the Jewish People to describing the traits of the Near Eastern race. Previous race theorists had referred to this group by a variety of labels, including Assyroid, Proto-Armenian, and Hittite. It had supposedly originated in the Caucasus and in the fifth and fourth millennia B.C.E. had expanded into Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, and eventually to the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. The original race, Günther maintained, was preserved in its most hereditarily unadulterated form in the modern-day Armenians. Günther adduced from this fact that the characteristics of the ur-race could be determined from close observation of contemporary Armenians. This circular logic was as absurd as it was common in such racist discourse. First it was designated the (supposed) characteristics of modern peoples as echoes of the attributes of ancient forebears, and then it cited the similarities between ancients and moderns as proof of hereditary continuity. People of the Near Eastern race, according to Günther, had been of medium physical stature, and had possessed short heads, moderately broad faces, and large, protruding, downwardly curving noses. The stereotypical Ashkenazic nose, Günther claimed, needed to be understood as a physiognomic legacy of the Near Eastern racial influence. It was not so much the size of the nose that Günther considered racially distinctive but its geometry and, more specifically, its “nostrility,” a term Günther borrowed from the article about “Nose” in the Jewish Encyclopedia. This feature, as Günther described it, derived from fleshy outher nostrils set conspicuously high on the face. Aside from the nose, other facial features of the Near Eastern race included fleshy lips, a wide mouth, and a weak, receding chin, which, in combination with the distinctive nose, were seen to give the Near Eastern face its unmistakable profile.
Studying the Jew: Scholarly Antisemitism in Nazi Germany, ISBN 067402205X, p. 28 (http://books.google.com/books?id=o2dxjEiycfcC&pg=PA28)

Armenians = Near Eastern race = Semites. And that's because the Assyrians are the original proto-Semites (and by extension, the original proto-Afro-Asiatics). Had Armenians not been so genetically similar to Assyrians, race theorists would never have used Armenians as a benchmark of the original Semitic "race".

The Hurrians and Urartu populations, were not Indo-Europeans in any way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurro-Urartian_languages

Hurro-Urartian, Hattic or Semitic is what Armenians spoke before Armenians shifted to Indo-European. The shift was largely linguistic in nature only, and very little a shift in autosomal genes.

What kind of evidence? Cite your sources, dipshit.

Semites were never invaders; Semites are the original Near Easterners. Sumerians were clearly native in the region too, as the Sumerian language is closely related to Afro-Asiatic. The ancient Middle East had lots of native languages; Afro-Asiatic was one of them, and other languages like Hurro-Urartian, Sumerian, Hattian and so on, were also native to the region.

But Indo-European certainly is an intrusive language in not only Armenia but also the rest of the Middle East. And that's because it developed in the north of the Black Sea, possibly even as far north-west (from a Middle East POV) as in Poland:

Is Central-Eastern Europe the proto-Indo-European urheimat? (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=25645)

Yes, the ancient Assyrians were quite badass to say the least.

But that's ancient history.

You are derived from Assyrians in the sense that you are a non-Indo-European population whose ancestors were either originally ethnic Assyrians themselves (or proto-Semites for all I care), a closely related people such as Hurro-Urartians; Hattians or something else.

What Armenians never have been, however, is descendants of the proto-Indo-European.

Well there's probably some descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in modern Armenians, but it's very low and insignificant, and that's because you Armenians are swarthy wogs.

Even if we Assyrians went extinct tomorrow, that still wouldn't change the scientific fact that Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. You Armenians are about as Indo-European as General Butt Naked is Indo-European (he speaks English):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked

Thing is, Assyrians really are the best modern representatives of the original Afro-Asiatics and even more so with the proto-Semites. I am not saying this as an attempt to aggrandise Assyrians; it just happens to be the case that Assyrians fit the bill quite well. But the same cannot be said about Armenians. And the reason for that is simply because proto-Indo-European diversified and spread in an entirely different way than Afro-Asiatic did.

That's not really a fact, and you're full of shit as usual. It would perhaps be a fact if Assyrians showed any actual Negroid admixture, which we don't and no genetic test so far has shown any Negroid admixture in Assyrians.

So a) Assyrians do not have Negroid admixture; none whatsoever and b) Semitic doesn't actually come from "Africa" (whatever the fuck that means). I also have no problem with the Recent African Origin theory; in fact, I'm an ardent supporter of it (ask Lol_Race if you don't believe me) and I have a long history of bashing white nationalists who champion the bullshit polygenist/multiregional hypothesis.

It's not the other way around. You'll have to find any Negroid admixture in Assyrians in order to have a valid point in the first place, and since there's no Negroid admixture in Assyrians, you're only arguing with strawman fallacies here.

I don't argue with ideologies (except when I'm advocating ecofacism, but that's a different topic). I'm arguing scientific racism, and not really from an ideological point of view, but from a real scientific point of view.

That's an ideological point of view. Semites have always been native to the region. They probably did invade Sumer, but they certainly were native in the Levant and northern Mesopotamia, because it's in these regions where not only proto-Afro-Asiatic originated, but also proto-Kartvelian, proto-Sumerian and proto-Elamite originated.

No one ever said they were Semites.

No, Sumerian has always been a language isolate. Sumerian does, however, share a common ancestor with proto-Afro-Asiatic.

Not really. Aside from occasional marriages between Armenians and Assyrians (and that has mostly been during the Christian era, but even then it was quite rare), we have as populations been quite isolated from each other during most of our history. And yet Armenians are extremely genetically similar to Assyrians; more similar to Assyrians than Armenians are to any other ethnic group on this planet. You Armenians are more similar to us Assyrians than you are when compared with take say, Georgians.

And that's really why you aren't Indo-Europeans. Language aside, you are really not much different from Assyrians.

You're one of the worst offenders in anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectuals = people who more often than not, get it wrong. And that's your modus operandi: getting it wrong. Perhaps it's because you're ignorant? Or maybe just stupid? It's not really my problem.

Right ... again stop with the agenda. I am not going to back and reply to this garbage. Everything has been addressed. Please go read about the Hurrians, Mitanni, Urartu, and etc. You seem to not be brave enough to accept the truth and that is not my problem. Like your other threads, you seem to push genetic studies to push forward your vision of the past. Again, Armenians are a native IE speaking population while Assyrians are a semitic speaking population that came from Africa. You can clearly look at Hittites and their artwork; most resemble the look of modern Armenians.

Second of all, the Hurrians were neither semitic speakers or IE, BUT it is clear that the IE populations and the Hurrians shared culture, government, and aristocracy. Armenians are the cultural inheritors of the Urartu, Mitanni, Hittites, and the Greco-Phrygian immigrants. If you have a hard time understanding that is not my problem. Furthermore, again, you are not qualified to make any claim regarding genetic studies, as the truth is not clear. The Assyrian Empire collapsed and since the Assyrian identity was already a national identity it is most likely the case that the remnants that identified with "Assyrian" were most likely of Hurrian, Hittite stock, or other stock, as Assyrians were not natives of Anatolia. They were invaders that took over the Sumarian culture like other invading Semitic speaking populations.

Finally, this entire BS about Armenians being Assyrians, keep dreaming. It is clear from our oral tradition that Armenians have always viewed Assyrians with hate and distrust. Clearly, how the fuck do you reconcile the Ara the Handsome stories with your points? You can't. Furthermore, the trilingual inscription that first mentions "Armenians" also mentions it in three languages, one of which refers to them as "People of Urartu" as well.

Long story short, you are pushing a agenda that is logically, historically, and factual a lie. You are using genetic studies to push forward wacky ideas that Armenians and Assyrians are one in the same, when in fact, there is not one shred of evidence that connections Armenians to Assyrians other then genetic studies you cite. Furthermore, on the contrary, it is the exact opposite. Armenians in Ancient, whether the Urartu, Hittites, or Mittani clashed with Assyrians. Why the hell would they do this? Nothing you mention is true. You just cite genetic studies which are questionable because the people that participate in them could have Armenian ancestry.

Stop the bullshit. Armenians are natives of the Armenian Highlands. The Hurrians, who were "speakers of this language originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC", Urartu (Another Hurrian off-shot), and the Hittite (And various other IE speaking populations) contributed to Armenian ethno-genesis, as all collapsed at the same time Armenian populations rose. None of these groups were Assyrians in any case or had any origins that were similar to them; get that through your thick skull you revisionist lier.

Polako
2012-02-03, 10:24
The theory is bullshit.

It was trashed recently in a genetic study...


Shortly after the arrival of early farmers in Armenia and Anatolia (8 kya), agriculture spread to Greece and the Balkans, before rapidly expanding across Europe.47.Furthermore, the classification of Armenian as an old Indo-European language with similarities to the ancestral Proto-Indo-European languages has led to the supposition that agriculturalists migrating from Armenia into Europe were responsible for the establishment of Indo-European languages in the continent.13,14 However, despite the close linguistic relationship between Armenians and the Indo-European speaking populations of Europe,12 we see little genetic support for this claim. The derived M412 allele, which is found in nearly all haplogroup R1b1b1*-L23 chromosomes in Europe,27 is absent in the sampled Armenians, which also exhibit a scarcity of haplotype sharing with Europeans, suggesting a limited role for Armenians in the introduction of R1b into Europe.

Y-DNA evidence argues against Indo-European expansion into Europe from Armenia (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/y-dna-evidence-argues-against-indo.html)

Hallteks
2012-02-03, 10:53
Sorry, but I don't speak bullshit. I know you do.

My argument is 110% logical. You're the one representing anti-logic here.

Also, you're bullshitting.

That's ethnocentric self-aggrandising bullshit though.

Genetic studies you've pulled out of your ass? your stupid bullshit is ridiculous.

you're talking out of your ass, as usual.

have a shitload of Indo-European genes, but you don't.

That's wishful thinking (bullshit by any other name).

Cite your sources, dipshit.

Yes, the ancient Assyrians were quite badass to say the least.

Armenians are swarthy wogs.

you're full of shit as usual.

And that's really why you aren't Indo-Europeans. Language aside, you are really not much different from Assyrians.
you're ignorant? Or maybe just stupid? It's not really my problem.

Yes your language is quite different.

Pot-Kettle
2012-02-03, 11:06
"PBachman" reminds me of the "Jesus was black" crowd.

World_citizen
2012-02-03, 11:11
This PBachman character really brings stupidity to a whole nother level! It's good if you're proud of your country, and try to promote your nation etc etc. But in this person's (PBachman) fantasyland Armenia is all that, the chicken and the egg, the founders of human civilization? But that's not what bothers me about this clown, no, what's annoying is the fact that he is lying his ass of!! There is absolutely zero validity in this characters posts, and yet he (or she but probably he) tries to present them as facts. Now i don't know if this character is highly delusional, or just another ordinary liar?

But what i've wondered is this: Given the fact that Armenians are in fact Semitic (genetic proof), what caused their shift in language from Semitic to Indo-European?

EliasAlucard
2012-02-03, 11:25
But what i've wondered is this: Given the fact that Armenians are in fact Semitic (genetic proof), what caused their shift in language from Semitic to Indo-European?The proto-Indo-Europeans had a massive cultural influence on various populations. To some extent in Armenians (and also Persians; Kurds and Indians), the shift to Indo-European was lead by descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans. In Persians, this "north European" component is around 7% on Dodecad, as you can see for yourself. So there's actually some proto-Indo-European ancestry in Armenians and Iranians/Indians. But this is not the same as saying Armenians are bona fide Indo-European descendants (as in the majority of their ancestry).

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/images/IElangespread.jpg

^^ This map is a good map of how it all went about. And much like in modern times Europeans still have a major cultural influence, so did the ancient proto-Indo-Europeans. Much like Mallory said back in 1989, Indo-Europeanisation is still an ongoing process.

But it is extremely unlikely that the Indo-European urheimat started in modern Armenia. Only ignorant chauvinist Armenians take this position, and the occasional ignorant archaeologist (Renfrew) who supports this position.

Ashina
2012-02-03, 11:35
Armenians are not Semitic. They have some Semitic genes but classifying them as Semitic is bullshit. It's just that they happen to be close to Assyrians genetically. And according to Elias' logic, everything similar to Assyrians is Semitic and Assyrian. The fact that the Semitic Assyrians show more similarity to their non-Semitic neighbours instead of their Semitic brothers doesn't matter to him. I even remember Elias ones saying that Greeks are Assyrians and therefore Semitic too. :rolleyes:

World_citizen
2012-02-03, 11:59
Armenians are not Semitic. They have some Semitic genes but classifying them as Semitic is bullshit. It's just that they happen to be close to Assyrians genetically. And according to Elias' logic, everything similar to Assyrians is Semitic and Assyrian. The fact that the Semitic Assyrians show more similarity to their non-Semitic neighbours instead of their Semitic brothers doesn't matter to him. I even remember Elias ones saying that Greeks are Assyrians and therefore Semitic too. :rolleyes:

Ok well i'm definitely no expert on human genetics. I've always been more interested in history and culture rather than race. And having studied history (as a hobby at Leiden university) i shouldn't have made that statement about Armenians being semitic, but i was/am rather annoyed by PBachman's lying and distortion of historical facts, that i automatically went by Elias's data about Armenians and Assyrians being proto-Semitic in genetic make-up. I should've looked more into it.

Ashina
2012-02-03, 12:12
Ok well i'm definitely no expert on human genetics. I've always been more interested in history and culture rather than race. And having studied history (as a hobby at Leiden university) i shouldn't have made that statement about Armenians being semitic, but i was/am rather annoyed by PBachman's lying and distortion of historical facts, that i automatically went by Elias's data about Armenians and Assyrians being proto-Semitic in genetic make-up. I should've looked more into it.

Nah, PBachman is a idiot but Elias isn't very objective either.

For example, the component associated with Semtics is the 'Southwest Asian' component. Armenians have around 10-15% of this and Assyrians have about 5-10% more. So going by their SWA admixture, they are not Semitic, definitely not. The other 'genes' they have in common is the West Asian component (peaks in North Caucasians) and Med (peaks in Southern Europe). So Armenians can not be classified as Semitic unless Elias wants to claim that West Asian/Caucasus and Med admixture is also Semitic in origin. And this would mean that the entire West Asia/Caucasus region is Semitic while the Arabs are non-Semitics.

If anything, Assyrians are non-Semitic.

takoja
2012-02-03, 13:03
And yes, the low genetic similarity Armenians have with east Europeans, most definitely tells us, scientifically, that Armenians are not ethnic Indo-Europeans in any way and that you only speak a language derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans; a language that replaced the original non-IE language of your ancestors.

All speakers of IE have ancestors outside speakers of proto-indoeuropean. Some probably more than others though. What seems to be the problem here?


The reason for this is very simple, look here:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/misc/EliasAlucard_Full_20111006234958BGA2.png

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5255/pcacaucasus.png

^^ See that, that's how non-Indo-European Armenians are. All European Indo-European speakers plot very close to each other. We have a closely related genepool that is European, and this genepool contains most of the Indo-European branches. It contains Romance, Balto-Slavic, Celtic, Germanic, Albanian, Greek and historically also Iranian (Scythians) and most likely also Indian at some stage too. It most likely also contained the original proto-Armenians.

Point is, you cannot derive the entire European IE languages from the Armenian language alone, and even the Armenian language does have a Semitic substratum:


“It has been calculated that no more than 450, certainly no
more than 500, Armenian words are directly inherited from
Proto-Indo-European. The rest are from the unknown or very
imperfectly known languages that were in northeastern Asia
Minor when the ancestors of the Armenians arrived there,
from Iranian, from Greek, from Syriac, etc.”
— Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Indo-European_Culture), Mallory and Adams, 1997, p. 27

I think you cannot derive any European IE languages from one modern IE language. They are derived from proto-indoeuropean.


Moreover, ethnic Armenians lack the north-east European component that is the main autosomal marker of the proto-Indo-Europeans. Even south Europeans like Italians and Greeks have a stronger presence of this component than Armenians have:

Armenian_D / Assyrian_D / Turkish_D / Kurdish_D

Mediterranean 11.9 / 12.4 / 15.6 / 7.9
Far_Asian 0.2 / 0.1 / 2.3 / 1
Siberian 0.2 / 0 / 2.7 / 0.9
North_European 4.6 / 1.8 / 11.4 / 6.6
South_Asian 0.3 / 0.1 / 0.9 / 0.7
West_African 0 / 0 / 0.2 / 0
Caucasus 56.7 / 51.8 / 45.7 / 42.3
Gedrosia 12.5 / 14.4 / 9.5 / 25.5
East_African 0 / 0 / 0.3 / 0.4
Southwest_Asian 13.4 / 18.6 / 10.2 / 13.3
Southeast_Asian 0.1 / 0.2 / 0.6 / 0.6
Northwest_African 0.2 / 0.4 / 0.7 / 0.8

Source: Dodecad - K12a spreadsheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0)

The "north European" component in Armenians at a weak 4.6% peaks in Lithuanians on Dodecad, at 73.7%. Not surprisingly, Lithuanian is probably the most conservative modern extant Indo-European language. Now, unlike what Dienekes says, this "north European" component is actually the main proto-Indo-European autosomal component, because it is found in Indians, and the Tocharians were red haired R1a north Europeans, and the Scythians also had blond hair and so on, and there's no other logical explanation as to why Kurds, Persians and even Indians in all their brown phenotypes, show a higher frequency of this "north European" component, than Assyrians do.

The explanation is simple: this autosomal component in these non-European populations (including Armenians), is derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans, who were a Europid population of non-Mediterranean stock.

So basically, Armenians are like, 5% Indo-European. In other words, you aren't an Indo-European people. You'd think that if Armenians were Indo-Europeans, you'd at least have a shitload of Indo-European genes, but you don't.

Yes that north European component which peaks in north Euros. Yes also those north Euros have shitloads of ancestors outside them proto-indoeuropean speakers. Likely this component at least in part is made from stuff from speakers of palaeo-european for example.



Semites were never invaders; Semites are the original Near Easterners. Sumerians were clearly native in the region too, as the Sumerian language is closely related to Afro-Asiatic. The ancient Middle East had lots of native languages; Afro-Asiatic was one of them, and other languages like Hurro-Urartian, Sumerian, Hattian and so on, were also native to the region.

My my, so many different languages, all of the same race naturally. This time.


But Indo-European certainly is an intrusive language in not only Armenia but also the rest of the Middle East. And that's because it developed in the north of the Black Sea, possibly even as far north-west (from a Middle East POV) as Poland:

Do you consider Indo-European to be a intrusive language in places like Scandinavia, west Europe?


Yes, the ancient Assyrians were quite badass to say the least.


But that's ancient history.







You are derived from Assyrians in the sense that you are a non-Indo-European population whose ancestors were either originally ethnic Assyrians themselves (or proto-Semites for all I care), a closely related people such as Hurro-Urartians; Hattians or something else.

What Armenians never have been, however, is descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Well there's probably some descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in modern Armenians, but it's very low and insignificant, and that's because you Armenians are swarthy wogs.

Even if we Assyrians went extinct tomorrow, that still wouldn't change the scientific fact that Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. You Armenians are about as Indo-European as General Butt Naked is Indo-European (he speaks English):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked


You think it is fair to compare General Butt Naked to Armenians? Armenians have spoken Indo-European thousands of years. You don't think that is a bit anti-intellectual?



Thing is, Assyrians really are the best modern representatives of the original Afro-Asiatics and even more so with the proto-Semites. I am not saying this as an attempt to aggrandise Assyrians; it just happens to be the case that Assyrians fit the bill quite well. But the same cannot be said about Armenians. And the reason for that is simply because proto-Indo-European diversified and spread in an entirely different way than Afro-Asiatic did.

That's not really a fact, and you're full of shit as usual. It would perhaps be a fact if Assyrians showed any actual Negroid admixture, which we don't and no genetic test so far has shown any Negroid admixture in Assyrians.

So a) Assyrians do not have Negroid admixture; none whatsoever and b) Semitic doesn't actually come from "Africa" (whatever the fuck that means). I also have no problem with the Recent African Origin theory; in fact, I'm an ardent supporter of it (ask Lol_Race if you don't believe me) and I have a long history of bashing white nationalists who champion the bullshit polygenist/multiregional hypothesis.

It's not the other way around. You'll have to find any Negroid admixture in Assyrians in order to have a valid point in the first place, and since there's no Negroid admixture in Assyrians, you're only arguing with strawman fallacies here.

I don't argue with ideologies (except when I'm advocating ecofacism, but that's a different topic). I'm arguing scientific racism, and not really from an ideological point of view, but from a real scientific point of view.

That's an ideological point of view. Semites have always been native to the region. They probably did invade Sumer, but they certainly were native in the Levant and northern Mesopotamia, because it's in these regions where not only proto-Afro-Asiatic originated, but also proto-Kartvelian, proto-Sumerian and proto-Elamite originated.

No one ever said they were Semites.

No, Sumerian has always been a language isolate. Sumerian does, however, share a common ancestor with proto-Afro-Asiatic.

Not really. Aside from occasional marriages between Armenians and Assyrians (and that has mostly been during the Christian era, but even then it was quite rare), we have as populations been quite isolated from each other during most of our history. And yet Armenians are extremely genetically similar to Assyrians; more similar to Assyrians than Armenians are to any other ethnic group on this planet. You Armenians are more similar to us Assyrians than you are when compared with take say, Georgians.

And that's really why you aren't Indo-Europeans. Language aside, you are really not much different from Assyrians.

Armenian ethnicity has existed for thousand of years. Armenian is a Indo-European language. You are saying they are Assyrians.


You're one of the worst offenders in anti-intellectualism.

Anti-intellectuals = people who more often than not, get it wrong. And that's your modus operandi: getting it wrong. Perhaps it's because you're ignorant? Or maybe just stupid? It's not really my problem.

Humanist
2012-02-03, 13:25
Given the fact that Armenians are in fact Semitic (genetic proof)...

There is no genetic proof that they are "Semites." Assyrians and Armenians have been neighbors for a very long time. It is natural for there to be genetic similarities. However, Armenians have their own history. A history that precedes even the Armenian identity. I am referring to the Hurrians, Urartians, and other peoples of the region of what is today mostly eastern Turkey.

The Urartian god Khaldi:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Khaldi.JPG

Urartian art:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Urartian_Art_04a~.jpg/498px-Urartian_Art_04a~.jpg

Khaldi does not look all too different from the depictions of Tigran the Great (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yuxvtlo0nKs), in fact.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Tigran_Mets.jpg/200px-Tigran_Mets.jpg

Mosov
2012-02-03, 14:02
What the hell is this Assyrian obsession with having Armenians be equal to Assyrians? The classification of Armenian people as Semitic is utterly retarded and shows that people here are after another agenda.

This post illustrates well what's going on here:


To summarize what is going on on various genetic forums: Assyrians being persecuted in Northern Iraq want to distance themselves from Arabs and to find new land to live in. Apparantly they decided that since biggest Assyrian community lives in Armenia this country will be the best one to accept all Iraqi/Egypt,etc Assyrians as well. Now knowing perfectly well that many of Assyrians have Armenian admixure (one way, only from Armenians to Assyrians, like the case is with all others) they are tamparing Armenian DNA Project, falsifying results and presenting Assyrians as Armenians. But that is not enough for them, they go so far to claim Assyrians originate in Armenian Highland. An the most outrageous claim which they make is that Armenians are “best preserved Assyrian elite”…Not only they want to be part of Armenia but most importantly they want Armenians to lose their identity and to become Assyrians…I am saying this based on their conversations on Arabic forums.
The same cliam comes now and from Maronites, it seems they are also not happy with their identity and want to be Armenians,Maronites want to be Armenian so that they are not known as Arabs…Let me again remind you that all these people’s nobility have Armenian blood and that is the cause of SOME similarities… between our nation. The bottom line is ARmenians influenced many nations around us who now claim to be one people iwht us and lay claims on Armenian Highland for political agenda. Only those Assyrian/Levantine who are descendants of Armenians can cluster with Armenians and Diekenes clearly shows that.
Samples of Assyrians/Levantines are cherry picked to fit an agenda.


Your samples are clearly of not pure Armenians but those who have Assyrian ancestry, or rather Assyrians with Armenian ancestory since most of them do have.
Yepiskoposyan et al 2002a
Abstract
734 ethnic Armenian, 196 Kurd and 106 Assyrian men were sampled in Armenia. DNA was extracted from buccal swab and typed for six STR and 12 Unique Event Polymorphism (UEP) loci mapping to the nonrecombined portion of the human Y chromosome. The Armenian sample was divided into 6 regions according to the paternal grandfather’s birthplace (Weale et al., 2001). Kurds and Assyrians were each considered as single ethno-territorial groups. UEP markers defined 8 haplogroups (hg) for the Armenian population and 7 haplogroups for Kurds and Assyrians. All 8 regions differed significantly (p<0.001) from each other according to the frequency of haplogroups. UEP gene diversity (h) varied from 0.599 in Armenians from the northern region to 0.673 in Kurds. Genetic diversity (based on UEP+microsatellite haplotype frequencies) in Kurds (0.942+/-0.006) is significantly lower (p<0.01) than in all Armenian regional subpopulations except the southern (Syunik) region. The same index in Assyrians (0.954+/-0.008) is also significantly lower (p<0.05) than in all Armenian groups except the Syunik region. Kurds and Assyrians did not differ significantly in their UEP+microsatellite haplotype gene diversity values. Analysis of Molecular Variance (AMOVA) revealed that 96.86% of the variation at the six microsatellite loci is due to the differences between individuals, whereas differences between three ethnic groups and between 6 regional Armenian populations accounted for 2.09% and 1.05% of the variation respectively. Pairwise exact test for population differentiation (Raymond and Rousset, 1995) showed significant differences (p<0.001) between Assyrians and all Armenian regional populations, and also between Kurds and all Armenian regional populations. Assyrians and Kurds also differ significantly (p<0.001) from one another according to pairwise exact tests. Overall, Assyrians and Kurds appear to be genetically distinct from the general Armenian population, with Fst values suggesting that Assyrians are the most differentiated group from all Armenian regional populations and from Kurds

Silesian
2012-02-03, 15:56
I have a hard time understanding why there is animosity between some Assyrians and Armenians?

Interesting set of gods Mitanni/Hurrian, used in treaty with Hittites

Some theonyms, proper names and other terminology of the Mitanni exhibit an Indo-Aryan superstrate, suggesting that an Indo-Aryan elite imposed itself over the Hurrian population in the course of the Indo-Aryan expansion. In a treaty between the Hittites and the Mitanni, the deities Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya (Ashvins) are invoked. Kikkuli's horse training text includes technical terms such as aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, turn, round in the horse race). The numeral aika "one" is of particular importance because it places the superstrate in the vicinity of Indo-Aryan proper as opposed to Indo-Iranian or early Iranian (which has "aiva") in general [17]

It is entirely possible that "some" Armenians and Assyrians share common ancestors, and genes, since there territories overlapped. Why such hostile posts toward one another?

PBachman
2012-02-03, 17:01
You know it is funny how EA, WorldCitizen, and Aiehsa claim I am xyz, but they still fail to reconcile the evidence. Furthermore, making a ridiculous poll is not going to change the evidence. There is strong evidence that whoever these IE speakers were they were in close contact with civilizations in Anatolia and the Armenian Highland, as they have vocabulary that hints at innovation, technology, culture, and etc. that was established a lot earlier in the region. How do the HIttites form a civilization in 2500 BC, when the Kurgen Hypothesis claims that the IE speaking homeland is in central Asia? So in 500 years they came to Anatolia, culturally homogenized, absorbed foreign technology, culture, and etc.? Does that make sense to you? They would have to have been in the region at least around 3500 BC to have done these things. Furthermore, if the location was elsewhere, where are the other IE speaking civilizations that predate the Hittites? There should be plenty of them as there are thousand of miles between the Hittites and other IE Urheimat locations. This is just one problem with placing the IE Urheimat elsewhere. There are myriad of other problems as there are flora fauna, culture, technology innovation, and etc. that can't be reconciled with other theories, but fit perfectly with the Anatolia-Armenian Highlands hypothesis.




It is entirely possible that "some" Armenians and Assyrians share common ancestors, and genes, since there territories overlapped. Why such hostile posts toward one another?

The hostility stems from EA's continually revisionist theories. This guy places himself in a position of authority, but he doesn't know anything. He is pushing forward genetic studies to reconstruct the past and it annoying because it is not true. You have a strong Hurrian and Hittite alliance that opposed Assyrian Expansion into Anatolia. You have a Sumarian civilization that was not Semitic speaking in origin and most likely came from a northern IE speaking or Hurrian populations. The various Semitic speaking populations arrived only later into the region. Furthermore, when you consider their culture and compare to the Hurrian and Hittite there is nothing to indicate anything remotely close to EA's theory other then his continually citation of genetic studies. The studies themselves are bogus.

However, lets say they are 100% accurate. Most likely it could have been the case that the first group of Semitic speakers that came into contact with the Proto-Armenians, most likely, they were genetic different than the later arrival of the Arabs. BUT this does not mean that Assyrians and Armenians share a common origin, as the historical narrative places them (Assyrians against Hurrian-Hittites (Proto-Armenians)) at odds with each other.

Furthermore, the interaction between Hurrians and Hittites was strong. You have Hurrian ruling class at one point leading the Hittite Empire. Likewise, in the case of Mitani there is evidence that there is a Indo-Aryan superstrata. Meaning, they were ruled by IE speaking populations. Also, in the case of these civilizations, what language they used places no weight on the genetic, culture, and background of their populations, as the many IE speaking populations like the Hittites and even the later Phrygians used a foreign alphabet to communicate business and administration transactions. In the case of the Urartu, they have found that the language they used for such transactions is not IE, but that does not mean that population is not IE. Like the Hittites and Phrygians the language they had taken was only used for administrative reason.

Finally, what makes people think that Cuneiform is actually a "Semitic device"? The Sumarians came from the north. They were most likely of Hurrian or IE speaking stock similar to either the Hittites or Hurrians, as in 3500 BC you most likely had IE speakers and also Hurrian populations well established in the area. The Semitic speakers took this Hurrian-Hittite hybrid culture as their own.

In totality, it is in fact the other way around, that Assyrians are just acculturated Armenians, but you don't see me pushing that view point around. EA has a clear agenda. I have no agenda. I have never made any claim that I can't support. I don't cite genetic studies and claim anything from them, as genetic studies should only be used in supplement to the historical narrative and not as a substitute for them.

Sargon999
2012-02-03, 17:11
Mosov:
No Assyrian wants to be Armenian. Why the hell would we want to be part of you? We regard you as our friends and even brothers. And no the Maronites do not want to be Armenian either, idiot.

Silesian
2012-02-03, 17:13
You know it is funny how EA, WorldCitizen, and Aiehsa claim I am xyz, but they still fail to reconcile the evidence. Furthermore, making a ridiculous poll is not going to change the evidence. There is strong evidence that whoever these IE speakers were they were in close contact with civilizations in Anatolia and the Armenian Highland, as they have vocabulary that hints at innovation, technology, culture, and etc. that was established a lot earlier in the region. How do the HIttites form a civilization in 2500 BC, when the Kurgen Hypothesis claims that the IE speaking homeland is in central Asia? So in 500 years they came to Anatolia, culturally homogenized, absorbed foreign technology, culture, and etc.? Does that make sense to you? They would have to have been in the region at least around 3500 BC to have done these things. Furthermore, if the location was elsewhere, where are the other IE speaking civilizations that predate the Hittites? There should be plenty of them as there are thousand of miles between the Hittites and other IE Urheimat locations. This is just one problem with placing the IE Urheimat elsewhere. There are myriad of other problems as there are flora fauna, culture, technology innovation, and etc. that can't be reconciled with other theories, but fit perfectly with the Anatolia-Armenian Highlands hypothesis.



The hostility stems from EA's continually revisionist theories. This guy places himself in a position of authority, but he doesn't know anything. He is pushing forward genetic studies to reconstruct the past and it annoying because it is not true. You have a strong Hurrian and Hittite alliance that opposed Assyrian Expansion into Anatolia. You have a Sumarian civilization that was not Semitic speaking in origin and most likely came from a northern IE speaking or Hurrian populations. The various Semitic speaking populations arrived only later into the region. Furthermore, when you consider their culture and compare to the Hurrian and Hittite there is nothing to indicate anything remotely close to EA's theory other then his continually citation of genetic studies. The studies themselves are bogus.

However, lets say they are 100% accurate. Most likely it could have been the case that the first group of Semitic speakers that came into contact with the Proto-Armenians, most likely, they were genetic different than the later arrival of the Arabs. BUT this does not mean that Assyrians and Armenians share a common origin, as the historical narrative places them (Assyrians against Hurrian-Hittites (Proto-Armenians)) at odds with each other.

Furthermore, the interaction between Hurrians and Hittites was strong. You have Hurrian ruling class at one point leading the Hittite Empire. Likewise, in the case of Mitani there is evidence that there is a Indo-Aryan superstrata. Meaning, they were ruled by IE speaking populations. Also, in the case of these civilizations, what language they used places no weight on the genetic, culture, and background of their populations, as the many IE speaking populations like the Hittites and even the later Phrygians used a foreign alphabet to communicate business and administration transactions. In the case of the Urartu, they have found that the language they used for such transactions is not IE, but that does not mean that population is not IE. Like the Hittites and Phrygians the language they had taken was only used for administrative reason.

Finally, what makes people think that Cuneiform is actually a "Semitic device"? The Sumarians came from the north. They were most likely of Hurrian or IE speaking stock similar to either the Hittites or Hurrians, as in 3500 BC you most likely had IE speakers and also Hurrian populations well established in the area. The Semitic speakers took this Hurrian-Hittite hybrid culture as their own.

In totality, it is in fact the other way around, that Assyrians are just acculturated Armenians, but you don't see me pushing that view point around. EA has a clear agenda. I have no agenda. I have never made any claim that I can't support. I don't cite genetic studies and claim anything from them, as genetic studies should only be used in supplement to the historical narrative and not as a substitute for them.

Adiabene and Armenia are in the same context.

n Kiddushin 72a the Biblical Habor is identified with Adiabene (compare Yebamot 16b et seq., Yalqut Daniel 1064), but in Yerushalmi Megillah i. 71b with Riphath.[9] In the Targum to Jeremiah li. 27, Ararat, Mini, and Ashkenaz are paraphrased by Kordu, Harmini, and Hadayab, i.e., Corduene, Armenia, and Adiabene; while in Ezekiel xxvii. 23 Harran, Caneh, and Eden are interpreted by the Aramaic translator as "Harwan, Nisibis, and Adiabene."

Arbela

The name Arbil was mentioned in Sumerian holy writings (c. 2000 BC) as Urbilum, Urbelum or Urbillum,[6] and it may be Sumerian in origin. It is thought to originate from Sumerian UR (city) + BELA (high) meaning the city located in the upper area. The initial ar element also appears in a number of Hurrian place names.

The two regions are connected. It would be natural for there to be an exchange of genes prior to the rise of the Mittani or Assyrians

Sargon999
2012-02-03, 17:21
"The Neo-Assyrian kings pursued an active policy of nation building,
whereby the citizenship of Assyria was routinely granted to the inhabitants
of newly established provinces. As a result of this, by 600 BC the entire
vastly expanded country shared the Assyrian identity, which essentially
consisted of a common unifying language (Aramaic) and a common
religion, culture, and value system. This identity persisted virtually
unchanged and was converted into an ethnic identity in the Neo-Babylonian
and Achaemenid periods (600-330 BC). After the disintegration of the
Seleucid Empire (130 BC), several semi-independent Mesopotamian
kingdoms (Osrhoene, Adiabene, Hatra, Assur) perpetuated Assyrian
religious and cultural traditions until the third century AD. From the fourth
century on, Christianity has been an essential part of Assyrian identity and
has helped preserve it to the present day despite endless persecutions and
massacres, which have reduced the present-day Assyrians into dwindling
minorities in their home countries."
-National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire
and Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times, Professor Simo Parpola, (University of Helsinki)

"Evidence for the Achaemenid period in Assyria has been gathered together by a number of scholars (Moorey 1980a: 131; 1980b: 186; Oates, J., 1991: 189-93; Kuhrt 1990: 186; 1995a; Simpson 1990: 130-131; Simpson in Baird et al. 1995: 142-3; Curtis 1997: 14-16), but the picture is still obscure...Remains of the Achaemenid period have been identified at several of the sites excavated in this project, in the upper Tigris valley to the north-west of Mosul but still within the Assyrian heartland. The most significant of these is Kharabeh Shattani. Following a 2m x 2m sondage conducted there by myself in 1983, the University of Edinburgh excavated in 1983 and 1984 (Baird, Campbell and Watkins 1995). The site is principally of the Halaf period, but from disturbed surface deposits and pits dug into the Halaf levels a collection of pottery was recovered that has been identified as belonging to the Achaemenid period (J. Goodwin and St J. Simpson in Baird et al. 1995: 91-146)...The most convincing case for an Achaemenid date can be made, to my mind, for 4 bowls or beakers (ibid figs.36/9-10, 37/1,5), which, as St John Simpson has pointed out (ibid.:143), find parallels in Achaemenid levels at sites such as Susa and Pasargadae. They are a development of the Assyrian carinated form, and although with flared rims the shoulders are gently rounded."
-The Achaemenid Period in Northern Iraq, John Curtis, (Paris, Collège de France)

EliasAlucard
2012-02-03, 17:33
The theory is bullshit.

It was trashed recently in a genetic study...


Y-DNA evidence argues against Indo-European expansion into Europe from Armenia (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/y-dna-evidence-argues-against-indo.html)It's not even a "theory"; it's an unverified hypothesis and has no real substantial scientific evidence to even reach the first stage of a scientific theory.


Armenians are not Semitic.It's not a matter of whether Armenians are Semitic or not; the question is if they are Indo-Europeans (as they happen to speak an Indo-European language), and that, they aren't. One of the most important reasons why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans, is simply because they have very little if any direct ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans, and we know this because we can compare Armenians with Poles and Lithuanians, and the similarity between Armenians and Baltic folks, isn't all that high (from an intra-European perspective, of course; Armenians and Assyrians have a high similarity with Europeans if looked at from a global, interracial perspective). Armenians have a much higher similarity with not only Assyrians but also with Jews and Iraqis and Lebanese and so on.

This is not exactly chocking news; anthropologists and typologists of yore observed this like over hundred years ago.

And that's why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans. Whether Armenians are Semites, Hurro-Urartians, Hattians or whatever else, isn't really all that important to me. But they're not an Indo-European people in the genetic sense.


They have some Semitic genes but classifying them as Semitic is bullshit.I don't think you even know what "Semitic genes" is, so you're the one talking bullshit here.


It's just that they happen to be close to Assyrians genetically.Yeah, for no reason whatsoever. G-d forbid they could have actual Semitic ancestry!


And according to Elias' logic, everything similar to Assyrians is Semitic and Assyrian.Most definitely, as we Assyrians are the best preserved core of the original proto-Semites.


The fact that the Semitic Assyrians show more similarity to their non-Semitic neighbours instead of their Semitic brothers doesn't matter to him.It does matter to me a lot actually, but unlike you, I understand what this means: it doesn't mean Assyrians aren't Semites; it means western Anatolians are NOT "Turks", and it also means Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.

That's not to say Assyrians are entirely and solely descended from the proto-Semites; we aren't. But it's actually Assyrians who constitute the purest descendants of the proto-Semites, and it's the ethnic Arabs and pseudo-Arabs who have less Semitic ancestry than us.

I could go into detail with scientific observations why this is so, but it's not like you'd understand what I'm talking about anyway. After all, you have an ideological pan-Turanist world-view, and so you can't really grasp intricate and objective concepts like this.


I even remember Elias ones saying that Greeks are Assyrians and therefore Semitic too. :rolleyes:Since you "remember" this, please show me where I said this? I don't think I've ever said Greeks are Semites (they aren't). What I told ageladakos after he pointed out how much I resemble his Greek childhood friends, was that Greeks are Mediterraneans who—unlike Assyrians—mixed with descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Assyrians = the purest Mediterraneans you can find, of non-Indo-European, non-Negroid, non-Mongoloid stock.


Nah, PBachman is a idiot but Elias isn't very objective either.Between me, you and PBachman, I'm the only one who's objective, and I'm the only one who has read academic literature about the proto-Indo-Europeans.

When you've read the following books, and actually understood them, that's when I may take you seriously:

1) In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth (http://books.google.com/books?id=VfChQgAACAAJ&dq=isbn:0500276161)

2) The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&dq=isbn:069114818X) (official homepage (http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8488.html))

3) Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science (http://books.google.com/books?id=idTPDI6l0mkC&dq=isbn:0226028607)

^^ You cannot logically and scientifically, support the Armenian hypothesis after reading these books (especially Mallory's). And if you have any knowledge of genome-wide population genetics, you can also not argue that modern Armenians are in any way of significant Indo-European stock.


For example, the component associated with Semtics is the 'Southwest Asian' component. Armenians have around 10-15% of this and Assyrians have about 5-10% more. So going by their SWA admixture, they are not Semitic, definitely not.That's not the "Semtic" component. The majority of the Assyrian genome is actually the Semitic component, and this 10-18% percent of the Assyrian genome is simply shared with Palestinians and other Semitic speakers.

It's also not admixture. The reason why it's slightly higher in Assyrians than it is in Armenians and western Anatolians, isn't because Armenians have less Semitic admixture, or that Assyrians have recent Arab ancestry or anything like that. The reason why it's slightly higher in Assyrians, is precisely because Assyrians are the proto-Semites, and it's from our genepool the other Semitic speakers of the Fertile Crescent and Arabia are descended.

In fact, if you look at for example Somalis, their Caucasoid component matches best with Bedouins, but it's more European than that of the Bedouins (that's what MacDonald told Bandar Qasim), and that points us to the Fertile Crescent.


The other 'genes' they have in common is the West Asian component (peaks in North Caucasians) and Med (peaks in Southern Europe). So Armenians can not be classified as Semitic unless Elias wants to claim that West Asian/Caucasus and Med admixture is also Semitic in origin. And this would mean that the entire West Asia/Caucasus region is Semitic while the Arabs are non-Semitics.Ethnic Arabs (from the Peninsula) don't have much Semitic ancestry. They've also washed out their Semitic ancestry by mixing with black slaves, Cushites, and whatnot.

As for the Kartvelians and other Caucasus folks, they have common ancestry with Assyrians. You see, proto-Kartvelian, proto-Semitic, proto-Elamite, proto-Sumerian and even proto-Indo-European, are all related languages in the sense that they are derived from the same proto-Europid genepool. Languages evolve and diversify faster than races do. And that's why we have for example three different language families in the Negroid race (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan), and several different language families in the Mongoloid race, and so on. It's no different with the Caucasoid race; here as well, we have different language families, and Armenians really don't have much ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. I am telling you this with a high degree of scientific accuracy.


If anything, Assyrians are non-Semitic.Oh you're just butthurt because you're not actually of Turkic race. The genetic fact that you're not really of the Turco-Mongolic race, doesn't mean we Assyrians aren't Semites.

Wickedgirl
2012-02-03, 17:57
I don't even need to see any genetics results to tell me that Armenians aren't Europeans.

That being said, the Kurgan hypothesis is a lot more sound. The PIE people's original homeland was probably around the steppes of modern Ukraine and spread out from there.

pakistani
2012-02-03, 18:02
I have a question, why are indo europeans even so important? what did they exactly (civilization) wise? nothing. so who really cares where they came from.

The Egyptians, Mesopotamian and people of Indus were far more superior

annihilus
2012-02-03, 18:10
I want to vote PIE urheimat was in Anatolia but Armenia isn't in Anatolia.

Silesian
2012-02-03, 18:15
I have a question, why are indo europeans even so important? what did they exactly (civilization) wise? nothing. so who really cares where they came from.

The Egyptians, Mesopotamian and people of Indus were far more superior

You post your phenotype as "Iranid", and you come from a land northwest of the 5 waters[5 rivers]?

Your history is different, you may have more in common than you think.

Mosov
2012-02-03, 18:29
Mosov:
No Assyrian wants to be Armenian. Why the hell would we want to be part of you? We regard you as our friends and even brothers. And no the Maronites do not want to be Armenian either, idiot.

Well your agenda tells a different story. What do you say to the genetic study I showed you which concluded that there is substantial genetic difference between Armenians of Armenia and Assyrians of Armenia? That should say a lot.

As for what are Armenians. We are an Indo-European speaking people with our ancestral homeland in the Armenian highland which encompasses Eastern Anatolia and South Caucasus. I guess you could say we are a Caucasian/Anatolian mix.

Pot-Kettle
2012-02-03, 18:34
I have a question, why are indo europeans even so important? what did they exactly (civilization) wise? nothing. so who really cares where they came from.

The Egyptians, Mesopotamian and people of Indus were far more superior


It's just historically interesting. With genetic testing old and outdated theories are taking the brunt of new research.

I'm not sure your second statement even makes sense.

Silesian
2012-02-03, 18:38
Armenians are not Semitic. They have some Semitic genes but classifying them as Semitic is bullshit. It's just that they happen to be close to Assyrians genetically. And according to Elias' logic, everything similar to Assyrians is Semitic and Assyrian. The fact that the Semitic Assyrians show more similarity to their non-Semitic neighbours instead of their Semitic brothers doesn't matter to him. I even remember Elias ones saying that Greeks are Assyrians and therefore Semitic too. :rolleyes:

It is true that L412/L51 is downstream of r-m269 and not found in Armenia, however the upstream marker, r-m269 is what is of interest.

R1b1a2 (2011 name) is defined by the presence of SNP marker M269. European R1b is dominated by R-M269. It has been found at generally low frequencies throughout central Eurasia,[22] but with relatively high frequency among Bashkirs of the Perm Region (84.0%).[3] This marker is also present in China and India at frequencies of less than one percent. The table below lists in more detail the frequencies of M269 in various regions in Asia, Europe, and Africa.

About 110+/- million males carry the r-m269 marker, the same marker as many Armenians.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=yresults

There are also other very uncommon snp marker's of interest. Which are shared by populations, of Europe and Transcaucasia.

PBachman
2012-02-03, 18:43
As for the Kartvelians and other Caucasus folks, they have common ancestry with Assyrians. You see, proto-Kartvelian, proto-Semitic, proto-Elamite, proto-Sumerian and even proto-Indo-European, are all related languages in the sense that they are derived from the same proto-Europid genepool. Languages evolve and diversify faster than races do. And that's why we have for example three different language families in the Negroid race (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan), and several different language families in the Mongoloid race, and so on. It's no different with the Caucasoid race; here as well, we have different language families, and Armenians really don't have much ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. I am telling you this with a high degree of scientific accuracy.


EA you distort everything, it is not even funny. Please, first figure out where Hurrian and Hittites fit into the picture than start your theories. The Hittites would not cluster with Northern and Western Europeans and they are the oldest IE speaking civilizations. Based on your logic, would that mean that they are not Proto-Indo European, right? Right, but incidentally they are the oldest speakers of the language and they are placed almost 1000 years before any Kurgen or Indo-Iranian hypothesis. Eventually, the amalgam of Hittite-Hurrian-Phrygian lead to Armenian ethno-genesis. However, even this is inaccurate as the earliest recorded word "Armenian" is on a trilingual tablet written in 6th century BC that refers to Armenians as "People of Urartu". You can't separate Armenian from Hurrian and Hittite civilizations. They are the cultural and genetic equals of these populations; not Assyrians.

Stop trying to steal Armenian history and put a Assyrian stamp on it because that is a lie. Hurrians and Hittites opposed Assyrians. They formed treaties and took each others culture. Eventually, when the Hittites moved East (pushed inland by the arrival of the Greek-Phrygians) they were absorbed by the various Hurrian populations. Armenian essentially are Hurrian-Hittite hybrids that took the IE language, as at that time the new arrivals also spoke a similar language and most likely had similar cultural elements. Armenians have never been a "semitic speaking population that took a IE language". This is blatant lied fabricated by you. Assyrian ethno-genesis had already occurred by this time. Any genetic overlap could be a result of population absorption by an Assyrian expansion. This does not mean Assyrians and Armenians are one in the same, it just means that Assyrians are acculturated Armenians (if anything!).

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 18:50 ----------


I don't even need to see any genetics results to tell me that Armenians aren't Europeans.

That being said, the Kurgan hypothesis is a lot more sound. The PIE people's original homeland was probably around the steppes of modern Ukraine and spread out from there.

Yeah, this is the same type of thinking that leads to people rejecting the theory. It is not based on any substantial academic evidence, as the Kurgen and Indo-Iranian theory has many holes the most substantial being the Hittite Civilization predating even the Proto-IE speakers of these theories. Rather, some folks can't muster the courage to accept the very obvious truth that the IE homeland or the populations that the culture originates from were not these blonde haired and blue eyed supermen. Rather, they were mostly Armenian looking (Hittite-Hurrian hybrid).

Most likely...what did happen is that the IE culture is actually Anatolian. It spread to these regions that did not have an original IE culture and language. There is mostly two homelands; one culture that spread the language and culture and another that the language and culture originates from.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 18:55 ----------

http://www.touregypt.net/images/touregypt/hittite1.jpg

http://www.artfromancientlands.com/images/HittiteReliefLO635.jpg

http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/hsfep63.jpg

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3146/3100408082_c9526a6846.jpg

http://blogs.nyu.edu/blogs/hg26/amnhphotographs/Hittite%20Goddess%20cropped.jpg

http://nelc.uchicago.edu/sites/nelc.uchicago.edu/files/hittite.jpg

These folks were bleeding Armenians. It is evident by the nose, large ears, broad foreheads, and in general large heads. The last picture is a clearly the face of an Armenian looking person. Where is the "nordic superman" here or the "Semitic Assyrian"? Come on, cut the bullshit.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 19:02 ----------


I have a question, why are indo europeans even so important? what did they exactly (civilization) wise? nothing. so who really cares where they came from.

The Egyptians, Mesopotamian and people of Indus were far more superior

Yeah, people from "mesopotamia were superior", but they just recycled the Hurrian-Hittite culture of the region and claimed it as their own. The Sumarians are the population that put Mesopotamia on the map, but they were not from this region. They were from the north, from the Armenian Highlands. They were most likely of Hurrian or IE speaking stock.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 19:12 ----------

By the way, I like how EA titles the thread. It is so ridiculous. Even here he is misleading folks.

Ashina
2012-02-03, 19:13
It's not a matter of whether Armenians are Semitic or not; the question is if they are Indo-Europeans (as they happen to speak an Indo-European language), and that, they aren't. One of the most important reasons why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans, is simply because they have very little if any direct ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans, and we know this because we can compare Armenians with Poles and Lithuanians, and the similarity between Armenians and Baltic folks, isn't all that high (from an intra-European perspective, of course; Armenians and Assyrians have a high similarity with Europeans if looked at from a global, interracial perspective). Armenians have a much higher similarity with not only Assyrians but also with Jews and Iraqis and Lebanese and so on.


Actually it does matter since I never said that Armenians are Indo-European genetically (whatever that means). Instead, I said that Armenians aren’t Semitic genetically while you claimed that they were. Which is why I responded to you in the first place. Besides, Armenians show more similarity to Turks and other West Asian folk than to Levantines and Assyrians.


And that's why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans. Whether Armenians are Semites, Hurro-Urartians, Hattians or whatever else, isn't really all that important to me. But they're not an Indo-European people in the genetic sense.

So just because they are not Indo-European genetically, it gives you the right to label them as Semitic? Again, that was what you were doing.


I don't think you even know what "Semitic genes" is, so you're the one talking bullshit here.

I said, genes associated with Semitics. It’s a fact that Southwest Asian admixture is associated with Semitic peoples.


Yeah, for no reason whatsoever. G-d forbid they could have actual Semitic ancestry!

Idiot. I said that Armenians probably do have Semitic ancestry but not enough to label them as Semitics. Also, Assyrians show high similarity with their non-Semitic neighbours. More than Armenians do with Semitic peoples.


Most definitely, as we Assyrians are the best preserved core of the original proto-Semites.

Hahahaha. Oh, please. So since you Assyrians are the original proto-Semitis, this must mean that all the people in West Asia must have shitloads of Semitic ancestry considering that you are the original proto-Semitis. Idiot. You Assyrians are probably the only Semitic people who show some real similarity to the peoples in West Asia. The only logical thing to assume is that Assyrians have non-Semitic West Asian ancestry rather than West Asian peoples having Semitic ancestry.

You guys are mixed. Look at your Y-DNA’s, your mtDNA’s and your autosomal DNA. You are anything but original. The fact that you were surrounded by muslims the last thousand years and that you guys didn’t had the chance to mix much outside of your own group doesn’t mean that you guys are pure.


It does matter to me a lot actually, but unlike you, I understand what this means: it doesn't mean Assyrians aren't Semites; it means western Anatolians are NOT "Turks", and it also means Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.

What? Did I claim that Western Anatolian peoples are 100% Turkic genetically? Did I say that they are Indo-European genetically? No, I said that Eastern Anatolian people like Armenians aren’t Semitic. Which is true.


That's not to say Assyrians are entirely and solely descended from the proto-Semites; we aren't. But it's actually Assyrians who constitute the purest descendants of the proto-Semites, and it's the ethnic Arabs and pseudo-Arabs who have less Semitic ancestry than us.

Hahahahahahahahahaha. No, seriously, HAHAHA. And we Turks are 100% Turkic in ancestry. We don’t have any, any other ancestry than Turkic. Central Asian Turks are just a bunch of Turkified Mongolians, Chinese and Iranians. I say it so it must be true.

Ok, now for real. Can you please point out what exactly ‘Semitic’ ancestry is? Which Y-DNA? Which autosomal component?


I could go into detail with scientific observations why this is so, but it's not like you'd understand what I'm talking about anyway. After all, you have an ideological pan-Turanist world-view, and so you can't really grasp intricate and objective concepts like this.

I have read your so called scientific bullshit lots of times. But they are nothing more than a Assyrian fantasy. If I had to trust amateur-science, then I would rather read observations about Assyrian made by more objective users like Humanist and Birko. Not saying that everything they write is true, but what they write makes more sence than your idiotic claims. That’s for sure.


Since you "remember" this, please show me where I said this? I don't think I've ever said Greeks are Semites (they aren't). What I told ageladakos after he pointed out how much I resemble his Greek childhood friends, was that Greeks are Mediterraneans who—unlike Assyrians—mixed with descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Assyrians = the purest Mediterraneans you can find, of non-Indo-European, non-Negroid, non-Mongoloid stock.

I think I read it on ageledakos his wall. I don’t have acces to it right now so why don’t you go check it yourself? I am pretty sure that you claimed that Greeks were Assyrians with little bit of Indo-European ancestry.


Between me, you and PBachman, I'm the only one who's objective, and I'm the only one who has read academic literature about the proto-Indo-Europeans.

When you've read the following books, and actually understood them, that's when I may take you seriously:

1) In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth

2) The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (official homepage)

3) Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science

^^ You cannot logically and scientifically, support the Armenian hypothesis after reading these books (especially Mallory's). And if you have any knowledge of genome-wide population genetics, you can also not argue that modern Armenians are in any way of significant Indo-European stock.

Blablablablablabal. I have never said that Armenians have Indo-European ancestry only. I said that they aren’t Semitic. Being non-Semitic doesn’t mean that you are pure Indo-European.


That's not the "Semtic" component. The majority of the Assyrian genome is actually the Semitic component, and this 10-18% percent of the Assyrian genome is simply shared with Palestinians and other Semitic speakers.

That’s the component associated with Semitics. The people with the most Southwest Asian admixture in the West Asian region are the Semitic Assyrians, the people with the most Southwest Asian admixture in Europe are the Semitic Jews and the people with the most Southwest Asian admixture in the Middle East are the Arabs. So obviously, there is a link between Semitic peoples and Southwest Asian admixture. To me, and to most objective people, it’s obvious that Southwest Asian admixture is associated with Semitic peoples.


It's also not admixture. The reason why it's slightly higher in Assyrians than it is in Armenians and western Anatolians, isn't because Armenians have less Semitic admixture, or that Assyrians have recent Arab ancestry or anything like that. The reason why it's slightly higher in Assyrians, is precisely because Assyrians are the proto-Semites, and it's from our genepool the other Semitic speakers of the Fertile Crescent and Arabia are descended.

So now you do agree that Southwest Asian admixture is Semitic?


Ethnic Arabs (from the Peninsula) don't have much Semitic ancestry. They've also washed out their Semitic ancestry by mixing with black slaves, Cushites, and whatnot.

No, you Assyrians have washed out your Semitic ancestry by mixing with West Asian peoples.

As for the Kartvelians and other Caucasus folks, they have common ancestry with Assyrians. You see, proto-Kartvelian, proto-Semitic, proto-Elamite, proto-Sumerian and even proto-Indo-European, are all related languages in the sense that they are derived from the same proto-Europid genepool. Languages evolve and diversify faster than races do. And that's why we have for example three different language families in the Negroid race (Niger-Congo, Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan), and several different language families in the Mongoloid race, and so on. It's no different with the Caucasoid race; here as well, we have different language families, and Armenians really don't have much ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. I am telling you this with a high degree of scientific accuracy.

You are contradicting yourself. If the Caucasus folks, despite speaking a different language than Assyrians and showing genetic similarity to Assyrians, can consider themselves non-Semitic and non-Indo-European (the Kartvalian language family is not the only language family in the Caucasus), then why can’t Armenians do the same? If all these people share the same DNA and have the same origin, then why are you discussing that Armenians aren’t genetically Indo-European? Like I said, if Assyrians are the proto-Semitics, then all the people in West Asia have more Semitic ancestry than Jews and Arabs.

Another thing, show me how these language families have common origin. Not the peoples but the language families. I want to see actual scientific studies.


I don't even need to see any genetics results to tell me that Armenians aren't Europeans.

That being said, the Kurgan hypothesis is a lot more sound. The PIE people's original homeland was probably around the steppes of modern Ukraine and spread out from there.

The discussion is not about Armenians being European, it’s about them being Indo-European (or not). Indo-European is a language family. Pakistani’s, Afghans, Iranians and Indians are Indo-European but not European. Basques, Finns and Estonians are European but not Indo-European. Armenians claim that the original Indo-Europeans originated in todays Armenia and so that they are the proto-Indo-Europeans. They do not claim that they are Europeans (or actually, they do but not in this discussion at least).

EliasAlucard
2012-02-03, 19:44
All speakers of IE have ancestors outside speakers of proto-indoeuropean. Some probably more than others though. What seems to be the problem here?The problem here is that it is possible to objectively measure which groups have more or less Indo-European ancestry, and to the disappointment of Armenian Aryanists, Armenians are not one of the groups that have most Indo-European ancestry. In fact, Armenians are of all Caucasoids, objectively one of the ethnic groups with least Indo-European ancestry, both on an autosomal level and Y-chromosomal for that matter.


I think you cannot derive any European IE languages from one modern IE language.Yes, but you cannot reconstruct proto-Indo-European from the modern Armenian language, as it only contains around 450-500 direct words from proto-Indo-European.

You can reconstruct proto-Indo-European from the European IE languages however, as they contain lots of PIE words. And that's one of the reasons why Europe is a better candidate of proto-Indo-European than Armenia.


They are derived from proto-indoeuropean.Proto-Indo-European doesn't exist. Reconstructed proto-Indo-European is not a real historical language.


Yes that north European component which peaks in north Euros. Yes also those north Euros have shitloads of ancestors outside them proto-indoeuropean speakers. Likely this component at least in part is made from stuff from speakers of palaeo-european for example.Let me guess: you think the proto-Uralics are this "palaeo-european" group, right? If that's your opinion, it's not the case.

Yes, there is non-Indo-European ancestry in modern Europeans (both south and north), but these groups aren't really Uralics of any kind. In the Balkans, we can see traces of the non-Indo-European ethnic groups that inhabited the neighbouring non-IE Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, and they were probably at least partially, Y-DNA I2 males. Other than that, there's other non-IE ancestry in modern Europeans, such as that of the Etruscans and probably a fair share of Basque ancestry in Western Europe.


My my, so many different languages, all of the same race naturally. This time.Most certainly. Here's a fact for you to contemplate and challenge your Uralic world-view:


“DNA scientists class the Finns as Indo-Europeans, or descendants of western genetic stock. But because "Indo-European" is a term borrowed from linguistics, it is misleading in the broader context of bioanthropology. DNA scientists work within a time frame of tens of thousands of years, whereas the evolution of Indo-European languages, as indeed of all European language groups, is confined to a much briefer time span. DNA scientists nevertheless postulate that the Finno-Ugric population absorbed an influx of migrating Indo-European farming communities ("Indo-European" both genetically and, by that stage, also in the language they spoke). The newcomers altered the original genetic makeup of the Finno-Ugric population, but nevertheless adopted their language. This, in a nutshell, explains the origin of the Finns, according to the DNA scientists. The Samis, however, are a much older population in the opinion of DNA scientists, and their origin has yet to be established conclusively.”
http://sydaby.eget.net/swe/jp_finns.htm

And:


Similarly, studies of mtDNA have identified large genetic distances between the Saami and other Europeans, including the Finns (Sajantila and Pääbo 1995; Sajantila et al. 1995). Likewise, Lahermo et al. (1996) found no overlap between Saami and the remaining European mtDNA patterns and concluded that the Saami and the Finns must have different genetic histories. One alternative hypothesis to explain the presence of genetic differences and language similarities in the Finns and the Saami involves a language shift by the Finns from Indo-European to Finno-Ugric (Sajantila and Pääbo 1995).
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181943

^^ Ask yourself why the north European component on Dodecad is almost as high in Finns as it is in Lithuanians. It makes so much sense.

And it's also very true that languages evolve faster than ethnic groups. So that's why it's possible to find several language families in one race (especially in ancient times; language replacement has decreased the diversity of language families).


Do you consider Indo-European to be a intrusive language in places like Scandinavia, west Europe?Yes, most definitely, especially western Europe. And that's also why the French and Spaniards have a lower frequency of the "north European" component than Scandinavians have. Basically, the further west and south you go in Europe (especially south), the less Indo-European ancestry. This was noted by Gimbutas:


“The term Old Europe is applied to a pre-Indo-European culture of Europe, a culture matrifocal and probably matrilinear, agricultural and sedentary, egalitarian and peaceful. It contrasted sharply with the ensuing Proto-Indo-European culture which was patriarchal, stratified, pastoral, mobile, and war-oriented, superimposed on all Europe, except the southern and western fringes, in the course of three waves of infiltration from the Russian steppes, between 4500 and 2500 BC. During and after this period the female deities, or more accurately the Goddess Creatrix in her many aspects, were largely replaced by the predominantly male divinities of the Indo-Europeans. What developed after c. 2500 BC was a melange of the two mythic systems, Old European and Indo-European.” — Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess, 1989a, cited in Aryan Idols, p. 289, ISBN 0226028607 (http://books.google.com/books?id=idTPDI6l0mkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0226028607)

And it correlates perfectly with R-M17:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.jpg


You think it is fair to compare General Butt Naked to Armenians?Yes. The parallel here is that Armenians speak Indo-European today, mostly as a result of language shift; not because of descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans. And the same is true of General Butt Naked.

I'm not insinuating that Armenians are as genetically different from the proto-Indo-Europeans as General Butt Naked is. But the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to Armenia in very much the same way as English spread to Liberia.


Armenians have spoken Indo-European thousands of years.Doesn't matter as it is descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in Armenians (or lack thereof) that's up for discussion. And Armenians have only spoken an Indo-European language somewhere around 2,500 years. The proto-Indo-European era was somewhere around 2,500 to 4,500 BC. This effectively disqualifies Armenians as the original proto-Indo-Europeans.


You don't think that is a bit anti-intellectual?No. It's very intellectual actually.


Armenian ethnicity has existed for thousand of years.This ethnicity didn't always speak Indo-European.


Armenian is a Indo-European language.It's an Indo-European language only in the most superficial sense. Armenian contains lots of Iranian vocabulary, Greek vocabulary, Iranian grammar, even a Syriac substratum. In fact, Armenian is so similar to Indo-Iranian languages that linguists for a long time thought of Armenian as just another Iranian language, and not an isolate in Indo-European.

And that's why Armenian also has so few distinctively proto-Armenian words directly inherited from proto-Indo-European.


You are saying they are Assyrians.No. The genetic tests are saying Armenians have a very high genetic similarity with Assyrians.

So that begs the question: if Armenians are genetically Indo-European, then Assyrians must by proxy be Indo-Europeans too, right? But that's not correct. The truth is, Assyrians are the closest modern ethnic group you can find that corresponds to the original proto-Semites (and proto-Afro-Asiatics), and Armenians' high genetic similarity with Assyrians is simply the result of Armenians being a south Caucasus people, and as a result of that, Armenians by geography, have a high genetic similarity with Assyrians, and therefore Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. Do Armenians have proto-Semitic ancestry? Most probably, and lots of it too, as can be seen by their Y-DNA J1 and R1b frequencies.


I want to vote PIE urheimat was in Anatolia but Armenia isn't in Anatolia.Fixed.

//mod

takoja
2012-02-03, 20:38
Let me guess: you think the proto-Uralics are this "palaeo-european" group, right? If that's your opinion, it's not the case.


Dear Elias. I have noticed for some time now, that you have the constant habit of twisting peoples words. Please don't do it anymore. It annoys me with no end.

pakistani
2012-02-03, 21:02
You post your phenotype as "Iranid", and you come from a land northwest of the 5 waters[5 rivers]?

Your history is different, you may have more in common than you think.

True, I am from Chitral in pakistan, where the kalash people are from. My point was people should stop obsessing about them, all I see is people fighting each other on these forums when ever they talk about indo europeans or indo aryans for that matter

takoja
2012-02-03, 21:10
T
^^ Ask yourself why the north European component on Dodecad is almost as high in Finns as it is in Lithuanians. It makes so much sense.

And it's also very true that languages evolve faster than ethnic groups. So that's why it's possible to find several language families in one race (especially in ancient times; language replacement has decreased the diversity of language families).

Yes, most definitely, especially western Europe. And that's also why the French and Spaniards have a lower frequency of the "north European" component than Scandinavians have. Basically, the further west and south you go in Europe (especially south), the less Indo-European ancestry. This was noted by Gimbutas:


“The term Old Europe is applied to a pre-Indo-European culture of Europe, a culture matrifocal and probably matrilinear, agricultural and sedentary, egalitarian and peaceful. It contrasted sharply with the ensuing Proto-Indo-European culture which was patriarchal, stratified, pastoral, mobile, and war-oriented, superimposed on all Europe, except the southern and western fringes, in the course of three waves of infiltration from the Russian steppes, between 4500 and 2500 BC. During and after this period the female deities, or more accurately the Goddess Creatrix in her many aspects, were largely replaced by the predominantly male divinities of the Indo-Europeans. What developed after c. 2500 BC was a melange of the two mythic systems, Old European and Indo-European.” — Marija Gimbutas, The Language of the Goddess, 1989a, cited in Aryan Idols, p. 289, ISBN 0226028607 (http://books.google.com/books?id=idTPDI6l0mkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=isbn:0226028607)

And it correlates perfectly with R-M17:

http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/9681/ydnar1a1a.jpg

Yes. The parallel here is that Armenians speak Indo-European today, mostly as a result of language shift; not because of descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans. And the same is true of General Butt Naked.

I'm not insinuating that Armenians are as genetically different from the proto-Indo-Europeans as General Butt Naked is. But the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to Armenia in very much the same way as English spread to Liberia.

Doesn't matter as it is descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in Armenians (or lack thereof) that's up for discussion. And Armenians have only spoken an Indo-European language somewhere around 2,500 years. The proto-Indo-European era was somewhere around 2,500 to 4,500 BC. This effectively disqualifies Armenians as the original proto-Indo-Europeans.

No. It's very intellectual actually.

This ethnicity didn't always speak Indo-European.

It's an Indo-European language only in the most superficial sense. Armenian contains lots of Iranian vocabulary, Greek vocabulary, Iranian grammar, even a Syriac substratum. In fact, Armenian is so similar to Indo-Iranian languages that linguists for a long time thought of Armenian as just another Iranian language, and not an isolate in Indo-European.

And that's why Armenian also has so few distinctively proto-Armenian words directly inherited from proto-Indo-European.

No. The genetic tests are saying Armenians have a very high genetic similarity with Assyrians.

So that begs the question: if Armenians are genetically Indo-European, then Assyrians must by proxy be Indo-Europeans too, right? But that's not correct. The truth is, Assyrians are the closest modern ethnic group you can find that corresponds to the original proto-Semites (and proto-Afro-Asiatics), and Armenians' high genetic similarity with Assyrians is simply the result of Armenians being a south Caucasus people, and as a result of that, Armenians by geography, have a high genetic similarity with Assyrians, and therefore Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. Do Armenians have proto-Semitic ancestry? Most probably, and lots of it too, as can be seen by their Y-DNA J1 and R1b frequencies.

Fixed.

//mod

Lol. Anyway just noticed. As this North Euro is the mythical proto-Indoeuropean component, Finns 'the Uralics' and Lithuanians, the nation with most N1c1 after Finns are the most Indo-European peoples in the world!

Suck on that Indo-Europeans :eek:

elone
2012-02-03, 21:10
who gives a fuck?

takoja
2012-02-03, 21:17
Lol. Anyway just noticed. As this North Euro is the mythical proto-Indoeuropean component, Finns 'the Uralics' and Lithuanians, the nation with most N1c1 after Finns are the most Indo-European peoples in the world!

Suck on that Indo-Europeans :eek:

LOL I just told myself to suck myself! :lol:

annihilus
2012-02-03, 21:22
Fixed.

Thanks but shouldn't the option be "No, the PIE urheimat was in anatolia"?

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 02:07
Well your agenda tells a different story. What do you say to the genetic study I showed you which concluded that there is substantial genetic difference between Armenians of Armenia and Assyrians of Armenia? That should say a lot.

As for what are Armenians. We are an Indo-European speaking people with our ancestral homeland in the Armenian highland which encompasses Eastern Anatolia and South Caucasus. I guess you could say we are a Caucasian/Anatolian mix.

To be honest I don't give a shit.

We are apparently closest to each other in genetics. If not, who are we closest to?

Jaska
2012-02-04, 04:29
EA you distort everything, it is not even funny. Please, first figure out where Hurrian and Hittites fit into the picture than start your theories. The Hittites would not cluster with Northern and Western Europeans and they are the oldest IE speaking civilizations. Based on your logic, would that mean that they are not Proto-Indo European, right? Right, but incidentally they are the oldest speakers of the language and they are placed almost 1000 years before any Kurgen or Indo-Iranian hypothesis.
It is “Kurgan”. It means a mound-grave, tumulus, and is of Turkic origin.
There are different levels: genes and language. Linguistically the Hittites are of course Indo-European (just like Armenians). Genetically they most probably are not similar to Proto-Indo-Europeans, because:

1. They do not live in the area which is the best argued area of the Proto-Indo-European speakers (Ukraine).
2. They moved to the area full of non-IE peoples.
3. Their language has a strong substrate from those non-IE languages, which points to a very strong genetic influence, too.
4. When the genes of the PIE speakers are reached by comparing the genes of modern Indo-European peoples, Europeans and Indians have more common than they have with the Armenians or descendants of the Hittites (both autosomally and Y-chromosomally, see the messages of Elias).

And the same applies to the Armenians.
There just happens to be nil evidence for the Armenians being genetically close to the Proto-Indo-European speakers. Why can’t you accept this fact?



Being non-Semitic doesn’t mean that you are pure Indo-European.
Good point. There were many since lost language families and genetic stocks before the expansion of the modern wide-spread language families.


P.S. Takoja, what are you drinking? I want the same... :lol:

PBachman
2012-02-04, 05:48
It is “Kurgan”. It means a mound-grave, tumulus, and is of Turkic origin.
There are different levels: genes and language. Linguistically the Hittites are of course Indo-European (just like Armenians). Genetically they most probably are not similar to Proto-Indo-Europeans, because:

1. They do not live in the area which is the best argued area of the Proto-Indo-European speakers (Ukraine).
2. They moved to the area full of non-IE peoples.
3. Their language has a strong substrate from those non-IE languages, which points to a very strong genetic influence, too.
4. When the genes of the PIE speakers are reached by comparing the genes of modern Indo-European peoples, Europeans and Indians have more common than they have with the Armenians or descendants of the Hittites (both autosomally and Y-chromosomally, see the messages of Elias).

And the same applies to the Armenians.
There just happens to be nil evidence for the Armenians being genetically close to the Proto-Indo-European speakers. Why can’t you accept this fact?

First, I don't accept it because there are problems with the dates, the level of technology, vocabulary, and etc. that just does not add up with any hypothesis other than the Anatolian-Armenian hypothesis.

How can you be nomadic horseman spreading across continents ever since 4,000 BC when the chariot and the spoked wheel was not developed until 2500 BC. Furthermore, if there was a wave from Ukraine, wouldn't you think that these populations in Europe would have an earlier date of an equestrian tradition? Clearly, they would, but the first evidence of horse domestication in Europe is around 1800 BC.

Also, Krel's argument is a strong one in that:

"According to Krell (1998), Gimbutas' homeland theory is completely incompatible with the linguistic evidence. Krell compiles lists of items of flora, fauna, economy, and technology that archaeology has accounted for in the Kurgan culture and compares it with lists of the same categories as reconstructed by traditional historical-Indo-European linguistics. Krell finds major discrepancies between the two, and underlines the fact that we cannot presume that the reconstructed term for 'horse', for example, referred to the domesticated equid in the protoperiod just because it did in later times. It could originally have referred to a wild equid, a possibility that would "undermine the mainstay of Gimbutas's arguments that the Kurgan culture first domesticated the horse and used this new technology to spread to surrounding areas,"

And

"Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
Krell (1998), "Gimbutas' Kurgans-PIE homeland hypothesis: a linguistic critique", points out that the Proto-Indo-European had an agricultural vocabulary and not merely a pastoral one. As for technology, there are plausible reconstructions suggesting knowledge of navigation, a technology quite atypical of Gimbutas' Kurgan society. Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data."

Second, like Krell hinted at, if you are a nomadic horseman how do you sustain civilization? You can't, unless you fully assimilate into native populations like how populations from Central Asia like Turks or Huns assimilated among the natives. The cultural links between these populations and Central Asians, today, are minuscule. Within a 1000 year period you have Turks and Huns fully assimilated into native populations. The only remnant is the language and notice, this is not the same as the IE expansion. I purposely highlight this example to show people like yourself that the Kurgen hypothesis if compared to later and more clear immigration patterns that are nomadic, clearly, the cultural legacy would not sustain a 6000 year excursion, as the original Turkic populations that penetrated into Anatolia are remotely related to populations in Central Asia, both genetically, culturally, and linguistically.

Clearly, if what you and Elias advocate then the Turks or Huns would have swallowed all populations and they would have maintained a clear Central Asian culture, genetics, and language, but we don't see that. Furthermore, the timeline does not fit as it took these populations more than a 1000 year period to make their way into these areas, as they had to first conquer every civilization in their path, colonize, and sustain. You would have to have a unique global catastrophe to accomplish this feat. What the Kurgen hypothesis is essentially claiming is that these "Kurgen supermen" conquered everyone, established civilization in the four corners of the world, and also were able to sustain themselves via farming and maintain civilization in a matter of 2000 years. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Furthermore, what about the other great civilizations? How come they don't mention this great "Kurgen riders"? Egypt has a history that stretches a few thousand years BC, where do they mention of such "Supermen"? They don't, however, who they do they mention? The Hittites. Finally, how come to the Hittites don't mention these populations? Clearly, if you had these "Kurgen superman", you would have stories written about them by populations you claim they conquered? Clearly, but you don't, as the Hittites, Hurrians, Sumarians, and etc. don't mention anything remotely related to "Kurgen Superheroes".

Essentially, it does not make any sense. If you are marauding across continents how do you sustain your civilization? Clearly, you need to have developed agriculture and domestication. The level of technology, culture, and sophistication of Proto IEs populations indicates a high level of civilization, but we just don't see with the Kurgen hypothesis. Furthermore, you would have more recorded information regarding this population, but you don't.

What you do have is a 4000 BC Kurgen culture .... 2000 BC civilization, where is the greatness in between those "dots" if you or Elias claim they exist? Well...the greatness you find in Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands. You have the Sumarians, Hurrians, Hittites, and etc....all either Proto-Hurrian or IE. You have places like Golbi Tepe. You have first winery in Armenia and first wine producing region in border areas of Armenia and Georgian. You have agriculture and yes, you even have domestication, agriculture, and etc. all in the same the same vicinity. Clearly, if any area would be the homeland of a supposed "cultural supermen" it would have to be in Anatolia to the Armenian Homeland.

Third, Elias is not advocating what you are advocating. Elias is advocating something totally different. It is one thing to argue where the IE Urheimat is it is another to claim that Assyrians and Armenians are one in the same. This is not true; it is a lie. You have to realize a few points. Armenian is what others refer to the populations of the Armenian Highland. It is a third party reference. It is a third party reference to a population in the 6th century BC. It is a reference that is in three languages. The other references refer to Armenians as "people of Urartu". Meaning, comparably, no other population, including Indians and Chinese, have an earlier designation. The Chinese, who everyone believes is thousands of years old, first unified as a population in the third century BC. Meaning, they were self-aware from this point on as being "unified", same with Indians. The Armenians on the other hand were referred to as "Armenian" almost four hundred years before the Chinese unified as a people. Meaning, the self-awareness of the Armenian population goes back much further. That is why you have Armenian oral tradition referring to the Hittite expansion into Babylonia via the story of Haik and Bel. You also see this with Ara the Handsome. These are clear oral traditions of an earlier experience by these populations of the Armenian Highlands. You also have this same pseudo-memory and history hybrid with the stories about Ara the Handsome.

Now, the plot thickens as the Assyrian ethno-genesis occurred roughly the same time of the Hittites, Hurrians, Urartu, and Mitani. Meaning, it is not possible for these populations to stem from Proto-Semites, as the the "Proto-Semites" had already established various semitic speaking populations that had travelled north into Mesopotamia. The time line he advocates and what he advocates is wrong.

If anything, Armenians were Hurrians who adopted an IE language. Hurrian is a language that was established in the Armenian Highlands, The Urartu and Mitani were Hurrians. They were neither "semites" nor did they ever speak a "semitic language". Furthermore, what he references in the Armenian language of words that are "proto semitic" could easily have been loan words via cultural contact. This clearly does not mean that Armenian is part of a "proto-semitic" language. As it would be impossible to have a language replacement like "English into Liberia" as he claims without having more stronger linguistic and cultural connection, BUT WE DON'T SEE THAT OR ANY EVIDENCE OF WHAT HE OR SHE HINTS AT THAT, as when you look at ancient Assyrian culture, language, and etc. there is nothing similar with either Hurrians and Hittites. Assyrian, Hittite, and Hurria were relatively contemporaries. At the time, the language and culture does not hint a "proto origin" like Elias claims.

What Elias is doing is taking modern genetics and trying to build a historical narrative around it. LIke I mentioned above, if indeed Armenians are not "genetically IE", whatever this means as IE is a linguistic term, then clearly, the Hittites would be the polar opposites, but we don't see. We don't see this polarity in genetics. If you were to hypothetically go back in time and test a an average Hittite, you would see that he would be genetically more closer to an Armenian than a European. Furthermore, you can see the resemblance to Armenians via their artwork and reliefs. Meaning, the first IE speaking population, who Elias claims can not be proto-IE, would not cluster with Europeans; therefore, by his logic then they are not "IE" and area only "Anatolians that adopted a IE language", but how can this be, as they are the EARLIEST evidence of an IE civilizations? They appear roughly around 2500 BC. If you factor in the migration of population, the time it takes build civilization, and etc. They would have to be in Anatolia by at least 3000 BC, but if this is the case, how come you don't find earlier civilizations between where the Hittites are (on the western tip of Anatolia) and the area of Kurgen expansion (in central Asia)? If what he or she is true then you would find ample evidence of IE civilization that predate the Hittites, but you don't. You just can't claim they fell from the sky and his or her explanation that they just are acculturated proto-IE makes absolutely no sense based on where they are in the geography, historical timeline, and etc.

Most likely, what happend is that you have an area where the IE proto culture and language originated from and you have a population that spread it. I am certain the area of origin is in Anatolia to Armenian highlands, but how it was spread is totally different story. IT could be farmers or horsemen, but I don't think it was horsemen. I believe it was a peaceful expansion.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 05:55 ----------




1. They do not live in the area which is the best argued area of the Proto-Indo-European speakers (Ukraine).

Could be argued that Kurgen location is not the area. Read my post.


2. They moved to the area full of non-IE peoples.

Please explain, I don't get your point.


3. Their language has a strong substrate from those non-IE languages, which points to a very strong genetic influence, too.

The language does not have a substrate from any Semitic language. If you are claiming Armenians are not "IE population genetically" and they adopted a foreign language, the most likely Proto-Armenian language would have to be Hurrian or Proto-Hurrian. Do you realize that it is improbable that the Proto-Armenians spoke a "Proto-Semitic" language? I hope you do. Hurrian is a language that originated in the Southern Caucasus.


4. When the genes of the PIE speakers are reached by comparing the genes of modern Indo-European peoples, Europeans and Indians have more common than they have with the Armenians or descendants of the Hittites (both autosomally and Y-chromosomally, see the messages of Elias).

And that is exactly my point, you can't extend that argument to Hittites. You are claiming that this catastrophic invasion took place, but it is not found in the history or writings of various populations of the region. Even a remote immigration of the "Sea peoples" (Greek-Phrygians expansion) is recorded among the Hittites, Egyptians, and the various contemporaries, but an even more larger expansion is not? Come one mate, you can't seem to see that the bigger picture of the Kurgen hypothesis is just not there.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 06:06 ----------


To be honest I don't give a shit.

We are apparently closest to each other in genetics. If not, who are we closest to?

A reasonable argument is:

Two waves of immigration into Mesopotamia. They could have been part of this first layer. Say you have two sets. Call one Assyrian and the other Armenian. If every set around Assyrians and Armenians is annihilated, then if you would investigate these sets they would have to be closest to each other in characteristics. Clearly, this is the case, it highlights how vastly different the genetic landscape of antiquity is to the modern age. However, to claim that Armenians and Assyrians are the same, that is wrong and a bit ridiculous. Furthermore, it is just not maintained by the historical and linguistic record.

Mosov
2012-02-04, 06:34
To be honest I don't give a shit.

We are apparently closest to each other in genetics. If not, who are we closest to?

We obviously will share genetic similarities, but saying our genetics are pretty much equal isn't accurate, and the study I showed should be a clear example of it.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 09:56
Kurgen
SumariansI just realised I wasted my time on this time PBachman character... why am I debating with this moron who thinks he knows anything about the Indo-European urheimat question, when he doesn't even know how to spell Kurgan and Sumerians properly?


We obviously will share genetic similarities, but saying our genetics are pretty much equal isn't accurate, and the study I showed should be a clear example of it.Armenians are so genetically similar to Assyrians that it's impossible to classify Armenians as Indo-Europeans. So if there ever was Indo-Europeans in Armenia, they're not there now, and they're certainly not represented by modern Armenians.

Humanist
2012-02-04, 10:01
[A]nimosity between some Assyrians and Armenians?

Yes. It is actually very sad. I know some Assyrians say they are not bothered by it, but, I think most, if not all are. I absolutely am.

Ara and Shamiram

http://www.armenian-history.com/images/epic_heroes/Ara_handsome-Shamiram.jpg

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 10:27
A reasonable argument is:

Two waves of immigration into Mesopotamia. They could have been part of this first layer. Say you have two sets. Call one Assyrian and the other Armenian. If every set around Assyrians and Armenians is annihilated, then if you would investigate these sets they would have to be closest to each other in characteristics. Clearly, this is the case, it highlights how vastly different the genetic landscape of antiquity is to the modern age. However, to claim that Armenians and Assyrians are the same, that is wrong and a bit ridiculous. Furthermore, it is just not maintained by the historical and linguistic record.

Am I saying that we are the same? I am saying that we are closest to each other in genetics, which we indeed are.



We obviously will share genetic similarities, but saying our genetics are pretty much equal isn't accurate, and the study I showed should be a clear example of it.

Once again. Have I said that our genetics are equal?

I'm aware of your kind of Armenians though. Armenians are in general divided into two fields. You two users belong to the field I do not admire. You see nothing but Armenia and the Armenian nation. Try to open your eyes instead.

Humanist
2012-02-04, 10:36
[W]ho are we [Assyrians] closest to?

Our Y-DNA and mtDNA frequencies are similar. But, many of these similarities are at least a couple of thousand years old. And, most likely, even further removed from the present. Autosomally, we are likely more similar to most of the Mizrahim Jewish populations, and perhaps the Mandaeans, than we are to Armenians. Here are the Dodecad K12b population portraits, for Iraqi Jews, Iranian Jews, Assyrians, and Azeri Jews:

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/meso_k12b.jpg

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 11:02
Right ... again stop with the agenda. I am not going to back and reply to this garbage. Everything has been addressed. Please go read about the Hurrians, Mitanni, Urartu, and etc. You seem to not be brave enough to accept the truth and that is not my problem. Like your other threads, you seem to push genetic studies to push forward your vision of the past. Again, Armenians are a native IE speaking population while Assyrians are a semitic speaking population that came from Africa.Then how come no genetic test has found "African" admixture in Assyrians? Either you're ignorant, misinformed or intellectually dishonest.


You can clearly look at Hittites and their artwork; most resemble the look of modern Armenians.That "look" is native to Anatolian/Mesopotamia and it's precisely why the Hittites were native Anatolians (Hattians) who experienced a language shift. If you had actually read anything about the Hittites, you'd know that their religion also contained many native elements from the Hattic religion, and it wasn't an Indo-European religion like that of Asatro, Hinduism and Greek polytheism.


Second of all, the Hurrians were neither semitic speakers or IE, BUT it is clear that the IE populations and the Hurrians shared culture, government, and aristocracy."Clear" how? This is the first time I hear this. Show me any Indo-Europeanist scholar who says Hurrians were closely related culturally with that of the Indo-Europeans.


Armenians are the cultural inheritors of the Urartu, Mitanni, Hittites, and the Greco-Phrygian immigrants.They're not. Modern Anatolian pseudo-Turks are the inheritors of the Phrygians and Hittites, not that they care about that part of their ancestry.

The Mitanni did not leave any serious cultural influence on the Middle East, and Armenians certainly don't worship the Indo-Aryan gods of the Mitanni.


If you have a hard time understanding that is not my problem.It's your problem, because this is your pseudo-scientific world-view, not mine.


Furthermore, again, you are not qualified to make any claim regarding genetic studies, as the truth is not clear.I am way more qualified than your dumb ass in understanding population genetics. For one, I do know Assyrians lack Negroid admixture, and I've also tested myself genetically and participated in numerous genetic projects with my genome profile.

Once you test yourself genetically, then you may have a valid opinion on the topic.


The Assyrian Empire collapsed and since the Assyrian identity was already a national identity it is most likely the case that the remnants that identified with "Assyrian" were most likely of Hurrian, Hittite stock, or other stock, as Assyrians were not natives of Anatolia.Not only were Assyrians native to Anatolia, the historical Neo-Assyrian Empire contained more territory of Anatolia during a longer time than the Armenian Kingdom ever occupied of Anatolia:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/maps/neo-assyrian_empire.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Maps_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes.gif

You are not more native to Anatolia than us. We Assyrians have a longer history in Anatolia, and more importantly, our ancestors documented the history of Anatolia far earlier than Armenians did. The reason why you know about the Hittites in the first place is thanks to the Assyrians, who had a lot of contact with them, and even taught them how to write in cuneiform.


They were invaders that took over the Sumarian culture like other invading Semitic speaking populations.Invaders from "Africa", right? :)


Finally, this entire BS about Armenians being Assyrians, keep dreaming. It is clear from our oral tradition that Armenians have always viewed Assyrians with hate and distrust. Clearly, how the fuck do you reconcile the Ara the Handsome stories with your points? You can't. Furthermore, the trilingual inscription that first mentions "Armenians" also mentions it in three languages, one of which refers to them as "People of Urartu" as well.The Armenian genome profile says Armenians are difficult to differentiate from the Assyrian genome, and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. Your stories about "Ara the Handsome":lol: are entirely irrelevant.


Long story short, you are pushing a agenda that is logically, historically, and factual a lie.That's what you're doing. Our genes don't lie. That's why it's possible for example, to verify in the most scientific and empiric way, that Ashkenazi Jews are not ethnic Germans/Poles/Russians, but in fact, descended from the Middle East. Using the same method, it's possible to verify Armenians are not Indo-Europeans.


You are using genetic studies to push forward wacky ideas that Armenians and Assyrians are one in the same, when in fact, there is not one shred of evidence that connections Armenians to Assyrians other then genetic studies you cite.Well, other than the historical fact that the Neo-Assyrian Empire was situated in the north of the Middle East, and that hundreds of years later, the Armenian Kingdom occupied almost identical borders of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, yeah there's no connection between Armenians and Assyrians...


Furthermore, on the contrary, it is the exact opposite. Armenians in Ancient, whether the Urartu, Hittites, or Mittani clashed with Assyrians. Why the hell would they do this? Nothing you mention is true.Swedes and Danes have clashed with each other for centuries, literally. There's a strong historical hatred and deep animosity between Swedes and Danes, yet it's difficult to find two European groups who are more genetically similar than Swedes and Danes.

Genetically similar people often clash with each other as a result of resource competition.


You just cite genetic studies which are questionable because the people that participate in them could have Armenian ancestry.How about you test yourself genetically? Since you're Armenian, you'll realise your highest matches will be Assyrians. And it's not because these Assyrians have any Armenian ancestry; we can see that they don't because their genome profile is actually slightly different from that of the Armenian genome profile. But Armenians are so genetically similar to Assyrians that it simply doesn't make sense to classify Armenians as Indo-Europeans on a genetic level.


Stop the bullshit. Armenians are natives of the Armenian Highlands.I'm not questioning the indigenousness of Armenians in the region. The fact that Armenians are indigenous to eastern Anatolia, is precisely why Armenians are not Indo-Europeans.


The Hurrians, who were "speakers of this language originally came from the Armenian mountains and spread over southeast Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC", Urartu (Another Hurrian off-shot), and the Hittite (And various other IE speaking populations) contributed to Armenian ethno-genesis, as all collapsed at the same time Armenian populations rose. None of these groups were Assyrians in any case or had any origins that were similar to them; get that through your thick skull you revisionist lier.You haven't tested the Hittites genetically. But I'm sure that if you test bone remnants from the Hittite palaces, you'll find skeletons with a genome profile that is very similar to Assyrians, with probably no significant admixture from north of the Black Sea.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 12:10
I have a question, why are indo europeans even so important?Because most humans today speak descendants of their language. You speak two Indo-European languages, perhaps more?

I myself know two Indo-European languages better than I know my native Semitic languages. I'm sure it's the same with you. In fact, Indo-European is a world standard.


what did they exactly (civilization) wise? nothing. so who really cares where they came from.That's an ignorant position. Is it a brown pride thing?


The Egyptians, Mesopotamian and people of Indus were far more superiorThey had more advanced societies than the Indo-Europeans (this is not my opinion; Mallory acknowledges this), but the cultural influence of the proto-Indo-Europeans more or less completely replaced that of the Indus valley, and though they never really replaced the Afro-Asiatic culture of Mesopotamia/Egypt, they did impact the Middle East and changed its future forever.

That is, provided that the proto-Indo-Europeans domesticated the horse and invented the wheel:

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&dq=isbn:069114818X).


I want to vote PIE urheimat was in Anatolia but Armenia isn't in Anatolia.Fixed now. But the PIE urheimat in Anatolia is even more unlikely than in Armenia.


It is “Kurgan”. It means a mound-grave, tumulus, and is of Turkic origin.
There are different levels: genes and language. Linguistically the Hittites are of course Indo-European (just like Armenians). Genetically they most probably are not similar to Proto-Indo-Europeans, because:

1. They do not live in the area which is the best argued area of the Proto-Indo-European speakers (Ukraine).
2. They moved to the area full of non-IE peoples.
3. Their language has a strong substrate from those non-IE languages, which points to a very strong genetic influence, too.
4. When the genes of the PIE speakers are reached by comparing the genes of modern Indo-European peoples, Europeans and Indians have more common than they have with the Armenians or descendants of the Hittites (both autosomally and Y-chromosomally, see the messages of Elias).

And the same applies to the Armenians.
There just happens to be nil evidence for the Armenians being genetically close to the Proto-Indo-European speakers. Why can’t you accept this fact?1) This is the best argument as to why both Hittites and Armenians are not Indo-European descendants.

2) Yes, you'd expect that if Anatolia was the PIE urheimat, proto-Indo-European would be a lot more similar to languages of Anatolia and even Semitic.

3) Not only does Hittite have a strong Hattic substratum, the religion of the Hittites was not really an Indo-European religion either, but in fact, a religion of the indigenous Hattians mixed with some minor elements of Indo-European religion.

4) Yes. Armenians have a very low frequency of R-M17, and a low "north European" component on Dodecad. Indians have a higher "north European" component than Armenians, and certainly Indians have a much higher frequency of R-M17.


P.S. Takoja, what are you drinking? I want the same... :lol:Booze for anti-intellectuals? :lol:

And PBachman, do you know why me and Jaska agree on this and both of us independently reach the same conclusions? It's because both of us are interested in the scientific logic as far as the proto-Indo-Europeans are concerned. Strict logic with the evidence in mind, tells us the Indo-European urheimat cannot have been Anatolia/Armenia.

Silesian
2012-02-04, 15:02
Yes. It is actually very sad. I know some Assyrians say they are not bothered by it, but, I think most, if not all are. I absolutely am.

Ara and Shamiram

http://www.armenian-history.com/images/epic_heroes/Ara_handsome-Shamiram.jpg

Historically/genetically/archeologically the entire region is very important. What surprises me is all the hardship/persecution both groups went through, and yet there is animosity.:whoco:

PBachman
2012-02-04, 15:06
Am I saying that we are the same? I am saying that we are closest to each other in genetics, which we indeed are.




Once again. Have I said that our genetics are equal?

I'm aware of your kind of Armenians though. Armenians are in general divided into two fields. You two users belong to the field I do not admire. You see nothing but Armenia and the Armenian nation. Try to open your eyes instead.

And I hate your kind of Assyrian that tries to push forward pseudo-history because they are gypse population without a homeland.


I just realised I wasted my time on this time PBachman character... why am I debating with this moron who thinks he knows anything about the Indo-European urheimat question, when he doesn't even know how to spell Kurgan and Sumerians properly?

Armenians are so genetically similar to Assyrians that it's impossible to classify Armenians as Indo-Europeans. So if there ever was Indo-Europeans in Armenia, they're not there now, and they're certainly not represented by modern Armenians.


Then how come no genetic test has found "African" admixture in Assyrians? Either you're ignorant, misinformed or intellectually dishonest.

That "look" is native to Anatolian/Mesopotamia and it's precisely why the Hittites were native Anatolians (Hattians) who experienced a language shift. If you had actually read anything about the Hittites, you'd know that their religion also contained many native elements from the Hattic religion, and it wasn't an Indo-European religion like that of Asatro, Hinduism and Greek polytheism.

"Clear" how? This is the first time I hear this. Show me any Indo-Europeanist scholar who says Hurrians were closely related culturally with that of the Indo-Europeans.

They're not. Modern Anatolian pseudo-Turks are the inheritors of the Phrygians and Hittites, not that they care about that part of their ancestry.

The Mitanni did not leave any serious cultural influence on the Middle East, and Armenians certainly don't worship the Indo-Aryan gods of the Mitanni.

It's your problem, because this is your pseudo-scientific world-view, not mine.

I am way more qualified than your dumb ass in understanding population genetics. For one, I do know Assyrians lack Negroid admixture, and I've also tested myself genetically and participated in numerous genetic projects with my genome profile.

Once you test yourself genetically, then you may have a valid opinion on the topic.

Not only were Assyrians native to Anatolia, the historical Neo-Assyrian Empire contained more territory of Anatolia during a longer time than the Armenian Kingdom ever occupied of Anatolia:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/images/upload/maps/neo-assyrian_empire.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Maps_of_the_Armenian_Empire_of_Tigranes.gif

You are not more native to Anatolia than us. We Assyrians have a longer history in Anatolia, and more importantly, our ancestors documented the history of Anatolia far earlier than Armenians did. The reason why you know about the Hittites in the first place is thanks to the Assyrians, who had a lot of contact with them, and even taught them how to write in cuneiform.

Invaders from "Africa", right? :)

The Armenian genome profile says Armenians are difficult to differentiate from the Assyrian genome, and at the end of the day, that's all that really matters. Your stories about "Ara the Handsome":lol: are entirely irrelevant.

That's what you're doing. Our genes don't lie. That's why it's possible for example, to verify in the most scientific and empiric way, that Ashkenazi Jews are not ethnic Germans/Poles/Russians, but in fact, descended from the Middle East. Using the same method, it's possible to verify Armenians are not Indo-Europeans.

Well, other than the historical fact that the Neo-Assyrian Empire was situated in the north of the Middle East, and that hundreds of years later, the Armenian Kingdom occupied almost identical borders of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, yeah there's no connection between Armenians and Assyrians...

Swedes and Danes have clashed with each other for centuries, literally. There's a strong historical hatred and deep animosity between Swedes and Danes, yet it's difficult to find two European groups who are more genetically similar than Swedes and Danes.

Genetically similar people often clash with each other as a result of resource competition.

How about you test yourself genetically? Since you're Armenian, you'll realise your highest matches will be Assyrians. And it's not because these Assyrians have any Armenian ancestry; we can see that they don't because their genome profile is actually slightly different from that of the Armenian genome profile. But Armenians are so genetically similar to Assyrians that it simply doesn't make sense to classify Armenians as Indo-Europeans on a genetic level.

I'm not questioning the indigenousness of Armenians in the region. The fact that Armenians are indigenous to eastern Anatolia, is precisely why Armenians are not Indo-Europeans.

You haven't tested the Hittites genetically. But I'm sure that if you test bone remnants from the Hittite palaces, you'll find skeletons with a genome profile that is very similar to Assyrians, with probably no significant admixture from north of the Black Sea.

You are so full of yourself it is not even funny. Yeah, Hittites are Assyrian, but yet they both are contemporaries of each other. Do you understand this is contradiction? There is no evidence to indicate Hittites are Assyrian. Neither is there evidence to indicate Hurrians are as well. Finally, both have no relation with Proto-Semitic populations. Even the Sumerians were not Proto-Semitic and they came from the area of Anatolia. You are delusional. All you are doing is taking modern genetic studies that favor your pseudo-historical narrative and pushing it forward. As Humanist, Mosov, and others have highlighted even your understanding of the genetic studies you claim are "dead on" is wrong.

Furthermore, suppose what you say is true about the Hittites, where is the original IE population that took over the area? Where is the invading army? And how come it is not in the historical narrative of the Hebrews, Egyptians, and others, who would have written down the presence of such an army into the region?

Finally, you seem to not understand that neither Hurrian or IE are a Semitic language. Do you understand this? There is no Proto-Semitic language in relation to these languages. The timeline of when the Semitic speaking populations came into the area does not fit what you are arguing. I don't understand you.

By the way, for someone that claims that Assyrians are "genetically pure", please, cut the bullshit, you are a Assyrian mutt.

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 15:08
And I hate your kind of Assyrian that tries to push forward pseudo-history because they are gypse population without a homeland.

Hate us as much as you wish. But if you're going to label us as gypsies, at least learn to spell it right.

PBachman
2012-02-04, 15:15
Hate us as much as you wish. But if you're going to label us as gypsies, at least learn to spell it right.

Whatever, you have more things to worry about then my spelling. Assyrians will go extinct soon. FIgure out how to find a homeland for your "great Assyrian people".

Look at the cycle of replies. Your friend is pushing ideas that are inconsistent with the historical narrative. Assyrians are not indigenous to Anatolia or the Armenian Highlands. They are from the south. You are acting like I am pushing a "nationalist-socialist agenda" when you know I am right about EA's delusional opinions regarding Armenians.

Nothing he has stated thus far makes any sense. He is claiming Hittites and Hurrians, who are historical contemporaries of Assyrians, are Assyrian? Does this make any sense to you when in fact it is well established that neither Hurrian or Hittites never spoke a Semitic or a proto-Semitic language? You need stop attacking me and start agreeing with me, as EA's opinions are not even remotely realistic.

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 15:24
Assyrians are indigeneous to SE Anatolia, N Iraq and NE Syria. We have a historical record of thousands of years in these areas. Our genetic data also prove this.

Hitties and Hurrians were assimilated into Assyrians, Armenians, Hellenes etc. This is a common ancient component people from our region share.

And do not worry we will not go extinct. And we do have a homeland if you wish to use that term. What we lack is a state.

And by the way, if we are gypsies, Armenians are using a gypsy alphabet as you've obtained a lot of your alphabet from our alphabet.

It is really sad to see your type here. Assyrians and Armenians get a long very well in general.

PBachman
2012-02-04, 15:31
Assyrians are indigeneous to SE Anatolia, N Iraq and NE Syria. We have a historical record of thousands of years in these areas. Our genetic data also prove this.

Hitties and Hurrians were assimilated into Assyrians, Armenians, Hellenes etc. This is a common ancient component people from our region share.

And do not worry we will not go extinct. And we do have a homeland if you wish to use that term. What we lack is a state.

And by the way, if we are gypsies, Armenians are using a gypsy alphabet as you've obtained a lot of your alphabet from our alphabet.

It is really sad to see your type here. Assyrians and Armenians get a long very well in general.

RIght...the alphabet as well now? Look...why not just claim Armenia as New Assyria? Disgusting, you are delusional. The Armenian alphabet was influenced by other sources, mostly Greek, but not Assyrian. Also, if you are claiming I am not "brave enough", can you Semites be brave enough to admit that your entire culture, identity, language, and etc. stem from Sumerians (non-semites)? Hmm...you be brave first and then, I will think about what your wrote, as I don't think you will ever admit it. It is not even consistent. Nothing EA has written is true. He can't even accept the fact that Sumerians who came from the area of Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands were not Semites. And you are claiming I am the "aggressor"? You are ridiculous.

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 15:36
RIght...the alphabet as well now? Look...why not just claim Armenia as New Assyria? Disgusting, you are delusional. The Armenian alphabet was heavily influenced by other sources, mostly Greek, but not Assyrian. Also, if you are claiming I am not "brave enough", can you Semites be brave enough to admit that your entire culture, identity, language, and etc. stem from Sumerians (non-semites)? Hmm...you be brave first and then, I will think about what your wrote, as I don't think you will ever admit it.

Originally Armenians had no alphabet and used the Syriac alphabet. When the Armenians developed their own alphabet, they used Greek and Syriac systems in constructing the Armenian alphabet.

Our culture was of course also influenced by Sumerians. The Sumerians among us were latter absorbed into the Assyrian group. Why would I want to deny this? Our forefathers are equally important. We have Hurrian, Hittite and Sumerian influences without a doubt.

Our language is actually called Assyrian which is heavily influenced by Akkadian and Aramaic, but also to a lesser extent Greek.

I would also like to add that I do not like this Semitic vs Indo-European debate. I feel closer to Turks (non-Semitic-speaking population) than I do to Saudi Arabs.

PBachman
2012-02-04, 15:45
Originally Armenians had no alphabet and used the Syriac alphabet. When the Armenians developed their own alphabet, they used Greek and Syriac systems in constructing the Armenian alphabet.

Our culture was of course also influenced by Sumerians. The Sumerians among us were latter absorbed into the Assyrian group. Why would I want to deny this? Our forefathers are equally important. We have Hurrian, Hittite and Sumerian influences without a doubt.

Our language is actually called Assyrian which is heavily influenced by Akkadian and Aramaic, but also to a lesser extent Greek.

I don't even want to reply to this. Do you understand that Hurrian and Hittites were historical contemporaries? Are you claiming that there are two Assyrian people? Please, I would suggest you go to wikipedia and read about Assyrians, as your claims that you are Hittite, Hurrian, and etc. makes absolutely no sense. Do you understand that it is not possible for Assyrians to be Hittites and Hurrians? The ethno-genesis of Assyrians occurred a long time ago. You can't absorb a population that are your contemporaries. Armenians can. The very fact that in the fifth century BC the trilingual reference to Armenians and the "people of Urartu", as one and the same, hints at this clear cultural continuity. They clearly are the cultural, genetic, and linguistic continuation of a Hittite-Hurrian culture.

Furthermore, the idea that "Armenians had no alphabet" is again a half truth, as the Urartu, Mitani, and Hittites used cuneiform. An alphabet that was developed in the Armenian Highlands area, by most likely, a Proto-Hurrian population that spread to Mesopotamia via Sumerians.

Look, long story short, I know your position and EA's, please, tell your friend to stop arguing with me, as everything he writes is pseudo-history. There is not one ounce of truth in what he claims. Furthermore, you need to stop associating Hurrian and Hittites with Assyrians. It is improbable that these populations are Assyrians or that they contributed to the Assyrian ethno-genesis.

Sargon999
2012-02-04, 15:47
So do not reply then.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 16:49
I have a hard time understanding why there is animosity between some Assyrians and Armenians?Anti-intellectuals are the problem.

The animosity is entirely one-sided and comes exclusively from the Armenian camp. It stems from the racial inferiority complex Armenians have, and how confused they are of their ancestry. It should be pointed out, however, that this does not apply to all Armenians; it applies only to the ridiculous quasi-nationalist Pan-Aryan Front type of Armenians, or "Aryan Armenians" as they like to think of themselves in their own little bubble. Such quasi-nationalist Armenians are a shame to ordinary Armenians.

But there are normal, respectable, honourable and proud Armenians too, like for example ArmoHayk, who acknowledge the long and common history Armenians and Assyrians have with each other. Not surprisingly, these respectable Armenians are not dipshits.


It is entirely possible that "some" Armenians and Assyrians share common ancestors, and genes, since there territories overlapped. Why such hostile posts toward one another?It's not "some" Armenians and Assyrians, it's all Armenians and Assyrians. Armenians and Assyrians are the same genetic group. We are genetically more similar than north Germans and south Germans are with each other.

What I don't understand though, is why you're sympathising with PBachman?


And I hate your kind of Assyrian that tries to push forward pseudo-history because they are gypse population without a homeland.In the academic and intellectual book The Jewish Century, it's the Jews and Armenians who are grouped together with Gypsies as "Mercurians" ;)

The Jewish Century: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7819.html

And hey, Gypsies speak Indo-European, not Semitic :yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language

^^ Indo-Aryan language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomavren_language

^^ Gypsy/Armenian creole :lol:

If I were you, I'd just shut the fuck up and never again call Assyrians "Gypsies". As an Assyrian, I'm way more entitled of ridiculing Armenians of Gypsiness.


You are so full of yourself it is not even funny.Well, it's not fun to you because I'm poking fun at your ignorance.


Yeah, Hittites are Assyrian, but yet they both are contemporaries of each other. Do you understand this is contradiction?I don't think you even understand what I'm saying. It must be your anti-logical MENA IQ.

The Hittites were so genetically similar to Assyrians because both Hittites and Assyrians were Anatolians. The fact that Hittites resembled Assyrians (and Armenians), isn't because the proto-Indo-European urheimat is in Anatolia/Armenia (it's not), it's because the Hittites were largely descended from the Hattians who had shifted to a language that descended from the earliest stages of Indo-European.


There is no evidence to indicate Hittites are Assyrian.No one has said Hittites were Assyrians. Physical anthropologist in the early 20th century called their phenotype, "Assyroid", "Armenoid", "proto-Armenian" etc., because it was a local Anatolian/Mesopotamian phenotype.

You're too stupid to connect the dots, and so that's why I'm spoon-feeding you the conclusions, you dumbass.


Neither is there evidence to indicate Hurrians are as well. Finally, both have no relation with Proto-Semitic populations. Even the Sumerians were not Proto-Semitic and they came from the area of Anatolia. You are delusional. All you are doing is taking modern genetic studies that favor your pseudo-historical narrative and pushing it forward. As Humanist, Mosov, and others have highlighted even your understanding of the genetic studies you claim are "dead on" is wrong.With all due respect to Humanist, he's my ethnic brother and all, but his understanding of ancient populations is not better than mine and in no way is he more informed than me on the topic. That he is perceived as more objective by some people isn't because he actually has sharper conclusions or anything, but because he's not as openly racist/racialist as I am. And for some people, that's all that matters in how they judge a man's credibility.

But I am correct in telling you, Assyrians are the closest extant population today, of the original proto-Semites, and the proto-Afro-Asiatic language family didn't come from Africa, just as it didn't come from China. It came from the Middle East, and modern Armenians share genes with the proto-Afro-Asiatics more so than you do with the proto-Indo-Europeans.


Furthermore, suppose what you say is true about the Hittites, where is the original IE population that took over the area? Where is the invading army? And how come it is not in the historical narrative of the Hebrews, Egyptians, and others, who would have written down the presence of such an army into the region?What army are you talking about? A militarily dominant group of people ("army") cannot alter the entire genepool of a demographically established genepool.

So that's why Iraqis will still be Iraqis now that Americans leave Iraq, and that's why "Anatolian Turks" are not actually ethnic Turks, and so on. And it was like that in ancient times as well.

The Hittites were Indo-Europeans in language only, like me and Jaska (who's a professional linguist by the way; I think he knows what he's talking about a hell of a lot better than you) are telling you. And even linguistically, the Hittites were not purely Indo-European (they had a Hattic substratum in both language and certainly culture/religion):


“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 house.7”
— J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, p. 28

^^ And that's one of the more important reasons why Anatolia isn't the Indo-European urheimat, and neither is Armenia. I take Mallory's educated and scientific opinion any day of the week over your stupid ethnocentrism.


Finally, you seem to not understand that neither Hurrian or IE are a Semitic language. Do you understand this?I understand it better than you do. I don't think you have anything resembling a basic understanding of linguistics to tell me what's what in Semitic and Indo-European.


There is no Proto-Semitic language in relation to these languages. The timeline of when the Semitic speaking populations came into the area does not fit what you are arguing. I don't understand you.There's a lot you don't understand. Your anti-intellectual ignorance is the problem here.

One of the more important reasons why the Indo-European urheimat was in north of the Black Sea, was because proto-Semitic loanwords (such as bull and seven) are found in proto-Indo-European, and proto-Uralic also had some proto-Indo-European loanwords. Considering that Semitic has always been spoken in the northern Middle East, and proto-Uralic was spoken somewhere in the Volga, that makes north of the Black Sea (Yamnaya) a better geographic hot spot for the connections proto-Indo-European has with Semitic and Uralic. Armenia is too far away from the Volga, and Armenia is too close to the Semitic speaking region, which would've meant that if Armenia was the PIE urheimat, Indo-European would have been closer related with Semitic than it is.


By the way, for someone that claims that Assyrians are "genetically pure", please, cut the bullshit, you are a Assyrian mutt.I'm actually one of the most Assyrian living specimens you can find. Had Armenians been as genetically different from Assyrians as you think we are, I would not only have been excluded from Dodecad as DOD040, but my 25% Armenian ancestry would make me look totally different from other Assyrians. As it is now, my Armenian ancestry makes no difference, except that it made my eyes browner than my fully Assyrian father's azure blue eyes ;)

Armenians = swarthy wogs.


RIght...the alphabet as well now?How can you be this ignorant? What are you, twelve years old or something? Yes, the alphabet is a Semitic invention. Alphabet stands for Aleph and Beth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bet_%28letter%29

^^ Semitic script.


Look...why not just claim Armenia as New Assyria?That's more or less exactly what Armenia is ;)


The Armenian alphabet was influenced by other sources, mostly Greek, but not Assyrian.It doesn't matter. The roots of the alphabet is Semitic one way or the other, no matter how you try to turn it around. That's true of the Latin alphabet, the Greek alphabet, the Armenian alphabet, and even the Mongolian alphabet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_script (look at parent systems)

The proto-Sinaitic hypothesis is not yet conclusively established, but what we know for certain is that the alphabet was invented by the Phoenicians (Semites).


Also, if you are claiming I am not "brave enough", can you Semites be brave enough to admit that your entire culture, identity, language, and etc. stem from Sumerians (non-semites)?I have no problem admitting that the Sumerians influenced the Assyrians. But I think at the end of the day, the Akkadians influenced the Sumerians a lot more.


Hmm...you be brave first and then, I will think about what your wrote, as I don't think you will ever admit it. It is not even consistent. Nothing EA has written is true. He can't even accept the fact that Sumerians who came from the area of Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands were not Semites. And you are claiming I am the "aggressor"? You are ridiculous.No, you're wrong. Martiros Kavoukjian's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia,_Subartu_And_Sumer) hypothesis is straight up nationalist pseudo-science, in much the same way Gustaf Kossinna's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna) hypothesis that the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in Scandinavia is pseudo-science.

Also, Sumerian, Kartvelian and Semitic are closer related with each other than either are to Indo-European. See this post where I offer sources for that:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=647789&postcount=59

Mosov
2012-02-04, 16:50
Am I saying that we are the same? I am saying that we are closest to each other in genetics, which we indeed are.




Once again. Have I said that our genetics are equal?

I'm aware of your kind of Armenians though. Armenians are in general divided into two fields. You two users belong to the field I do not admire. You see nothing but Armenia and the Armenian nation. Try to open your eyes instead.

Actually we are closest to the Hemshin people genetically for starters. Second, you should understand that Armenian genetics is a bit more complex. An Armenian from the Artsakh region has actually differing genetics then Armenians that came from Lake Van region or the Armenians from Lori region. Armenians from Sasun are said to have a more Turkish component, Armenians from Lake Van are said to have a more Balkan component, and so forth. Here is a serious paper regarding this:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf



Armenians are so genetically similar to Assyrians that it's impossible to classify Armenians as Indo-Europeans. So if there ever was Indo-Europeans in Armenia, they're not there now, and they're certainly not represented by modern Armenians.

I'm not talking about Indo-Europeans. I'm just talking about the genetic relationship between Armenians and Assyrians. I showed you a major study that was done in Armenia where Kurds, Assyrians, and Armenians were measured, and it was found there was a clear genetic difference between the groups. As I said above, Armenian genetics is complex, and differs based on region and geography of that region. I suggest you read the scientific paper on Armenian genetics that I put above.

According to my data though:
Armenians/Assyrians YDNA haplogroup percentages

R1b: 28%/23%
J2: 22%/11%
J1: 11%/19% (though Assyrians of Iraq have 28%)
R1a 8%/6%
T: 6%/11%
E: 5%/9%

Armenians/Azeris
J2: 22%/20%
G: 11%/ 18%
R1b: 28%/ 11%
R1a: 8%/11%

Armenians/Kurds of Anatolia
J2: 22%/19%
R1a: 8%/12.4%
J1: 11%/11%

"Many of these Kurds belonged to the mtDNA haplogroup U5, which is also common among Azeris, Ossetians, Armenians, and Europeans, but not very common among other peoples of the Near East."

Armenians/Georgians
G: 11%/31%
J2: 22%21%
R1a: 8%/10%

Also read this article:
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/mtDNApaper.pdf

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 17:07
Actually we are closest to the Hemshin people genetically for starters. Second, you should understand that Armenian genetics is a bit more complex. An Armenian from the Artsakh region has actually differing genetics then Armenians that came from Lake Van region or the Armenians from Lori region. Armenians from Sasun are said to have a more Turkish component, Armenians from Lake Van are said to have a more Balkan component, and so forth. Here is a serious paper regarding this:

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tcga/tcgapdf/Weale-HG-01-Armenia.pdf



I'm not talking about Indo-Europeans. I'm just talking about the genetic relationship between Armenians and Assyrians. I showed you a major study that was done in Armenia where Kurds, Assyrians, and Armenians were measured, and it was found there was a clear genetic difference between the groups. As I said above, Armenian genetics is complex, and differs based on region and geography of that region. I suggest you read the scientific paper on Armenian genetics that I put above.In population genetics, we measure genetic similarity by autosomal DNA, not haplogroups (as they don't tell us anything about genetic similarity other than sharing the same genetic surnames).

I've already read this study. Armenians have undoubtedly highest genetic similarity with Assyrians, based on genome-wide SNP autosomal similarity (way more important than haplogroups). And as I've told you before, this is why you're not an Indo-European people aside from language.

Mosov
2012-02-04, 17:22
In population genetics, we measure genetic similarity by autosomal DNA, not haplogroups (as they don't tell us anything about genetic similarity other than sharing the same genetic surnames).

I've already read this study. Armenians have undoubtedly highest genetic similarity with Assyrians, based on genome-wide SNP autosomal similarity (way more important than haplogroups). And as I've told you before, this is why you're not an Indo-European people aside from language.

Can you please refer to a scientific article that talks about that?

As I said before, Assyrians may be closest to let's say Armenians from Sasun region, but that doesn't mean they are closet to Armenians from let's say Artsakh region. One thing you should know about Armenian genetics is that uniformity is disturbed by our rugged terrain. Now you made a statement that Armenians are closer to Assyrians than South Germans to North Germans. I expect some good evidence for that. I do accept that we have genetic similarities, but not at the degree that you are proposing which makes makes Assyrians and Armenians basically same group.


"The archeology and ethnology of Armenia suggest that this region has acted as a crossroads for human migrations from Europe and the Middle East since at least the Neolithic. Near continual foreign influx has, in turn, led to the supposition that the gene pools of geographically separated Armenian populations may have diverged as differing historical influences potentially left distinct genetic traces in the various regions of the Armenian plateau. In this study, we seek to address whether any evidence for such genetic regional partitioning in Armenians exists by analyzing, for the first time, 15 autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) loci in 404 Armenians from four geographically well-characterized collections (Ararat Valley, Gardman, Sasun, and Lake Van) that represent distinct communities from across Historical Armenia. In addition, to determine whether genetic differences among these four Armenian populations are the result of differential affinities to populations of known historical influence in Armenia, we utilize 27 biogeographically targeted reference populations for phylogenetic and admixture analyses. From these examinations, we find that while close genetic affiliations exist between the two easternmost Armenian groups analyzed, Ararat Valley and Gardman, the remaining two populations display substantial distinctions. In particular, Sasun is distinguished by evidence for genetic contributions from Turkey, while a stronger Balkan component is detected in Lake Van, potentially suggestive of remnant genetic influences from ancient Greek and Phrygian populations in this region."


The A33-B14, B35-DR11 and B49-DR11 haplotypes imply that Armenians belong to the older Mediterranean substratum. Also, its genetic distances are very close to both Turks and also to Kurds (21). HLA dendrogram (Fig. 3) and correspondence analysis (Fig. 4) show how close Armenians are genetically to Turks and also to Kurds. The Armenian Diaspora may have displaced a common Armenian haplotype A33-B14 all over the Mediterranean, including to the western most part (Iberian, Morocco and Algeria).



Hittite and other old Anatolian languages (Armenian, Kurd) have been considered as imported Indo-Europeans, i.e. belonging to a family which includes most western European languages (Spanish, English, French, German, etc.) and Hindi and Iranian. On these linguistic bases, comparing a piece of Hittite with Hurrian language (59) and the apparent translation of Hittite texts with words similar to German language (59) by Hrozny, an Indo-European theory has been created that includes a common origin for these supposedly homogeneous peoples. Postulated places of origin for Indo-Europeans include: Northern Capsian sea region (Gimbutas), Southern Caucasus (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov), India, the area surroundings the Aral Sea, Rumania, Germany and Baltic Republics (59); Colin Renfrew also proposes that they may have expanded from central Anatolia towards East and West, but he does not discard an origin on the Eurasian steppes (59).

The Hittite language could be a Na-Dene Caucasian language related to Caucasian, Basque (27, 32) and other dead languages (like Summerian, Elamitic, Egyptian, Etruscan and Iberian). Kurds, Armenians and Iranians are considered as Indo-Europeans (on linguistic bases only) who invaded Anatolia, Iraq and Iran by 12001300 B.C., but according to our HLA genetic data on Iranians, Turks, Kurds and Armenians, they seem very similar to each other and also similar to other Middle East and Mediterranean people. They do not seem to come from Caspian or other Asian areas as postulated but have mostly an old autochthonous substratum. Either the Indo-European invaders who replaced the old (Dene Caucasian) language were very similar to Mediterraneans in genetic HLA composition or this invasion is not genetically measurable. No doubt a language change started after 2000 B.C. (27, 32) and Indo-European languages started establishing but this could have been an elite process with undetectable genetic consequences. The HLA composition of Central Asian people is quite different and should be noted (60). Even Sanskrit speaking people from Pakistan and India (also Indo-European according to language) are quite distinct regarding their HLA characteristics (1, 61)

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 17:28
Can you please refer to a scientific article that talks about that?Yeah, just look at all the matches Armenians on 23andMe have with Assyrians. That's science. I know you think science involves a laboratory with old guys in a white coat, but really, this is all science.


As I said before, Assyrians may be closest to let's say Armenians from Sasun region, but that doesn't mean they are closet to Armenians from let's say Artsakh region. One thing you should know about Armenian genetics is that uniformity is disturbed by our rugged terrain. Now you made a statement that Armenians are closer to Assyrians than South Germans to North Germans. I expect some good evidence for that.No, all Armenians are genetically close to Assyrians, regardless of where they're from. Unless Armenians have recent Slavic admixture or something, it's very difficult to differentiate Armenians from Assyrians in genetic tests.


I do accept that we have genetic similarities, but not at the degree that you are proposing which makes makes Assyrians and Armenians basically same group.That's exactly what we are. The difference isn't really in genetics; the difference between us is that we are the same people, and a part of our people shifted to an Indo-European dialect during the global Indo-Europeanisation process of antiquity, whereas the other part of our people stuck around with Semitic.

Now Armenians probably spoke Hurro-Urartian before Indo-European, but it doesn't matter, as you're not Indo-Europeans and that's what we're debating here.

Mosov
2012-02-04, 17:41
Yeah, just look at all the matches Armenians on 23andMe have with Assyrians. That's science. I know you think science involves a laboratory with old guys in a white coat, but really, this is all science.

Sorry I want something more established. Like a scientific article from a peer-reviewed journal. And I have cited several such papers. Geneticists don't cite 23andMe, they cite peer reviewed articles.


No, all Armenians are genetically close to Assyrians, regardless of where they're from. Unless Armenians have recent Slavic admixture or something, it's very difficult to differentiate Armenians from Assyrians.

Again, you ignore a distinct genetic characteristic of Armenian people. You talk as if Armenians have lived in the same city their whole time. I gave you a reputable scientific article that discusses the fact that there is genetic variation within Armenian nation based on geography. This makes your inference much harder.


That's exactly what we are. The difference is that we are the same people, and a part of our people adopted an Indo-European dialect during the global Indo-Europeanisation process in antiquity, whereas the other part of our people stuck around with Semitic.

Well if we were indeed the same people, you wouldn't have this established study saying this:


Overall, Assyrians and Kurds appear to be genetically distinct from the general Armenian population, with Fst values suggesting that Assyrians are the most differentiated group from all Armenian regional populations and from Kurds.

also:


Analysis of the Assyrians shows that they have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population. It is important to understand that this applies to the population as a whole, not to any one individual. Each individual can have a variety of genetic features, but it is when all the data for the individuals are assembled together that the population can become distinctive. The authors state that "The Assyrians are a fairly homogeneous group of people, believed to originate from the land of old Assyria in northern Iraq," and "they are Christians and are possibly bona fide descendants of their namesakes." The main research paper on Assyrians is that of Akbari et al. (3), who state "that the Assyrians are a group of Christians with a long history in the Middle East. From historical and archeological evidence, it is thought that their ancestors formed part of the Mesopotamian civilization." Akbari et al. examined some 500 members of Christian communities in Iran (Armenians and Assyrians from six localities) from whom specimens were obtained and examined for a number of blood group, red cell enzyme and serum protein systems. In the case of Assyrians, the researchers studied 18 different gene sites with a total of 47 different forms of those genes (alleles) in Assyrians in two regions of Iran - Urmia and Tehran. The particular gene frequencies of those 47 genes in the population formed the basis, along with the other two studies (4, 5), for establishing the distinctive genetic character of the Assyrians. A major finding of the study is that Assyrians, especially those in Urmia (their home area in Iran), are genetically homogeneous to a high degree. That is, an individual Assyrian's genetic makeup is relatively close to that of the Assyrian population as a whole. "The results indicate the relatively closed nature of the [Assyrian] community as a whole," and "due to their religious and cultural traditions, there has been little intermixture with other populations." The small size of the population is also a factor. The genetic data are compatible with historical data that religion played a major role in maintaining the Assyrian population's separate identity during the Christian era.


Our primary purpose here is to define the relationships of Assyrians to their closest neighbors in the Middle East, so we will focus on seven groups that appear at the top of the "tree." Of these, Iranian and Iraqi are defined by the country of origin, after exclusion of Kurds. Jordanian, Lebanese and Turkish also mean the country of origin. Assyrians and Kurds refer to specific groups of people. All those studied were indigenous people of the area whose roots in their geographic locations go back to at least 1500 A.D. Relationship pairings are shown: Turkish and Iranian, and Assyrian and Jordanian are "loose" pairings; Druse and Lebanese form a closer pair; and Iraqi and Kurdish people form an extremely close pairing. The closest genetic relationships of the Assyrians are with the native populations of Jordan and Iraq. In point of fact, however, all of the seven populations of interest are quite close to each other. There are no wide separations between any of them. This despite the fact that they contain members of three major language families: Indo-European (Iranian, Kurdish), Turkic (Turkish) and Semitic (Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese - Arabic; Assyrian - Aramaic). As the authors state, "In spite of the complex history of the Middle East and the great number of internal group migrations revealed by history, as well as the mosaic of cultures and languages, the region is relatively homogeneous" [genetically]. The least heterogeneous zone of Asia "is observed in the Near East, where the highest population densities have existed the longest, especially in the central part (Mesopotamia). Ten thousand years of agriculture, ancient urban developments, and internal migrations are probably responsible for this homogeneity." Thus, in that part of the world with the most ancient civilizations, an underlying genetic homogeneity has been "masked" by great cultural, religious and linguistic heterogeneity.

So please refute these papers. They don't support you view that Armenians and Assyrians are the same people.

newtoboard
2012-02-04, 17:49
PIE is related to a Northeast European component and R1a. Considering the lack of this in Amrenians I think we can say no.

Also disqualifying this theory is the lack of J1, R1b or the SW Asian component among Indo-Iranian speakers east of ran.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 17:55 ----------

I would ignore PBachman. This is the moron who think the Indo-Iranians acquired their horse culture from Armenians.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 17:59
Sorry I want something more established. Like a scientific article from a peer-reviewed journal. And I have cited several such papers.The problem with you is that you don't understand these papers, and why they're not more preferable than something as basic and simple as the 23andMe compare genes tool.


Geneticists don't cite 23andMe, they cite peer reviewed articles.They do, actually, case in point:

Web-Based, Participant-Driven Studies Yield Novel Genetic Associations for Common Traits: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000993


Again, you ignore a distinct genetic characteristic of Armenian people. You talk as if Armenians have lived in the same city their whole time. I gave you a reputable scientific article that discusses the fact that there is genetic variation within Armenian nation based on geography. This makes your inference much harder.I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not the ignorant one here, you Armenian quasi-nationalists are the ignorants here, not me. I was the one who edited that Wikipedia article with sources.


Well if we were indeed the same people, you wouldn't have this established study saying this:This is not a reliable genetic study, and it seems to be written by some ridiculous Armenian Pan-Aryan Front nationalists or some stupid bullshit like that (I'm referring to the "Arya International University" horseshit). It's not a peer-reviewed study; it's not published by a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and it discusses HAPLOGROUPS! What about that don't you understand? Haplogroups don't tell us ANYTHING about genetic similarity.

Here's the anti-intellectual study for those of you interested in scrutinising it:

http://www.rau.am/downloads/publ.kafedr/episkoposyan_medbiolog/Yepiskoposian_I&C_06.pdf


So please refute these papers. They don't support you view that Armenians and Assyrians are the same people.I don't need to refute them, because I'm telling you Armenians are the same genetic group as Assyrians based on the latest cutting edge genetics technology (GWAS), and you're citing me outdated studies from the days of Cavalli-Sforza who didn't even use DNA.


PIE is related to a Northeast European component and R1a. Considering the lack of this in Amrenians I think we can say no.

Also disqualifying this theory is the lack of J1, R1b or the SW Asian component among Indo-Iranian speakers east of ran.Correctomundo.


I would ignore PBachman. This is the moron who think the Indo-Iranians acquired their horse culture from Armenians.It's not that I take PBachman and the other Aryanist clowns seriously or anything. I'm just replying to them so that hopefully other normal, sane Armenians can learn something out of this and hopefully not embarrass themselves like these ARyan ARmenians have been doing lately.

Mosov
2012-02-04, 18:18
The problem with you is that you don't understand these papers, and why they're not more preferable than something as basic and simple as the 23andMe compare genes tool.

They do, actually, here's an example:

Web-Based, Participant-Driven Studies Yield Novel Genetic Associations for Common Traits: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000993[

It's interesting as most of the authors in that paper seemingly are from 23andme. Again, reputable studies will conduct their own studies not rely on the 23andme business.


I'm not ignoring anything. I'm not the ignorant one here, you Armenian quasi-nationalists are the ignorants here, not me. I was the one who edited that Wikipedia article with sources.

So I am a Armenian quasi nationalist for saying that Armenians and Assyrians aren't the same people? :whoco:


This is not a reliable genetic study, and it seems to be written by some ridiculous Armenian Pan-Aryan Front nationalists or some stupid bullshit like that (I'm referring to the "Arya International University" horseshit). It's not a peer-reviewed study; it's not published by a respectable peer-reviewed journal, and it discusses HAPLOGROUPS! What about that don't you understand? Haplogroups don't tell us ANYTHING about genetic similarity.

Pan-Aryan nationalists? Have a source? And so now if a paper says Armenians and Assyrians are not same people they are all of sudden pan-aryan nationalists? Let's me more reasonable here.


I don't need to refute them, because I'm telling you Armenians are the same genetic group as Assyrians based on the latest cutting edge genetics technology (GWAS), and you're citing me outdated studies from the days of Cavalli-Sforza who didn't even use DNA.

You are saying that based of your 23andme results? All I'm asking for is scientific papers that conclude that Armenians and Assyrians are the same people.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 18:19 ----------

Again you fail to mention the genetic variation amongst Armenian nation. It's a silly inference to make that Assyrians are close to all Armenians, given this variation based on geography. You have to be more specific.

PBachman
2012-02-04, 18:30
Anti-intellectuals are the problem.

The animosity is entirely one-sided and comes exclusively from the Armenian camp. It stems from the racial inferiority complex Armenians have, and how confused they are of their ancestry. It should be pointed out, however, that this does not apply to all Armenians; it applies only to the ridiculous quasi-nationalist Pan-Aryan Front type of Armenians, or "Aryan Armenians" as they like to think of themselves in their own little bubble. Such quasi-nationalist Armenians are a shame to ordinary Armenians.

But there are normal, respectable, honourable and proud Armenians too, like for example ArmoHayk, who acknowledge the long and common history Armenians and Assyrians have with each other. Not surprisingly, these respectable Armenians are not dipshits.

Right ... it is all the fault of Armenians. First, you are claiming I am part of a "Pan-Aryan" front based on what? You seem to be delusional. You began to type-cast me a long time ago for no apparent reason other than MY OPINION that the IE Urheimat is in Anatolia, precisely, in the area of the Armenian highlands.

Second, you are claiming that Armenians and Assyrians have a common history, what is this history you speak of? I am telling that the closest non-IE population Armenians would logically derive from are Hurrians. Hurrians are not a Semitic speaking population. They don't have any connection to Semites. You seem to be adamant in trying to establish a relationship that does not exist:

"The Hurrians spoke an ergative-agglutinative language, conventionally called Hurrian, unrelated to neighboring Semitic or Indo-European languages. The Iron Age Urartian language is closely related to or a direct descendant of Hurrian."



It's not "some" Armenians and Assyrians, it's all Armenians and Assyrians. Armenians and Assyrians are the same genetic group. We are genetically more similar than north Germans and south Germans are with each other.

Again, you are claiming genetic similarity, but ignoring various times when Assyrians absorbed Hurrian, Hittite, and Armenian population in antiquity to the modern age.

Let us break down the logic:

You are claiming Armenians and Assyrians are similar, right? Right. Let us assume for entertainment and for the sake the argument that Armenians are 100% non-IE in all aspects of their identity.

So, let us go step by step. You look at the historical record and the population that predates the Armenians in the region of the Armenian Highlands and it is the Hurrian.

The Hurrians are not a Semitic speaking population ever. They have no relationship with the later Semitic expansion into the region.

You are claiming that Armenians and Assyrians have common origins, correct? Correct, so what do we know? We know previously, in the area, there was a population that was non-Semitic and non-IE, meaning, if Armenians and Assyrians are indeed related then either both adopted a foreign language and were Hurrian originally.

BUT this is not possible as the dates don't fit this timeline. Assyrians and Hurrians are contemporaries. The Assyrian culture, language, and identity developed independently of the Hurrian. In the case of Armenians, they have always been referred to by third parties as Armenian, Urartu, and MItani. Most likely they are a hybrid population of Hittite and Hurrian. There is clear cultural continuity of a Hittite-Hurrian alliance, collapse, and rise of Armenians as distinct and unique culture.


What I don't understand though, is why you're sympathising with PBachman?

Could it be because you are wrong? Hmm... have you thought about that one? You are so ridiculous. You claim I am acting like a "Nazi", but you are clearly the one that tries to attack anyone, not just me, who disagrees with you. Furthermore, anytime that the historical evidence contradicts your opinions you throw genetic studies into it. Do you understand it is very ridiculous to try to use genetic studies as a substitute for historical and archeological evidence? You seem to not understand the very basic structure of government of the region. It has always been a loose confederation of Hurrian and IE speaking populations. The mountainous terrian isolated populations. Therefore, the genetic relationship between populations within the Armenian highlands was very rigid. It is not as fluid because populations are isolated. You could have entire genetic information lost by an invading army. There is a lot in your analysis that you don't consider. You present one mold for every opinion.

You compare this structure to Assyria, which was very much so a centralized construct. What was a mono-ethnic construct eventually, via empire, expanded to absorb many different populations. However, the Assyrian identity, whether it blossomed into a national one or not, had already been established independently of the Hurrian and Hittite populations.


In the academic and intellectual book The Jewish Century, it's the Jews and Armenians who are grouped together with Gypsies as "Mercurians" ;)

The Jewish Century: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7819.html

And hey, Gypsies speak Indo-European, not Semitic :yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_language

^^ Indo-Aryan language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomavren_language

^^ Gypsy/Armenian creole :lol:

If I were you, I'd just shut the fuck up and never again call Assyrians "Gypsies". As an Assyrian, I'm way more entitled of ridiculing Armenians of Gypsiness.

Well, it's not fun to you because I'm poking fun at your ignorance.

No, Assyrians are Gypsy. Consider the definition:

"A nomadic or free-spirited person"

Then define a nomad:

"(nomad) a member of a people who have no permanent home but move about according to the seasons"

Clearly, Assyrians have no homeland and are just roaming here and there. The ones in Armenian, slowly, move to Russia. This is my opinion. Furthermore, posting ridiculous links to Armenian mutts does not change the facts. Armenians have always had a presence in their homeland. Up until the Armenian Genocide there has always been a large and influential population of Armenians with the Armenian Highlands. Assyrians on the other hand can't say the same.


I don't think you even understand what I'm saying. It must be your anti-logical MENA IQ.

No, I know exactly what you are saying. You are trying to make Assyrian and Armenian equal in order to distance Assyrians from Arabs and other Semites, but you are the true Anti-Intellectual here, as nothing you have theorized falls under the historical narrative of the region. Again, read my posts. There is no connection between Hurrians and Assyrians. There is no connection between Hittites and Assyrians. Any genetic connection between Armenians and Assyrians could be attributed to recent or older genetic exchange. I have explained and highlighted at what points Assyrians absorbed Armenian genes either you will learn to accept this fact or you can just go argue with world renowned scholars and historians that have established these facts. Furthermore, it could be the case that there were in fact two different waves of genetic information that came from Semitic speaking populations. One emigrated from the south at an earlier date whereby avoiding genetic exchange that influenced the latter. However, using genetic reserach to claim that Armenians and Assyrians are one and the same, when in fact, it does not match the historical narrative goes to show your agenda.

Again, you are struck on the genetic research and ignore any other rational explanation. Please grow up. The very fact that you have "Afro-Asiat ownage" or "Armenian ownage" as a sig, goes to show how fucked up in the head you are.




The Hittites were so genetically similar to Assyrians because both Hittites and Assyrians were Anatolians. The fact that Hittites resembled Assyrians (and Armenians), isn't because the proto-Indo-European urheimat is in Anatolia/Armenia (it's not), it's because the Hittites were largely descended from the Hattians who had shifted to a language that descended from the earliest stages of Indo-European.

Yeah, well explain this to me, where in the historical narrative does any population mention an invading IE population in the region before the recorded presence of the HIttites? First, what you are saying makes no sense because there is no such presence of such an invasion in the historical narrative. If you look at the Greek-Phrygian expansion into Anatolia, clearly, you can identify the "Sea people" as a direct reference to this invasion.

Second, you are now claiming that Hattians shifted their language. I don't disagree with this, but what you are claiming goes a bit beyond this and finds its way into the realm of fantasy. Clearly, this is true:

"The Hattians were an ancient people who inhabited the land of Hatti in present-day central part of Anatolia, Turkey, noted at least as early as the empire of Sargon of Akkad (ca. 2300 BC),[1] until they were gradually displaced and absorbed ca. 2000–1700 BC by Indo-European Hittites, who adopted their name for the "land of Hatti"."

Meaning, the Assyrians invaded the area and recorded the presence of such population. Meaning, it is not fucking possible for Assyrians to be related to Hattians, HItties, and Hurrians. Furthermore, it is not possible for these populations to have common orgins, as by that time, the Assyrians already had an ethno-genesis. Do you not understand? There is no timeline that would present such an origin in such a manner where all these populations could develop to the point where they are so indistinguishable from each other.

Your entire idea of Hitties being acculturated from the very same source that Assyrians were is not possible. It can't fit the timeline. It is improbable. Furthermore, this is the same with regards to Hattians as well Hurrians. All three developed independent of each other. In the case of Hattian and Hurrian or Hittite, there could be strong cultural exchange. In the case of HIttite and Hurrian there is strong cultural, genetic, and linguistic exchange. However, there is no such relationship between anyone of these populations and Assyrians. Maybe latter, when Assyrian expansion occurred, but certainly, not before. Certainly, it is not probable that there is a common ethno-genesis. It is not possible. Do you get it?



No one has said Hittites were Assyrians. Physical anthropologist in the early century called their phenotype, "Assyroid", "Armenoid", "proto-Armenian" etc., because it was a local Anatolian/Mesopotamian phenotype.

You are taking a modern assessment of phenotypical features and extending it back to antiquity. Don't get it? You can't make that comparison. It breaks down as there has been so much Armenian genetic influence within Assyrians. Likewise, some Armenians may have an Assyrian ancestor.


You're too stupid to connect the dots, and so that's why I'm spoon-feeding you the conclusions, you dumbass.

If I am so stupid why bother replying to me? You seem to have holes in an argument that can not be defended. There is nothing of value to your argument. There is no way you can make that connection between Assyrians, Hittites, and Hurrians.


With all due respect to Humanist, he's my ethnic brother and all, but his understanding of ancient populations is not better than mine and in no way is he more informed than me on the topic. That he is perceived as more objective by some people isn't because he actually has sharper conclusions or anything, but because he's not as openly racist/racialist as I am. And for some people, that's all that matters in how they judge a man's credibility.

But I am correct in telling you, Assyrians are the closest extant population today, of the original proto-Semites, and the proto-Afro-Asiatic language family didn't come from Africa, just as it didn't come from China. It came from the Middle East, and modern Armenians share genes with the proto-Afro-Asiatics more so than you do with the proto-Indo-Europeans.

No, we don't. Assyrians share genes with Armenians. Do you understand your entire argument is backwards? Does anyone else on the forum see where EA's argument is flawed? It is precisely the other way around. Assyrians are acculturated Armenians. It can't be the case, as Armenians don't cluster with other populations that are "Afro-Asiatic". Do you get it? For fucks sake, can someone please explain it to this guy?



What army are you talking about? A militarily dominant group of people ("army") cannot alter the entire genepool of a demographically established genepool.

So that's why Iraqis will still be Iraqis now that Americans leave Iraq, and that's why "Anatolian Turks" are not actually ethnic Turks, and so on. And it was like that in ancient times as well.

No, my point is that if you had a strong foreign presence in Anatolia like you claim then it would be recorded in the historical narrative of the region.


The Hittites were Indo-Europeans in language only, like me and Jaska (who's a professional linguist by the way; I think he knows what he's talking about a hell of a lot better than you) are telling you. And even linguistically, the Hittites were not purely Indo-European (they had a Hattic substratum in both language and certainly culture/religion):


“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 house.7”
— J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, p. 28

^^ And that's one of the more important reasons why Anatolia isn't the Indo-European urheimat, and neither is Armenia. I take Mallory's educated and scientific opinion any day of the week over your stupid ethnocentrism.

FIrst, I am not ethno-centric. Second of all, stop the type-casting. Third of all, I never claimed that there was no other influence including Assyrian. Go back and read my posts. I disagree with your opinions as you are going beyond just accepting the fact that there have been cultural exchange. You are claiming that Assyrians are natives of Anatolia. You are claiming that Armenians are acculturated Assyrians. You are claiming that Armenians are Afro-Asiatic in origin. This to me, goes beyond what is established by researchers. It is your own personal agenda you are pushing and furthermore, it is not problem that Jaska, who is a linguist, agrees with your idiocy. You are claiming something that is not established. Fourth, Jaska can be a professional linguist, but I have clearly highlighted contradictions with proposing that the Kurgen were the origins of the IE culture and language. There is numerous problems with this theory, which I have highlighted. You can't just look at the linguistic, genetic, and historical evidence separately. You have to put it together and when I do, I just feel like the Kurgen is not possible.


I understand it better than you do. I don't think you have anything resembling a basic understand of linguistics to tell me what Semitic and Indo-European is or isn't.

There's a lot you don't understand. Your anti-intellectual ignorance is the problem here.

Right, you were born with a PhD in IE studies, genetics, and etc. while everyone else are cavemen. You need to be quiet as you are making yourself look ignorant. I don't insult you, I don't pretend that I know more than others, but clearly, your opinions are wrong. They are based on a pseudo-history largely pushed forward by genetic studies, which in most cases, may link Assyrians to Armenians, but clearly, it does not link Armenians to other Afro-Asiatic populations. Clearly, there is a reason why Assyrians are related to Armenians, but also Afro-Asiatics, but Armenians are not. You are taking one dimension and pushing forward without considering why there is a relationship.


One of the more important reasons why the Indo-European urheimat was in north of the Black Sea, was because proto-Semitic loanwords (such as bull and seven) are found in proto-Indo-European, and proto-Uralic also had some proto-Indo-European loanwords. Considering that Semitic has always been spoken in the northern Middle East, and proto-Uralic was spoken somewhere in the Volga, that makes north of the Black Sea (Yamnaya) a better geographic hot spot for the connections proto-Indo-European has with Semitic and Uralic. Armenia is too far away from the Volga, and Armenia is too close to the Semitic speaking region, which would've meant that if Armenia was the PIE urheimat, Indo-European would have been closer related with Semitic than it is.

Well, there are also problems with Kurgen. First, it could be the case that the IE expanded out of Anatolia before the Semitic populations arrived. Furthermore, I am not claiming that Armenia of today is the origins of the homeland, rather, I am advocating my opinion that it is not just possible for a nomadic culture like the Kurgen to have the potential to be so influential in such a short span of time because they just would not have the technology. Furthermore, the Kurgen hypothesis depends on their ability to be mobile, but the various technology associated with the horse is not developed until 2500 BC. There is a 1500 year gap and we don't even find any archeological evidence of horse domestication in Europe until 2000 BC. Again, there is a 2000 year gap. For a culture that supposedly were technologically superior to others, they are very primitive.



I'm actually one of the most Assyrian living specimens you can find. Had Armenians been as genetically different from Assyrians as you think we are, I would not only have been excluded from Dodecad as DOD040, but my 25% Armenian ancestry would make me look totally different from other Assyrians. As it is now, my Armenian ancestry makes no difference, except that it made my eyes browner than my fully Assyrian father's azure blue eyes ;)

Armenians = swarthy wogs.

Right ... you seem to be delusional mate. That is fine. Look for someone who claims to be "intellectual", your true colors are now apparent. As I don't want to insult Assyrians, I will stop here. Let me make you happy, Assyrians are "Nordic supermen".



How can you be this ignorant? What are you, twelve years old or something? Yes, the alphabet is a Semitic invention. Alphabet stands for Aleph and Beth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bet_%28letter%29

^^ Semitic script.

That's more or less exactly what Armenia is ;)

When did I claim this? You like to twist words. Reread my post.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_script[/url] (look at parent systems)

The proto-Sinaitic hypothesis is not yet conclusively established, but what we know for certain is that the alphabet was invented by the Phoenicians (Semites).

I have no problem admitting that the Sumerians influenced the Assyrians. But I think at the end of the day, the Akkadians influenced the Sumerians a lot more.

Right...look you think. Might as well claim that the entire world was influenced by Assyrians. You are such a hypocrite. You claim I have inferiority complex? Please, go look in the mirror.



No, you're wrong. Martiros Kavoukjian's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia,_Subartu_And_Sumer) hypothesis is straight up nationalist pseudo-science, in much the same way Gustaf Kossinna's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Kossinna) hypothesis that the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in Scandinavia is pseudo-science.

Also, Sumerian, Kartvelian and Semitic are closer related with each other than either are to Indo-European. See this post where I offer sources for that:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=647789&postcount=59

Right... Georgians semites as well. You are delusional. There is no such thing as Proto-Semitic, anyone that supports you is only digging a grave them for themselves. Your entire argument is just bullshit. Go read wikipedia, you may learn something. Stop reading pseudo-history books.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 18:34 ----------



I would ignore PBachman. This is the moron who think the Indo-Iranians acquired their horse culture from Armenians.

That is not what I said. Go back and be brave, reread my post. You are twisting my comments. My point within that thread was within a different context. There is strong evidence of an equestrian tradition within Armenians. It is known historical fact. You have Xenophon and other Greek historians attesting to this, aside from other sources. If you can't understand this, please, that is not my problem.

newtoboard
2012-02-04, 20:48
There is nothing that supports an Anatolian hypothesis. That all the Andronovo samples, Tarim basin samples and Scythian samples are R1a is telling. That there is no R1b east of Iran among Tajiks, Pashtuns, Pakistanis, NW Indians is even more telling. That these areas lack the Mediterranean component which they would have if the Anatolian theory was right hurts the Anatolian theory even more so. That all these areas have significant amounts of R1a corresponding with a Northeast European component makes the Anatolian theory ridiculous. You keep on talking about Tocharians and their languages similarity with Armenian but these people were R1a and the average Afghan has more Tocharian ancestry (via the Kushan empire ) than Armenians do. The R1b in the area is the remnant of Turkic invasions as well as the Neolithic population movements from North Iran.

PBachman
2012-02-04, 21:40
There is nothing that supports an Anatolian hypothesis. That all the Andronovo samples, Tarim basin samples and Scythian samples are R1a is telling. That there is no R1b east of Iran among Tajiks, Pashtuns, Pakistanis, NW Indians is even more telling. That these areas lack the Mediterranean component which they would have if the Anatolian theory was right hurts the Anatolian theory even more so. That all these areas have significant amounts of R1a corresponding with a Northeast European component makes the Anatolian theory ridiculous. You keep on talking about Tocharians and their languages similarity with Armenian but these people were R1a and the average Afghan has more Tocharian ancestry (via the Kushan empire ) than Armenians do. The R1b in the area is the remnant of Turkic invasions as well as the Neolithic population movements from North Iran.

Please, go to the thread I wrote that and post there. Genetics is not field my expertise. I don't really enjoy dabbling in it because it creates more problems than solutions. Furthermore, I am not familiar with genetic studies to give you an answer to your question. I don't follow that end of the research. I am sure there are Armenians that do, but I don't know if they post on these forums. I can tell irrespective of the genetic studies EA's idea are wrong. Furthermore if you think that my idea of an IE homeland being in Anatolia is off, how far off is EA's idea? Do you believe IE speakers originated from a Proto-Semitic language or that Armenians, Sumerians, Hurrians, Hittites, and Haittians all sprang from Assyrians (or Proto-Semites)? Does this bullshit fly with you?


Additionally, you seem to be attacking for simply being of the opinion that I don't think the Kurgen or Indo-Iranian point of origin matches dates. There are more problems with these theories than there are with the Anatolian. With Anatolian the level of technology of the region clearly matches the level of civilization of the Proto-IE. It creates an area where technology required to build civilization via trade and cultural contacts exist. You can also have the mobility via horses and also an agricultural vocabulary, technology, and spread. With Kurgen and the others, this is not possible. It is very limited.

Regarding Tocharian, there are linguistic models that find strong correlation between Tocharian and Armenian. However, I don't know the exact percent correlation. I have read the papers. I will try to find them.

However, I do hope you know you know you are defending a bogus idea. Please, if you have no dog in the fight, I suggest you stay out as he is absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as a Proto-Semitic in which other languages sprang out from. It is ridiculous. Please, stay out. IF you would like to continue the other topic, post the same information in the thread I had mentioned that information under and I will find those papers for you. I can even go ahead and PM them to you.

Anulik
2012-02-04, 21:54
It's interesting as most of the authors in that paper seemingly are from 23andme. Again, reputable studies will conduct their own studies not rely on the 23andme business.



So I am a Armenian quasi nationalist for saying that Armenians and Assyrians aren't the same people? :whoco:



Pan-Aryan nationalists? Have a source? And so now if a paper says Armenians and Assyrians are not same people they are all of sudden pan-aryan nationalists? Let's me more reasonable here.



You are saying that based of your 23andme results? All I'm asking for is scientific papers that conclude that Armenians and Assyrians are the same people.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 18:19 ----------

Again you fail to mention the genetic variation amongst Armenian nation. It's a silly inference to make that Assyrians are close to all Armenians, given this variation based on geography. You have to be more specific.

This is pretty funny. Just because we seem to know more about Armenians than him, and know the geographical diversity in our own damn regions, it doesn't matter for him, because simply put, we are the same, yet he mentioned the diversity among North and South German. Disagreeing with him will make us Aryan nationalists while for the longest time, he was advertising "Aryan Idols"as his avatar and it doesn't take a smart ass to read his profile list/beliefs > Eugenics Eco-Fascism.


In addition to that:
Originally Posted by EliasAlucard
Sorry, but I don't speak bullshit. I know you do.

My argument is 110% logical. You're the one representing anti-logic here.

Also, you're bullshitting.

That's ethnocentric self-aggrandising bullshit though.

Genetic studies you've pulled out of your ass? your stupid bullshit is ridiculous.

you're talking out of your ass, as usual.

have a shitload of Indo-European genes, but you don't.

That's wishful thinking (bullshit by any other name).

Cite your sources, dipshit.

Yes, the ancient Assyrians were quite badass to say the least.

Armenians are swarthy wogs.

you're full of shit as usual.

And that's really why you aren't Indo-Europeans. Language aside, you are really not much different from Assyrians.
you're ignorant? Or maybe just stupid? It's not really my problem.


His intellectual lingua is quite the topper too. According to his logic, if Armenians are swarthy wogs, then that makes him one of hell of a swarthy wog in addition to all the other nations/peoples around us. It's one thing to argue intellectually, but after reading these posts, I am not even going to state the obvious.. He has lost credibility for me, and his Assyro-centric view is clear as water.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-04, 22:24
This is pretty funny. Just because we seem to know more about Armenians than him, and know the geographical diversity in our own damn regions, it doesn't matter for him, because simply put, we are the same, yet he mentioned the diversity among North and South German.I'm well aware of the "diversity" Armenians have. It holds no weight because Armenians are still very very very genetically similar to Assyrians, regardless of where in Armenia they come from. And that's not just the case with Armenians, but also the case with Azeris for example, and Georgians.

I've compared my genome profile with Armenians and other wog nations on 23andMe, self-identified ethnic Armenians who cluster in the Middle East and also Europe, and there's no question about it as far as I'm concerned: Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. The Indo-European urheimat in Armenia is an unverified hypothesis; nothing speaks in its favour.


Disagreeing with him will make us Aryan nationalists while for the longest time, he was advertising "Aryan Idols"as his avatar and it doesn't take a smart ass to read his profile list/beliefs > Eugenics Eco-Fascism.Aryan Idols is a book that is critical of the Aryanist mindset we can find in Armenians like PBachman. It discusses, critically, how Europeans have worshipped Aryans (hence, "idols" as in idolatry). Not that I have read anything about Armenians in the book so far, but all the arguments in the book about how ideological Europeans have been about Aryan this, Aryan that, can be applied on these ridiculous "ARyan ARmenians".


His intellectual lingua is quite the topper too. According to his logic, if Armenians are swarthy wogs, then that makes him one of hell of a swarthy wog in addition to all the other nations/peoples around us. It's one thing to argue intellectually, but after reading these posts, I am not even going to state the obvious.. He has lost credibility for me, and his Assyro-centric view is clear as water.When I say Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans, that's a scientific statement I am telling you and every other Armenian in the universe, with 110% credibility.

Also, sister, let's get one thing straight: the only reason you voted Armenia in this poll is because you want Armenia to be special. It's not like you have any clue or grasp intellectually why Armenia would be a good candidate of the proto-Indo-European urheimat (it's not; Armenia is a lousy candidate). If you're going to accuse me of having no credibility, make sure you understand the topic you're discussing. Voting Armenia in a poll like this, completely trashes your credibility.

Humanist
2012-02-04, 23:30
The R1b in the area is the remnant of Turkic invasions as well as the Neolithic population movements from North Iran.

Where are you getting this from? Are you familiar with all the data?

Edit: Actually. Is this exclusive to areas east of N Iran? If so, disregard the question.

Lol_Race
2012-02-04, 23:38
Also, sister, let's get one thing straight: the only reason you voted Armenia in this poll is because you want Armenia to be special. It's not like you have any clue or grasp intellectually why Armenia would be a good candidate of the proto-Indo-European urheimat (it's not; Armenia is a lousy candidate). If you're going to accuse me of having no credibility, make sure you understand the topic you're discussing. Voting Armenia in a poll like this, completely trashes your credibility.
It must be similar, then, to your insistence that Assyrians are not only the source population of all kinds of populations (Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, you name it), but also the closest thing to the proto-Afroasiatics?

Mosov
2012-02-04, 23:58
I'm well aware of the "diversity" Armenians have. It holds no weight because Armenians are still very very very genetically similar to Assyrians, regardless of where in Armenia they come from. And that's not just the case with Armenians, but also the case with Azeris for example, and Georgians.

I've compared my genome profile with Armenians and other wog nations on 23andMe, self-identified ethnic Armenians who cluster in the Middle East and also Europe, and there's no question about it as far as I'm concerned: Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. The Indo-European urheimat in Armenia is an unverified hypothesis; nothing speaks in its favour.

You have said Armenians and Assyrians are the same. Yet, I showed you a genetic paper which states clearly genetic differences between different Armenians. Artsakh Armenians for example have the supposed most sustained Armenian genetic identity because of the geography. Armenians who came from Sasun are said to have a more Turkish component. Before making such grand statements, you have to really understand what it is you are saying. It's funny because if there was such a revelation I would hear more of the statement "Breaking News: Assyrians and Armenians are the Same!) except I only hear it from Assyrian nationalists.

Here's a famous study conducted and it doesn't support your statement that Armenians and Assyrians are the same:


HLA typing analysis has also shown that Turks, Kurds, and Armenians are close genetically; these three groups seem to have been living in the area for many millennia (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001). However, the DAT1 allele and genotype distributions displayed different patterns among the Armenian, Azeri (Turk), and Kurdish ethnic groups in Iran (Banoei et al. 2007). Also, Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2002) reported that the present-day Turkish HLA profile reflects an older Mediterranean substratum that is not that different from the profile of the Persian Jews (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002). We have observed in this study that the DAT1 genotypes among the Jewish population are less similar to those of other ethnic groups in the region. Based on earlier studies, using classical genetic methods, Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza (1979) came to the conclusion "that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they share a common origin." In fact, new molecular studies have confirmed this conclusion (Hammer et al. 2000).

DAT1*12, which has a frequency of 0.033 in the Assyrians, was never seen in the other six ethnic groups or in the nine Iranian ethnic groups studied by Banoei et al. (2007). The relationship probability was lowest between Assyrians and other communities. Endogamy was found to be high for this population through determination of the heterogeneity coefficient (+0.6867). Our study supports earlier findings indicating the relatively closed nature of the Assyrian community as a whole, which as a result of their religious and cultural traditions, have had little intermixture with other populations (Elias 2000).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18505046


Some more reading:

Genetical studies have shown that autosomally speaking Armenians and Anatolian Turks cluster together also hg's distribution in both populations is nearly identical (if I am not mistaken the user flashard has posted hg's distributions of Armenians and Anatolian Turks and they were nearly identical) so most likely the christian Armenians preserve the pre Turk anatolians genetics (and also culture) and Turkish in Anatolia is mostly a linguistic process in wich native anatolians shifted to the language of the Turkic military rulers, since according to various historians the number of the Turks that migrated to Anatolia was estimated between 200-300 k up to 500-600 k (see cahen and Toynbee) for an estimated anatolian population ranging from 8 to 12 mlns and there was not an attestation of a genocide made by newcoming Turks against Native Anatolians but on the contrary many newcoming Turks died during various battles against crusaders as well as against mongols and against other Turks (this perhaps explains why while mongoloid[Turkic but also ket and sinic...]mt DNA numbers around 5% amongst Anatolian Turks mongoloid [Turkic but also Mongolian and perhaps some Ket too] Y DNA [C3c&N3c] numbers slightly less , but what about the culture part!?
What strikes me when first becoming aware of Armenians and their culture is that Turkey Armenians have nearly identical culture with Anatolian Turks while Armenians of Armenia have nearly identical culture with Azerbaidjanis (this could be seen in poetry, traditional music, dances, foods, traditions, tales, cultural words, clothes, architecture...)+the eastern armenian dialect sounds very similar (phonologically speaking) with Azeri+racially speaking too, Armenians are nearly identical to anatolians (the western armenians) and Azeris (the eastern armenians)[when child I was thinking of Armenians as very different "aliens"] in a nutshell Azeris and Turks are closer to Armenians than they are to Turko-Iranians folks of Central Asia and Turkic folks of Siberia.

Again you haven't shown enough evidence to support the assertion that Assyrians and Armenians are the same.

Sargon999
2012-02-05, 00:02
I do not believe Assyrians and Armenians are the same. We have our differences in genetics. But the differences are small. For example compare Armenians with Kurds...

Mosov
2012-02-05, 00:04
I do not believe Assyrians and Armenians are the same. We have our differences in genetics. But the differences are small. For example compare Armenians with Kurds...

I always said we are similar in genetics, like also we are similar with Kurds and other neighbours, even Azeris. But saying that Armenian and Assyrians are the same (which was said by your Assyrian friend) is downright inaccurate. And in my opinion shows his real intentions here.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-05, 00:05
The topic really isn't about how genetically similar Armenians and Assyrians are. The topic is if Armenia is the Indo-European urheimat and if Armenians are descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

//mod

Sargon999
2012-02-05, 00:05
I always said we are similar in genetics, like also we are similar with Kurds and other neighbours, even Azeris. But saying that Armenian and Assyrians are the same (which was said by your Assyrian friend) is downright inaccurate. And in my shows his real intentions here.

I can only speak for myself :)

Mosov
2012-02-05, 00:12
The topic really isn't about how genetically similar Armenians and Assyrians are. The topic is if Armenia is the Indo-European urheimat and if Armenians are descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans.

//mod

So then why did you make that statement? Mate, I'm only replying to the things you said.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 00:14 ----------


I can only speak for myself :)

I favour warm relations with Assyrians, but saying things like Assyrians are Armenians just doesn't help anybody.

Wojewoda
2012-02-05, 00:16
I don't know if it might help in the ongoing discussion - it is somewhat off-topic - but in the neighbour-joning tree made on the basis of the Dodecad autosomal data (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=687066&postcount=3637) Dodecad Armenians and Yunusbaev Armenians cluster closest to Uzbekistan Jews, Georgian Jews, Azerbeijan Jews, Iraqi Jews, Iranian Jews and Assyrians.

annihilus
2012-02-05, 00:19
I don't know if it might help in the ongoing discussion - it is somewhat off-topic - but in the dendrogrms made on the basis of the Dodecad autosomal data (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=687066&postcount=3637) Armenians cluster closest to Uzbekistan Jews, Georgian Jews, Azerbeijan Jews, Iraqi Jews, Iranian Jews and Assyrians.

So Armenians are converted jews?

Mosov
2012-02-05, 00:23
I don't know if it might help in the ongoing discussion - it is somewhat off-topic - but in the dendrogrms made on the basis of the Dodecad autosomal data (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=687066&postcount=3637) Armenians cluster closest to Uzbekistan Jews, Georgian Jews, Azerbeijan Jews, Iraqi Jews, Iranian Jews and Assyrians.

That's interesting because in the article I posted, this was said:



Armeniansand Iranian Jews (see Table 3).

This could be an indication of a relationship
between the two groups. It is also clear from history that these two groups
had close communication over the centuries. The Khazar Empire (located northeast
of the Black Sea, near present-day Armenia), which had adopted Judaism in
the last quarter of the first millennium c.e., was an important constituent of the
nascent Ashkenazi community, the most renowned Jewish branch in Europe (Behar
et al. 2003). Also, historical evidence shows an Armenian kingdom founded
by displaced Armenians along the Mediterranean coast between modern Turkey
and Syria. HLA haplotype analysis implies a relationship between the Armenians
DAT1 in Iranians, Iraqis, and Kuwaitis / 79
and the people of this region, who belong to the older Mediterranean substratum
(Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002).

Sargon999
2012-02-05, 00:26
I favour warm relations with Assyrians, but saying things like Assyrians are Armenians just doesn't help anybody.

Of course. I do not regard Assyrians as Armenians or vice versa. But what is true must be spoken. We are very similar in genetics as we are neighbors and share a common ancient component. We are for example not that similar to Kurds. Also us Assyrians seem to be very close to Jewish populations in the Middle East.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 00:34
Of course. I do not regard Assyrians as Armenians or vice versa. But what is true must be spoken. We are very similar in genetics as we are neighbors and share a common ancient component. We are for example not that similar to Kurds. Also us Assyrians seem to be very close to Jewish populations in the Middle East.

Yes we are similar in genetics which is expected, I never denied that. We have been neighbours for ages and we are both Christians, so that's a big reason for that. Of course, with that, we are not the same group of people. Assyrians from what I see have been a very insular group and not mixed very much. The paper I posted before affirms that fact of Assyrians. I would expect us to have more genetic connections with other people of the Caucasus and Anatolian Kurds that you guys to them. While you guys have more connections to groups such as Jews of Middle East than us to them.

Sargon999
2012-02-05, 00:37
Yes we are similar in genetics which is expected, I never denied that. We have been neighbours for ages and we are both Christians, so that's a big reason for that. Of course, with that, we are not the same group of people. Assyrians from what I see have been a very insular group and not mixed very much. The paper I posted before affirms that fact of Assyrians. I would expect us to have more genetic connections with other people of the Caucasus and Anatolian Kurds that you guys to them. While you guys have more connections to groups such as Jews of Middle East than us to them.

I agree with most of your post.

But Armenians are not that connected to the Caucasus as one might think. Most Armenians were located in E.Anatolia and not in present day Armenia. Hence Armenians ought to be closer to Turks without the Turkic component, Assyrians and to a lesser extent Kurds as the Kurds immigrated to Anatolia in a latter phase. That is the main reason they cluster between Anatolia and Iran.

Wojewoda
2012-02-05, 00:37
So Armenians are converted jews?

On the other hand wider branch of clustering algorithm tree encompases all 3 Armenian samples, Assyrians, Iraqi, Iranian, Azerbejiani, Georgian and Uzbekistan Jews, Iranians, Kurds, Georgians, Abkhazians and Anatolian Turks. So it rather suggest that all these groups are more or less native to the region.

But maybe the resolution of Dodecad is simply not good enought to draw any definite conclusions - in the same clustering algorithm tree Poles and Belarussians cluster together with Swedes and Norwegians instead of Ukrainians and Russians as they should.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 00:44
I agree with most of your post.

But Armenians are not that connected to the Caucasus as one might think. Most Armenians were located in E.Anatolia and not in present day Armenia. Hence Armenians ough to be closer to Turks without the Turkic component, Assyrians and to a lesser extent Kurds as the Kurds immigrated to Anatolia in a latter phase. That is the main reason they cluster between Anatolia and Iran.

the armenian highland stretched from Eastern anatolia to south Caucasus where present day Armenia is. Some of our most famous and ancient churches/monasteries are in South Caucasus, not to mention our Hellenistic temples that come from our pre-Christian area.

newtoboard
2012-02-05, 01:10
Please, go to the thread I wrote that and post there. Genetics is not field my expertise. I don't really enjoy dabbling in it because it creates more problems than solutions. Furthermore, I am not familiar with genetic studies to give you an answer to your question. I don't follow that end of the research. I am sure there are Armenians that do, but I don't know if they post on these forums. I can tell irrespective of the genetic studies EA's idea are wrong. Furthermore if you think that my idea of an IE homeland being in Anatolia is off, how far off is EA's idea? Do you believe IE speakers originated from a Proto-Semitic language or that Armenians, Sumerians, Hurrians, Hittites, and Haittians all sprang from Assyrians (or Proto-Semites)? Does this bullshit fly with you?


Additionally, you seem to be attacking for simply being of the opinion that I don't think the Kurgen or Indo-Iranian point of origin matches dates. There are more problems with these theories than there are with the Anatolian. With Anatolian the level of technology of the region clearly matches the level of civilization of the Proto-IE. It creates an area where technology required to build civilization via trade and cultural contacts exist. You can also have the mobility via horses and also an agricultural vocabulary, technology, and spread. With Kurgen and the others, this is not possible. It is very limited.

Regarding Tocharian, there are linguistic models that find strong correlation between Tocharian and Armenian. However, I don't know the exact percent correlation. I have read the papers. I will try to find them.

However, I do hope you know you know you are defending a bogus idea. Please, if you have no dog in the fight, I suggest you stay out as he is absolutely wrong. There is no such thing as a Proto-Semitic in which other languages sprang out from. It is ridiculous. Please, stay out. IF you would like to continue the other topic, post the same information in the thread I had mentioned that information under and I will find those papers for you. I can even go ahead and PM them to you.


I could care less about Armenians and their relatons with Semites.

But you said the Indo-Europeans came from Anatolia or Armenians. Whatever. And the proto Indo-Iranians show nothing that connects them with Anatolia. They were probably 100% R1a and Northeast European before admixture with West Asians around the BMAC. Even then nothing to do with Armenians. No R1b in the area.

Tocharians may have had some language similarities with Armenians but they were genetically closer to Indo-Iranians.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 01:14 ----------


Where are you getting this from? Are you familiar with all the data?

Edit: Actually. Is this exclusive to areas east of N Iran? If so, disregard the question.

I mean farming was brought to Central Asia via Northern Iran. I assume these people had some R1b. And later Turks added R1b to Central Asia.

I am saying this because R1b is pretty much nonexistant among Tajiks, Afghans, pakistanis and NW Indians. Seems to have skipped them entirely (the mediterranian/sw asian components as well as j1 seems to have skipped these areas as well).

There is some R1b-M269 that is distinct from other types of R1b in South Central Asia but it is very rare. A frequency of close to maybe .5%.

I just think the people who want to say there was R1b in the area so Tocharians were R1b so the Anaoltian hypothesis is misguided. The R1b is easily explained through other sources and has nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.

PBachman
2012-02-05, 01:24
I'm well aware of the "diversity" Armenians have. It holds no weight because Armenians are still very very very genetically similar to Assyrians, regardless of where in Armenia they come from. And that's not just the case with Armenians, but also the case with Azeris for example, and Georgians.

Being genetic similar could be expected given the location of populations, but that is not what you implied for the last few pages.


I've compared my genome profile with Armenians and other wog nations on 23andMe, self-identified ethnic Armenians who cluster in the Middle East and also Europe, and there's no question about it as far as I'm concerned: Armenians are not Indo-Europeans. The Indo-European urheimat in Armenia is an unverified hypothesis; nothing speaks in its favour.

First, please don't refer to Armenia as a "wog nation". Second, I don't buy the Kurgen in the same way you don't buy the Anatolian. It is my decision to disagree with you. There are so many holes in the Kurgen hypothesis. Again, you are making huge false statements. You are making it seem like that there is virtually no evidence, when in fact, there is a ton. You are again making ridiculous statements and ignoring the evidence that is not in the favor of the Kurgen that I highlighted.



Aryan Idols is a book that is critical of the Aryanist mindset we can find in Armenians like PBachman. It discusses, critically, how Europeans have worshipped Aryans (hence, "idols" as in idolatry). Not that I have read anything about Armenians in the book so far, but all the arguments in the book about how ideological Europeans have been about Aryan this, Aryan that, can be applied on these ridiculous "ARyan ARmenians".

Again, you are trying to type-cast and if there is nothing written about Armenians you need stop claiming the book as a source. What is ironic is that the book is highly critical of the Kurgen hypothesis it seems, but yet, here you are defending it. I don't have any "mindset", stop with the psycho-analysis bullshit. I don't buy the Kurgen theory; I am in favor the Anatolia-Armenian Highland model. IF you have a problem with it by all means that is not my problem. Stop claiming anyone that disagrees with is a "Nazi".



When I say Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans, that's a scientific statement I am telling you and every other Armenian in the universe, with 110% credibility.

You don't seem to realize that I have never claimed that Armenians are 100% IE. I have claimed that based on the evidence, most likely the IE civilization originated in the area of Anatolia. If anything, Armenians are a amalgam of Hurrians and Hittites. It is actually incorrect to label them an "amalgam" even, rather, it is direct cultural, genetic, and linguistic continuation of the Hittite-Hurrian populations with a Greek-Phrygian influence. It is not how you put it as being a immediate language shift via conquest. That is what bothers about your statements. It is a gradual shift from Hittite to Hurrian to Armenian. Even Armenian is a incorrect label rather, "people of Urartu" refers to a loose confederation of Hurrian and IE speaking populations that banded together to fight off invaders. Throughout the area we see this dynamic between Hurrians and IE speakers.

You on the other hand have an agenda of trying to somehow push the view point that Assyrians are the source for the Hittites, Hurrians, and the latter Armenians in order to distance yourself from your Semitic roots. This is the reality and this exactly how any intelligent person would read your statements. Whether it is regarding Armenians or Afro-Asiatics. You have a deep resentment of your own identity and are claiming others of the very same actions that you yourself are guilty of.



Also, sister, let's get one thing straight: the only reason you voted Armenia in this poll is because you want Armenia to be special. It's not like you have any clue or grasp intellectually why Armenia would be a good candidate of the proto-Indo-European urheimat (it's not; Armenia is a lousy candidate). If you're going to accuse me of having no credibility, make sure you understand the topic you're discussing. Voting Armenia in a poll like this, completely trashes your credibility.

Right...you lost your credibility a long time ago. The very idea that you claim Assyrians are "lighter than Armenians" is clearly a very big indication of what you are here to prove. You are an intelligent racist; nothing more or less. Stop accusing others.

annihilus
2012-02-05, 01:39
Armenians are in no way native to east anatolia or the caucasus. Look at the dodecad east asian scores (map by Avon) Look at the 0's east of Turkey, no way they are native. It's impossible to be native and have missed the east asian. Armenians come from further south, probably a bunch of converted jews or arabs that came to live in the Empire.

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/122/11907903.jpg

PBachman
2012-02-05, 01:40
I could care less about Armenians and their relatons with Semites.

But you said the Indo-Europeans came from Anatolia or Armenians. Whatever. And the proto Indo-Iranians show nothing that connects them with Anatolia. They were probably 100% R1a and Northeast European before admixture with West Asians around the BMAC. Even then nothing to do with Armenians. No R1b in the area.

Tocharians may have had some language similarities with Armenians but they were genetically closer to Indo-Iranians..

Going back, I still don't buy the Kurgen hypothesis. You can claim that the Anatolian-Armenian highland hypothesis is wrong, but I equally feel the other theories are equally problematic. Furthermore, how do you know that the supposed "ruling elite" were not West Asians? Hmm... I hope you eventually realize that this idea of IE being "nordic supermen" is exaggerated, as even the Hittites would not cluster with Northern and Western Europeans.

The technology that is needed to sustain civilization and the level of culture that is associated with proto-IE is not possible with a bunch marauding nomads. Even the premise of horse domestication and a cult centered around is not shown by the archeological and historical record of areas where the Kurgen supposedly populated before Anatolia and the Armenian Highlands. Unless you can prove to me how these populations were able to sustain civilization and spread to all four corners of the world in matter of two thousand years without any references to technology nor any evidence of an older IE civilization that predates the Hittites I will never buy the Kurgen hypothesis. There is so many holes in this theory; this is just the tip of the iceberg.

You could argue that the point of origin is different than the population that spread the culture. Maybe you have a hybrid model where the original IE speakers expanded and one of the population that expanded eventually became mobile via horses. I could buy this dual homeland theory, but to claim an advanced civilization like the IEs were nomads to me is just wrong. IT makes absolutely no sense.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 01:41
Armenians come from further south, probably a bunch of converted jews or arabs that came to live in the Empire.


Please go troll somewhere else...

PBachman
2012-02-05, 01:42
Armenians are in no way native to east anatolia or the caucasus. Look at the dodecad east asian scores (map by Avon) Look at the 0's east of Turkey, no way they are native. It's impossible to be native and have missed the east asian. Armenians come from further south, probably a bunch of converted jews or arabs that came to live in the Empire.

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/122/11907903.jpg

Right ... you are truly delusional. I believe you are now a worse offender than EA. Do you realize how idiotic your statement is?

newtoboard
2012-02-05, 01:46
Of course the hitties weren't fully Northern European. They were admixed.

Either way the Anatolian hypothesis doesn't explain why R1b is completey absent in Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Pakistan but R1a and a Northeast European component is present. Yet R1a is present in Armenia.

The Anatolian hypothesis is a bunch of bullshit. It isn't accepted by most experts anymore. It if a firnge theory that natonalists hold on to. It will never be proven right

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 01:47 ----------

You keep on throwing out a bunch of history arguments. Civilization this civilization that. blah blah.

yet genetics, linguistics and archeology all prove this Anatolian hypothesis wrong.

Vasishta
2012-02-05, 01:50
And yes, the low genetic similarity Armenians have with east Europeans, most definitely tells us, scientifically, that Armenians are not ethnic Indo-Europeans in any way and that you only speak a language derived from the proto-Indo-Europeans; a language that replaced the original non-IE language of your ancestors.
Elias, while I agree with the crux of your post, the whole notion of a pan-Indo European ethnic identity seems rather fallacious to say the least. All this makes it seem as if that Balto-Slavic groups are the only true Indo-Europeans, which in itself is rather subjective. Modern day Indo-European speakers are not a homogeneous group, and to somehow deem their identity as IE-speakers as invalid is unfair in my opinion, regardless of whether the proto-Indo European speakers ultimately originate in Central-East Europe or slightly further east in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

PBachman
2012-02-05, 01:57
Of course the hitties weren't fully Northern European. They were admixed.

Either way the Anatolian hypothesis doesn't explain why R1b is completey absent in Afghanistan/Tajikistan/Pakistan but R1a and a Northeast European component is present. Yet R1a is present in Armenia.

The Anatolian hypothesis is a bunch of bullshit. It isn't accepted by most experts anymore. It if a firnge theory that natonalists hold on to. It will never be proven right

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 01:47 ----------

You keep on throwing out a bunch of history arguments. Civilization this civilization that. blah blah.

yet genetics, linguistics and archeology all prove this Anatolian hypothesis wrong.

How about we make a deal. You give up on Kurgen and I will give up on my theories. It is fair, correct? As if I am willing to claim Anatolia has problems you should clearly see that your theories have problems. Again, you are placing to much evidence on genetics. As these populations never knew how has xyz genes they just saw folks that were a lighter shade themselves. Clearly, this description is subjective. It could be the case that the ruling elite were in fact West Asians. The Phrygians that expanded into Anatolia, clearly, would not cluster with the Greeks that expanded into modern day Greece. Therefore, there is a problem with assuming to much based on genetics. It is not outside the realm of possibility that West Asians were in fact the ruling elite. However, the strength of the Anatolian is that within the area there are numerous technological advancement that would make a super advanced culture like the IE really possible. Also, all the other theories place hittite last or they place it first via divergence, but I really feel this is a copout excuse. It seems to me they can not explain the presence of the Hittites and they just ignore them. Either way, if you place the divergence of the Hittites first or last then it does not fit with the 4000 BC mark. There are problems.

annihilus
2012-02-05, 02:16
Please go troll somewhere else...

That map doesn't lie, even a child can see that you don't belong there.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 02:18
That map doesn't lie, even a child can see that you don't belong there.

Lol, you don't know what you are talking about please spare us from your ridiculous attempts. Yeah Armenians are these aliens that were dropped on the Armenian highland from outer space :whoco:

annihilus
2012-02-05, 02:19
Don't flatter yourself, I just told you where you come from.

PBachman
2012-02-05, 02:24
Don't flatter yourself, I just told you where you come from.

Seriously, troll of the year.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 02:27
Don't flatter yourself, I just told you where you come from.

Good for you, whatever makes you sleep better at night :lol:

Ardi
2012-02-05, 03:44
Armenians are the anthropological natives of their habitat, who now speak an IE tongue with a significant non-IE, non-Semetic substratum. The origin of the said IE languages is uncertain.

That is all.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 22:00 ----------


Armenians are in no way native to east anatolia or the caucasus. Look at the dodecad east asian scores (map by Avon) Look at the 0's east of Turkey, no way they are native. It's impossible to be native and have missed the east asian. Armenians come from further south, probably a bunch of converted jews or arabs that came to live in the Empire.

http://img815.imageshack.us/img815/122/11907903.jpg

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg

Anulik
2012-02-05, 06:22
When I say Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans, that's a scientific statement I am telling you and every other Armenian in the universe, with 110% credibility.


Also, sister, let's get one thing straight: the only reason you voted Armenia in this poll is because you want Armenia to be special. It's not like you have any clue or grasp intellectually why Armenia would be a good candidate of the proto-Indo-European urheimat (it's not; Armenia is a lousy candidate). If you're going to accuse me of having no credibility, make sure you understand the topic you're discussing. Voting Armenia in a poll like this, completely trashes your credibility.


"110 percent bro, I'm telling, I know for sure"- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1A-M1hvpaLw

lol. I love how you just make so many assumptions. I voted Armenia?? Maybe you should check the poll since you're the moderator, I have rarely vote on polls in this forum. My reason for posting had nothing to do with the urheimat, (thanks for bashing on my intelligence, as if I know nothing about anything) but every reason to do with the genetic stuff you keep pushing forth. Furthermore, Armenia is special to me and I don't have to vote on some crappy poll to validate that for me and others lol.. But the extreme Assyro-centric approach you're taking makes you glorify Assyria and Assyrians, not what the Armenians are doing here.

---------- Post added 2012-02-04 at 22:30 ----------


Seriously, troll of the year.

He's like 55 years old or something. Poor man, has nothing better to do with his life.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 06:55
He's like 55 years old or something. Poor man, has nothing better to do with his life.

God...he should go spend time with his grand kids rather then make idiotic posts in threads involving armenians

Sargon999
2012-02-05, 11:07
But the extreme Assyro-centric approach you're taking makes you glorify Assyria and Assyrians, not what the Armenians are doing here.

Elias might come off a bit extreme. But the Armenians here were doing the exact same thing. This comes from a neutral point of view.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-05, 11:52
It must be similar, then, to your insistence that Assyrians are not only the source population of all kinds of populations (Armenians, Greeks, Arabs, you name it), but also the closest thing to the proto-Afroasiatics?No, not at all. Assyrians really are the parent population to Arabs. We know this because Assyrians have a higher genetic variation of J-P58 than Arabs (whereas Arabs have low variation but reach extremely high frequencies of J-P58), Assyrians also have higher autosomal variation and our genepool (the same can be said about Armenians) shows a tri-geographic split into Europeans, "South Asians" (Indians etc.) and "Middle East". This makes Assyrians/Armenians an ideal candidate for the Neolithic human migrations that took OOA populations into Europe, India and MENA (Afro-Asiatic in this case).

Unlike Greeks (and to a significantly lesser extent than Greeks also Armenians), Assyrians haven't mixed with descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans. This is remarkable and the impermeable genepool that is the Assyrian genome, is quite something in what kind of consciously racist group evolutionary strategy our Assyrian ancestors must have practised.


I favour warm relations with Assyrians, but saying things like Assyrians are Armenians just doesn't help anybody.Why do you think it doesn't help? If anything, being so genetically similar, we have common genetic interests:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Genetic_Interests


So then why did you make that statement? Mate, I'm only replying to the things you said.The topic of this thread isn't the genome profile of Armenians. We are not discussing how genetically similar Armenians are and what kind of genetic diversity Armenians have or don't have. We are not discussing the genetic make-up of the Armenian people here, I am not disputing that Armenians are native to Anatolia. I'm well aware of what genes Armenians have and don't have. I already know Armenians speak an Indo-European language, so you don't have to state the obvious.

I pointed out to you and PBachman that Armenians are genetically extremely similar to Assyrians not because I wanted a lengthy off topic genetics discussion about it, but because it is a key argument in understanding why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.

The thread is placed in Urheimat Theories, and so we discuss the topic from an urheimat point of view, which includes linguistic and various archaeogenetic and archaeological arguments, not Dodecad/Eurogenes global charts.

//mod

EliasAlucard
2012-02-05, 13:05
Elias, while I agree with the crux of your post, the whole notion of a pan-Indo European ethnic identity seems rather fallacious to say the least. All this makes it seem as if that Balto-Slavic groups are the only true Indo-Europeans, which in itself is rather subjective. Modern day Indo-European speakers are not a homogeneous group, and to somehow deem their identity as IE-speakers as invalid is unfair in my opinion, regardless of whether the proto-Indo European speakers ultimately originate in Central-East Europe or slightly further east in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.I believe there's a misunderstanding here.

First, let's be clear on one thing: the proto-Indo-Europeans as an endogamous, isolated ethnic group, don't exist today. The same can be said about the proto-Afro-Asiatics. So there's no pan-Indo-European ethnicity today.

What exists, however, is a distribution of genes that originated with the proto-Indo-Europeans. This distribution is higher in Europe than it is in India/Iran/Armenia, but not even in Europe is it evenly distributed. While pretty much all Europeans have at least some Indo-European admixture, the Greeks have less of it than the French, and the French have less proto-Indo-European ancestry than Scandinavians, and Scandinavians have less PIE ancestry than Poles, and Poles have less PIE ancestry than Lithuanians, and the Lithuanians have less proto-Indo-European ancestry than the actual historical proto-Indo-Europeans when they were still a small patrilineal R1a tribe in Maykop/Yamnaya, before they began their global expansion.

Armenians have less PIE ancestry than Greeks, and even less than Indians. But Armenians are still autosomal-wise more similar to Europeans than Indians are, and that's because Armenians a) lack Andamanese and Mongoloid admixture and b) their woggish non-PIE ancestry is much more similar to the ancestry of the original proto-Indo-Europeans, when compared with the ASI component in Indians.

For the exact very same reason, Poles in all their non-Indo-European ancestry are more similar to the original proto-Indo-Europeans than Indians are similar to the original proto-Indo-Europeans, because when the descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans mixed with non-IE peoples in Europe, they did it with people who were already genetically similar to them.

But all Europeans have non-Indo-European ancestors. In Scandinavians, this can be seen in Y-DNA I1 and R1b clades, and mtDNA that is not of the H5a clade (I'm not saying that because it's my mtDNA; this clade was most likely one of the original Indo-European female lineages):


Studies of ancient DNA have found H5 in four individuals of around 6800 BC from the Pre-pottery Neolithic B site of Tell Halula, Syria.[7] H5a has been found in a Tagar (800 BC–100 AD) man on the Russian steppe whose Y-DNA was R1a1a [14] and in Margrethe, alias Estrid, 11th century AD Queen of Denmark.[15]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H5_%28mtDNA%29#Ancient_DNA

I know Humata joked about it, I guess he thought it was an "uneducated" opinion or something, but I've never been of the opinion that only eastern Europeans are the original Indo-Europeans today. They're simply not, and Poles certainly have always had non-Indo-European admixture as long as they've identified as "Polish". But if you want to know what the original proto-Indo-Europeans looked like phenotypically and what their genetic profile was like, I'd bet my money on Poles, Lithuanians and even Finns for that matter.

And the same can be said about Assyrians. While we certainly have non-Afro-Asiatic ancestry, we are really the closest match you can get today of what the original proto-Afro-Asiatics looked like and where they lived. And the fact that Armenians are much more similar to us than they are to Lithuanians, simply doesn't speak in favour of the Armenian hypothesis.

This does not mean I have this dichotomous black and white thinking that makes me somehow erroneously believe there's no proto-Indo-European ancestry whatsoever in Armenians/Iranians/Indians/Spaniards/Greeks and north-east Europeans have 100% genetically isolated ancestry directly and only from the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Jaska
2012-02-05, 13:16
First, I don't accept it because there are problems with the dates, the level of technology, vocabulary, and etc. that just does not add up with any hypothesis other than the Anatolian-Armenian hypothesis.
Wrong. All the evidence points to Ukraine; that’s why it is the mainstream theory.


How can you be nomadic horseman spreading across continents ever since 4,000 BC when the chariot and the spoked wheel was not developed until 2500 BC. Furthermore, if there was a wave from Ukraine, wouldn't you think that these populations in Europe would have an earlier date of an equestrian tradition? Clearly, they would, but the first evidence of horse domestication in Europe is around 1800 BC.
Horseback-riding is late, horse domestication (for a draught animal) is much older.
Wagons are older than chariots, and disc wheel is older than spoke wheel. They match with the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary. Oldest wheels are from Europe, and even the Sumerian word for wheel seems to be an Indo-European loanword, as the word itself has a derivational status in Indo-European: IE *kwel- ‘to turn’ --> IE *kwekwlos ‘wheel’ --> Semitic galgal ‘wheel’, Sumerian gigir ‘wheel’ etc.

Please gain information before you start arguing.


Also, Krel's argument is a strong one in that:

"According to Krell (1998), Gimbutas' homeland theory is completely incompatible with the linguistic evidence. Krell compiles lists of items of flora, fauna, economy, and technology that archaeology has accounted for in the Kurgan culture and compares it with lists of the same categories as reconstructed by traditional historical-Indo-European linguistics. Krell finds major discrepancies between the two, and underlines the fact that we cannot presume that the reconstructed term for 'horse', for example, referred to the domesticated equid in the protoperiod just because it did in later times. It could originally have referred to a wild equid, a possibility that would "undermine the mainstay of Gimbutas's arguments that the Kurgan culture first domesticated the horse and used this new technology to spread to surrounding areas,"
Wrong again. Linguistic evidence indeed fits best with the Ukrainian homeland, even if the word was denoting to a wild horse. That even could not exclude Ukraine, it would just allow wider areas included. But all the linguistic evidence together, Ukraine is the best candidate.


"Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
Wrong again. Of course the agriculture was known in the steppe river basins.

And your own quote shows how Krell was not so objective:
“Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data.”


Second, like Krell hinted at, if you are a nomadic horseman how do you sustain civilization?
Actually the spread of Indo-Europeans seems everywhere be connected to the destroying of the earlier civilizations. Still, they build to some extent to the older local civilizations.


Third, Elias is not advocating what you are advocating. Elias is advocating something totally different. It is one thing to argue where the IE Urheimat is it is another to claim that Assyrians and Armenians are one in the same.
So? I agreed with Elias in that (1) PIE homeland is not in Armenia, and (2) Armenians are not genetically close to the speakers of PIE.


If anything, Armenians were Hurrians who adopted an IE language.
It sounds possible to me; although we don't know the genetics of the Hurrians.


What Elias is doing is taking modern genetics and trying to build a historical narrative around it. LIke I mentioned above, if indeed Armenians are not "genetically IE", whatever this means as IE is a linguistic term, then clearly, the Hittites would be the polar opposites, but we don't see. We don't see this polarity in genetics. If you were to hypothetically go back in time and test a an average Hittite, you would see that he would be genetically more closer to an Armenian than a European. Furthermore, you can see the resemblance to Armenians via their artwork and reliefs. Meaning, the first IE speaking population, who Elias claims can not be proto-IE, would not cluster with Europeans
So? People shift a language and culture. It does not matter that Hittite is the earliest written IE language. Their genes and culture still are very non-Indo-European.


They would have to be in Anatolia by at least 3000 BC, but if this is the case, how come you don't find earlier civilizations between where the Hittites are (on the western tip of Anatolia) and the area of Kurgen expansion (in central Asia)?
The Ezero culture of Bulgaria seems to expand to Anatolia; this is seen as the spread of Proto-Anatolian to Anatolia. Again, gain information before you argue.



2. They moved to the area full of non-IE peoples.
Please explain, I don't get your point.
Isn’t that clear? Anatolia was full of non-IE languages, when the Hittites and co. arrived there. Therefore Anatolia can hardly be the IE homeland.


The language does not have a substrate from any Semitic language. If you are claiming Armenians are not "IE population genetically" and they adopted a foreign language, the most likely Proto-Armenian language would have to be Hurrian or Proto-Hurrian. Do you realize that it is improbable that the Proto-Armenians spoke a "Proto-Semitic" language? I hope you do. Hurrian is a language that originated in the Southern Caucasus.
I have claimed nothing on Semitic.


And that is exactly my point, you can't extend that argument to Hittites. You are claiming that this catastrophic invasion took place, but it is not found in the history or writings of various populations of the region. Even a remote immigration of the "Sea peoples" (Greek-Phrygians expansion) is recorded among the Hittites, Egyptians, and the various contemporaries, but an even more larger expansion is not? Come one mate, you can't seem to see that the bigger picture of the Kurgen hypothesis is just not there.
Hello?! There was no writing yet when the Proto-Anatolians arrived into Anatolia. They were already Hittites during the written history.

PBachman
2012-02-05, 16:20
Wrong. All the evidence points to Ukraine; that’s why it is the mainstream theory.

All evidence does not point to Ukraine. The theory is heavily flawed.




Horseback-riding is late, horse domestication (for a draught animal) is much older.
Wagons are older than chariots, and disc wheel is older than spoke wheel. They match with the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary. Oldest wheels are from Europe, and even the Sumerian word for wheel seems to be an Indo-European loanword, as the word itself has a derivational status in Indo-European: IE *kwel- ‘to turn’ --> IE *kwekwlos ‘wheel’ --> Semitic galgal ‘wheel’, Sumerian gigir ‘wheel’ etc.

I absolutely agree with your narrative of technology innovation, but tou still need to explain the dating. IT does not fit well. Your own analysis hints at a IE homeland in Anatolia. How did the Sumerians get the loan word if the IE expansion occurred in 4000 BC and why is there no record of such an expansion into the region by the very same Sumerians that you claim borrowed from the IEs? Also, suppose then that there was this magnificent civilization that the Sumerians traded with, where is it? Where near Ukraine can you find a IE civilization older than the Hittites? Furthermore, how can this civilization sustain itself based on a nomadic culture. You don't need to be an expert to see the dating and even, as you highlighted, a clear vocabulary absorbed via contact in Anatolia. The 4000 BC time line does not fit well.


Please gain information before you start arguing.

I do have information. Please, you are not understanding the overarching theme.



Wrong again. Linguistic evidence indeed fits best with the Ukrainian homeland, even if the word was denoting to a wild horse. That even could not exclude Ukraine, it would just allow wider areas included. But all the linguistic evidence together, Ukraine is the best candidate.

Look do you understand that your first paragraph implies what you are claiming is wrong? There is clearly a problem with the Ukraine homeland theory. There is too much contact with populations that don't fit the time. Also there is a problem with the inability to sustain a civilization and the nil mention in the historical narrative of ancient populations of such a grand invasion. Ukraine could be a good candiate of where the language spread and maybe how it spread, but it does not explain the origin of the IE homeland. As I have mentioned that there could be a dual homeland theory.



Wrong again. Of course the agriculture was known in the steppe river basins.

The Kurgen theory hinges on them being pastoral not agrarian. As they would have to have livestock to sustain massive armies.


And your own quote shows how Krell was not so objective:
“Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data.”

Hmm...are you sure you know who the "she" in "she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data" is referring to? As you are misreading the quote. The article is referring to Gimbutas. Are you sure you are an expert?


Marija Gimbutas

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/Marija-Gimbutas-newgrange.jpg/187px-Marija-Gimbutas-newgrange.jpg


"In 1956 Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis, which combined archaeological study of the distinctive Kurgan burial mounds with linguistics to unravel some problems in the study of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples, whom she dubbed the "Kurgans"; namely, to account for their origin and to trace their migrations into Europe. This hypothesis, and the act of bridging the disciplines, has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies."]In 1956 Gimbutas introduced her Kurgan hypothesis, which combined archaeological study of the distinctive Kurgan burial mounds with linguistics to unravel some problems in the study of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) speaking peoples, whom she dubbed the "Kurgans"; namely, to account for their origin and to trace their migrations into Europe. This hypothesis, and the act of bridging the disciplines, has had a significant impact on Indo-European studies.


Actually the spread of Indo-Europeans seems everywhere be connected to the destroying of the earlier civilizations. Still, they build to some extent to the older local civilizations.

Not really. I don't buy this. You still don't realize that the Kurgen hypothesis establishes this, but in reality, I don't think it was the case.



So? I agreed with Elias in that (1) PIE homeland is not in Armenia, and (2) Armenians are not genetically close to the speakers of PIE.

That is fine, but you are missing the point. You can believe what you want to believe, as long as you don't believe the rest of EA's bullshit.




It sounds possible to me; although we don't know the genetics of the Hurrians.

Hurrians were mostly close to the modern Armenian in genetics. This is exactly why Assyrians are in fact acculturated Armenians.



So? People shift a language and culture. It does not matter that Hittite is the earliest written IE language. Their genes and culture still are very non-Indo-European.

And that is exactly my point. You are claiming that these populations are very much so "non-IE", but how do you know that the earlier IE populations did not have a genetic make up that is similar to various Anatolia civilizations? The Hittites in the timeline are purposely made to be an exception, but it still does not explain anything. Do you realize that if indeed the HIttites are the oldest population then most likely the latter genetic information you associate with latter IE could just easily have been absorbed latter, well beyond the Proto-IE language diffusion.




The Ezero culture of Bulgaria seems to expand to Anatolia; this is seen as the spread of Proto-Anatolian to Anatolia. Again, gain information before you argue.

Strage, you have it backwards:


Within the context of the Kurgan hypothesis, it would represent a fusion of native "Old European culture" and intrusive "Kurgan culture" elements. It could also represent an Anatolian-influenced culture, either coming from Anatolia (in Renfrew's hypothesis), or heading to Asia Minor.

You could interpret it as it coming from Anatolia as well. Again, this supports an Anatolia homeland.


Isn’t that clear? Anatolia was full of non-IE languages, when the Hittites and co. arrived there. Therefore Anatolia can hardly be the IE homeland.

First, nobody is certain. Even with the Sumerians, who had migrated from the north, there is still much ambiguity. You are dealing with dates that are beyond the historical record. However, the IE homeland, irrespective of your statement, has to be in an area more closer to Anatolia.



Hello?! There was no writing yet when the Proto-Anatolians arrived into Anatolia. They were already Hittites during the written history.

Please explain, as I don't understand.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 16:28 ----------



And the same can be said about Assyrians. While we certainly have non-Afro-Asiatic ancestry, we are really the closest match you can get today of what the original proto-Afro-Asiatics looked like and where they lived. And the fact that Armenians are much more similar to us than they are to Lithuanians, simply doesn't speak in favour of the Armenian hypothesis.

Right...Armenians are acculturated Assyrians. Even in the face of evidence that it is clearly the other way around. You seem to be in denial.

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 16:33 ----------


Elias might come off a bit extreme. But the Armenians here were doing the exact same thing. This comes from a neutral point of view.

EA does not come off extreme. IF you had any integrity you could stop putting up a two front attitude. Armenian maintained that it is not possible for the indigenous Anatolian population to stem from a Proto-Semitic source. The timeline does not match. Most likely, it is the other way around, if anything. Most likely Assyrians are acculturated Armenians. You seem to be creating anyone that disagrees with EA into a "nazi". His theory has no grounds whatsoever. He is Pan-Assyrian nationalist.

annihilus
2012-02-05, 16:41
And it's not just your lack of east asian, there is more going on. Compared to your direct neighbours your north european is way too low and your southwest asian is way too high. You can call me all the names you want but you can't change the fact that your point of origin is much further south. You are fairly recent immigrants to the area.

PBachman
2012-02-05, 16:47
No, not at all. Assyrians really are the parent population to Arabs. We know this because Assyrians have a higher genetic variation of J-P58 than Arabs (whereas Arabs have low variation but reach extremely high frequencies of J-P58), Assyrians also have higher autosomal variation and our genepool (the same can be said about Armenians) shows a tri-geographic split into Europeans, "South Asians" (Indians etc.) and "Middle East". This makes Assyrians/Armenians an ideal candidate for the Neolithic human migrations that took OOA populations into Europe, India and MENA (Afro-Asiatic in this case).

Unlike Greeks (and to a significantly lesser extent than Greeks also Armenians), Assyrians haven't mixed with descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans. This is remarkable and the impermeable genepool that is the Assyrian genome, is quite something in what kind of consciously racist group evolutionary strategy our Assyrian ancestors must have practised.

//mod[/b]

First, if there was a Neolithic migration it can only be attributed to one population, do you get it? IT can't be both as the dates for which Assyrians and Armenians established contact is a lot latter than the Neolithic expansion.

Do you know what I think you are doing? You are trying to use Armenian genetic research to establish a presence of Assyrians in the area. Essentially, your argument depends on Armenian history, language, and genes. However, you are ignoring the established historical timeline. Akkadian and Sumerian hybrid culture has origins around 3000 BC, south of Anatolia. Do you understand it is not possible for the Neolithic expansion to be pushed forward by both Armenians and Assyrians. The Haittians and Hurrians existed at the same time Assyrians did. Assyrians were latter invaders into Anatolia from the south.

Look, please, your theories are not possible. You are taking a neolithic expansion that had no established ethnic, racial, or linguistic definition and expanding to latter populations. Your timelines are off. Any genetic similarity between Assyrians and Armenians, most likely, occurred when Assyrians penetrated southern Anatolia. Most likely, Assyrians are acculturated Hurrians, if anything. But we can be certain, that Armenians are not acculturated Assyrians. It is not possible.


Furthermore, for someone that is half-Armenian, I really find your statements hypocritical. In one reply you claim Armenians absorbed IE genes in another you claim they have not, they are homogenous. Now, you claim Assyrians are a "pure" population. The amount of bullshit you write under the banner of "intelligence" is just mind blowing. You cherry pick anything that pushes forward your argument.

Mosov
2012-02-05, 16:55
I pointed out to you and PBachman that Armenians are genetically extremely similar to Assyrians not because I wanted a lengthy off topic genetics discussion about it, but because it is a key argument in understanding why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.


You said Assyrians and Armenians are the same. That they are the same ethnic group. That's different from being genetically similar. Again I refer you to studies such as these that don't support what you are saying about Assyrians and Armenians. As I said, show me credible scientific papers that conclude that Assyrians and Armenians are the same.

So in order to make that statement you made valid, you need to properly rebut scientific papers such as these that refute your point. And calling scientists that don't support your viewpoint, "Aryan nationalists" doesn't count as a rebuttal. You make grand statements, you should be prepared to back them up with concrete evidence.


HLA typing analysis has also shown that Turks, Kurds, and Armenians are close genetically; these three groups seem to have been living in the area for many millennia (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001). However, the DAT1 allele and genotype distributions displayed different patterns among the Armenian, Azeri (Turk), and Kurdish ethnic groups in Iran (Banoei et al. 2007). Also, Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2002) reported that the present-day Turkish HLA profile reflects an older Mediterranean substratum that is not that different from the profile of the Persian Jews (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2002). We have observed in this study that the DAT1 genotypes among the Jewish population are less similar to those of other ethnic groups in the region. Based on earlier studies, using classical genetic methods, Carmelli and Cavalli-Sforza (1979) came to the conclusion "that Jews have maintained considerable genetic similarity among themselves and with people from the Middle East, with whom they share a common origin." In fact, new molecular studies have confirmed this conclusion (Hammer et al. 2000).

DAT1*12, which has a frequency of 0.033 in the Assyrians, was never seen in the other six ethnic groups or in the nine Iranian ethnic groups studied by Banoei et al. (2007). The relationship probability was lowest between Assyrians and other communities. Endogamy was found to be high for this population through determination of the heterogeneity coefficient (+0.6867). Our study supports earlier findings indicating the relatively closed nature of the Assyrian community as a whole, which as a result of their religious and cultural traditions, have had little intermixture with other populations (Elias 2000).

EliasAlucard
2012-02-05, 18:08
Hurrians were mostly close to the modern Armenian in genetics. This is exactly why Assyrians are in fact acculturated Armenians.No one knows anything about the genes of the Hurrians. So that's why I don't take Humanist's and Peter Hrechdakian's claim all too dogmatically that Assyrians and Armenians share a Hurrian component. Truth is, Armenians are in the main, descended from the Hurro-Urartians, and very little if any ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. Assyrians are basically pretty much more or less entirely Semitic and perhaps some non-Semitic ancestry such as Elamite and an occasional Hurrian ancestor and so on.

The reason why Assyrians and Armenians are so genetically similar is simply because the proto-Afro-Asiatics were genetically similar to all native people in the region (Elamites, Sumerians, Hurro-Urartians etc.) and you really need to abandon your backward anti-logic that Semitic somehow came out of "Africa" and that Indo-European came out of Armenia. That's why you're not connecting the dots.


You are claiming that these populations are very much so "non-IE", but how do you know that the earlier IE populations did not have a genetic make up that is similar to various Anatolia civilizations?Because the genetic profile of Armenians simply doesn't fit the puzzle of tracing the genes of the proto-Indo-Europeans based on the genome profile of modern extant populations speaking Indo-European languages (such as Indians), and also ancient DNA.

Look at these Tarim mummies:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=25622

^^ Do they look like Armenian mummies to you? They were Tocharians, and Tocharian was one of the earliest split from proto-Indo-European, shortly after Hittite. Tocharian split so early that it even preceded Satemisation. If you compare the Y-DNA of those Tarim mummies and their autosomal DNA, you will get a match with Poles, not with Armenians.


The Hittites in the timeline are purposely made to be an exception, but it still does not explain anything. Do you realize that if indeed the HIttites are the oldest population then most likely the latter genetic information you associate with latter IE could just easily have been absorbed latter, well beyond the Proto-IE language diffusion.The Hittites were Hattians who shifted to an Indo-European related language (it's not certain whether Hittite/Luwian/Lycian were daughters or cousins of proto-Indo-European, see Indo-Hittite hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Hittite)).

I suggest you do your homework on the topic before you speak bullshit.


Right...Armenians are acculturated Assyrians.If anything, Armenians are acculturated Indo-Europeans. It's you Armenians who shifted language from Hurro-Urartian (or Semitic, or some other dead language; makes no difference to me) to an Indo-European language, whereas Assyrians have constantly throughout the past 6,000 years, spoken Semitic languages and Semitic only (aside from occasional periods of Sumerian).


Even in the face of evidence that it is clearly the other way around. You seem to be in denial.I don't think you have the capacity to deduce what is and isn't evidence. We Assyrians have the most consistent and uniquely our own cultural continuity in the world today. And when it's not our own, it has been borrowed from closely related Semites such as Aramaic and Christianity and the alphabet (all thoroughly Semitic culture).


First, if there was a Neolithic migration it can only be attributed to one population, do you get it?Yeah, and that population is Armenian/Assyrian and also as far as I'm concerned, the Anatolian pseudo-Turks (minus their recent foreign Mongoloid admixture of course).


IT can't be both as the dates for which Assyrians and Armenians established contact is a lot latter than the Neolithic expansion.I believe your problem is that you completely lack any serious scientific understanding of population genetics. That's why the Armenian hypothesis seems credible to you.

Do you think me, Jaska, Vasishta, Polako are in some kind of anti-Armenian conspiracy or something? How come in spite of our disagreements, we reach the same conclusions?


Do you know what I think you are doing? You are trying to use Armenian genetic research to establish a presence of Assyrians in the area.I really don't need Armenians for that. Seriously. And in fact, I've been guessed as Armenian by Dr. Doug McDonald even when he didn't use Armenians as a reference population.


Essentially, your argument depends on Armenian history, language, and genes. However, you are ignoring the established historical timeline. Akkadian and Sumerian hybrid culture has origins around 3000 BC, south of Anatolia. Do you understand it is not possible for the Neolithic expansion to be pushed forward by both Armenians and Assyrians. The Haittians and Hurrians existed at the same time Assyrians did. Assyrians were latter invaders into Anatolia from the south.

Look, please, your theories are not possible. You are taking a neolithic expansion that had no established ethnic, racial, or linguistic definition and expanding to latter populations. Your timelines are off. Any genetic similarity between Assyrians and Armenians, most likely, occurred when Assyrians penetrated southern Anatolia. Most likely, Assyrians are acculturated Hurrians, if anything. But we can be certain, that Armenians are not acculturated Assyrians. It is not possible.http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour nal.pbio.1000536.g003&representation=PNG_M

You were saying?

I also think you don't understand what a theory is. It's not a guess:


Misconception:
"Evolution is 'just' a theory."

Response:
Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory — a "guess" or "hunch." These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e2

When you understand what a scientific theory is, then you can debate with me. But as far as the Indo-European urheimat is concerned, only the Kurgan theory (as opposed to the Armenian hypothesis) makes sense.


Furthermore, for someone that is half-Armenian, I really find your statements hypocritical.It's not like your opinion holds any weight anyway.


In one reply you claim Armenians absorbed IE genes in another you claim they have not, they are homogenous. Now, you claim Assyrians are a "pure" population. The amount of bullshit you write under the banner of "intelligence" is just mind blowing. You cherry pick anything that pushes forward your argument.Armenians have slightly below 5% "northern European" component on Dodecad. Assyrians have slightly below 2% of the same component. This was, like I've told you, the main proto-Indo-European component. Assuming this component is higher in Armenians because of actual PIE ancestry in Armenians (and not higher because Europeans somehow share slightly more genes from Armenia than from Assyria), this means that there's some minor PIE admixture in Armenians, and it's very insignificant as a whole.

newtoboard
2012-02-05, 18:13
I believe some of the European admixture in Armenians is due to recent European admixture as well isn't it?

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 18:16 ----------

I lol@ed at the juat a theory comment. gravity is also just a theory.

Ardi
2012-02-05, 18:18
I believe some of the European admixture in Armenians is due to recent European admixture as well isn't it?

Possible, although we should be cautious to how much we invest in this. I personally think any such admixture is at least Roman, if not older.

Samsara
2012-02-05, 18:26
I believe some of the European admixture in Armenians is due to recent European admixture as well isn't it?

---------- Post added 2012-02-05 at 18:16 ----------

I lol@ed at the juat a theory comment. gravity is also just a theory.


No. Armenians have been a homogenous group for at least 6,500 years per all the latest genetic studies by Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan. They are THE natives of the Armenian Highland.

Furthermore, please check out this latest groundbreaking book proving that up to 70% of Araratian/Urartian words were in fact of Armenian origin!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53429120/Urartian-Armenian-I-II-IV

PBachman
2012-02-05, 19:13
No one knows anything about the genes of the Hurrians. So that's why I don't take Humanist's and Peter Hrechdakian's claim all too dogmatically that Assyrians and Armenians share a Hurrian component. Truth is, Armenians are in the main, descended from the Hurro-Urartians, and very little if any ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. Assyrians are basically pretty much more or less entirely Semitic and perhaps some non-Semitic ancestry such as Elamite and an occasional Hurrian ancestor and so on.

Exactly, but that is not what you were initially claiming. Furthermore, I do agree with Peter and Humanist. However, I would like to make it point that instances where you have no explanation you resort to making exceptions and this is no different from the various IE scholars that support the Kurgen theory or others.

You have to realize that the very fact the oldest IE population, the Hittites, who spoke a sister-language versus a daughter-language, can not possibly have come from any other location besides Anatolia. This already hints to why the Kurgen or any other theory is flawed. The timeline, both historically and genetically, leads me to believe that in fact the original IE could have absorbed foreign genes as they migrated out of Anatolia. Any genetic absorption that does not fit the genetic profile of the region, in fact, took place later and at another location when the IE spread out of Anatolia.

This to me is more plausible versus creating an exception to the Hittites and the Anatolian IE speaking populations. As the timing of their rise to civilization, level of technology, and etc. would not fit any other model. Furthermore, the very fact that you have linguistic evidence that hints at Sumerian contact, Hurrian contact, and etc. among the Proto-IE language only bolsters the Anatolian theory, as it would be highly improbable for this contact to occur given the timeline of the Kurgen. FInally, the relative undeveloped nature of the Hittite language versus others only strengthens the Anatolian hypothesis.

Also, there is no mention of any massive IE invasion of Anatolia. If you have a later IE expansion here, where is it recorded in the historical narrative? You just have Hittites, incidentally, at the western end of Anatolia. Furthermore, the Greco-Phrygians migrated from the West. Why would they travel back around the black sea? So you are telling me in two thousand years the IE population migrated to Anatolia, established Hittites, migrated back to the northern area of the black sea and then migrated back into Anatolia? In matter of two-thousand years? Does all of this seem plausible to you? Add the fact that they established population and settlements in Asia, Europe, and etc., all the why conquering everyone, and finally, establishing civilization that was advanced in a matter of two thousand years? To me it is a fantastic story, but it is not plausible.



The reason why Assyrians and Armenians are so genetically similar is simply because the proto-Afro-Asiatics were genetically similar to all native people in the region (Elamites, Sumerians, Hurro-Urartians etc.) and you really need to abandon your backward anti-logic that Semitic somehow came out of "Africa" and that Indo-European came out of Armenia. That's why you're not connecting the dots.

I am not claiming IE came out Armenia. I never too a modern construct and projecting in the past. First, there is a bit of academic wordplay here that is a bit dishonest. You would have to compare it to the Hurrian and Hittites and these populations have no evidence of a Afro-Asiatic influence whatsoever.


Because the genetic profile of Armenians simply doesn't fit the puzzle of tracing the genes of the proto-Indo-Europeans based on the genome profile of modern extant populations speaking Indo-European languages (such as Indians), and also ancient DNA.

Well, the problem is, if you were to assume Anatolia is indeed the homeland then you could argue that any difference in the genetic narrative is in fact absorbed later and another location.

Clearly, the idea of a "homeland" that is "singular", "unique", "advanced", and etc. all in one location is ridiculous. Personally, I believe that there is a homeland for the location of the culture and language and there is homeland for the population that spread the culture and language.


Look at these Tarim mummies:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=25622

^^ Do they look like Armenian mummies to you? They were Tocharians, and Tocharian was one of the earliest split from proto-Indo-European, shortly after Hittite. Tocharian split so early that it even preceded Satemisation. If you compare the Y-DNA of those Tarim mummies and their autosomal DNA, you will get a match with Poles, not with Armenians.

Yeah, that is fine, but consider the culture and dates of the Tarim mummies. They are dated to two thousand BC, while the Hittites were clearly in Anatolia around 3000 to 2000 BC. Do you see how the dates would not be possible? It is not tenable. Furthermore, it is again inconclusive because it could go either way.


The Hittites were Hattians who shifted to an Indo-European related language (it's not certain whether Hittite/Luwian/Lycian were daughters or cousins of proto-Indo-European, see Indo-Hittite hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Hittite)).

No, I believe Hittites were a sister-language and I agree with your assessment that Hattians could have been a population that shifted language, but it still does not disprove the problems that I have presented with the Kurgen hypothesis.


I suggest you do your homework on the topic before you speak bullshit.

What bullshit am I speaking? You are creating a Proto-Semitic fantasy world. Hurrians and Hittites had no relationship with any Semitic population. The dates of the ethno-genesis of these populations don't fit with your Afro-Asiatic in Anatolia homeland theory. There is nothing that links these groups to the later Semitic invaders. Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is?


If anything, Armenians are acculturated Indo-Europeans. It's you Armenians who shifted language from Hurro-Urartian (or Semitic, or some other dead language; makes no difference to me) to an Indo-European language, whereas Assyrians have constantly throughout the past 6,000 years, spoken Semitic languages and Semitic only (aside from occasional periods of Sumerian).

You seem to not realize that when you claim "Armenians shifted from Semitic" is not possible. You keep trying to push this idea. Furthermore, you seem to underplay the amount of Sumerian influence on Semitic invaders. There was no semitic presence in Anatolia when Haittians, Hurrians, and Hittites existed. There certainly was cultural exchange and contact, but again, this does not bolster your theory.

Furthermore, you are trying to project a Semitic identity on Neolithic farmers. When these populations expanded there was no such thing as "semitic" or "proto-semitic". There is no evidence on the ethnic, linguistic, and cultural identity of the Neolithic farmers. Most likely, given the relative homogeneity of Sumerians and later the Hurrians and Haittians due to geography and the historical narrative, we could assume that the Proto-Sumerians, Proto-Hurrians, and Proto-Haittians were closely associated with the Neolithic farmers, but even this is a stretch. As these constructs came at a later date. Therefore, it would not be fair to take a construct that post-dates a population and project them in the past.



I don't think you have the capacity to deduce what is and isn't evidence. We Assyrians have the most consistent and uniquely our own cultural continuity in the world today. And when it's not our own, it has been borrowed from closely related Semites such as Aramaic and Christianity and the alphabet (all thoroughly Semitic culture).

Look mate, you Assyrians have a unique and rich culture, but you are trying to claim something that is not true. Armenians are the cultural, linguistic, and genetic continuation of the Hittite, Haittian, and Hurrian populations. They contributed heavily to Armenian ethno-genesis. However, even this is inaccurate, as the first mentioning of the word "Armenian" refers also to the Hurrian off-shoots, the Urartu or "People of Urartu", who were wholly IE speaking that adopted an Hurrian language for administration purposes. There is nothing within the indigenous population that would lead any reasonable person to accept your hypothesis that Assyrians came from Anatolia, they migrated to Africa and Asia, and came back to Anatolia. This is not reasonable. You are taking a population that clearly invaded Southern Anatolia/Northern Mesopotamia and trying to project them into a region and timeline that is not tenable.



Yeah, and that population is Armenian/Assyrian and also as far as I'm concerned, the Anatolian pseudo-Turks (minus their recent foreign Mongoloid admixture of course).

I believe your problem is that you completely lack any serious scientific understanding of population genetics. That's why the Armenian hypothesis seems credible to you.

Do you think me, Jaska, Vasishta, Polako are in some kind of anti-Armenian conspiracy or something? How come in spite of our disagreements, we reach the same conclusions?

No, I don't think any of that. Second of all, I have admitted my Achilles heel is in fact my lack of genetic knowledge, but certainly, some posters did highlight how your assertion that Armenians and Assyrians are genetically close, to the point of being "clones", is flawed. It is not so much a question of genetic understanding, you don't need to know squat about genetics to see that your ideas are flawed. They are not even reasonable. Not even close.

Furthermore, with regards to the IE homeland, I believe in the last ten years the advent of genetic research only hindered the understanding of the IE origins, as you have an over reliance on genetic research versus just looking at what the historical narrative is telling you, which is that the Kurgen hypothesis is not tenable solely alone on its own.



I really don't need Armenians for that. Seriously. And in fact, I've been guessed as Armenian by Dr. Doug McDonald even when he didn't use Armenians as a reference population.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjour nal.pbio.1000536.g003&representation=PNG_M

You were saying?

I also think you don't understand what a theory is. It's not a guess:


Misconception:
"Evolution is 'just' a theory."

Response:
Scientific theories are explanations that are based on lines of evidence, enable valid predictions, and have been tested in many ways. In contrast, there is also a popular definition of theory — a "guess" or "hunch." These conflicting definitions often cause unnecessary confusion about evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#e2

When you understand what a scientific theory is, then you can debate with me. But as far as the Indo-European urheimat is concerned, only the Kurgan theory (as opposed to the Armenian hypothesis) makes sense.

It's not like your opinion holds any weight anyway.

Thats fine, you are arguing semantics with me at this point. I don't even think it is possible for you to admit you are wrong in your assumptions. You will continually keep on avoiding the problems of your "theories", whatever, at this point I feel it is a waste of time to argue with you as you are dead-set on proving your pan-Assyrian ideology.



Armenians have slightly below 5% "northern European" component on Dodecad. Assyrians have slightly below 2% of the same component. This was, like I've told you, the main proto-Indo-European component. Assuming this component is higher in Armenians because of actual ancestry in Armenians (and not higher because Europeans somehow share slightly more genes from Armenia than from Assyria), this means that there's some minor PIE admixture in Armenians, and it's very insignificant as a whole.

That is fine, again, you seem to be ignoring the historical narrative of the Armenian people, the relative isolation of various Armenian populations from each other, and etc...etc...etc....Again, I believe before you make any assumptions or statements, please, address the problems with the Kurgen hypothesis. Furthermore, stop claiming that Assyrians have origins in Anatolia and that they are "blue eyed" and 'blonde haired" supermen, as this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Your argument is heavily dependent on modern genetic studies. There is nothing substantial or objective to your argument that you can tie to historical narrative other than one study that links Assyrians and Armenians, which is expected given their relationship from Pre-history to Antiquity to the modern age. However, to go beyond just a superficial cultural exchange and full blown Proto-Semitic origin in Anatolia is just ridiculous, furthermore, the idea that Afro-Asiatics originate from the same location and migrated back into Africa. It is ridiculous. That is my opinion. I stand by it. Stop arguing with me.

Ardi
2012-02-05, 21:50
Going through the topic, I am noticing the association of Near Eastern authochtony of the Armenians with being "Semitic". Native Near Eastern stock does not automatically mean Semetic. Semetic is a linguistic categorization, and equating it with the anthropologically native element of Western Asia is dated and erroneous.

Jaska
2012-02-05, 22:45
I absolutely agree with your narrative of technology innovation, but tou still need to explain the dating. IT does not fit well. Your own analysis hints at a IE homeland in Anatolia. How did the Sumerians get the loan word if the IE expansion occurred in 4000 BC and why is there no record of such an expansion into the region by the very same Sumerians that you claim borrowed from the IEs?
You are anachronistic: there are no Sumerian written documents from 4000 BC. Therefore there cannot be written evidence of the arrival of Proto-Anatolians. Besides, Sumerians did not live in Anatolia, so they usually have not so accurate knowledge about that area and its peoples.

No, this evidence does not hint to the Anatolian homeland. The oldest wheels are from Europe, not from Anatolia. The oldest word for 'wheel' is Indo-European, and it was borrowed to Semitic and Sumerian etc. Count it yourself: 1 + 1 = Proto-Indo-European in Europe.

Sumerians may have had their word for 'wheel' from other peoples who borrowed it from Indo-Europeans, there is no need for direct contacts. But the contacts may have been direct, too, because Sumerian may have originated near Caucasus:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf

Remember that the Anatolian branch split off earlier than the Late Proto-Indo-European dispersed. Proto-Anatolian was on its way when Late Proto-Indo-European was still a unity.



Also, suppose then that there was this magnificent civilization that the Sumerians traded with, where is it? Where near Ukraine can you find a IE civilization older than the Hittites? Furthermore, how can this civilization sustain itself based on a nomadic culture. You don't need to be an expert to see the dating and even, as you highlighted, a clear vocabulary absorbed via contact in Anatolia. The 4000 BC time line does not fit well.
You are attacking your very own strawman here.
1. No need for direct Sumerian contacts.
2. No need for magnificent civilization.
3. Nothing wrong with the dating.



The Kurgen theory hinges on them being pastoral not agrarian. As they would have to have livestock to sustain massive armies.
It is still "Kurgan".
You are again attacking your own strawman. Proto-Indo-Europeans were mainly pastoralists, but that does not mean that they did not knew agriculture. Just the opposite: the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary clearly consists many agricultural words. They are within the Kurgan theory, they don't contradict it.



Hmm...are you sure you know who the "she" in "she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data" is referring to? As you are misreading the quote. The article is referring to Gimbutas. Are you sure you are an expert?
OK, I misinterpreted it: I thought that article was about Krell, not Gimbutas. I hope you could give links to your sources so that I could read those chapters in their right context. That way there would not be misinterpretations.



And that is exactly my point. You are claiming that these populations are very much so "non-IE", but how do you know that the earlier IE populations did not have a genetic make up that is similar to various Anatolia civilizations? The Hittites in the timeline are purposely made to be an exception, but it still does not explain anything. Do you realize that if indeed the HIttites are the oldest population then most likely the latter genetic information you associate with latter IE could just easily have been absorbed latter, well beyond the Proto-IE language diffusion.
You are right in that the genes are difficult to interpret: IF the homeland was in Anatolia, then all the other IE peoples than the Anatolians would have moved away, and the genes shared by Indians and Europeans could be post-PIE. The genetic interpretation is dependent on the IE phylogeny and homeland reached by the linguistic results.

But linguistics is the only discipline which can determine where the linguistic homeland was, and it points to Ukraine. Genes can only tell about the genetic homeland, and there we must be careful, if we don't know the exact descendency of certain genes and the exact composition of certain ancient people.



You could interpret it as it coming from Anatolia as well. Again, this supports an Anatolia homeland.
If you read the whole article, it comes clear that the Ezero culture is part of the Southeast European cultural continuum:

"Ezero follows the copper age cultures of the area (Karanovo VI culture, Gumelniţa culture, Kodzadjemen culture and Varna culture), after a settlement hiatus in Northern Bulgaria. It bears some relationship to the earlier Cernavodă III culture to the north. Some settlements were fortified.
The Ezero culture is interpreted as part of a larger Balkan-Danubian early Bronze Age complex, a horizon reaching from Troy Id-IIc into Central Europe, encompassing the Baden of the Carpathian Basin and the Coţofeni culture of Romania. According to Parzinger, there are also typological connections to Poliochni IIa-b and Sitagroi IV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezero_culture

You of course want to interpret it as coming from Asia Minor, but your evidence is quite weak:
"It could also represent an Anatolian-influenced culture"

Could = has only a small possibility.
Anatolian-influenced = only minor traits from Anatolia, not the whole culture.



First, nobody is certain. Even with the Sumerians, who had migrated from the north, there is still much ambiguity. You are dealing with dates that are beyond the historical record. However, the IE homeland, irrespective of your statement, has to be in an area more closer to Anatolia.
Why? You still haven't present any evidence for your claim - see above.



You have to realize that the very fact the oldest IE population, the Hittites, who spoke a sister-language versus a daughter-language, can not possibly have come from any other location besides Anatolia. This already hints to why the Kurgen or any other theory is flawed.
Here you have some illogical claims.
Why the Hittites could not come from any other location than Anatolia? Of course they can come where-ever. It depends purely on the linguistic results.

Genetically and culturally there can be many homelands, but linguistically only one per protolanguage. Of course the homeland of (Late) Proto-Indo-European can be different from the homeland of Proto-Indo-Hittite, but Hittite is included in the analysis of the IE vocabulary, which points to the Ukrainian homeland.

Silesian
2012-02-05, 23:48
Interesting pictures of Sumerians,Hittites compared with Tarim Basin mummies, statue of Hayk.

Sumerian horse and chariot 2500b.c

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Ur_chariot.jpg

Hittite, horse and chariot, warrior, relief

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/zareeba/hittite.jpg
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/hittites_chariot_detail.JPG
http://www.pbase.com/image/33314164

Cherchen Man

http://www.semp.us/images/Biot665PhotoW.jpg
http://echostains.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/cherchen-man-with-tattoos.jpg

Beauty of Loulan

http://www.semp.us/images/Biot665PhotoT.jpg

http://www.semp.us/publications/biot_reader.php?BiotID=665

Hayk

http://www.armin.am/content_images/image/Hayk.jpg

Palisto
2012-02-06, 08:43
Yes, but you cannot reconstruct proto-Indo-European from the modern Armenian language, as it only contains around 450-500 direct words from proto-Indo-European.

You can reconstruct proto-Indo-European from the European IE languages however, as they contain lots of PIE words. And that's one of the reasons why Europe is a better candidate of proto-Indo-European than Armenia.

Proto-Indo-European doesn't exist. Reconstructed proto-Indo-European is not a real historical language.

IMO, only an Anatolian/Caucasus origin of PIE makes sense. I also think that not only PIE derived in this region but also Proto-Kartvelian; proto-Semitic emerged later in close proximity. Having no superold inscription of an language does not mean it did not exist in that region.

Since genetically this region is the source of almost all Westasians (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html), the major language families must have emerged in the same region or in close proximity.

There was not a cultural revolution with only one tribe and one language but many tribes and many languages.

Having said and accepted that it is becoming more and more clear that Armenians are not "Assyrians that got Indo-Europeanized" like some like to argue, and Assyrians are not "Armenians that got Semitized".

Both Armenians and Assyrians are old citizens of the Middle East/Caucasus with old languages of the Middle East/Caucasus.



If you compare the Y-DNA of those Tarim mummies and their autosomal DNA, you will get a match with Poles, not with Armenians.
Do you have link/evidence for your claims?

Jaska
2012-02-06, 08:51
IMO, only an Anatolian/Caucasus origin of PIE makes sense. I also think that not only PIE derived in this region but also Proto-Kartvelian; proto-Semitic emerged later in close proximity. Having no superold inscription of an language does not mean it did not exist in that region.

Since genetically this region is the source of almost all Westasians (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html), the major language families must have emerged in the same region or in close proximity.

Hmmm... Actually genes cannot prove about language - there is no such dependency as you seem to think. Linguistic evidence shows the Ukrainian homeland much more credible than Caucasus or Anatolia.
http://ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallory-_-In-Search-of-the-Indo-Europeans--Language--Archaeology--and-Myth_36083.html

Palisto
2012-02-06, 09:00
Hmmm... Actually genes cannot prove about language - there is no such dependency as you seem to think. Linguistic evidence shows the Ukrainian homeland much more credible than Caucasus or Anatolia.
http://ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallory-_-In-Search-of-the-Indo-Europeans--Language--Archaeology--and-Myth_36083.html

Sorry, I don't believe in linguistics, I have seen too many linguistics students in universities doing nothing but sitting in a cafe and talking about the weather news and complaining about the classes they never visited...

Genetics are much more reliable.

Day Tripper
2012-02-06, 09:16
Sorry, I don't believe in linguistics, I have seen too many linguistics students in universities doing nothing but sitting in a cafe and talking about the weather news and complaining about the classes they never visited...

Genetics are much more reliable.

Indeed. As a physics student, I've noticed the same thing. Therefore, I propose using physics to study languages. Physics is much more reliable. Sadly, I'm having a tough time fitting the spread of Indo-European languages to an inverse square law scheme, but I'll make it fit eventually.

Palisto
2012-02-06, 09:48
Indeed. As a physics student, I've noticed the same thing. Therefore, I propose using physics to study languages. Physics is much more reliable. Sadly, I'm having a tough time fitting the spread of Indo-European languages to an inverse square law scheme, but I'll make it fit eventually.

In physics you can at least design an experiment to prove the existence of an postulated particle.

In linguistics, everything is wishy-washy, the postulated languages, the postulated migrations, the postulated language origins and last but not least the linguists. That's why it is so hard to find two linguists to agree on something.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-06, 10:05
IMO, only an Anatolian/Caucasus origin of PIE makes sense.That's because you don't have enough knowledge about the topic. Read Mallory's ISOTIE and I'm sure you'll be of a different opinion. That is, if you can think logically.

Anatolia makes no sense at all, and only northern Caucasus (Maykop) sort of makes sense. Yamnaya is the proto-Indo-European urheimat and very shortly after the Yamnaya horizon, most of the proto-Indo-European genepool settled in Poland/Lithuania with the horse/wheel.

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7484/ielangespread.jpg


I also think that not only PIE derived in this region but also Proto-Kartvelian; proto-Semitic emerged later in close proximity. Having no superold inscription of an language does not mean it did not exist in that region.Proto-Semitic is just as old and native to Anatolia as proto-Kartvelian is.


Since genetically this region is the source of almost all Westasians (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html), the major language families must have emerged in the same region or in close proximity.Yes, but what we're talking about here is a specific West Asian group. And Armenians do not match all too well with this West Asian group.


There was not a cultural revolution with only one tribe and one language but many tribes and many languages.Yes, but the proto-Indo-Europeans were not part of that revolution, at least not initially. And that's why Greek is one of the oldest attested IE languages (Greek is not that old of a language), as opposed to say, Sumerian.


Having said and accepted that it is becoming more and more clear that Armenians are not "Assyrians that got Indo-Europeanized" like some like to argue, and Assyrians are not "Armenians that got Semitized".Armenians are about as much Assyrian as Norwegians are Swedish. Sure, there are genetic differences between us Armenians and Assyrians, but if one day the Swedes began speaking Chinese, would you really think they are a completely different genetic group than Norwegians?


Both Armenians and Assyrians are old citizens of the Middle East/Caucasus with old languages of the Middle East/Caucasus.Sure. But Indo-European replaced whatever language Armenians spoke previously, as Indo-European is a relatively recent intruder in not only Armenia but also in Iran.

Of course, if we go back far enough, Indo-European has its roots in the Middle East too one way or the other, but it was less distinctly proto-Indo-European at the time and more like a descendant of Nostratic or something like that.


Do you have link/evidence for your claims?Yes:

Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15#IDAH0OBH

I'm off to the gym/work now, I'll reply later.

Pallantides
2012-02-06, 10:08
I have learned that if you disagree with Armenians in any way you're either a Turk or a Georgian undercover agent out to tarnish the reputation of the ARmenians.

Palisto
2012-02-06, 15:59
That's because you don't have enough knowledge about the topic. Read Mallory's ISOTIE and I'm sure you'll be of a different opinion. That is, if you can think logically.
Seriously, it is just another opinion of a linguist who wants to keep linguistic approaches alive.



Anatolia makes no sense at all, and only northern Caucasus (Maykop) sort of makes sense. Yamnaya is the proto-Indo-European urheimat and very shortly after the Yamnaya horizon, most of the proto-Indo-European genepool settled in Poland/Lithuania with the horse/wheel.

Yes, sure.



http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7484/ielangespread.jpg


In this map they forgot to draw the first line via the Caucasus from South to North. PIE is much older than 5000 years. More like 8000-9000 years old.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UK6uv6RZBlw/TZr4U1kHkKI/AAAAAAAADbY/jvqITDejMG0/s1600/nature.jpg
The position of Proto Indo Iranian is also wrong IMO.



Proto-Semitic is just as old and native to Anatolia as proto-Kartvelian is.

I wrote "Anatolian/Caucasus". Proto-Semitic is from the Levant, not from Anatolia.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WQp3QuDa_ek/TdLb8K8texI/AAAAAAAADu0/P5EqqweInRg/s1600/rydernichollssemitic.png

The first split of proto-Semitic is 5000-6000 years old=3000 years after the first PIE split.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SpVVX_ZHb-I/AAAAAAAAB94/BRdAJnJoVEo/s1600-h/semitic.jpg




Yes, but what we're talking about here is a specific West Asian group. And Armenians do not match all too well with this West Asian group.

(I meant "West Eurasians".) Why not? Armenians and the other inhabitants of Anatolia/Caucasus show fit perfectly as the main source of West Eurasians. They are pretty central in this plot from Yunusbayev et al. (2011).

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z4emIlX1whY/ToFfitMz4AI/AAAAAAAAEKk/8n0LTh4FmHM/s1600/uzbeks.png




Yes, but the proto-Indo-Europeans were not part of that revolution, at least not initially. And that's why Greek is one of the oldest attested IE languages (Greek is not that old of a language), as opposed to say, Sumerian.

We are not talking about attested languages but postulated proto-languages. PIE is almost as old as neolithic revolution and it has words for the neolithic revolution.




Armenians are about as much Assyrian as Norwegians are Swedish. Sure, there are genetic differences between us Armenians and Assyrians, but if one day the Swedes began speaking Chinese, would you really think they are a completely different genetic group than Norwegians?

You don't get it.




Sure. But Indo-European replaced whatever language Armenians spoke previously, as Indo-European is a relatively recent intruder in not only Armenia but also in Iran.

There is no evidence for any migration of Proto-Iranians into Iran.



Of course, if we go back far enough, Indo-European has its roots in the Middle East too one way or the other, but it was less distinctly proto-Indo-European at the time and more like a descendant of Nostratic or something like that.

You are starting to get it.


Do you have link/evidence for your claims?[/QUOTE]Yes:

Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7007/8/15#IDAH0OBH

I'm off to the gym/work now, I'll reply later.[/QUOTE]

I asked you if have any evidence for this:
"you compare the Y-DNA of those Tarim mummies and their autosomal DNA, you will get a match with Poles, not with Armenians."

R1a does exist in Armenians and Poles. So what is your point?

Mosov
2012-02-06, 16:08
I have learned that if you disagree with Armenians in any way you're either a Turk or a Georgian undercover agent out to tarnish the reputation of the ARmenians.

How does that comment contribute to the topic at hand?

---------- Post added 2012-02-06 at 16:17 ----------

The overlapping between Mountain (Caucasus) Jews and Armenians is interesting. There were mass immigrations of Jews to Armenian Highland during the reign of King Tigran, but I can't say how much that contributed to this overlapping.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-z4emIlX1whY/ToFfitMz4AI/AAAAAAAAEKk/8n0LTh4FmHM/s1600/uzbeks.png

Ardi
2012-02-06, 17:23
(Before I am prematurely accused of being an Armenian ethnocentrist, let me clarify and say that I have no interest whatsoever in clinging on to or dogmatically propagating any one scholarly viewpoint in the name of some national position. Objective knowledge is my only interest. Let's have a healthy discussion without stooping to childish mudslinging.)

While far from a resolute consensus, recent literature is beginning to provide an interesting and refreshing compromise of sorts regarding the origin of the IE language family.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/ArenTMA/viewer.png

In the ongoing development of the phylogenetic approach to linguistics, Russell Gray & Quentin Atkinson (authors of the language tree above) have commented (http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/publications/index.php?pub=Words_to_dates05) on (http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/publications/index.php?pub=Atkinson_and_Gray2006) their analysis (http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/publications/index.php?pub=Gray_and_Atkinson2003Nature) of the divergence time for IE language family, and have taken certain
criticism (http://www.hjholm.de/Holm%20Arbo%20old.pdf) regarding their methodology into consideration. Further supplementary ppublication are provided in their website (http://language.psy.auckland.ac.nz/publications/).

Furthermore, a string of recent studies by mathematician Maurizio Serva have utilized the Levenstein distance string metric to arrive at some interesting results regarding IE and specifically the Armenian language. Although I lack the technical knowlege employed, the use of the Swadesh list seems like a limitation for the study. The implications are thought-provoking nonetheless.


Indo-European languages tree by Levenshtein
distance (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.2971.pdf)

Automated languages phylogeny from
Levenshtein distance (Revisited results) (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3280.pdf)

Language distance and tree reconstruction(Methodology) (http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/08/P08012)

http://ej.iop.org/images/0295-5075/81/6/68005/Full/epl10805fig1.jpg

Humanist
2012-02-06, 17:44
No one knows anything about the genes of the Hurrians. So that's why I don't take Humanist's and Peter Hrechdakian's claim all too dogmatically that Assyrians and Armenians share a Hurrian component. Truth is, Armenians are in the main, descended from the Hurro-Urartians, and very little if any ancestry from the proto-Indo-Europeans. Assyrians are basically pretty much more or less entirely Semitic and perhaps some non-Semitic ancestry such as Elamite and an occasional Hurrian ancestor and so on.

True. But, they are the best candidates, in my opinion. Assyrian and Armenian Y-DNA lines (and possibly mtDNA lines) converge, in significant part, if we go back three or four millennia.

The relatively close relationship observed between Assyrians and the Armenians of Karabakh and Syunik (http://www.rau.am/downloads/publ.kafedr/episkoposyan_medbiolog/Yepiskoposian_I&C_06.pdf), in my opinion, represents the shared ancient substratum of both people. A substratum dating to before northern Mesopotamia was “Semitized” by Akkadians, and other Semitic-speaking peoples (e.g. Amorites), in the mid to late 3rd millennium BCE, or a substratum beginning with the Middle Assyrian period, following Mitanni domination of Assur. A substratum that is best represented, in my opinion, by the R-M269 lineage, and the Hurrian and Subarian people.

1.Buccellati, Giorgio and Mariyln, 'Urkesh and the Question of the Hurrian Homeland.' Bull. Georg. Natl. Acad. Sci., 175, No. 2 2007

“The argument we have developed in support of a Hurrian ethnic identity of Urkesh also goes along with this. The only possible linguistic links of Hurrian are with the north, reaching possibly all the way to the Caucasus and to Georgia in particular...What we have called “Hurrian urban ledge,” i.e. the arc represented by Chuera, Urkesh, Nineveh and (presumably) Kumme, remains in the third millennium just that, a narrow ledge. And it is the ledge of the northern highlands that provide subsistence and wealth.”

2.Fournet, Arnaud and Bomhard, Allan R. 'The Indo-European Elements in Hurrian.' La Garenne Colombes 2010

"The proto-history of the Hurrian language and people is shrouded with much uncertainty. But there are some indications that the presence of Hurrian people in Upper Mesopotamia is fairly ancient. Some towns in Assyria appear to have typically Hurrian names.”

“[T]he deep connections between the Akkadian goddess Ištar and the Hurrian goddess Šauška on the other hand are held as strong indications that the Hurrians must have been on the spot and that they must have taken part to the construction of the Mesopotamian civilization from the start. A probable etymology of the goddess Šauška, attested in the Ur III period as <ša-ù-ša>, has been proposed by Wegner: this theonym means ‘the Great’, being the equivalent of the great goddess Ištar of the Akkadians."

3.Lawler, Andrew. 'Urkesh and the Question of the Hurrian Homeland: New discoveries in Syria suggest a little-known people fueled the rise of civilization.' Archaeology, Volume 61 Number 4, July/August 2008

"Piotr Michaelowski, an Assyriologist at the University of Michigan...suggests, the Hurrians were earlier inhabitants of the region, who, like the Sumerians, had to make room for the Semitic-speaking people who created the world's first empire based at Akkad in central Mesopotamia around 2350 B.C.”

4.Khan, Geoffrey. 'The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Barwar.' (Brill, Leiden, 2008), 2175pp.

“As already shown by Krotkoff (1985: 124–126), a number of lexical items in the NENA [Northeastern Neo-Aramaic] dialects, especially those relating to agriculture, can be traced back beyond Classical Aramaic to Akkadian or even Sumerian.”

Attached: Map of languages, 1700 BCE. This is a map, after the Semitic expansions of the previous millennium.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/BC1700.jpg

Jaska
2012-02-06, 17:56
Sorry, I don't believe in linguistics, I have seen too many linguistics students in universities doing nothing but sitting in a cafe and talking about the weather news and complaining about the classes they never visited...
Genetics are much more reliable.
Yeah, and the Sun circulates around the Earth.
You clearly have no knowledge on linguistics. There are many different levels in linguistics. What seems to bugger you most, is the historical linguistics, right? See below...


In linguistics, everything is wishy-washy, the postulated languages, the postulated migrations, the postulated language origins and last but not least the linguists. That's why it is so hard to find two linguists to agree on something.
No, there is quite a consensus in about all matters. But because linguistics is so challenging for the brain, there are more scholars who just don't get it right. :) Well, mostly they are amateurs having no education for historical linguistics who think that it is enough two look at two dictionaries, pick up similar looking words, and then you have proved a new distant relation (say, between Basque and Uralic, or between Indo-European and Polynesian).

You should understand that the existence of Proto-Indo-European is a logical necessarity. Another thing, then, is the reconstruction of this protolanguage. Everybody agrees that there was a Proto-Indo-European language, and that certain sound correspondences are regular (say, between Germanic h ~ Greek k ~ Slavic s); the only thing in which they may disagree is the original phonetic value of the Proto-Indo-European sound - was it h, k, s or something else? In practice this is mostly irrelevant disagreement: the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction has changed many times, and it probably will change again. It does not make Proto-Indo-European any less plausible, however.

And considering the location of the PIE homeland, there are disagreements on how solid an argument sme reconstructed word is. But when all the Proto-Indo-European words (their meanings) and other evidence are taken into account, it becomes clear that there are not so many places where we can locate PIE speech area. Ukraine is so far the best argued candidate. Other places has been presented, but arguments supporting them are weak or even erroneous.


There is no evidence for any migration of Proto-Iranians into Iran.
Wrong again; read Mallory I linked. Your other mistake seems to be that you think that people as a whole must have moved, but this is not the case. Usually some language bearers arrive and spread their language to the original people of the area.

mariposa
2012-02-06, 17:58
I have learned that if you disagree with Armenians in any way you're either a Turk or a Georgian undercover agent out to tarnish the reputation of the ARmenians.

I don't think that is necessarily true but I also think that a lot of the Armenian posters have a mindset of Europe = good, Middle East = bad, and they strive to distance themselves from the Middle East.

Ardi
2012-02-06, 18:07
An anthropological consideration from the odontological angle


'Indo-European Migrations:Their Origin from the Point of View of Odontology'
A.Yu. Khudaverdyan (http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-13-0-000-11-Web/Anth-13-2-000-11-Abst-Pdf/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y-Tt.pdf)

adsız
2012-02-06, 18:13
An anthropological consideration from the odontological angle


'Indo-European Migrations:Their Origin from the Point of View of Odontology'
A.Yu. Khudaverdyan (http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-13-0-000-11-Web/Anth-13-2-000-11-Abst-Pdf/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y-Tt.pdf)

KHudaverdiyan is an Armenian..

Mosov
2012-02-06, 18:25
I don't think that is necessarily true but I also think that a lot of the Armenian posters have a mindset of Europe = good, Middle East = bad, and they strive to distance themselves from the Middle East.

While this is not the thread for that topic, the terms Europe and Middle East are rather vague and controversial thus creating a lot of debate.

Ardi
2012-02-06, 18:27
KHudaverdiyan is an Armenian..

And?

It is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication that could have been authored by anyone with the necessary credentials.

Humanist
2012-02-06, 18:32
An anthropological consideration from the odontological angle


'Indo-European Migrations:Their Origin from the Point of View of Odontology'
A.Yu. Khudaverdyan (http://www.krepublishers.com/02-Journals/T-Anth/Anth-13-0-000-11-Web/Anth-13-2-000-11-Abst-Pdf/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y/Anth-13-2-075-11-711-Khudaverdyan-A-Y-Tt.pdf)

Thanks for the link.

If it were not for the Armenians, I doubt anyone else would have an interest in us. Thank goodness for you guys. Posted by Sargon999, previously:

1.ETHNOGENETIC RESEARCH OF THE ASSYRIANS LIVING IN ARMENIA (On the anthropological data of the Assyrians of Verin Dvin)
ՀԱՅԱՍՏԱՆՈՒՄ ԲՆԱԿՎՈՂ ԱՍՈՐԻՆԵՐԻ ԷԹՆՈԳԵՆԵՏԻԿՈՒՍՈՒՄՆԱՍԻՐՈՒՄ Ը (Ըստ Վերին Դվինի ասորիների մարդաբանական տվյալների) ՆՎԱՐԴ ՔՈՉԱՐ, ԱՆՆԱ ՓԱԼԻԿՅԱՆ, ԿԱՐԻՆԵ ՆԱԼԲԱՆԴՅԱՆ


The anthropological and ethnogenetic researches of Verin Dvin Assyrians show the very close proximity of all markers to different Armenian groups as well as to summarized Armenian population. Somatological, odontological and dermatoglyphical signs become apparent as “armenoid” race diagnostic complex. This indicates that very high percentage of common ancestors’ genes have remained up to our days.

2.Ասորիների օդոնտոլոգիական բնութագիրը / Ա. Կ. Պալիկյան։ Odontological characteristics of the Assyrians / A. K. Palikian.


Morphological peculiarities of dental system of Assyrians are studied for the first time. The elements of the western subtype of the southern gracile type have been revealed.

3.Դվին գյուղի ասորական պոպուլյացիայի դերմատոգլիֆիկական բնութագիրը / Կ. Գ. Նալբանդյան։ Dermatogliphical characteristics of Assyrian population of Verin Dvin village / K. G. Nalbandyan.


For the first time the dermatoglyphic research of Assyrian population was completed in Artashat district of Armenia. The set of dermatoglyphic traits were identified, according to which this population does not fall out of the boundaries of the big European race. These traits also demonstrate substantial similarity with peoples of Caucasus.

I posted this, a week or so back:

Morphometric analysis of the dentition from Bronze Age Tell Leilan, Syria, a contribution to the dental anthropology of ancient Mesopotamia (2001)

Scott Haddow, University of Alberta

Apologies for the rough copy and paste from the PDF:


Non-metric andysis of the persnanent and deciduous dentition of the
northem Mesopotamian Bronze Age site of Tell Leilan, when compared with
similar adyses conducteci world wide and in the Near East, reveals a relatively
consistent affiliation with Western Eurasian, or Caucasoid populations, although
certain traits share affinities to both Western Eurasian and Sunda-Pacific
populations. Men compared with living and archaeologicai Near Eastern
populations, the Tell Leilan sample appean to exhiiit higher frequencies of
Western Eurasian traits than the living Near Eastern populations. These later
populations exhibit somewhat higher fiequencies of stereotypically Mongoloid
traits (i.e. UII shoveling, UMZ hypocone size) which rnay be the result of
cumulative gene flow between continental populations since ancient times
Indeed, the Near East has smed as a thoroughfare for the movements of
populatiom between fiai, Asia and Europe for miilennia.

Because of the maIl sample size, the Tell Leüan skeletal material was
treated as if it were a cross-section of a once-living population at a patticular point
in time, rather thaa as it is, an assemblage of human remains dating fiom between
the early third to the early second millennium BC. Had the sample been larger, an
analysis of changes in dental trait expression hquencies at Tell Leilan during the
course of the third millennium BC may have shed some light on the changing face
of the Tell Leilan population at a tirne when hyper-urbmization was transforming
the region. More dental non-meaic studies of living and archaeological dentitions
in the Nwt East, using staudardized recording procedures (Le. The ASU system),
are required, especially for the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. More
research will ultimately lead us to a better understandhg of such complex issues
as migration and wbanization, and, hopefblly, in a better understanding of the
biological relationships of ancient Near Eastern peoples to one another and to the
world.

Metric analysis of the permanent and deciduous dentition of the northern
Mesoptamian Bronze Age site of Tell Leilan, when cornpared with
odontological work from varying periods within the Near East, reveals and
confïrms the pattern of hominid dental size reduction observed worldwide since
the Middle Paleotithic. The total crown area (TCA) for the Tell Leilan permanent
dental sample, 1 189 mm2, and 497 mm2 for the deciduous sample, places this
archaeological population at the smaller end of the crown area scale for the Near
East; d e r in size than nearby Paledithic and Neolithic populations, and
slightly larger than more recent populations and the modem amples. Larger
dental samples from a wider variety of sites in ancient Mesopotamia wiIl
eventttally aliow for a more detailed documentation of meûic dentai trends in this
region and tune period of the Near East.

Tell Leilan ("A").

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/tell_leilan.jpg

Ardi
2012-02-06, 18:33
I don't think that is necessarily true but I also think that a lot of the Armenian posters have a mindset of Europe = good, Middle East = bad, and they strive to distance themselves from the Middle East.


While this is not the thread for that topic, the terms Europe and Middle East are rather vague and controversial thus creating a lot of debate.

I've said this numerous times and in numerous places: the "continental" categories are ultimately irrelevant. The only criterion is self-identification, which can easily exist within multiple such spheres.

---------- Post added 2012-02-06 at 12:41 ----------


Thanks for the link.

You're very welcome.

Palisto
2012-02-06, 20:20
Yeah, and the Sun circulates around the Earth.
You clearly have no knowledge on linguistics. There are many different levels in linguistics. What seems to bugger you most, is the historical linguistics, right? See below...


No, there is quite a consensus in about all matters. But because linguistics is so challenging for the brain, there are more scholars who just don't get it right. :) Well, mostly they are amateurs having no education for historical linguistics who think that it is enough two look at two dictionaries, pick up similar looking words, and then you have proved a new distant relation (say, between Basque and Uralic, or between Indo-European and Polynesian).

You should understand that the existence of Proto-Indo-European is a logical necessarity. Another thing, then, is the reconstruction of this protolanguage. Everybody agrees that there was a Proto-Indo-European language, and that certain sound correspondences are regular (say, between Germanic h ~ Greek k ~ Slavic s); the only thing in which they may disagree is the original phonetic value of the Proto-Indo-European sound - was it h, k, s or something else? In practice this is mostly irrelevant disagreement: the Proto-Indo-European reconstruction has changed many times, and it probably will change again. It does not make Proto-Indo-European any less plausible, however.

And considering the location of the PIE homeland, there are disagreements on how solid an argument sme reconstructed word is. But when all the Proto-Indo-European words (their meanings) and other evidence are taken into account, it becomes clear that there are not so many places where we can locate PIE speech area. Ukraine is so far the best argued candidate. Other places has been presented, but arguments supporting them are weak or even erroneous.

I never said that there was no PIE. I said: two linguists=two opinions.

Just look at the posted IE trees presented in this thread. Do they look the same to you???
Is this already called consistent in linguistics?

http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa379/palisto1/Lineage%20tree%20of%20Middle%20East%20based%20on%2 0Dodecad/ScreenShot2012-02-06at120555PM.png
http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/ArenTMA/viewer.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UK6uv6RZBlw/TZr4U1kHkKI/AAAAAAAADbY/jvqITDejMG0/s1600/nature.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jFxt4F27QhU/TsAcS-2wq5I/AAAAAAAAETc/uPcs0UZEHgM/s1600/AnttilasDataAsANeighborNet.gif



Wrong again; read Mallory I linked. Your other mistake seems to be that you think that people as a whole must have moved, but this is not the case. Usually some language bearers arrive and spread their language to the original people of the area.

I know what language replacement is. To prove language replacement you need a language coming from somewhere else. I don't see any Proto-Iranian in Central Asia in ancient times, the first records of Iranian languages are from Iran.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-06, 23:31
Seriously, it is just another opinion of a linguist who wants to keep linguistic approaches alive.J.P. Mallory is not really a linguist. He's an archaeologist with some skills in linguistics. More importantly, he's an Indo-Europeanist, and one of the best in the field today, and that means his opinion counts, whereas yours and PBachman's don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory

^^ This man knows what he's talking about. He was the man who restored some major respect and credibility to Gimbutas' feminist bullshit.


In this map they forgot to draw the first line via the Caucasus from South to North.Nothing wrong with the map. It is based on Mallory's and Anthony's books, and it gives you an excellent illustration.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml


PIE is much older than 5000 years. More like 8000-9000 years old.Proto-Indo-European is around 4,500 to 6,500 years old. So the 3,000 BC date in that image is not necessarily wrong. We know this because there are cognates in all Indo-European languages, that date back to a certain time and therefore proto-Indo-European cannot be older than these cognates. Aside from that, modern Indo-European languages are not that different from each other as they are expected to have been, had proto-Indo-European been 9,000 years old. The differences in Indo-European languages are more like the differences between Semitic languages, not like the differences between Afro-Asiatic languages (I don't understand a single Somali word).


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UK6uv6RZBlw/TZr4U1kHkKI/AAAAAAAADbY/jvqITDejMG0/s1600/nature.jpg
The position of Proto Indo Iranian is also wrong IMO.Gray & Atkinson's glottochronological diagram is pseudo-science, because glottochronology is pseudo-science.

You see, glottochronology assumes languages change at a constant rate, but the problem is, they don't.

Moreover, no one is disputing that Hittite is the most archaic of the attested Indo-European languages, but that doesn't mean it came from Anatolia; Hittite came from Yamnaya as well. Anthony explained this:


“Their move into the lower Danube valley probably was the historical event that separated the Pre-Anatolian dialects, spoken by the migrants, from the archaic Proto-Indo-European language community back in the steppes.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 251 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA251)

^^ This must be something Dienekes has blissfully ignored by the way.


I wrote "Anatolian/Caucasus". Proto-Semitic is from the Levant, not from Anatolia.Proto-Semitic is from the northern Levant and Anatolia, as shown by Y-DNA J1c3 variation (peaks in Assyrians and Alawites from Anatolia).

In fact, Semitic has longer history in the region:


“One intermediary is required by chronology, as Proto-Kartvelian is generally thought to have existed after Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA98)

I don't see any reason to think of proto-Kartvelian as more native to Anatolia than proto-Semitic.


The first split of proto-Semitic is 5000-6000 years old=3000 years after the first PIE split.Proto-Semitic is about as old as proto-Indo-European, probably slightly older too.


(I meant "West Eurasians".) Why not? Armenians and the other inhabitants of Anatolia/Caucasus show fit perfectly as the main source of West Eurasians. They are pretty central in this plot from Yunusbayev et al. (2011).Armenians, Assyrians, Anatolian pseudo-Turks and Caucasus folks are the best candidates as the parent populations of Europeans/Indians/MENA. And that's exactly why Armenians in no way whatsoever are the proto-Indo-Europeans. You can't be the daughter population (proto-Indo-Europeans) if you are the parent population...


We are not talking about attested languages but postulated proto-languages. PIE is almost as old as neolithic revolution and it has words for the neolithic revolution.^^ Bullshit:


“The indigenous languages of northern Syria probably belonged to the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, like Semitic and most languages of the lowland Near East. If the first Anatolian farmers spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, it was that language, not Proto-Indo-European, that should have been carried to Greece.14 The earliest Indo-European languages documented in Anatolia—Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian—showed little diversity, and only Luwian had a significant number of speakers by 1500 BCE. All three borrowed extensively from non-Indo-European languages (Hattic, Hurrian, and perhaps others) that seem to have been older, more prestigious, and more widely spoken. The Indo-European languages of Anatolia did not have the established population base of speakers, and also lacked the kind of diversity that would be expected had they been evolving there since the Neolithic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 76 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA76)

And:


“Western Indo-European vocabularies contained a few roots that were borrowed from Afro-Asiatic languages, such as the word for the domesticated bull, *tawr-, and the western Yamnaya groups lived next to the Tripolye culture, which might have spoken a language distantly derived from an Afro-Asiatic language of Anatolia. Eastern Indo-European generally lacked these borrowed Afro-Asiatic roots.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 304-305 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA304)

Proto-Afro-Asiatic = native Anatolian language.


You don't get it.Dude, I'm way ahead of you in this topic. It's you and those dumb ARyan ARmenians who aren't getting it. The reason for that is your nationalistic bias; your judgement is clouded because you have issues accepting that your ancestors went through a language replacement.

It's not my problem really. I have no stake in the proto-Indo-European urheimat discourse and I am completely objective as far as the topic is concerned, because a) I don't have any descent whatsoever from the proto-Indo-Europeans and b) my ancestors have consistently spoken Semitic throughout the past 5,000 years, so I don't have any bullshit Aryan identity to lose.


There is no evidence for any migration of Proto-Iranians into Iran.Are you kidding me? Sintashta? Andronovo? Hello?!?!


You are starting to get it.I don't think you understand. When whatever language became proto-Indo-European was still in its infancy and spoken in the Middle East, it was not even proto-Indo-European and did not resemble the language that was spoken in Ukraine 5,000 years ago.


I asked you if have any evidence for this:
"you compare the Y-DNA of those Tarim mummies and their autosomal DNA, you will get a match with Poles, not with Armenians."

R1a does exist in Armenians and Poles. So what is your point?It's very low in Armenians, and the proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% R1a males, all of them. When proto-Indo-European diversified into Celtic, Italic, Germanic etc., that's when the R1a dominance began decreasing and in some cases was replaced partially and even completely for reasons unknown to us today. It could have been complete cleansing of the Celtic R1a males by the Romans, or they mixed with non-PIE peoples in the Mediterranean and so on. It's difficult to say. But what we do know is that the proto-Indo-Europeans at one point were all descended from one common R1a ancestor, and this R-M17 male's descendants had an interesting group evolutionary strategy that favoured his male descendants, because the proto-Indo-Europeans had a high variation of mtDNA but all Y-DNA was the same for a long time, and it was R1a1a for centuries and even millennia.

This tR1adition continued all the way to India which is why Indians have extremely high frequencies of R1a (a proto-Indo-European haplogroup that was brought there from Ukraine), and it can be seen in the Tocharians, the Andronovo Scythians, the Scythians who ended up in Siberia, and so on. It's not a coincidence that R1a is constantly popping up in archaeological sites associated with Indo-Europeans.

And the fact that Armenians have such low frequencies of R1a (about the same frequency of R1a as we can see in Assyrians), and a very low frequency of the "north European" component, tells us that there's very little descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in Armenians.

R1a was brought to the Tarim Basin not from Armenians, but from eastern Europe. The very fact that the Tocharians and Scythians were all R1a and not a mix of common Armeno-Assyrian Y-DNA (J1, J1ce, R1b, F, G1 etc.) tells you that their best match would be with Poles and other European R1a males, and not with the few R1a Armenians. And the Tarim mummies look northern European anyway, not Armenoid.

Aryamahasattva
2012-02-06, 23:58
I know what language replacement is. To prove language replacement you need a language coming from somewhere else. I don't see any Proto-Iranian in Central Asia in ancient times, the first records of Iranian languages are from Iran.

True! The same goes for Armenian.
Funniest scenario ever : some "Urartians" were invaded by Iranic Medians and suddenly have started to speak some Prygian dialect.
It'll be the same if Byzantium was invaded by Ottomans but they have started to speak Chinese :evilgrin:
Strangely in Urartean there's more than 70 IE Armenian word roots, & there was never any studies showing the similarities of Armenian & Prygian languages, the only clue that they have it was the fairy tales of Herodotus.

Without forgetting that there's already IE Hayasa in Armenian Highland which predates Urartu and the mention about Armanum by Akkadian Emperor Naram Sim in 3rd millennium BC.

As well the Indo-Irano-Aryan presence is pretty obvious in Mittani, what is interesting that they never found any linguistic proofs in Central Asian steppes whatsoever.

I recommend everybody to read the book of Robert Drews "The Coming of the Greeks", who's showing also the major failings of the theory of Gimbutas.

---------- Post added 2012-02-07 at 01:08 ----------



Gray & Atkinson's glottochronological diagram is pseudo-science, because glottochronology is pseudo-science.


You dare to call the work of scientist who teach at Oxford a pseudo-science ? :lol: It's the only known linguistic study based on tangible physical facts, ie the more accurate One !

Palisto
2012-02-07, 01:26
J.P. Mallory is not really a linguist. He's an archaeologist with some skills in linguistics. More importantly, he's an Indo-Europeanist, and one of the best in the field today, and that means his opinion counts, whereas yours and PBachman's don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory

^^ This man knows what he's talking about. He was the man who restored some major respect and credibility to Gimbutas' feminist bullshit.

This is what Wikipedia has about Mallory:
"One consequence of this preference for an integrated approach is that Professor Mallory has been strongly critical of the widely publicised theory of Indo-European origins held by Colin Renfrew which locates the urheimat or homeland of this language family in early Neolithic Anatolia and associates its spread with the spread of agriculture. A key element of his criticism has been a vigorous defence of linguistic palaeontology as a valid tool for solving the Indo-European homeland problem "

His greatest "argument" is linguistics, and you tell me he is not even an expert in linguistics. :lol:



Nothing wrong with the map. It is based on Mallory's and Anthony's books, and it gives you an excellent illustration.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml

Proto-Indo-European is around 4,500 to 6,500 years old. So the 3,000 BC date in that image is not necessarily wrong.

You are talking about the late Proto-Indo-European speakers, not the original ones. The original PIE is much older, about 8000-9000 years old.



We know this because there are cognates in all Indo-European languages, that date back to a certain time and therefore proto-Indo-European cannot be older than these cognates. Aside from that, modern Indo-European languages are not that different from each other as they are expected to have been, had proto-Indo-European been 9,000 years old. The differences in Indo-European languages are more like the differences between Semitic languages, not like the differences between Afro-Asiatic languages (I don't understand a single Somali word).

PIE is about 8000-9000 years old, these cognates you are talking about are from late PIE, not the original PIE. I don't understand a single Hittite word.



Gray & Atkinson's glottochronological diagram is pseudo-science, because glottochronology is pseudo-science.

You see, glottochronology assumes languages change at a constant rate, but the problem is, they don't.

Moreover, no one is disputing that Hittite is the most archaic of the attested Indo-European languages, but that doesn't mean it came from Anatolia; Hittite came from Yamnaya as well. Anthony explained this:


“Their move into the lower Danube valley probably was the historical event that separated the Pre-Anatolian dialects, spoken by the migrants, from the archaic Proto-Indo-European language community back in the steppes.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 251 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA251)

^^ This must be something Dienekes has blissfully ignored by the way.

Dienekes did not ignore but addressed this issue very precisely.
Dienekes:"The critics largely ignored the fact that G&A's method avoided the problems of glottochronology, such as the questionable assumption of a constant rate of evolutionary change: instead, the G&A method exploited multiple known calibration points (e.g., the breakup of Romance languages in Late Antiquity) and did not need such a strict and unrealistic assumption."

Furthermore, there are exical borrowing between original PIE and Kartvelian and Semitic languages, which places the early PIE homeland in the Near East. If you place PIE into Ukraine, you have to do the same for Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Semitic languages.



Proto-Semitic is from the northern Levant and Anatolia, as shown by Y-DNA J1c3 variation (peaks in Assyrians and Alawites from Anatolia).

Alawites live in Syria (Levant), not in Anatolia and I have not seen any Y data of Alawites so far. Assyrians originated in Iraq, not in Anatolia. There are/were some in the border region, that's pretty much it.



In fact, Semitic has longer history in the region:


“One intermediary is required by chronology, as Proto-Kartvelian is generally thought to have existed after Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA98)

Not in Anatolia/Caucasus.




I don't see any reason to think of proto-Kartvelian as more native to Anatolia than proto-Semitic.

Proto-Semitic is about as old as proto-Indo-European, probably slightly older too.

Sorry, the proto-Semitic language trees that I posted earlier do not resemble your claims.



Armenians, Assyrians, Anatolian Turks and Caucasus folks are the best candidates as the parent populations of Europeans/Indians/MENA.

Correct.



And that's exactly why Armenians in no way whatsoever are the proto-Indo-Europeans. You can't be the daughter population (proto-Indo-Europeans) if you are the parent population...

What are you talking about??? I never said that Armenians themselves are proto-Indo-Europeans, they are Indo-Europeans like many others. 9000 years are gone since then...



^^ Bullshit:


“The indigenous languages of northern Syria probably belonged to the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, like Semitic and most languages of the lowland Near East. If the first Anatolian farmers spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, it was that language, not Proto-Indo-European, that should have been carried to Greece.14

You are right, your argument is bullshit:lol:, the Semitic language just spread to the South and did not reach Europe (West) or Central (Northeast), South (Southeast). clearly showing they were not the first farmers.



The earliest Indo-European languages documented in Anatolia—Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian—showed little diversity, and only Luwian had a significant number of speakers by 1500 BCE. All three borrowed extensively from non-Indo-European languages (Hattic, Hurrian, and perhaps others) that seem to have been older, more prestigious, and more widely spoken. The Indo-European languages of Anatolia did not have the established population base of speakers, and also lacked the kind of diversity that would be expected had they been evolving there since the Neolithic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 76 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA76)


We should not forget that this whole argument is based on a very few old inscriptions, nobody knows what the average Anatolian spoke in that time and besides that you are talking about 1500 BCE, so 5000 years after the first split of PIE.




And:

“Western Indo-European vocabularies contained a few roots that were borrowed from Afro-Asiatic languages, such as the word for the domesticated bull, *tawr-, and the western Yamnaya groups lived next to the Tripolye culture, which might have spoken a language distantly derived from an Afro-Asiatic language of Anatolia.
Eastern Indo-European generally lacked these borrowed Afro-Asiatic roots.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 304-305 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA304)


1. Too much subjunctive mood here. Let me summarize: Bla
2. "Western Indo-European" is not PIE.



Proto-Afro-Asiatic = native Anatolian language.

No, no, no.
Proto-Semitic = Levant
Proto-Afro-Asiatic = ???



Dude, I'm way ahead of you in this topic. It's you and those dumb ARyan ARmenians who aren't getting it. The reason for that is your nationalistic bias; your judgement is clouded because you have issues accepting that your ancestors went through a language replacement.

I don't have any issue with language replacement if it based on solid science.



It's not my problem really. I have no stake in the proto-Indo-European urheimat discourse and I am completely objective as far as the topic is concerned, because a) I don't have any descent whatsoever from the proto-Indo-Europeans and b) my ancestors have consistently spoken Semitic throughout the past 5,000 years, so I don't have any bullshit Aryan identity to lose.

Well, to be precise, you are partially Armenian, which makes you partially Indo-European. To me it looks like that you have a problem with your ancestry...



Are you kidding me? Sintashta? Andronovo? Hello?!?!
There is no evidence for a migration of Iranians from Central Asia to the Middle East.
Who tells you that ancient Iranians did not move from Iran to Sintashta or Andronovo. HELLO!!!



It's very low in Armenians, and the proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% R1a males, all of them. When proto-Indo-European diversified into Celtic, Italic, Germanic etc., that's when the R1a dominance began decreasing and in some cases was replaced partially and even completely for reasons unknown to us today.

1. We don't know if all of them (100%) were R1a males, this is just the current standing in the aDNA collection.
2. We do not know if they were PIE people.
3. We do not know R1a frequency of Anatolia/Caucasus from ancient times, could have been high, too.
4. Another hypothesis is that R1b is mostly responsible for the spread of IE, which is an integral part of Assyrians nowadays. So I could speculate that Assyrians went through a language repla...




It could have been complete cleansing of the Celtic R1a males by the Romans, or they mixed with non-PIE peoples in the Mediterranean and so on. It's difficult to say. But what we do know is that the proto-Indo-Europeans at one point were all descended from one common R1a ancestor, and this R-M17 male's descendants had an interesting group evolutionary strategy that favoured his male descendants, because the proto-Indo-Europeans had a high variation of mtDNA but all Y-DNA was the same for a long time, and it was R1a1a for centuries and even millennia.

Made-up Bullshit. We do not know, Elias.




This tR1adition continued all the way to India which is why Indians have extremely high frequencies of R1a (a proto-Indo-European haplogroup that was brought there from Ukraine), and it can be seen in the Tocharians, the Andronovo Scythians, the Scythians who ended up in Siberia, and so on. It's not a coincidence that R1a is constantly popping up in archaeological sites associated with Indo-Europeans.

And the fact that Armenians have such low frequencies of R1a (about the same frequency of R1a as we can see in Assyrians), and a very low frequency of the "north European" component, tells us that there's very little descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in Armenians.

R1a was brought to the Tarim Basin not from Armenians, but from eastern Europe. The very fact that the Tocharians and Scythians were all R1a and not a mix of common Armeno-Assyrian Y-DNA (J1, J1ce, R1b, F, G1 etc.) tells you that their best match would be with Poles and other European R1a males, and not with the few R1a Armenians. And the Tarim mummies look northern European anyway, not Armenoid.

I am so sure that you will be proven wrong. Here is a summary of my point of view:
http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa379/palisto1/Lineage%20tree%20of%20Middle%20East%20based%20on%2 0Dodecad/2012-01-29Theoryforhaplogroupdistribution.png

PBachman
2012-02-07, 02:24
I don't think that is necessarily true but I also think that a lot of the Armenian posters have a mindset of Europe = good, Middle East = bad, and they strive to distance themselves from the Middle East.


I have learned that if you disagree with Armenians in any way you're either a Turk or a Georgian undercover agent out to tarnish the reputation of the ARmenians.

There is no such attitude. I would see how vehemently you would fight to make sure that you are not misrepresented. The caveat with Armenians is that there exists state funded efforts to destroy their history or as least shorten it.


J.P. Mallory is not really a linguist. He's an archaeologist with some skills in linguistics. More importantly, he's an Indo-Europeanist, and one of the best in the field today, and that means his opinion counts, whereas yours and PBachman's don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._P._Mallory

^^ This man knows what he's talking about. He was the man who restored some major respect and credibility to Gimbutas' feminist bullshit.

Yes, exactly "restored". The idea was flawed from the beginning. You can't "restore" a failed idea.

Again, you are placing too much emphasis on Mallory's work. He only disagrees with Colin Renfrew because unlike him, Reinfrew looks at the logic behind Gimbutas' theory. The archeological record does not match the linguistic model. Reinfrew approaches history from an more tangible perspective instead of just formulating an entire theory on archeology initially and expanding it with linguistic models that do not fit the archeological and historical evidence.

Furthermore, there are big problems with Gimbutas' original theory:


Occurrence of horse riding in Europe

Renfrew (1999: 268) holds that on the European scene mounted warriors appear only as late as the turn of the second-first millennia BC and these could in no case have been "Gimbutas's Kurgan warriors"[citation needed] predating the facts by some 2,000 years. Mallory (1989, p136) enumerates linguistic evidence pointing to PIE period employment of horses in paired draught, something that would not have been possible before the invention of the spoked wheel and chariot, normally dated after about 2500 BC.

According to Krell (1998), Gimbutas' homeland theory is completely incompatible with the linguistic evidence. Krell compiles lists of items of flora, fauna, economy, and technology that archaeology has accounted for in the Kurgan culture and compares it with lists of the same categories as reconstructed by traditional historical-Indo-European linguistics. Krell finds major discrepancies between the two, and underlines the fact that we cannot presume that the reconstructed term for 'horse', for example, referred to the domesticated equid in the protoperiod just because it did in later times. It could originally have referred to a wild equid, a possibility that would "undermine the mainstay of Gimbutas's arguments that the Kurgan culture first domesticated the horse and used this new technology to spread to surrounding areas,"[dubious – discuss]

[edit]Pastoralism vs. agriculture

Kathrin Krell (1998) finds that the terms found in the reconstructed Indo-European language are not compatible with the cultural level of the Kurgans. Krell holds that the Indo-Europeans had agriculture whereas the Kurgan people were "just at a pastoral stage" and hence might not have had sedentary agricultural terms in their language, despite the fact that such terms are part of a Proto-Indo-European core vocabulary.
Krell (1998), "Gimbutas' Kurgans-PIE homeland hypothesis: a linguistic critique", points out that the Proto-Indo-European had an agricultural vocabulary and not merely a pastoral one. As for technology, there are plausible reconstructions suggesting knowledge of navigation, a technology quite atypical of Gimbutas' Kurgan society. Krell concludes that Gimbutas seems to first establish a Kurgan hypothesis, based on purely archaeological observations, and then proceeds to create a picture of the PIE homeland and subsequent dispersal which fits neatly over her archaeological findings. The problem is that in order to do this, she has had to be rather selective in her use of linguistic data, as well as in her interpretation of that data.


The Kurgan hypothesis describes the initial spread of Proto-Indo-European during the 5th and 4th millennia BC.[20]

The question of further Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe, Central Asia and Northern India during the Bronze Age is beyond its scope, and far more uncertain than the events of the Copper Age. The specifics of the Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe during the 3rd to 2nd millennia (Corded Ware horizon) and Central Asia (Andronovo culture) are nevertheless subject to some controversy.

[edit]Europe

Further information: Corded Ware and Bronze Age Europe

The European Funnelbeaker and Corded Ware cultures have been described as showing intrusive elements linked to Indo-Europeanization, but recent archaeological studies have described them in terms of local continuity, which has led some archaeologists to declare the Kurgan hypothesis "obsolete".[21] However, it is generally held unrealistic to believe that a proto-historic people can be assigned to any particular group on basis of archaeological material alone.[22]

The Corded Ware culture has always been important in locating Indo-European origins. The German archaeologist Alexander Häusler was an important proponent of archeologists that searched for homeland evidence here. He sharply criticised Gimbutas' concept of 'a' Kurgan culture that mixes several distinct cultures like the pit-grave culture. Häusler's criticism mostly stemmed from a distinctive lack of archeological evidence until 1950 from what was then the East Bloc, from which time on plenty of evidence for Gimbutas's Kurgan hypothesis was discovered for decades.[23] He was unable to link Corded Ware to the Indo-Europeans of the Balkans, Greece or Anatolia, and neither to the Indo-Europeans in Asia. Nevertheless, establishing the correct relationship between the Corded Ware and Pontic-Caspian regions is still considered essential to solving the entire homeland problem

As stated in wikipedia:

"A key element of [J.P. Mallory's] criticism has been a vigorous defence of linguistic palaeontology as a valid tool for solving the Indo-European homeland problem, arguing that Renfrew is sceptical about it precisely because it offers some of the strongest evidence against the latter's own model."

Again, there is no substance to his argument. Ironically, he is doing to Reinfrew what you do to others on the forums, claim they are "xyz". He is more or less fighting over the merits of linguistic models.

Also, Reinfrew's model is more believable:


Reacting to criticism, Renfrew revised his proposal to the effect of taking a pronounced Indo-Hittite position. Renfrew's revised views place only Pre-Proto-Indo-European in 7th millennium BC Anatolia, proposing as the homeland of Proto-Indo-European proper the Balkans around 5000 BC, explicitly identified as the "Old European culture" proposed by Marija Gimbutas. He thus still situates the original source of the Indo-European language family in Anatolia around 7000BC. Reconstructions of a Bronze Age PIE society based on vocabulary items like "wheel" do not necessarily hold for the Anatolian branch, which appears to have separated from PIE at an early stage, prior to the invention of wheeled vehicles.[3]

Map showing the Neolithic expansion from the seventh to fifth millennium BC.
According to Renfrew (2004), the spread of Indo-European proceeded in the following steps:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/77/Neolithic_expansion.svg/680px-Neolithic_expansion.svg.png

Around 6500 BC: Pre-Proto-Indo-European, located in Anatolia, splits into Anatolian and Archaic Proto-Indo-European, the language of those Pre-Proto-Indo-European farmers that migrate to Europe in the initial farming dispersal. Archaic Proto-Indo-European languages occur in the Balkans (Starčevo-Körös-Cris culture), in the Danube valley (Linear Pottery culture), and possibly in the Bug-Dniestr area (Eastern Linear pottery culture).

Around 5000 BC: Archaic Proto-Indo-European splits into Northwestern Indo-European (the ancestor of Italic, Celtic, and Germanic), located in the Danube valley, Balkan Proto-Indo-European (corresponding to Gimbutas' Old European culture), and Early Steppe Proto-Indo-European (the ancestor of Tocharian).


Nothing wrong with the map. It is based on Mallory's and Anthony's books, and it gives you an excellent illustration.

http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/indoeuropeans.shtml

Proto-Indo-European is around 4,500 to 6,500 years old. So the 3,000 BC date in that image is not necessarily wrong. We know this because there are cognates in all Indo-European languages, that date back to a certain time and therefore proto-Indo-European cannot be older than these cognates. Aside from that, modern Indo-European languages are not that different from each other as they are expected to have been, had proto-Indo-European been 9,000 years old. The differences in Indo-European languages are more like the differences between Semitic languages, not like the differences between Afro-Asiatic languages (I don't understand a single Somali word).

Gray & Atkinson's glottochronological diagram is pseudo-science, because glottochronology is pseudo-science.

You see, glottochronology assumes languages change at a constant rate, but the problem is, they don't.

Moreover, no one is disputing that Hittite is the most archaic of the attested Indo-European languages, but that doesn't mean it came from Anatolia; Hittite came from Yamnaya as well. Anthony explained this:

Hmm... is that right? Is that why "More recently phylogenetic methods have been used by scholars such as Russell D. Gray and Quentin D. Atkinson which allow variable rates on different branches. They dated PIE to a period which would fit Renfrew's hypothesis".

Furthermore, you are so full of yourself, how can you claim Professor Quentin Atkinson is a "psuedo scientist":


Quentin has recently returned to the University of Auckland, having completed his PhD thesis in the Psychology Department in 2006. Prior to his return, he spent 3 years at the University of Oxford as a Research Fellow in the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology. He has also done post-doctoral work in the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Aarhus, Denmark and with Professor Mark Pagel in the Zoology Department at the University of Reading, UK.


Russell completed his PhD at the University of Auckland in 1990. He spent four years as a lecturer in Psychology at the University of Otago before returning to Auckland. He has served on the University of Auckland and Faculty of Science research committees and was on the Marsden Grant panel from 2002-2004. He is on the Editorial Boards of Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Evolutionary Bioinformatics, and Frontiers (Comparative Psychology). He has been awarded a Hood Fellowship and a James Cook Fellowship and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

They have PhD from esteemed universities. One from Oxford. Where do you get this stuff from?



“Their move into the lower Danube valley probably was the historical event that separated the Pre-Anatolian dialects, spoken by the migrants, from the archaic Proto-Indo-European language community back in the steppes.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 251 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA251)

^^ This must be something Dienekes has blissfully ignored by the way.

Yes and it isn't it strange that:


Two of the oldest images of humans riding horses, dated about 2100-1700 BC, were discovered in the ruins of a Sumerian city (top) and in the cemetery of a fortified Central Asian oasis of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) (bottom). The seal scenes, one of which was the personal seal of the Animal Disburser for the Sumerian King Shu-Sin, seem to draw on a similar iconography, which might have spread with the first wave of horses to enter the ancient Near East, happening at the time the seals were carved.

http://users.hartwick.edu/anthonyd/images/slide0062_image069.jpg

And reconcile this with the Kurgen theories inability to explain the presence of the Kurgen expansion in areas where the oldest picture of a horse is found:

"The question of further Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe, Central Asia and Northern India during the Bronze Age is beyond its scope, and far more uncertain than the events of the Copper Age."


Proto-Semitic is from the northern Levant and Anatolia, as shown by Y-DNA J1c3 variation (peaks in Assyrians and Alawites from Anatolia).

In fact, Semitic has longer history in the region:


“One intermediary is required by chronology, as Proto-Kartvelian is generally thought to have existed after Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 98 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA98)

I don't see any reason to think of proto-Kartvelian as more native to Anatolia than proto-Semitic.

Proto-Semitic is about as old as proto-Indo-European, probably slightly older too.

Again, you are pushing your views here. On the basis of archeological, linguistic, and historical narrative there is no way to prove the above. You are claiming that the Sumerians, Hurrians, Urartu, and Kartvelian have "semitic origins" when they don't. It is a fact that the Semitic speaking populations later invaded the area. Furthermore, you are claiming that Proto-Semitic is older than IE, when it is not case if you consider the Anatolian hypothesis. You are trying to push your own views here please stop as it is wrong.


"Armenians, Assyrians, Anatolian pseudo-Turks and Caucasus folks are the best candidates as the parent populations of Europeans/Indians/MENA. And that's exactly why Armenians in no way whatsoever are the proto-Indo-Europeans. You can't be the daughter population (proto-Indo-Europeans) if you are the parent population..."

^^ Bullshit:


“The indigenous languages of northern Syria probably belonged to the Afro-Asiatic language phylum, like Semitic and most languages of the lowland Near East. If the first Anatolian farmers spoke an Afro-Asiatic language, it was that language, not Proto-Indo-European, that should have been carried to Greece.14 The earliest Indo-European languages documented in Anatolia—Hittite, Palaic, and Luwian—showed little diversity, and only Luwian had a significant number of speakers by 1500 BCE. All three borrowed extensively from non-Indo-European languages (Hattic, Hurrian, and perhaps others) that seem to have been older, more prestigious, and more widely spoken. The Indo-European languages of Anatolia did not have the established population base of speakers, and also lacked the kind of diversity that would be expected had they been evolving there since the Neolithic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 76 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA76)

And:


“Western Indo-European vocabularies contained a few roots that were borrowed from Afro-Asiatic languages, such as the word for the domesticated bull, *tawr-, and the western Yamnaya groups lived next to the Tripolye culture, which might have spoken a language distantly derived from an Afro-Asiatic language of Anatolia. Eastern Indo-European generally lacked these borrowed Afro-Asiatic roots.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, pp. 304-305 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA304)

Proto-Afro-Asiatic = native Anatolian language.

Oh come on mate, that is truly pseudo-science. Please, you know as well as I that you taking a minuscule culture in North Africa and projecting it onto a population in Anatolia is just ridiculous. Please, you need to stop claiming that the Neolithic farmers were Afro-Asiatics or that Anatolia was the homeland of such a language. You are an intelligent racist at this point. First, you can't project an identity onto the Neolithic farmers and most likely, they spoke a language that was native to Anatolia. Again, what ever this language was it could not have been related to an Afro-Asiatic nor a Semitic language. Please, this is ridiculous.



Dude, I'm way ahead of you in this topic. It's you and those dumb ARyan ARmenians who aren't getting it. The reason for that is your nationalistic bias; your judgement is clouded because you have issues accepting that your ancestors went through a language replacement.

First, stop claiming that anyone is a "Aryan Armenian". There is no nationalistic bias. You are wrong. How can you claim that the indigenous population of Anatolia spoke a "proto-Afro-Asiatic" when there is trace of it in the latter populations? Furthermore, how can claim this when the Semitic invasion of the region took place later? You can't in both cases. It is not possible. You are delusional in your analysis. If you were so ahead you wouldn't try to downplay the Anatolian when the variable diffusion criticism was addressed.



It's not my problem really. I have no stake in the proto-Indo-European urheimat discourse and I am completely objective as far as the topic is concerned, because a) I don't have any descent whatsoever from the proto-Indo-Europeans and b) my ancestors have consistently spoken Semitic throughout the past 5,000 years, so I don't have any bullshit Aryan identity to lose.

Please, you are an intelligent racist that is trying desperately to distance Assyrians from Arabs. The very fact that you claims Assyrians are "whiter than Armenians", but now are being a hypocrite by claiming that "I don't have any bullshit Aryan identity to lose" is just ridiculous.



Are you kidding me? Sintashta? Andronovo? Hello?!?!

I don't think you understand. When whatever language became proto-Indo-European was still in its infancy and spoken in the Middle East, it was not even proto-Indo-European and did not resemble the language that was spoken in Ukraine 5,000 years ago.

It's very low in Armenians, and the proto-Indo-Europeans were 100% R1a males, all of them. When proto-Indo-European diversified into Celtic, Italic, Germanic etc., that's when the R1a dominance began decreasing and in some cases was replaced partially and even completely for reasons unknown to us today. It could have been complete cleansing of the Celtic R1a males by the Romans, or they mixed with non-PIE peoples in the Mediterranean and so on. It's difficult to say. But what we do know is that the proto-Indo-Europeans at one point were all descended from one common R1a ancestor, and this R-M17 male's descendants had an interesting group evolutionary strategy that favoured his male descendants, because the proto-Indo-Europeans had a high variation of mtDNA but all Y-DNA was the same for a long time, and it was R1a1a for centuries and even millennia.

This tR1adition continued all the way to India which is why Indians have extremely high frequencies of R1a (a proto-Indo-European haplogroup that was brought there from Ukraine), and it can be seen in the Tocharians, the Andronovo Scythians, the Scythians who ended up in Siberia, and so on. It's not a coincidence that R1a is constantly popping up in archaeological sites associated with Indo-Europeans.

And the fact that Armenians have such low frequencies of R1a (about the same frequency of R1a as we can see in Assyrians), and a very low frequency of the "north European" component, tells us that there's very little descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans in Armenians.

R1a was brought to the Tarim Basin not from Armenians, but from eastern Europe. The very fact that the Tocharians and Scythians were all R1a and not a mix of common Armeno-Assyrian Y-DNA (J1, J1ce, R1b, F, G1 etc.) tells you that their best match would be with Poles and other European R1a males, and not with the few R1a Armenians. And the Tarim mummies look northern European anyway, not Armenoid.

As I am not a geneticist and neither are you. You probably don't even have a graduate degree in the field. I find your constant attempt to proclaim that you are an "expert" while everyone is not goes to show how idiotic you are. Clearly, the Assyrian absorption of Armenian genes occurred when Assyrians expanded and overtook Hurrians.


By the thirteenth century BCE all of the Hurrian states had been vanquished by other peoples. The heart of the Hurrian lands, the Khabur river valley, became an Assyrian province. It is not clear what happened to the Hurrian people at the end of the Bronze Age. Some scholars have suggested Hurrians lived on in the country of Subartu north of Assyria during the early Iron Age. The Hurrian population of Syria in the following centuries seems to have given up their language in favor of the Assyrian dialect of Akkadian or, more likely, Aramaic. This was around the same time that an aristocracy speaking Urartian, similar to old Hurrian, seems to have first imposed itself on the population around Lake Van, and formed the Kingdom of Urartu.

Eat it. Stop using the same genetic evidence to disprove something that many scholars know for certain occurred. Assyrians absorbed Hurrian genes. End of story.

Furthermore, the idea that Anatolia is not the IE homeland based on genetic studies is flawed as there are genetic studies that show a Mongolian genetic lineage in some IE populations that can't be explained. It is a clearly a double standard here.

Additionally, it could be the case that the "West Asians" were the originators of the IE language and culture, but when they expanded out they absorbed some genes later and those genes were absorbed into later IE populations. Essentially, a dual homeland.


You are anachronistic: there are no Sumerian written documents from 4000 BC. Therefore there cannot be written evidence of the arrival of Proto-Anatolians. Besides, Sumerians did not live in Anatolia, so they usually have not so accurate knowledge about that area and its peoples.

Sumerians came from the "north". Go rent a care, go to Northern Mesopotamia and drive North, where do you go? Hmm...please use some common sense here.


No, this evidence does not hint to the Anatolian homeland. The oldest wheels are from Europe, not from Anatolia. The oldest word for 'wheel' is Indo-European, and it was borrowed to Semitic and Sumerian etc. Count it yourself: 1 + 1 = Proto-Indo-European in Europe.

Are you sure about that?


Evidence of wheeled vehicles appears from the mid 4th millennium BC, near-simultaneously in Mesopotamia, the Northern Caucasus (Maykop culture) and Central Europe, so that the question of which culture originally invented the wheeled vehicle remains unresolved and under debate.

Right, again another discrepancy between the "Kurgen supermen" and there supposed monopoly of technology.


Sumerians may have had their word for 'wheel' from other peoples who borrowed it from Indo-Europeans, there is no need for direct contacts. But the contacts may have been direct, too, because Sumerian may have originated near Caucasus:
http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~asahala/asahala_sumerian_and_pie.pdf

Yeah, they also found the first pictures of horses there as well. You seem to make out IE as technologically advanced baseed on linguistic evidence. That is exactly my point. Your entire theory starts off placing the homeland in Ukraine, but then later, everything is based on a linguistic reconstruction. There are problems with this as I have highlighted. You can't possible place it in Ukraine as there are so many technological innovations in the area of Anatolia that trump this idea.


Remember that the Anatolian branch split off earlier than the Late Proto-Indo-European dispersed. Proto-Anatolian was on its way when Late Proto-Indo-European was still a unity.


You are attacking your very own strawman here.
1. No need for direct Sumerian contacts.
2. No need for magnificent civilization.
3. Nothing wrong with the dating.


It is still "Kurgan".
You are again attacking your own strawman. Proto-Indo-Europeans were mainly pastoralists, but that does not mean that they did not knew agriculture. Just the opposite: the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary clearly consists many agricultural words. They are within the Kurgan theory, they don't contradict it.

You are failing to understand the point I am making. Go above. The theory that was original postulated was heavily based on a non-agricultural expansion. Meaning, they were mobile horsemen. They would have to be mobile. They would not use agriculture. This is the idea that was presented. Read above, the "Pastoral vs. Agriculturalist"


OK, I misinterpreted it: I thought that article was about Krell, not Gimbutas. I hope you could give links to your sources so that I could read those chapters in their right context. That way there would not be misinterpretations.

I wish I could, but I can't at the moment. I just use wikipedia sources. I don't have access to my library now.


You are right in that the genes are difficult to interpret: IF the homeland was in Anatolia, then all the other IE peoples than the Anatolians would have moved away, and the genes shared by Indians and Europeans could be post-PIE. The genetic interpretation is dependent on the IE phylogeny and homeland reached by the linguistic results.

But linguistics is the only discipline which can determine where the linguistic homeland was, and it points to Ukraine. Genes can only tell about the genetic homeland, and there we must be careful, if we don't know the exact descendency of certain genes and the exact composition of certain ancient people.

I don't disagree with your knowledge of linguistic and how important it is, but the shear logic of a 4000 year old time period for a world wide advanced civilization to develop is just hard to believe when the epicenter of civilization and advancement is clearly in Anatolia.



If you read the whole article, it comes clear that the Ezero culture is part of the Southeast European cultural continuum:

"Ezero follows the copper age cultures of the area (Karanovo VI culture, Gumelniţa culture, Kodzadjemen culture and Varna culture), after a settlement hiatus in Northern Bulgaria. It bears some relationship to the earlier Cernavodă III culture to the north. Some settlements were fortified.
The Ezero culture is interpreted as part of a larger Balkan-Danubian early Bronze Age complex, a horizon reaching from Troy Id-IIc into Central Europe, encompassing the Baden of the Carpathian Basin and the Coţofeni culture of Romania. According to Parzinger, there are also typological connections to Poliochni IIa-b and Sitagroi IV."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezero_culture

You of course want to interpret it as coming from Asia Minor, but your evidence is quite weak:
"It could also represent an Anatolian-influenced culture"

Could = has only a small possibility.
Anatolian-influenced = only minor traits from Anatolia, not the whole culture.


Why? You still haven't present any evidence for your claim - see above.

Well, you can interpret it as the came from Anatolia. If you can and there is a Anatolian model why not? As it is not up to Anatolian to adhere to the same interpretation. My poin is, you are hinging your argument on this culture and if I am trying ti disprove you I would try to claim that the culture also came from Anatolia, which I did.



Here you have some illogical claims.
Why the Hittites could not come from any other location than Anatolia? Of course they can come where-ever. It depends purely on the linguistic results.

Genetically and culturally there can be many homelands, but linguistically only one per protolanguage. Of course the homeland of (Late) Proto-Indo-European can be different from the homeland of Proto-Indo-Hittite, but Hittite is included in the analysis of the IE vocabulary, which points to the Ukrainian homeland.

No, Hittites create a problem that is never addressed by the linguistic model. Furthermore, they can't come from "anywhere". They have to come from an area that is reasonable and the model has to fit them somewhere that is reasonable as well.

Additionally, the entire Kurgen is only explained by hand-waving. You can't honestly take it seriously. It doesn't explain how IE expanded to the areas that were mentioned above.

Ardi
2012-02-07, 02:42
Aside from that, modern Indo-European languages are not that different from each other as they are expected to have been, had proto-Indo-European been 9,000 years old.

An expectation becomes an assumption in this context.


Gray & Atkinson's glottochronological diagram is pseudo-science, because glottochronology is pseudo-science.

You see, glottochronology assumes languages change at a constant rate, but the problem is, they don't.

Gray & Atkinson's method is not glottochronology. While glottochronological models do assume a single constant rate of change over time, bayesian phylogenetic inferences account for observed rates of change across the trees whilst taking into account historical information as calibration points. This allows a different rate of change over time for each subgroup. Since the calculated age estimates are applied across a distribution of trees, there is a confidence interval around each age estimate. In addition to the sound internal structure, the method has garnered surprisingly accurate results for the Austronesian, Melanesian and historically attested Semetic language families.


Moreover, no one is disputing that Hittite is the most archaic of the attested Indo-European languages, but that doesn't mean it came from Anatolia; Hittite came from Yamnaya as well. Anthony explained this:

“Their move into the lower Danube valley probably was the historical event that separated the Pre-Anatolian dialects, spoken by the migrants, from the archaic Proto-Indo-European language community back in the steppes.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 251

With the Kurgan model as his foundation, Anthony does indeed suggest so. However, this should not be cause for such absolute statements as the one directly preceding the quotation.


Proto-Semitic is from the northern Levant and Anatolia, as shown by Y-DNA J1c3 variation (peaks in Assyrians and Alawites from Anatolia).

In fact, Semitic has longer history in the region:

“One intermediary is required by chronology, as Proto-Kartvelian is generally thought to have existed after Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Semitic.”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 98
I don't see any reason to think of proto-Kartvelian as more native to Anatolia than proto-Semitic.

Proto-Semetic is most probably native to the Northern periphery of the Levant, but using Proto-Kartvelian as proxy for the extent of Semetic in Anatolia proper is in haste. If anything, the "Asianic" (Hattic) base of the Anatolian languages relates to either of the other two Caucasian families, and is most likely akin to Abkhazo-Adyghe (NW Caucasian).


Proto-Semitic is about as old as proto-Indo-European, probably slightly older too.

Both may share a common origin. In fact, a stronger kinship between the two families isn't unlikely.


Armenians, Assyrians, Anatolian pseudo-Turks and Caucasus folks are the best candidates as the parent populations of Europeans/Indians/MENA. And that's exactly why Armenians in no way whatsoever are the proto-Indo-Europeans. You can't be the daughter population (proto-Indo-Europeans) if you are the parent population...

I fully agree here.

Once again, it's a matter of IE origins. I am currently expanding my opinion around the proximity of the Transcaucasus and the Pontic steppe, with the Caucasus as a simultaneous barrier and passage.


Proto-Afro-Asiatic = native Anatolian language.

Not quite. Hattic and the Caucasic tongues should not be omited, not to mention the non-Semetic strata in Mesopotamia.

On a lesser note, I rest everyone assure that the Armenian ethno-national identity is safe and sound. It abides through genes, language, culture and religion, yet it does not revolve around any single aspect. I for one am not here to feed ghosts or attack windmills. Let's just carry on.

PBachman
2012-02-07, 02:58
I fully agree here.

Once again, it's a matter of IE origins. I am currently expanding my opinion around the proximity of the Transcaucasus and the Pontic steppe, with the Caucasus as a simultaneous barrier and passage.



Just a note, I don't EA wrote that. He claimed it was "bullshit".

EliasAlucard
2012-02-07, 08:35
I recommend everybody to read the book of Robert Drews "The Coming of the Greeks", who's showing also the major failings of the theory of Gimbutas.It's not Gimbutas' theory. Gordon Childe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Gordon_Childe) was the first to postulate the Kurgan theory. Gimbutas later added on his ideas her feminist views about an egalitarian, matriarchal "Old Europe" (not insinuating Gimbutas was necessarily wrong about that, but she's over-interpreting some stuff). And that's why the Kurgan theory at one point lost a lot of popularity because scholars began confusing it with Gimbutas' ideological feminist nonsense.

But like I said, Mallory revised the Kurgan theory and he restored it brilliantly. That's why it's the mainstream view today because he gave it a scientific treatment that by far outperforms the arguments of Renfrew.


You dare to call the work of scientist who teach at Oxford a pseudo-science ? :lol: It's the only known linguistic study based on tangible physical facts, ie the more accurate One !Yes, that's how awesome I am ;)

It's not an accurate linguistic study. That it matches with Renfrew's Anatolian farming hypothesis is exactly why it's wrong.


This is what Wikipedia has about Mallory:
"One consequence of this preference for an integrated approach is that Professor Mallory has been strongly critical of the widely publicised theory of Indo-European origins held by Colin Renfrew which locates the urheimat or homeland of this language family in early Neolithic Anatolia and associates its spread with the spread of agriculture. A key element of his criticism has been a vigorous defence of linguistic palaeontology as a valid tool for solving the Indo-European homeland problem "

His greatest "argument" is linguistics, and you tell me he is not even an expert in linguistics. :lol:You see, I have a major problem with anti-intellectuals. I debate with anti-intellectuals on a daily basis, and they always manage to get it wrong one way or the other because they are either ignorant and misinformed, or simply stupid.

Linguistic palaeontology is a valid technique. Mallory more than adequately points out the errors of Renfrew's hypothesis, by among other techniques, linguistic palaeontology. Yes, Mallory is not the greatest expert in Indo-European linguistics, but unlike Renfrew, he's not ignorant of linguistics. He knows enough on the topic of linguistics, and his points are logical, valid and cannot be ignored. Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Q._Adams) is the linguist expert and he agrees with Mallory.


You are talking about the late Proto-Indo-European speakers, not the original ones.No, I'm talking about the original proto-Indo-Europeans.


The original PIE is much older, about 8000-9000 years old.It's not. You would have problems understanding English from the 16th century, never mind from the 9th century when it was still Anglo-Saxon. Do you really think you would see the similarities we still can see in modern Indo-European languages if it was as old as 9,000 years? I don't think so. Look at how similar Latin and Greek were 2,000 years ago, as a case in point.


PIE is about 8000-9000 years old, these cognates you are talking about are from late PIE, not the original PIE. I don't understand a single Hittite word.I don't think you've even read a single Hittite word. As you can see here, proto-Anatolian (earliest direct ancestor of Hittite) isn't really that different from late stage proto-Indo-European, Tocharian and other Indo-European languages:

http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/kingandgod-fable.htm


Dienekes did not ignore but addressed this issue very precisely.
Dienekes:"The critics largely ignored the fact that G&A's method avoided the problems of glottochronology, such as the questionable assumption of a constant rate of evolutionary change: instead, the G&A method exploited multiple known calibration points (e.g., the breakup of Romance languages in Late Antiquity) and did not need such a strict and unrealistic assumption."G&A is still flawed for several other reasons. Just as an example of the errors of G&A:


Finally, although there is considerable support for Hittite (an extinct Anatolian language) as the most appropriate root for Indo-European22,23, rooting the tree with Hittite could be claimed to bias the analysis in favour of the Anatolian hypothesis. We thus re-ran the analysis using the consensus tree in Fig. 1 rooted with Balto-Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian as outgroups. This increased the estimated divergence time from 8,700 years B P to 9,600, 9,400 and 10,100 years BP, respectively.

^^ Hittite is in no way the root of Indo-European languages. It is not proto-Indo-European. It diverged from archaic proto-Indo-European at an early stage, and that's why it's at times considered a cousin language to proto-Indo-European instead of a daughter language. Point is, modern Indo-European languages are not derived from Hittite.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if proto-Indo-European really is 9,000 years old. It could be for all I care, and it could even be much older than 7,000 BC. But it did not diversify into its modern daughter languages (Germanic, Celtic, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic etc.) until a certain time in history, because it would be impossible to reconstruct cognates for horse, wheel, snow, milk, honey, bees, various metals and so on, in all Indo-European languages if Indo-European began diversifying already back in 7,000 BC. And that's what you and other Anatolianists don't understand.

Like Jaska has pointed out multiple times before: Indo-European, like all language families, has to fit in a certain time and place, and Anatolia is completely out of the question as far as linguistic palaeontology is concerned. Once you anti-intellectuals understand that, then we won't have this stupid bullshit discussion about Armenians being Indo-Europeans.


Furthermore, there are exical borrowing between original PIE and Kartvelian and Semitic languages, which places the early PIE homeland in the Near East. If you place PIE into Ukraine, you have to do the same for Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Semitic languages.No. One of the reasons Ukraine is the urheimat is also because there are proto-Indo-European loanwords in proto-Uralic (spoken around the Volga), and proto-Indo-European had loanwords from proto-Semitic (spoken in Anatolia and the Levant). So that's just one of the many reasons why proto-Indo-European must have been in Yamnaya, because it has to fit in between proto-Semitic and proto-Uralic, and also the other aspects such as linguistic palaeontology, and how well it fits with the archaeological record, especially the spread of Indo-European into the Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic etc. directions, and Armenia nor Anatolia fit with this.


Alawites live in Syria (Levant), not in Anatolia and I have not seen any Y data of Alawites so far.I confused them with the Alevis in Anatolia, that happens. Anyway, I got that from Azvarohi, not sure where he read Alawites have highest J-P58 variation:


Assyrians and Alawits have some of the highest variance of J1e, and the highest variance of J1 is in the Middle East.

And J1c3/P58 originated in eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia:


The Assyrian samples and Iraqi Kurdish samples have been drawn from areas in Northern Mesopotamia speaking East Semitic languages at the time. The current data suggest an origin of J1e in the general area of eastern Turkey/northern Iraq associated with the Zarzian horizon,23, 24, 25 as they have similar early pre-agricultural expansions (16 kya, Table 1).
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/full/ejhg2009166a.html


Assyrians originated in Iraq, not in Anatolia. There are/were some in the border region, that's pretty much it.No, we originated in Anatolia. We have very much in common genetically with the Anatolian pseudo-Turks. The difference is that our ancestors expanded into the Levant and Mesopotamia early on.


Not in Anatolia/Caucasus.Semitic certainly has a longer presence in Anatolia than Kartvelian does. I have never said Semitic has as long a history in the Caucasus as Kartvelian. It's not the same region. And the Hattic language was not a Kartvelian language anyway.


Sorry, the proto-Semitic language trees that I posted earlier do not resemble your claims.Who cares? It's not like Gray and Atkinson's glottochronological tree is valid, yet you interpret it as dogmatic truth.

Semitic languages trees still need a lot of work in any case.


What are you talking about??? I never said that Armenians themselves are proto-Indo-Europeans, they are Indo-Europeans like many others.Armenians are not Indo-Europeans in any way as far as descent is concerned. They only speak an Indo-European language, and this language was brought there from the Balkans around 2,500 years ago, give or take a few hundred years. Before that, Armenians spoke Hurro-Urartian, Semitic, and other languages that are unknown today.


9000 years are gone since then...This is nonsense and you really need to drop this bullshit.


You are right, your argument is bullshit:lol:, the Semitic language just spread to the South and did not reach Europe (West) or Central (Northeast), South (Southeast). clearly showing they were not the first farmers.What makes you so certain of that? Afro-Asiatic may have been spoken even as far north-west as Britain (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=26413).


We should not forget that this whole argument is based on a very few old inscriptions, nobody knows what the average Anatolian spoke in that time and besides that you are talking about 1500 BCE, so 5000 years after the first split of PIE.Statements like these show your ignorance. Hittite is very well documented from the palaces of the Hittite rulers. The other Anatolian languages (Luwian, Palaic etc.) are not as well documented as Hittite, but it makes no difference as they are very similar to Hittite in any case.

So it's not just a few old inscriptions.


1. Too much subjunctive mood here. Let me summarize: Bla
2. "Western Indo-European" is not PIE.Western Indo-European is the western Yamnaya dialect of proto-Indo-European.


No, no, no.
Proto-Semitic = Levant
Proto-Afro-Asiatic = ???It's more like:

Proto-Afro-Asiatic = Anatolia
Proto-Semitic = northern Levant


I don't have any issue with language replacement if it based on solid science.And it is. You just have issues accepting the evidence. I'm not sure why though. I believe you are misinformed and too much exposed to one side of the debate, and you're also incapable of processing the most logical and most important arguments on the topic (Gray & Atkinson's POV is hardly as important as the arguments laid out by Mallory).


Well, to be precise, you are partially Armenian, which makes you partially Indo-European. To me it looks like that you have a problem with your ancestry...There was a time when I was not as knowledgeable on the topic as I am now, and I believed that my 25% Armenian ancestry was Indo-European. But that's no longer the case now that I've tested myself and my Armenian grandmother genetically and done my homework on PIE. As an anti-dogmatic open-minded guy, I've revised my view on my ancestry, and as far as I'm concerned, I have no significant Indo-European descent, until you give me any evidence that I had this distant R1a1a forefather somewhere way back when.


There is no evidence for a migration of Iranians from Central Asia to the Middle East.Let me ask you something, have you read Mallory's and Anthony's books on the topic? If you haven't read ISOTIE and HWL, then you can't expect me to take you seriously when you say there's no evidence for a migration. The Sintashta burials show a remarkable similarity with the burial rituals in the Rig Veda, and this shows among other things, that proto-Indo-Iranian (or proto-Aryan, whatever you want to call it), came from the north-west and descended south-east into India and Iran. Don't be surprised if the aDNA from the Sintastha burials will come back tested as R-M17.


Who tells you that ancient Iranians did not move from Iran to Sintashta or Andronovo. HELLO!!!Because everything about the Indo-Iranian languages shows they are derived from the Ukrainian/Russian steppes, and the archaeological record does not support a back migration from Iran/India to Andronovo. The archaeological record shows there was a migration from the south Russian steppes into Andronovo and beyond. This migration is proto-Indo-Iranian.


1. We don't know if all of them (100%) were R1a males, this is just the current standing in the aDNA collection.Well 100% is perhaps unlikely, but they were easily around 90% or more. It is statistically very unlikely that the proto-Indo-Europeans were 50/50 R1a and something else, given the almost omnipresent R1a aDNA everywhere in regions associated with early Indo-European speakers. And the fact that R1a is way more common in eastern Europe today than it is in western Europe, is precisely because the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and has left a lot more male descendants in eastern Europe at home base.


2. We do not know if they were PIE people.They weren't. But they were much closer to the PIE tribe than modern Europeans are, and that's also why R-M17 is so frequent and dominant in all such aDNA.


3. We do not know R1a frequency of Anatolia/Caucasus from ancient times, could have been high, too.This is a good point. But I don't think it was higher than it is today, as R-M17 (R1a1a) originated in the steppe, probably by some R1, R1a or R1a1 male who came straight out of the Middle East.


4. Another hypothesis is that R1b is mostly responsible for the spread of IE, which is an integral part of Assyrians nowadays. So I could speculate that Assyrians went through a language repla...That's impossible though, and not because R1b is high in Assyrians, but because R1b is more likely an Afro-Asiatic or Nostratic marker (if R1b can be strongly associated with one specific language family; I'm not sure it can, and I'm agnostic on the question) than it is an Indo-European marker. That's how non-Indo-European R1b is.


Made-up Bullshit. We do not know, Elias.I do. I don't care what you think you know, I'm just correcting your flawed understanding.


I am so sure that you will be proven wrong.I don't think so. If anything, my views will become dominant :evilgrin:


Here is a summary of my point of view:
http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa379/palisto1/Lineage%20tree%20of%20Middle%20East%20based%20on%2 0Dodecad/2012-01-29Theoryforhaplogroupdistribution.pngYeah yeah, you interpret Dodecad and Eurogenes way too seriously.

Humanist
2012-02-07, 09:43
Anyway, I got that from Azvarohi, not sure where he read Alawites have highest J-P58 variation

Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/emergence-and-dispersal-of-haplogroup-j.html) discussion of Chiaroni et al. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/abs/ejhg2009166a.html)


An interesting find, however, is the fact of high Y-STR variance (0.37, 0.43) in Alawites from Syria and Assyrians from Syria and Iraq. These populations have an impeccable Semitic historical record, and, in the case of the Assyrians are one of the few non-Arabic populations included in the study. It is also interesting that Assyrians are said to be derived from both Assyrian- and Aramaic-speaking ancestors, and hence to potentially have a complex (both East- and Northwest- Semitic) origin. These facts probably explain their high Y-STR variance.

Translated into non-"evolutionary" years, the expansion time of 16.2ky for Assyrians, becomes ~5.4ky. This age is in uncanny agreement with the recently estimate age of Semitic languages 5.75ky ago.

Alawites, of course, also have a significant amount of R-M269. And, like Assyrians, are split between ancestral ("Armenian") and AMH like haplotypes. Although Alawites have a greater abundance of the latter type. R-M269 haplotypes (according to Athey's predictor) below. The Alawite R-M269 frequency was at least double the frequency of a (relatively) nearby Turkish population also sampled for the study.

Dönbak L., Bajanowski T., Brinkmann B., Hohoff C. (2006), 'Y-STR haplotypes in populations from the Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey', Int J Legal Med 120(6), 395-396

Pop. n=x DYS393 DYS390 DYS19 DYS391 DYS385a DYS385b DYS389 I DYS392 DYS389 II

North Syrian Alawites ("Eti" Turks) sampled in Adana, Turkey
Alawi n=1 12 23 14 10 11 14 14 13 30
Alawi n=1 12 24 14 10 10 14 12 13 29
Alawi n=1 12 24 14 10 11 14 13 13 29
Alawi n=1 12 24 14 11 11 14 14 13 30
Alawi n=2 12 24 14 12 11 14 14 13 30
Alawi n=1 12 24 14 12 11 14 13 13 29
Alawi n=3 12 25 14 11 11 14 13 13 29
Alawi n=1 12 25 14 12 11 14 14 13 30
Alawi n=5 13 24 14 11 11 15 13 13 29
Alawi n=2 13 24 14 11 11 15 12 13 28
Alawi n=12 13 24 14 11 11 15 14 13 30
Alawi n=1 13 24 14 10 11 15 14 13 30
Alawi n=1 13 24 14 11 11 15 15 13 31
Alawi n=1 13 24 14 11 10 15 15 13 31
Alawi n=1 13 24 16 10 11 14 14 13 30

Turks of Kahramanmaras
Turk n=1 12 23 14 11 11 15 13 14 28
Turk n=1 12 23 14 11 11 11 13 13 30
Turk n=1 12 24 14 10 12 15 13 14 28
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 11 13 13 13 29
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 11 14 13 13 29
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 11 14 14 13 30
Turk n=2 12 24 14 11 11 15 14 13 30
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 12 13 13 13 29
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 12 15 13 13 29
Turk n=1 12 24 14 11 12 16 13 13 29
Turk n=3 12 25 14 11 11 14 13 13 29
Turk n=1 13 24 14 11 12 14 12 13 28

A note, regarding the "Eti," in Eti Turks. From Wiki:
A quasi-official name used particularly in 1930s by Turkish authorities was Eti Türkleri ("Hittite Turks"), in order to conceal their Arab origins. Today, this term is almost obsolete but it is still used by some people of older generations as a euphemism.

Ardi
2012-02-07, 17:10
We must be cautious in deducing whether a language spreads with its speakers or despite them. The overstatement of either biological or linguistic elements of any ethnos disregards the complexities of the situation. The association of Indo-European ancestry with any one genetic lineage presupposes that the languages were carried by a singular, uniform population that unanimously left their biological mark upon respective recipients. On the other hand, it is also mistake to limit the Indo-European identity to language alone. Leaving retrospective “Aryan” nonsense aside, the mythological and folkloric worldview forms an inseparable part of the “Indo-European identity”. In that respect, there is no denying that Armenians are Indo-Europeans to the core, while remaining the anthropological and cultural autochtons of the Armenian Highland without a shadow of a doubt. Curiously enough, this also entails a fundamental ethno-mythic connection with the pre-IE traditions of the Near East, which can not be explained by simple adoption or amalgamation.

While the linguistic affinity of Armenian and the Paleo-Balkan languages is notable, the ambiguity regarding the classification of the latter forces us to reconsider the extent and nature of the kinship. The recent reevaluation of the "eastern Mushkian" ethnogenetic hypothesis emphasizes the mythographic significance rather than the strict interpretation of the Greek historiographic account of Armenian origins. Even I. Diakonoff, the primary advocate of the Balkan perspective, did not doubt the anthropological autochthony of the Armenian ethnos towards the end his career. The only remaining question, then, is evolution of the Armenian language within the broader context of IE family- a topic which linguistic scholarship is beginning the view in a new light. Aside from the archaeological and logistical discrepancies, the detection of semantically correlated and characteristically Armenian toponyms predating the proposed Balkan timeline leaves the Phrygian hypothesis on very shaky grounds.

Academic Armen Petrosyan writes:

“According to Herodotus (7.73), the Armenians were "Phrygian immigrants" ('Frug'wn apoikoi'), who were armed as the Phrygians as well, while according to a passage from Eudoxus of Knidus (the 5thcentury BC, attested by Stephanus of Bysantium in the 12thcentury AD), the Armenian language resembled Phrygian (see e.g.Manandyan 1944: 12-15; Adontz 1946: 322 ff.; Piotrovskij 1959: 122-123; Diakonoff 1984: 110, 189-190, n. 40; Greppin 1984; Matiossian 1991; Barseghyan 1996: 4-9).The Phrygians, most probably, were a Balkan tribe who had migrated to Asia Minor and established their kingdom in the 8th-7thcenturies BC (centuries after the fall of the Hittite empire). This is consonant, but not identical, with the legend of Armenos, according to which the Armenian‘s ancestor comes from Thessaly. On the other side, mainly on the basis of historical sources, a theory that the Phrygians originated in Asia Minor was in use (see e.g. Petrova 1998; Brixhe 2004: 777). It is obvious that ancient Greek authors could not determine the genetic and linguistic affinity between the tribes and languages. Strabo, who was a native of Asia Minor and well-informed on the Armenians and other peoples of the region, wrote that the Armenians, Syrians and Arabs were closely connected by their languages and physical and cultural characteristics (Strabo 1.2.34; 16.4.27). This is unacceptable: Aramaean and Arabic are Semitic languages. Notably, the fact that Armenian is an independent Indo-European language has been established only in 1875 by H.Hübschman. Until this the linguists classified it as an Iranian language.It was believed that among the Indo-European languages Armenian had a close connection with Greek and certain Paleo-Balkanic languages, including Phrygian (Djahukian 1970; Djahukian 1987: 86-204, 296-311). The information concerning Phrygian is scant, but, however, it is unquestionably most closely linked with Greek. Contemporary supporters of the Proto-Armenians ‘Balkanic origin represent their thesis in certain correspondence with contemporary scientific ideas. Thus, according to I.Diakonoff, Armenian is not a Phrygian dialect, but a separate language of the Thraco- Phrygian group. If considered literally, Herodotus ‘thesis, presenting Armenians as Phrygian immigrants, is wrong. However, if considered as a statement that the Armenians have come from the neighboring western areas of the Armenian Highland, which had been previously populated by the Hittites and afterwards by the Phrygians, it can be accepted (Diakonoff 1968: 204-209; Diakonoff 1983a: 155, n. 29, 173-174; Diakonoff 1984: 109-112). It should be noted that the notion of Armeno-Greek close connections has been denied (Clackson 1994; with Thracian and Albanian some arguments can beadduced: Kortlandt 2003: 74, 86, 140, 152-153), and the thesis of the close Armeno-Phrygian relation (Diakonoff 1976; Neroznak 1976; Diakonoff and Neroznak 1985), as well as the idea of Thraco-Phrygian unity is dismissed in contemporary studies (see e.g.Brixhe 2004: 780).”

In addition, it has been suggested that the equation of the Armenian with the Phrygians was due to a linguistic misunderstanding of the Armenian name for Armenia Minor (‘Poqr Hayq’) as ‘Frugw`n a poikoi’ (Phrygian colonists) on Herodotus account. Coupled with the establishment of the Phrygian state in Anatolia, this hypothesis provides an intriguing solution to the historian’s statement. (E. Gulbenkian, Why Did Herodotus Think the Armenians Were Phrygian Colonists, Armenian Review, No. 2, volume 44, 1991; expanded upon by A. Kosyan). Expansion on the specifics of this issue merits a discussion of its own.

Besides the characteristically mythic Hellenic accounts, the acceptance of the Balkan origin of the Armenians due to the fact that Igor Diakonof‘s monograph on Armenian pre-history had been the sole reference of western scholarship until recently. It is no secret that Diakonof was bribed and bought out by various political mechanism throughout his career. Furthermore, the theory’s supposition that the (Proto) Armenians were a small group of Balkanic migrants is endlessly politicized and abused by the Turkish and Azeri states. Despite the vast knowledge of the author and the widespread prestige of the work, it completely rejects any alternative view regarding the ethnogenesis of the Armenian. In fact, Diakonof was categorically personal and rude in response to scientific criticism of his work. The biased exaggeration of the historically plausible Balkan connection has resulted in overshadowing of the undeniable facts that “Proto-Armenians inhabited the west of the Armenian Highland before the formation of Urartu; that there are demonstrable Armenian borrowings in Urartian; that the Armenians are the genetic and cultural successors of the ancient population of Urartu and the pre-Urartian states of the Armenian Highland; and that the history of the Armenian people should begin from the fall of Urartu but should also include the period of Urartu and pre-Urartian states (Source: The Problem of Identification of the Proto-Armenians: A Critical Review (http://armscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/The-Problem-of-Identification-of-the-Proto-Armenians-A-Critical-Review1.pdf))”

Serious scholars simply do not adhere to the literal interpretation of Phrygian migration theory anymore, and at this point, monochromatic conclusions can not suffice. just If anything, they seek the proximity immediately to the west of the Urartian state, linguistically and amongst the native element. The double-edged reason for the continuous circulation of the colonization view is the elementary familiarity of the general public with the issue and the politicized bastardization of real evidence.

Jaska
2012-02-07, 17:11
Just look at the posted IE trees presented in this thread. Do they look the same to you???
Is this already called consistent in linguistics?
Of course there are many different trees – even the one and the same method can give different trees. It is all about the data set. What you put in determines what you get out of it.

These new computational trees are (almost?) all based on lexical retentions, which makes them implausible: neither lexical level nor retentions should be used while building a tree – this has been known long before the computational phylogenetics. What you get out of this kind of tree is the lexical conservativeness of a branch: how well has it preserved the original Proto-Indo-European words. Nothing more.

If you want to find out the true phylogeny, you must put in shared, post-Proto-Indo-European sound changes and (secondary) morphological innovations.

As I said, there are ways to assess the credibility of views, and these new computational phylogenies based on lexical retentions are not as plausible as the trees based on phonological innovations (= sound changes). Lexical retentions can only tell conservativity, not the phylogenetic relationship.


I know what language replacement is. To prove language replacement you need a language coming from somewhere else. I don't see any Proto-Iranian in Central Asia in ancient times, the first records of Iranian languages are from Iran.
There happen to be in the Uralic languages the following loanword layers:
1. Late Proto-Indo-European / Archaic Indo-European
2. Early Proto-Aryan
3. Late Proto-Aryan
4. Proto-Iranian and possibly even Proto-Indo-Aryan (Indic)

There is only one plausible conclusion: the Aryan languages were born in the Caspian steppes, and from there they spread to Central and South Asia.


You dare to call the work of scientist who teach at Oxford a pseudo-science ? It's the only known linguistic study based on tangible physical facts, ie the more accurate One !
The method itself may be scientific, but the results do not seem to tell what they think they are telling: you get out what you put in (see above). They have put in lexical retentions, so what they get out is the conservativity. And there is a certain risk for pseudo-science even in the method:


Dienekes did not ignore but addressed this issue very precisely.
Dienekes:"The critics largely ignored the fact that G&A's method avoided the problems of glottochronology, such as the questionable assumption of a constant rate of evolutionary change: instead, the G&A method exploited multiple known calibration points (e.g., the breakup of Romance languages in Late Antiquity) and did not need such a strict and unrealistic assumption."
These calibration points actually are not so different from the glottochronology, because they still include an assumption that the rate of change was similar before the calibration point than it was after it. In the Uralic side we have a warning example: counted from the lexical retentions, the Samoyedic branch seems to share least words with every other branch, thus being an outlier like Anatolian in IE family tree. Yet at the phonological level we can clearly see that Samoyedic shares many innovations with the Ugric languages.

Conclusion:
Phonological innovations show the true phylogeny, while lexical retentions only show the conservativeness. The fact that Samoyedic shares so few inherited Proto-Uralic words with the other branches, is due to it being lexically far more innovative. The same may well be true with the Anatolian branch of IE. Common to Samoyedic and Anatolian is that they have for a long time been spoken far from their relatives, thus being exposed to strong foreign influence from the non-Uralic and non-IE neighbour languages.


Furthermore, there are exical borrowing between original PIE and Kartvelian and Semitic languages, which places the early PIE homeland in the Near East. If you place PIE into Ukraine, you have to do the same for Proto-Kartvelian and Proto-Semitic languages.
Why should IE be placed in Near East? Kartvelian contacts may well have occurred between the steppes and Caucasus, and the Semitic cognates may not be direct but mediated by other languages. Besides, the word for ‘wheel’ goes from IE to Semitic and Sumerian – could we then draw them both to the steppes? Of course not.


PIE is about 8000-9000 years old, these cognates you are talking about are from late PIE, not the original PIE. I don't understand a single Hittite word.
The Hittite words (like ‘wheel’) are included in the palaeolinguistic analysis of PIE. Therefore Hittite must be derived from the steppe, too.


Again, you are placing too much emphasis on Mallory's work. He only disagrees with Colin Renfrew because unlike him, Reinfrew looks at the logic behind Gimbutas' theory. The archeological record does not match the linguistic model.
Also, Reinfrew's model is more believable:
No, Renfrew’s model is based on the false assumption that archaeological continuity would testify for linguistic continuity. But it cannot - read this:
http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/jphakkin/Uralic.html

By the very same erroneous method it has been “proved” anything. All these views contradict each other, which makes the method most unreliable.


Additionally, the entire Kurgen is only explained by hand-waving. You can't honestly take it seriously. It doesn't explain how IE expanded to the areas that were mentioned above.
It does – read the book by Mallory at last:
http://ebook3000.com/J--P--Mallory-_-In-Search-of-the-Indo-Europeans--Language--Archaeology--and-Myth_36083.html

It’s the only model which can plausibly explain archaeologically all the IE branches. Anatolian model has more problems, because the Aryan languages should have been spread upstream.

Palisto
2012-02-07, 17:19
It's not Gimbutas' theory. Gordon Childe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._Gordon_Childe) was the first to postulate the Kurgan theory. Gimbutas later added on his ideas her feminist views about an egalitarian, matriarchal "Old Europe" (not insinuating Gimbutas was necessarily wrong about that, but she's over-interpreting some stuff). And that's why the Kurgan theory at one point lost a lot of popularity because scholars began confusing it with Gimbutas' ideological feminist nonsense.

But like I said, Mallory revised the Kurgan theory and he restored it brilliantly. That's why it's the mainstream view today because he gave it a scientific treatment that by far outperforms the arguments of Renfrew.

Yes, that's how awesome I am ;)

It's not an accurate linguistic study. That it matches with Renfrew's Anatolian farming hypothesis is exactly why it's wrong.

You see, I have a major problem with anti-intellectuals. I debate with anti-intellectuals on a daily basis, and they always manage to get it wrong one way or the other because they are either ignorant and misinformed, or simply stupid.

Linguistic palaeontology is a valid technique. Mallory more than adequately points out the errors of Renfrew's hypothesis, by among other techniques, linguistic palaeontology. Yes, Mallory is not the greatest expert in Indo-European linguistics, but unlike Renfrew, he's not ignorant of linguistics. He knows enough on the topic of linguistics, and his points are logical, valid and cannot be ignored. Adams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Q._Adams) is the linguist expert and he agrees with Mallory.

No, I'm talking about the original proto-Indo-Europeans.

It's not. You would have problems understanding English from the 16th century, never mind from the 9th century when it was still Anglo-Saxon. Do you really think you would see the similarities we still can see in modern Indo-European languages if it was as old as 9,000 years? I don't think so. Look at how similar Latin and Greek were 2,000 years ago, as a case in point.

I don't think you've even read a single Hittite word. As you can see here, proto-Anatolian (earliest direct ancestor of Hittite) isn't really that different from late stage proto-Indo-European, Tocharian and other Indo-European languages:

http://dnghu.org/indoeuropean/kingandgod-fable.htm

G&A is still flawed for several other reasons. Just as an example of the errors of G&A:


Finally, although there is considerable support for Hittite (an extinct Anatolian language) as the most appropriate root for Indo-European22,23, rooting the tree with Hittite could be claimed to bias the analysis in favour of the Anatolian hypothesis. We thus re-ran the analysis using the consensus tree in Fig. 1 rooted with Balto-Slavic, Greek and Indo-Iranian as outgroups. This increased the estimated divergence time from 8,700 years B P to 9,600, 9,400 and 10,100 years BP, respectively.

^^ Hittite is in no way the root of Indo-European languages. It is not proto-Indo-European. It diverged from archaic proto-Indo-European at an early stage, and that's why it's at times considered a cousin language to proto-Indo-European instead of a daughter language. Point is, modern Indo-European languages are not derived from Hittite.

And you know what? It doesn't matter if proto-Indo-European really is 9,000 years old. It could be for all I care, and it could even be much older than 7,000 BC. But it did not diversify into its modern daughter languages (Germanic, Celtic, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic etc.) until a certain time in history, because it would be impossible to reconstruct cognates for horse, wheel, snow, milk, honey, bees, various metals and so on, in all Indo-European languages if Indo-European began diversifying already back in 7,000 BC. And that's what you and other Anatolianists don't understand.

Like Jaska has pointed out multiple times before: Indo-European, like all language families, has to fit in a certain time and place, and Anatolia is completely out of the question as far as linguistic palaeontology is concerned. Once you anti-intellectuals understand that, then we won't have this stupid bullshit discussion about Armenians being Indo-Europeans.

No. One of the reasons Ukraine is the urheimat is also because there are proto-Indo-European loanwords in proto-Uralic (spoken around the Volga), and proto-Indo-European had loanwords from proto-Semitic (spoken in Anatolia and the Levant). So that's just one of the many reasons why proto-Indo-European must have been in Yamnaya, because it has to fit in between proto-Semitic and proto-Uralic, and also the other aspects such as linguistic palaeontology, and how well it fits with the archaeological record, especially the spread of Indo-European into the Tocharian, Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic etc. directions, and Armenia nor Anatolia fit with this.

I confused them with the Alevis in Anatolia, that happens. Anyway, I got that from Azvarohi, not sure where he read Alawites have highest J-P58 variation:



And J1c3/P58 originated in eastern Anatolia and northern Mesopotamia:


The Assyrian samples and Iraqi Kurdish samples have been drawn from areas in Northern Mesopotamia speaking East Semitic languages at the time. The current data suggest an origin of J1e in the general area of eastern Turkey/northern Iraq associated with the Zarzian horizon,23, 24, 25 as they have similar early pre-agricultural expansions (16 kya, Table 1).
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/full/ejhg2009166a.html

No, we originated in Anatolia. We have very much in common genetically with the Anatolian pseudo-Turks. The difference is that our ancestors expanded into the Levant and Mesopotamia early on.

Semitic certainly has a longer presence in Anatolia than Kartvelian does. I have never said Semitic has as long a history in the Caucasus as Kartvelian. It's not the same region. And the Hattic language was not a Kartvelian language anyway.

Who cares? It's not like Gray and Atkinson's glottochronological tree is valid, yet you interpret it as dogmatic truth.

Semitic languages trees still need a lot of work in any case.

Armenians are not Indo-Europeans in any way as far as descent is concerned. They only speak an Indo-European language, and this language was brought there from the Balkans around 2,500 years ago, give or take a few hundred years. Before that, Armenians spoke Hurro-Urartian, Semitic, and other languages that are unknown today.

This is nonsense and you really need to drop this bullshit.

What makes you so certain of that? Afro-Asiatic may have been spoken even as far north-west as Britain (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=26413).

Statements like these show your ignorance. Hittite is very well documented from the palaces of the Hittite rulers. The other Anatolian languages (Luwian, Palaic etc.) are not as well documented as Hittite, but it makes no difference as they are very similar to Hittite in any case.

So it's not just a few old inscriptions.

Western Indo-European is the western Yamnaya dialect of proto-Indo-European.

It's more like:

Proto-Afro-Asiatic = Anatolia
Proto-Semitic = northern Levant

And it is. You just have issues accepting the evidence. I'm not sure why though. I believe you are misinformed and too much exposed to one side of the debate, and you're also incapable of processing the most logical and most important arguments on the topic (Gray & Atkinson's POV is hardly as important as the arguments laid out by Mallory).

There was a time when I was not as knowledgeable on the topic as I am now, and I believed that my 25% Armenian ancestry was Indo-European. But that's no longer the case now that I've tested myself and my Armenian grandmother genetically and done my homework on PIE. As an anti-dogmatic open-minded guy, I've revised my view on my ancestry, and as far as I'm concerned, I have no significant Indo-European descent, until you give me any evidence that I had this distant R1a1a forefather somewhere way back when.

Let me ask you something, have you read Mallory's and Anthony's books on the topic? If you haven't read ISOTIE and HWL, then you can't expect me to take you seriously when you say there's no evidence for a migration. The Sintashta burials show a remarkable similarity with the burial rituals in the Rig Veda, and this shows among other things, that proto-Indo-Iranian (or proto-Aryan, whatever you want to call it), came from the north-west and descended south-east into India and Iran. Don't be surprised if the aDNA from the Sintastha burials will come back tested as R-M17.

Because everything about the Indo-Iranian languages shows they are derived from the Ukrainian/Russian steppes, and the archaeological record does not support a back migration from Iran/India to Andronovo. The archaeological record shows there was a migration from the south Russian steppes into Andronovo and beyond. This migration is proto-Indo-Iranian.

Well 100% is perhaps unlikely, but they were easily around 90% or more. It is statistically very unlikely that the proto-Indo-Europeans were 50/50 R1a and something else, given the almost omnipresent R1a aDNA everywhere in regions associated with early Indo-European speakers. And the fact that R1a is way more common in eastern Europe today than it is in western Europe, is precisely because the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and has left a lot more male descendants in eastern Europe at home base.

They weren't. But they were much closer to the PIE tribe than modern Europeans are, and that's also why R-M17 is so frequent and dominant in all such aDNA.

This is a good point. But I don't think it was higher than it is today, as R-M17 (R1a1a) originated in the steppe, probably by some R1, R1a or R1a1 male who came straight out of the Middle East.

That's impossible though, and not because R1b is high in Assyrians, but because R1b is more likely an Afro-Asiatic or Nostratic marker (if R1b can be strongly associated with one specific language family; I'm not sure it can, and I'm agnostic on the question) than it is an Indo-European marker. That's how non-Indo-European R1b is.

I do. I don't care what you think you know, I'm just correcting your flawed understanding.

I don't think so. If anything, my views will become dominant :evilgrin:

Yeah yeah, you interpret Dodecad and Eurogenes way too seriously.

Let me summarize briefly:
you are saying that Y chromosome haplogroup R1b is Afro-Asiatic, all of Western Europe were Afro-Asiatic speakers. Here is the current distribution of them.
http://starling.rinet.ru/maps/maps/Afro-Asiatic.gif

So what is haplogroup E then???
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x6Y4ZgFsZdY/TSeP0cG3SSI/AAAAAAAAAe0/6nZVE5yH4Vc/s1600/Y-DNA+E.png
http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup-E1b1b.jpg

BTW, I realized that I still don't understand a single Hittite word, but now I know I don't know proto-Germanic and proto-Indo-Iranian, either.

PBachman
2012-02-07, 17:19
Once you anti-intellectuals understand that, then we won't have this stupid bullshit discussion about Armenians being Indo-Europeans.

Proto-Afro-Asiatic = Anatolia
Proto-Semitic = northern Levant

Semitic certainly has a longer presence in Anatolia than Kartvelian does. I have never said Semitic has as long a history in the Caucasus as Kartvelian. It's not the same region. And the Hattic language was not a Kartvelian language anyway.

A bunch of BS that can not be proven with linguistic, archeological, and historical evidence. You are delusional. You want to create this Proto-Semitic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic for Assyrians to distance your identity from Arabs and Africa. There is NO WAY the indigenous populations spoke a Proto-Semitic or Proto-Afro-Asiatic. The Semitic is certain, this is not debatable, as the record of migration clearly indicates that it was only later that the Semitics invaded the are and took over the Sumer that spoke neither Semitic or Afro-Asiatic language. Haittian, Hittite, and Hurrians, indigenous populations of Anatolia did not speak any language related to Semitic and Afro-Asiatic. You need to stop posting this garbage as it is wrong.



Yeah yeah, you interpret Dodecad and Eurogenes way too seriously.

"Yeah, yeah"...what? You are now claiming that he interprets "Eurogenes way to seriously" when you interpret genes seriously? Jesus, you are such a hypocrite.



Armenians are not Indo-Europeans in any way as far as descent is concerned. They only speak an Indo-European language, and this language was brought there from the Balkans around 2,500 years ago, give or take a few hundred years. Before that, Armenians spoke Hurro-Urartian, Semitic, and other languages that are unknown today.


Yeah, you seem to be delusional regarding the evidence. The IE homeland in Anatolia has so much more weight and evidence in support of it than the others. Furthermore, your claims of a Proto-Afro-Asiatic or Proto-Semitic garbage theory is just ridiculous. Your entire theory is pseudo-scientific but yet you claim that renowned academics and scholars are "pseudo-Scientists" when it comes to IE studies? Please, you are delusional that only picks and chooses what they like to reconstruct your Semitic and Afro-Asiatic roots to suit your own racist vision of what Assyrian should look like, when clearly, they don't have roots in Anatolia nor are they are the "blonde haired, blue eyed" supermen you would like them to be. Any Assyrian and Armenian overlap has been addressed as Assyrian absorption of Hurrian genes during expansion. The very fact that they had a policy to restrict the use of Hurrian, goes to show that indeed Assyrians are in fact Ancient Armenians and not the other way around. Certainly, to reconstruct a older "proto-Semitic" or "proto-Afro-Asiatic" as a rebuttal to this well substantiated fact that Assyrians are invaders from the south and they absorbed local genes, to me, is your agenda.

Essentially, before you tell Armenians who they are, you first need to accept who you are. The rest of your argument is your usually cherry picked facts and bogus unsubstantiated theories. When someone disproves them you try to attack them versus their argument. You are a dirty intelligent racist. There is no intellectual merit to you or your vision other than a reconstruction of the past to suit your pan-Assyrian bullshit agenda.

Pot-Kettle
2012-02-07, 17:42
Can I get Elias to to answer this? Or someone who knows... How much of the IE hypothesis hinges on the Hittite language? Thanx.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-07, 18:01
Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/emergence-and-dispersal-of-haplogroup-j.html) discussion of Chiaroni et al. (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/abs/ejhg2009166a.html)Yeah, I remember that. The problem is, Chiaroni's doesn't mention Alawites.


Can I get Elias to to answer this? Or someone who knows... How much of the IE hypothesis hinges on the Hittite language? Thanx.The theoretical proto-Indo-European homeland has no dependency on Hittite and its location in Anatolia. And linguistically, Hittite fits better with the steppe (see Jaska's example with the wheel).

If you're going to reply to a long post with lots of text, don't be stupid and don't quote the entire text if you're not going to respond to all of it. Just replace the quoted text with a "text" and include the link to the original post.

//mod

Humanist
2012-02-07, 18:15
Yeah, I remember that. The problem is, Chiaroni's doesn't mention Alawites.

Table 1 (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/fig_tab/ejhg2009166t1.html#figure-title) from the paper.

Mosov
2012-02-07, 18:19
So what consensus/resolution have we reached here, if any?

Palisto
2012-02-07, 18:23
Yeah, I remember that. The problem is, Chiaroni's doesn't mention Alawites.

The theoretical proto-Indo-European homeland has no dependency on Hittite and its location in Anatolia. And linguistically, Hittite fits better with the steppe (see Jaska's example with the wheel).



This is what Birko has to say about Afro-Asiatic and its origin.


The first recorded Semitic language is from Mesopotamia, but the diversity of Semitic languages peak in the Levant region, this means that the Semitic languages likely entered Mesopotamia from the Levant area, not the other way around. On the same topic, the diversity of Afro-Asiatic languages peak in Africa, of all branches, only the Semitic languages exist outside, such diversity means the Afro-Asiatic has its roots in the Northern parts of Africa. (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=568077&postcount=2913)

Ardi
2012-02-07, 19:00
So what consensus/resolution have we reached here, if any?


-The age-old debate on the position of the IE Urheimat continues. With intriguing multidisciplinary evidence surrounding both hypotheses, neither should be held dogmatically. I personally see much promise in focusing on a possible compromised Pre-Proto-IE scenario via the longitudinal exchange across the Caucasus.

- Considering that the "bio-cultural" autochtony of the Armenians is an absolute certainty, the sole remaining issue is the origins of the language. While probably containing a nugget of truth, the traditional Balkans-to-Armenia viewpoint is overspent and requires definite reconsideration. Again, an alternate look towards over the Caucasus may be in order.

-Regardless of the development of the Armenian language, the ethno-mythic core of the Armenian ethnos remains conclusively IE, without losing its native, Near Eastern identity. We are wholly IE, yet, anthropologically speaking, perfectly at home. In fact, traces of characteristics generally held to be IE in nature (the tripartite cosmogonic system, for example) are detectable far beyond the identifiable 'debut' of IE societies in Transcaucasia, the Armenian Highland and Anatolia.

That's where money's at.

Mosov
2012-02-07, 21:38
Interesting article on origins of Armenian language

http://armenianlanguage.org/origins/origins.html

EliasAlucard
2012-02-08, 06:21
Yes, exactly "restored". The idea was flawed from the beginning. You can't "restore" a failed idea.It was never flawed or failed. It had just lost popularity because it was championed by a woman with excessive feminist values, and so intellectuals in the field stopped taking it seriously for a while, especially after Renfrew came with his hypothesis and he was sort of backed up by Cavalli-Sforza in HGHG (Cavalli-Sforza didn't even use DNA though, much less haplogroups, so he was wrong here). More importantly, Gimbutas never argued for the Kurgan theory in a cogent way; Mallory did, and very thoroughly so. But it took a while before Mallory's straight talk gained acceptance, and Anthony did improve upon Mallory's revision of the Kurgan theory. The Kurgan thoery still has some improvement and revision to go through, with the inclusion of the genetic aspects. And my views will become dominant here, because R1a and the north-eastern European component is what connects modern Indo-European speakers to the original proto-Indo-Europeans.


Again, you are placing too much emphasis on Mallory's work.Nope.

Have you read Mallory's ISOTIE? I don't think you have because there's no way you can disregard his valid points in his criticism to Renfrew's hypothesis. In Search of the Indo-Europeans is the best book on the topic, it's way better than Anthony's Horse, Wheel and Language.


Furthermore, you are so full of yourself, how can you claim Professor Quentin Atkinson is a "psuedo scientist":I didn't say Gray & Atkinson are pseudo-scientist. I said, glottochronology is pseudo-science, and that it is, because languages do not change at a constant, fixed rate; it's a variable rate and sometimes it's sped up and slowed down depending on the circumstances. Icelandic has barely changed since the Viking age, whereas Swedish, Danish and Norwegian are very different from the original Old Norse language, yet all four are derived from Old Norse. That's all you need to know in order to understand how pseudo-scientific glottochronology is.

The fact that G&A got the age of the Indo-European language family wrong, is a good example of how pseudo-scientific glottochronology is. Proto-Indo-European is at most, 7,000 years old, and that's a very generous figure.


They have PhD from esteemed universities. One from Oxford. Where do you get this stuff from?Your IQ is low.


Again, you are pushing your views here. On the basis of archeological, linguistic, and historical narrative there is no way to prove the above. You are claiming that the Sumerians, Hurrians, Urartu, and Kartvelian have "semitic origins" when they don't.No you dumbass. I'm saying they all share a common origin with Semites: Nostratic.

You're too stupid to understand what I'm saying, because you have this fanatic hatred of "Semites" and want to place them in "Africa".


It is a fact that the Semitic speaking populations later invaded the area.Doesn't rule out that they invaded the regions where they originated from. The Scythians invaded Yamnaya (proto-Indo-European urheimat). Yet the Scythians who were Iranian speakers, had their origin from the Pontic-Caspian steppe as well at one point.


Furthermore, you are claiming that Proto-Semitic is older than IE, when it is not case if you consider the Anatolian hypothesis. You are trying to push your own views here please stop as it is wrong.Proto-Semitic is a bronze age language, much like proto-Indo-European. And I'm not the one claiming it is older:


Yet earlier, around 15,000 years ago, Nostratic may have been the antecedent of Indo-European, Altaic (Turkish and Mongolian), Dravidian (southern Indian), Uralic (Finnish and Samoyed), Afro-Asiatic (Berber and Arabic), and Kartvelian (south Caucasian). Reconstructions of Nostratic have been proposed, amounting to several hundred words corresponding to common objects and concepts, such as parts of the body, sun and moon, personal pronouns, animals, and so on. The “lexicon” indicates that the speakers were hunter-gatherers, lacking agriculture but possessing domestic animals such as the dog. Indeed, the oldest domestic dog bones have been dated to that period. Nostratic would later have split into the Afro-Asiatic group of languages, whose speakers, judging by the proposed vocabulary, built fortifications, cultivated, marketed, and used the bow. Proto-Semitic may have arisen 9,000 years ago, and provided many loan words to the Indo-Europeans, another Nostratic off-shoot, which in turn fragmented about 5,000 years ago into Indo-Iranian, Celt, Balt, Slav, Greek, Italic, and Germanic peoples, all of whom migrated to the sites of their present homelands (see e.g. Dolgopolsky, 1995; Ruhlen, 1994).
— John L. Bradshaw, Human evolution: a neuropsychological perspective, p. 80 (http://books.google.com/books?id=y-Ojrbq_MowC&pg=PA80), ISBN 0863775055

And here's a Bayesian analysis:

Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Semitic languages identifies an Early Bronze Age origin of Semitic in the Near East: http://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/rspb20090408.pdf

^^ 3750 BC, about the same age as proto-Indo-European.


Oh come on mate, that is truly pseudo-science. Please, you know as well as I that you taking a minuscule culture in North Africa and projecting it onto a population in Anatolia is just ridiculous. Please, you need to stop claiming that the Neolithic farmers were Afro-Asiatics or that Anatolia was the homeland of such a language.It's not a "north African" culture, it's not "African" at all. And it certainly wasn't minuscule.


You are an intelligent racist at this point.Sure am. Can't say the same about you.


First, you can't project an identity onto the Neolithic farmers and most likely, they spoke a language that was native to Anatolia. Again, what ever this language was it could not have been related to an Afro-Asiatic nor a Semitic language. Please, this is ridiculous.The language of the Neolithic farmers was most likely Afro-Asiatic or closely related to Afro-Asiatic.


First, stop claiming that anyone is a "Aryan Armenian".Tell that to your anti-intellectual butt-buddies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Aryan_Union

^^ They're so begging to be ridiculed. And that's not because they're anti-Jewish, but because they don't understand how ideological and anti-scientific they are.


There is no nationalistic bias.There is. And it's really the only reason you want to believe Armenia was the proto-Indo-European urheimat, and that Armenians are somehow Indo-European.


Please, you are an intelligent racist that is trying desperately to distance Assyrians from Arabs.Not at all. We Assyrians really do have a huge genetic gap between us Arabs. And that's because we are the original Semites, whereas the Arabs have less Semitic ancestry. The genetic distance between Assyrians and Arabs is the same as between Armenians and Arabs. Of course, pseudo-Arab populations are closer to us genetically, and that's because they aren't Arabs.

Are you insinuating we are the same genetic group as Eritreans? They speak Semitic too. Doesn't mean we are the same as them. And while Arabs are genetically closer to us than Eritreans are, it's the same issue: Arabs are not as racially pure as Assyrians, and they have less of the original Semitic ancestry.


The very fact that you claims Assyrians are "whiter than Armenians", but now are being a hypocrite by claiming that "I don't have any bullshit Aryan identity to lose" is just ridiculous.White genes are not exclusive to the proto-Indo-Europeans. In fact, white genotypes originated in the Middle East before the proto-Indo-European language family, most likely amongst proto-Semites.

When I said I don't have an Aryan identity to lose, that was a reply to Palisto, and by that I meant I have no stake in this. If proto-Indo-European really is an east European language family, that means it has implications for the ethnic identities of all Iranians peoples (Kurds, Persians, Indians etc.) and that's also true of Armenians.


As I am not a geneticist and neither are you. You probably don't even have a graduate degree in the field.I don't. But I do have a more advanced understanding of genetics than you do.


I find your constant attempt to proclaim that you are an "expert" while everyone is not goes to show how idiotic you are.I've never said I'm an expert. Have you tested yourself genetically? I have. I did it back in 2009, and I've been participating in several DNA projects since then, and I've been reading genetics literature and studies the past 4 years.

While I certainly still have a long way to go, I'm way ahead of you in genetics and racial topics in general.


Clearly, the Assyrian absorption of Armenian genes occurred when Assyrians expanded and overtook Hurrians.Back then, and especially in the older days of the Old and Middle Assyrian kingdoms, the Assyrians used to literally slaughter all the men of the populations they conquered. It was later on in Neo-Assyrian times when the Assyrian rulers began assimilating populations instead of slaughtering all their men.

Anyway, I don't think the Assyrians absorbed any Hurrian genes, and even if they did, Armenians show an almost identical genetic profile when compared with the Assyrian genetic profile, and that's not just autosomal DNA, but also in haplogroup frequencies.

What Armenians don't show, however, is proto-Indo-European genes (lots of R-M17 and a significant "northern European" component, both of which are lacking in Armenians). So really, it doesn't matter what you say, Armenians are way more genetically like Palestinians than you are like Lithuanians.


Eat it. Stop using the same genetic evidence to disprove something that many scholars know for certain occurred. Assyrians absorbed Hurrian genes. End of story.You have no proof of this, and you're only clinging to this nonsense so desperately because you want to believe Armenians are Indo-Europeans.


Furthermore, the idea that Anatolia is not the IE homeland based on genetic studies is flawed as there are genetic studies that show a Mongolian genetic lineage in some IE populations that can't be explained. It is a clearly a double standard here.This is nonsense and I don't think you know what you're talking about.


Additionally, it could be the case that the "West Asians" were the originators of the IE language and culture, but when they expanded out they absorbed some genes later and those genes were absorbed into later IE populations. Essentially, a dual homeland.More stupid bullshit.


An expectation becomes an assumption in this context.It's not an assumption. A language family that began diversifying 9,000 years ago, would have a lot different daughter languages today than we can see in the Indo-European languages of today.


Proto-Semetic is most probably native to the Northern periphery of the Levant, but using Proto-Kartvelian as proxy for the extent of Semetic in Anatolia proper is in haste. If anything, the "Asianic" (Hattic) base of the Anatolian languages relates to either of the other two Caucasian families, and is most likely akin to Abkhazo-Adyghe (NW Caucasian).If the Glottalic theory is correct, proto-Indo-European, proto-Kartvelian and proto-Semitic are related languages (that still doesn't mean PIE was spoken in Anatolia/Armenia though):


“Proto-Indo-European also had contact with the languages of the Caucasus Mountains, primarily those now classified as South Caucasian or Kartvelian, the family that produced modern Georgian. These connections have suggested to some that the Proto-Indo-European and Kartvelian are said to appear in both phonetics and vocabulary, although the phonetic link is controversial. It depends on a brilliant but still problematic revision of the phonology of Proto-Indo-European proposed by the linguist T. Gamkrelidze and V. Ivanov, known as the glottalic theory.17 The glottalic theory made Proto-Indo-European phonology sound somehwat similar to that of Kartvelian, and even to the Semitic languages (Assyrian, Hebrew, Arabic) of the ancient Near East. This opened the possibility that Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Kartvelian, and Proto-Semitic might have evolved in a region where they shared certain areal phonological features. But by itself the glottalic phonology cannot prove a homeland in the Caucasus, even if it is accepted. And the glottalic phonology still has failed to convince many Indo-European linguists.18”
— Anthony, David W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World, ISBN: 069114818X, p. 97 (http://books.google.com/books?id=nLIufwC4szwC&pg=PA97)

^^ Think about it: if the Glottalic theory is correct, what does that tell us about Armenians?


Both may share a common origin. In fact, a stronger kinship between the two families isn't unlikely.Yes, see Indo-Semitic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Semitic_languages

I personally prefer the Nostratic hypothesis though.

Mosov
2012-02-08, 06:38
Can we see some non-23andme genetic proof regarding Armenians and Assyrians??

EliasAlucard
2012-02-08, 08:32
We must be cautious in deducing whether a language spreads with its speakers or despite them.Languages always spread with their original speakers. But it's not always the case that languages are spread exclusively with their speakers and sometimes the original speakers mix with other populations and only manage to slightly influence the new genepool.

That was the case with Armenians, because there's not much Indo-European ancestry in Armenians today.


The overstatement of either biological or linguistic elements of any ethnos disregards the complexities of the situation. The association of Indo-European ancestry with any one genetic lineage presupposes that the languages were carried by a singular, uniform population that unanimously left their biological mark upon respective recipients.And that it was. R-M17 (Y-DNA R1a1a) was the original proto-Indo-European marker. This haplotype by far better than any other haplogroup, correlates with the spread of the Indo-European language family:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/R1a1a_distribution.png

And that's not just the case with modern R1a frequencies, but it is also strongly associated with early Indo-European speakers from ancient times, such as Tocharians, Scythians and so on. This suggest that the proto-Indo-Europeans were highly patrilineal, and they most likely killed men from competing tribes and stole their women, because the mtDNA of early R1a1a males was never really all that consistent with any one lineage, although I'd say H5a is arguably one of the original female lineages of the proto-Indo-Europeans (Maikop, Scythians and Poles).


On the other hand, it is also mistake to limit the Indo-European identity to language alone. Leaving retrospective “Aryan” nonsense aside, the mythological and folkloric worldview forms an inseparable part of the “Indo-European identity”. In that respect, there is no denying that Armenians are Indo-Europeans to the core, while remaining the anthropological and cultural autochtons of the Armenian Highland without a shadow of a doubt. Curiously enough, this also entails a fundamental ethno-mythic connection with the pre-IE traditions of the Near East, which can not be explained by simple adoption or amalgamation.Indo-European is really about ancestry more than it is about language. It's just that in modern times, mostly the languages remain sort of intact, and that's why people think of it as a linguistic question only. But the Indo-European languages originated amongst a small clan of patriarchal men, and if you don't have enough quantities of their original ancestry, you're not really Indo-European regardless of how perfectly you've preserved their language or culture.

So that's why for example the Irish and Spaniards in spite of being almost entirely R1b, are clearly more Indo-European in ancestry than both Armenians and Indians (who have high frequencies of R1a), because the Irish and Spaniards have more autosomal descent from the proto-Indo-Europeans.


This is what Birko has to say about Afro-Asiatic and its origin.I've addressed this properly here (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=647789&postcount=59) and here (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=706051&postcount=112), and I don't think I've gotten a serious or satisfying response yet. If you want to discuss where Afro-Asiatic originated, do it in the proper thread (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=1001).

Birko is wrong about Afro-Asiatic for the very exact same reason you are wrong about Indo-European. And even if we applied the centre of gravity assumption on Indo-European, there's no way in hell you could locate proto-Indo-European in Armenia (southern Poland and surrounds would be the best match then).

It's really impossible to place the Afro-Asiatic urheimat in "Africa", regardless of where in the continent you want to place it. But I'd love to see you debate me in the Afro-Asiatic thread.

By the way, you don't have to actually post a link in the text. All you have to do to link it to the original post is to include the quote tag with the original number link, like this:



text


So what consensus/resolution have we reached here, if any?The scientific consensus would be that Armenians are a non-Indo-European population, with perhaps some minor (very minor) actual descent from the Indo-Europeans, and that it is simply not possible that the proto-Indo-European urheimat was ever in Armenia. I know you Armenians disagree with this, but I could care less what you think. Science isn't a democracy.


-The age-old debate on the position of the IE Urheimat continues. With intriguing multidisciplinary evidence surrounding both hypotheses, neither should be held dogmatically. I personally see much promise in focusing on a possible compromised Pre-Proto-IE scenario via the longitudinal exchange across the Caucasus.It's already a solved question, in spite of what "neutral" laymen may tell you or give you the impression that it's somehow impossible to locate the proto-Indo-European urheimat, it can be said with a high degree of scientific accuracy, it was somewhere in eastern Europe (Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania are the best candidates, in that order).

As far as I'm concerned, it's no longer a question between the Anatolian hypothesis and the Kurgan theory; it's a question how we can link proto-Indo-European in the Yamnaya horizon with the R1a-M17 frequencies in Poland and the impressively archaic features of Lithuanian.

Here you have Latvians celebrating Baltic paganism, while certainly not proto-Indo-European, this is by far closer to the original Indo-European wheel and horse culture than anything you can find in modern Armenia:

Baltic Summer - New Europe (Part 3-6): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRGc841uEto (thanks to Aino for the link)

^^ Does this look like Armenian culture to you? Do they look like Armenians? Five minutes into the clip where they show the burning wheel, is that something you Armenians do?


- Considering that the "bio-cultural" autochtony of the Armenians is an absolute certainty, the sole remaining issue is the origins of the language. While probably containing a nugget of truth, the traditional Balkans-to-Armenia viewpoint is overspent and requires definite reconsideration. Again, an alternate look towards over the Caucasus may be in order.No, proto-Armenian most likely came via the Balkans. This can be seen in Y-DNA frequencies of Armenians, as pointed out by Dr. Roy King.


-Regardless of the development of the Armenian language, the ethno-mythic core of the Armenian ethnos remains conclusively IE, without losing its native, Near Eastern identity. We are wholly IE, yet, anthropologically speaking, perfectly at home. In fact, traces of characteristics generally held to be IE in nature (the tripartite cosmogonic system, for example) are detectable far beyond the identifiable 'debut' of IE societies in Transcaucasia, the Armenian Highland and Anatolia.There's nothing particularly Indo-European about Armenians aside from the language. There may have been a time when Armenian speakers were more identifiably “Indo-European” in culture and other attributes, but that is long gone. Very little of the original Indo-European culture survives today, and most of it is a highly modified form in India. The Indo-European languages are a global fenomenon, and remnants of the original proto-Indo-European genetic group is mostly spread out in Europe and to some extent in the Americas. But as a cohesive endogamous cultural unit, the proto-Indo-Europeans do not exist today.

As for Dumezil's trifunctional hypothesis, it makes no difference. You might as well ask yourself if you're Lithuanian.


Interesting article on origins of Armenian language

http://armenianlanguage.org/origins/origins.htmlArmenian is not a Hittite language.


Can we see some non-23andme genetic proof regarding Armenians and Assyrians??They won't tell you anything we can't see on 23andMe and Eurogenes/Dodecad.

Humanist
2012-02-08, 12:21
With the recently published Y-DNA frequencies for the Tats of Dagestan, we can say that, based on all data available, the combination of J1* and R-M269, at relatively elevated frequencies, is found in four locations, in our region (West Asia):

NW Syria
1. Alawite R-M269 data from Dönbak et al. (sampled in Adana, Turkey)
2. Aleppo Syrians of unknown ethnicity J1* from El-Sibai et al.

N Mesopotamia
Assyrians

Armenian Highlands
Armenians

Dagestan
1. Lezgin R-M269 and J1* from Balanovsky et al.
2. Tat (Muslim) R-M269 and J1* from Bertoncini et al.

Map from Balanovsky et al. "J1* R-M269" added.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Languages-and-genes-in-North-Caucasus_Dagestan.jpg

Obviously the significance of the J1*/R-M269 combination remains unknown.

However, here is a potentially relevant bit, from the paper by John A.C. Greppin, "The Urartian Substratum in Armenian (http://www.science.org.ge/2-2/Grepin.pdf)."


Because it seems clear that there is a relationship between Hurrian, Urartian and languages of Daghestan [in particular, Lezgian], we can accept the views of many that the Hurrians and Urartians were affiliated with the Early-Trans-Caucasian culture which was in place as early as 5000 BC.

I do not know how many in the academic community share Greppin's opinion.

A few pertinent maps:

http://128.97.6.202/images/Outer%20Fertile%20Crescent%20lores.jpg

http://128.97.6.202/images/mythical%20landscapes%20complete.jpg

http://128.97.6.202/images/Urkesh-Ebla-Akkad%20M214%20with%20territories%20color.jpg

http://128.97.6.202/images/2nd%20mil%20Steinkeller.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-8GyhUPFjgSQ/TtVSn6WzSiI/AAAAAAAADRE/um_AOJGytZc/s1600/mapa.JPG

Ardi
2012-02-08, 18:03
No, proto-Armenian most likely came via the Balkans. This can be seen in Y-DNA frequencies of Armenians, as pointed out by Dr. Roy King.

Y-DNA & mtDNA Distribution for Armenians (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=results)

Comparison of Armenian and Assyrian Y-DNA distributions (https://twitter.com/#!/khborges/status/132903332254720000/photo/1)

Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalist (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ejhg2011192a.html)

Kristian J Herrera, Robert K Lowery, Laura Hadden, Silvia Calderon, Carolina Chiou, Levon Yepiskoposyan, Maria Regueiro, Peter A Underhill and Rene J Herrera

"Armenia, situated between the Black and Caspian Seas, lies at the junction of Turkey, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan and former Mesopotamia. This geographic position made it a potential contact zone between Eastern and Western civilizations. In this investigation, we assess Y-chromosomal diversity in four geographically distinct populations that represent the extent of historical Armenia. We find a striking prominence of haplogroups previously implicated with the Agricultural Revolution in the Near East, including the J2a-M410-, R1b1b1*-L23-, G2a-P15- and J1-M267-derived lineages. Given that the Last Glacial Maximum event in the Armenian plateau occured a few millennia before the Neolithic era, we envision a scenario in which its repopulation was achieved mainly by the arrival of farmers from the Fertile Crescent temporally coincident with the initial inception of farming in Greece. However, we detect very restricted genetic affinities with Europe that suggest any later cultural diffusions from Armenia to Europe were not associated with substantial amounts of paternal gene flow, despite the presence of closely related Indo-European languages in both Armenia and Southeast Europe."

Suggestion of a Balkan anthropological descent for the Armenian population is simply futile at this point.


There's nothing particularly Indo-European about Armenians aside from the language. There may have been a time when Armenian speakers were more identifiably “Indo-European” in culture and other attributes, but that is long gone. Very little of the original Indo-European culture survives today, and most of it is a highly modified form in India. The Indo-European languages are a global fenomenon, and remnants of the original proto-Indo-European genetic group is mostly spread out in Europe and to some extent in the Americas. But as a cohesive endogamous cultural unit, the proto-Indo-Europeans do not exist today.

As for Dumezil's trifunctional hypothesis, it makes no difference. You might as well ask yourself if you're Lithuanian.

The parent population would obviously not be intact its original composition, but this doesn't change the fact that a most elementary inspection of Armenian cosmogony reveals a thoroughly IE nature with indigenous regional elements- whatever that may say about genes and language.

Don't take my word for it:

The Indo-European and Ancient Near Eastern Sources of the Armenian Epic
Monograph No. 42 -- By Armen Y. Petrosyan (http://jies.org/DOCS/monojpgs/Mon42.html)

Lol_Race
2012-02-08, 18:14
Humanist,

Is there any data on the proportion of Armenian J1 that is part of the P58 subclade, in comparison to Assyrians?

Ardi
2012-02-08, 18:21
I do not know how many in the academic community share Greppin's opinion

A New View of Armenian Origins: The Indigenous Armenians and the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov Hypothesis, John A. C. Greppin, Journal of Armenian Studies, Volume I, Number 1: Autumn 1975 (http://www.naasr.org/index.php/naasr-publications-site-map-menu-101/journal-of-armenian-studies-site-map-menu-129)

My copy of the journal is on its way, and my guess is that Greppin comments on the autochtony of Armenians from a linguistic perspective.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-08, 22:11
Suggestion of a Balkan anthropological descent for the Armenian population is simply futile at this point.The proto-Armenians (i.e., the original speakers of the Armenian language) came from the Balkans, and before they settled in the Balkans, they like all other Indo-Europeans came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe:


With regards to the I2a branch, I am more and more enclined to believe it represents one of the major genetic components of the Indo-European speaking "Armen" people, themselves part of the Phrygian people, who came into Anatolia from the West around 1,300 B.C. As per Dr. Roy King: " ... Assyrians and Armenians are practically identical [genetically] except for language which must be reflected in the I2 and perhaps E1b1b1a-V13 frequencies for the Indo-European superstratum. This is interesting in that it suggests that the Indo-European Armenian speakers came from the Balkans rather than via the Caucasus."
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=news

^^ Before the original proto-Armenians had settled in the Balkans, they were R1a, and they subsequently mixed with some local Balkanites, and then proto-Armenian was carried along to east Anatolia either with a group of R-M17 proto-Indo-European descendants who brought along some local Balkanites (I2, E-V13), or the proto-Indo-European R-M17 descendants mixed with local Balkanites and they (I2, E-V13) brought over the the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia.

Whatever happened and however the Armenian language was brought over to south of the Caucasus, the Indo-European Armenians (when they still had significant Indo-European ancestry), were probably not significant enough in numbers to influence the local population of Urartu on a genetic level.

Armenians as an ethnic group, however, don't have much ancestry from the Balkans, as most of your ancestry is native to eastern Anatolia. But you do have some minor Balkan influences which Assyrians lack.


The parent population would obviously not be intact its original composition, but this doesn't change the fact that a most elementary inspection of Armenian cosmogony reveals a thoroughly IE nature with indigenous regional elements- whatever that may say about genes and language.

Don't take my word for it:

The Indo-European and Ancient Near Eastern Sources of the Armenian Epic
Monograph No. 42 -- By Armen Y. Petrosyan (http://jies.org/DOCS/monojpgs/Mon42.html)You can worship cows if it makes you happy, that doesn't make you Indo-European on a genetic level.

I'm not disputing that the proto-Armenians had a proto-Indo-European world-view, and I'm not disputing their descent from the Indo-Europeans.

But today, modern Armenians are Christian wogs. You're not really any more Indo-European than your neighbouring "African" Assyrian Semites are Indo-Europeans.

You Armenians are what David Anthony described as "elite recruitment"; i.e., the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to other people by recruiting them into their language family.

And although certainly we Armenians/Assyrians are obviously much closer related to the original proto-Indo-Europeans than we are to Mongoloids, you Aryanist Armenians are very similar to nationalist Anatolian pseudo-Turks who clown themselves with a belief in "Tengriism" and ridiculous shit like that.

Look, I can't put it any more honest than this: if you are Armenian, the Indo-Europeans are not your ancestors. If you're interested in your roots, you're chasing the wrong guy with the Indo-Europeans. You only speak a descendant of their language.

PBachman
2012-02-08, 22:25
The proto-Armenians (i.e., the original speakers of the Armenian language) came from the Balkans, and before they settled in the Balkans, they like all other Indo-Europeans came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe:


With regards to the I2a branch, I am more and more enclined to believe it represents one of the major genetic components of the Indo-European speaking "Armen" people, themselves part of the Phrygian people, who came into Anatolia from the West around 1,300 B.C. As per Dr. Roy King: " ... Assyrians and Armenians are practically identical [genetically] except for language which must be reflected in the I2 and perhaps E1b1b1a-V13 frequencies for the Indo-European superstratum. This is interesting in that it suggests that the Indo-European Armenian speakers came from the Balkans rather than via the Caucasus."
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=news

^^ Before the original proto-Armenians had settled in the Balkans, they were R1a and mixed with some local Balkanites, and then proto-Armenian was carried along to east Anatolia either with a group of R-M17 proto-Indo-European descendants who brought along some local Balkanites (I2, E-V13), or the proto-Indo-European R-M17 descendants mixed with local Balkanites and they (I2, E-V13) brought over the the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia.

Whatever happened and however the Armenian language was brought over to south of the Caucasus, the Indo-European Armenians (when they still had significant Indo-European ancestry), were probably not significant enough in numbers to influence the local population of Urartu on a genetic level.

Armenians as an ethnic group, however, don't have much ancestry from the Balkans, as most of your ancestry is native to eastern Anatolia. But you do have some minor Balkan influences which Assyrians lack.

You can worship cows if it makes you happy, that doesn't make you Indo-European on a genetic level.

I'm not disputing that the proto-Armenians had a proto-Indo-European world-view, and I'm not disputing their descent from the Indo-Europeans.

But today, modern Armenians are Christian wogs. You're not all really any more Indo-European than your neighbouring "African" Assyrian Semites are Indo-Europeans.

You Armenians are what David Anthony described as "elite recruitment"; i.e., the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to other people by recruiting them into their language family.

And although certainly we Armenians/Assyrians are obviously much closer related to the original proto-Indo-Europeans than we are to Mongoloids, you Aryanist Armenians are very similar to nationalist Anatolian pseudo-Turks who clown themselves with a belief in "Tengriism" and ridiculous shit like that.

Look, I can't put it any more honest than this: if you are Armenian, the Indo-Europeans are not your ancestors. If you're interested in your roots, you're chasing the wrong guy with the Indo-Europeans. You only speak a descendant of their language.

The irony in all of this is that if indeed Armenians are "non-IE" based on your logic, Assyrians would be "non-Semitic" and also in the same category. Just give up man, no one is buying what you are selling. Your idea of a Proto-Semitic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic native population in Anatolia that Assyrians and Armenians stem from is just ridiculous. If you accept this premise to be true than Assyrians are just acculturated Ancient Armenians that adopted a Semitic language. Therefore, they are even worse off, but then it would ruin your entire psuado-scientific bullshit of a pan-Assyrian domination of the Armenian identity.

Every established schalors agrees that Armenians are an amalgam of native IE and non-IE populations. The non-IE being non-Semitic and non-Afro-Asiatic. You, without any degree in any discussed area, claim to be the master of all areas. You even talk about established historians and their research methodolies as "psuado-scientist" and "psuado-science", who dare you. You are full of yourself.

It is ridiculous the BS you spread. And I read about your vision of an "Afro-Asiatic" presence in Ireland as well. How ridiculous is this. You are delusional mate. Stop the bullshit and accept that Assyrians were invaders in the region and you are an acculturated ancient Armenian. Stop creating fantasy historical narratives based on one or two questionable genetic studies.

Personally, I despise people like you as you are in no way an authority on any of these topics, but you have the odasity to open your mouth about established schalors like they are "joke" and you are the "real deal". Essentially, you have a deep inferiority complex. FACE THE FACTS Assyrians are invaders. You were just another Hurrian they marginized and assimilated into empire.

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 22:28 ----------


Can we have this discussion without inflammatory language such as 'wogs'? Or is that too much to ask? I wouldn't expect such language from a Mod.

EA, I just stopped replying to him. People like this only want to hear and read what suits their ego. His entire grandiose theories are just BS nonsense without any substantiated evidence. I will go as far as agreeing with Humanist and Peter, but he goes beyond what is evidence and creates a fantasy narrative that is unsubstantiated; It is just plain fabrication and speculation at this point. You can argue that it is possible, but he actually tries to write his theories off as credible. Furthermore, he is not even well read in the area. If you told him to explain the research methodologies used by academics he would just sit their and twiddle his thumbs. He has no idea of what basic regression is that is how idiotic this EA character is.

Day Tripper
2012-02-08, 22:36
The irony in all of this is that if indeed Armenians are "non-IE" based on your logic, Assyrians would be "non-Semitic" and also in the same category. Just give up man, no one is buying what you are selling. Your idea of a Proto-Semitic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic native population in Anatolia that Assyrians and Armenians stem from is just ridiculous. If you accept this premise to be true than Assyrians are just acculturated Ancient Armenians that adopted a Semitic language. Therefore, they are even worse off, but then it would ruin your entire psuado-scientific bullshit of a pan-Assyrian domination of the Armenian identity.

Every established schalors agrees that Armenians are an amalgam of native IE and non-IE populations. The non-IE being non-Semitic and non-Afro-Asiatic. You, without any degree in any discussed area, claim to be the master of all areas. You even talk about established historians and their research methodolies as "psuado-scientist" and "psuado-science", who dare you. You are full of yourself.

It is ridiculous the BS you spread. And I read about your vision of an "Afro-Asiatic" presence in Ireland as well. How ridiculous is this. You are delusional mate. Stop the bullshit and accept that Assyrians were invaders in the region and you are an acculturated ancient Armenian. Stop creating fantasy historical narratives based on one or two questionable genetic studies.

Personally, I despise people like you as you are in no way an authority on any of these topics, but you have the odasity to open your mouth about established schalors like they are "joke" and you are the "real deal". Essentially, you have a deep inferiority complex. FACE THE FACTS Assyrians are invaders. You were just another Hurrian they marginized and assimilated into empire.

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 22:28 ----------



EA, I just stopped replying to him. People like this only want to hear and read what suits their ego. His entire grandiose theories are just BS nonsense without any substantiated evidence. I will go as far as agreeing with Humanist and Peter, but he goes beyond what is evidence and creates a fantasy narrative that is unsubstantiated; It is just plain fabrication and speculation at this point. You can argue that it is possible, but he actually tries to write his theories off as credible. Furthermore, he is not even well read in the area. If you told him to explain the research methodologies used by academics he would just sit their and twiddle his thumbs. He has no idea of what basic regression is that is how idiotic this EA character is.

Jesus Christ! There's more than four hundred words' worth of ad hominems in there!

That holds even if you remove the words that aren't real, namely "psuado-scienific", "schalors", "methodolies", "psuado-scientist", "psuado-science", "odasity", and "marginized".

EliasAlucard
2012-02-08, 22:57
Can we have this discussion without inflammatory language such as 'wogs'? Or is that too much to ask? I wouldn't expect such language from a Mod.Ashamed to be wog? What's so inflammatory about it anyway? I used to describe my phenotype as "Classical Wog" in my forum profile. I see no problem with it.


The irony in all of this is that if indeed Armenians are "non-IE" based on your logic, Assyrians would be "non-Semitic" and also in the same category.Not true, because Semitic isn't the same language family as Indo-European, and our genetic profile fits ten thousand times better as the parent population of the Palestinians, Bedouins, Jews, Eritreans etc., whereas your Assyroid genetic profile is totally incompatible as a descendant of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Just because you Armenians aren't descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans, that doesn't mean we Assyrians aren't descendants of the proto-Semites. Humanist posted this earlier in the thread, look at highest variance:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/fig_tab/ejhg2009166t1.html#figure-title

^^ That's why we Assyrians are the parent population of all Semitic speakers, among many other reasons.


Just give up man, no one is buying what you are selling. Your idea of a Proto-Semitic and Proto-Afro-Asiatic native population in Anatolia that Assyrians and Armenians stem from is just ridiculous. If you accept this premise to be true than Assyrians are just acculturated Ancient Armenians that adopted a Semitic language. Therefore, they are even worse off, but then it would ruin your entire psuado-scientific bullshit of a pan-Assyrian domination of the Armenian identity.I don't think you understand what you're saying. I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East (which it did according to linguistic paleontology; disprove this and then I'll shut up, until then you have no case).


Every established schalors agrees that Armenians are an amalgam of native IE and non-IE populations.Who are these "schalors" and how did they reach this conclusion using what kind of genetic methodology?


The non-IE being non-Semitic and non-Afro-Asiatic. You, without any degree in any discussed area, claim to be the master of all areas. You even talk about established historians and their research methodolies as "psuado-scientist" and "psuado-science", who dare you. You are full of yourself.Dude, I'm serious: if you're going to continue spelling like a 14 year old dipshit, I'm going to ban you. You can't be this stupid to not know it's spelled pseudo, not "psuado". Are you playing dumb or trolling?


It is ridiculous the BS you spread. And I read about your vision of an "Afro-Asiatic" presence in Ireland as well. How ridiculous is this. You are delusional mate. Stop the bullshit and accept that Assyrians were invaders in the region and you are an acculturated ancient Armenian. Stop creating fantasy historical narratives based on one or two questionable genetic studies.If you want me to "stop", you should disprove me by using logical evidence and valid arguments. Giving me orders like that leads you nowhere. Prove to me that Afro-Asiatic does not have a linguistic palaeontology profile that matches with the Near East. Prove to me that the Armenian language has a longer history in eastern Anatolia than Afro-Asiatic does. Prove to me that Elamite, Sumerian, Caucasian and Kartvelian have no connection whatsoever with proto-Afro-Asiatic, and I'll shut the fuck up.

But if you can't do that, then you're going to have to accept the facts sooner or later, and the facts are not taking your side.


Personally, I despise people like you as you are in no way an authority on any of these topics, but you have the odasity to open your mouth about established schalors like they are "joke" and you are the "real deal". Essentially, you have a deep inferiority complex. FACE THE FACTS Assyrians are invaders. You were just another Hurrian they marginized and assimilated into empire.It's spelled audacity, you dumbass.

Kids these days...


EA, I just stopped replying to him. People like this only want to hear and read what suits their ego. His entire grandiose theories are just BS nonsense without any substantiated evidence. I will go as far as agreeing with Humanist and Peter, but he goes beyond what is evidence and creates a fantasy narrative that is unsubstantiated; It is just plain fabrication and speculation at this point. You can argue that it is possible, but he actually tries to write his theories off as credible. Furthermore, he is not even well read in the area. If you told him to explain the research methodologies used by academics he would just sit their and twiddle his thumbs. He has no idea of what basic regression is that is how idiotic this EA character is.What does "basic regression" have to do with Indo-European theories? Please enlighten me.

Ardi
2012-02-08, 23:02
Whatever happened and however the Armenian language was brought over to south of the Caucasus, the Indo-European Armenians (when they still had significant Indo-European ancestry), were probably not significant enough in numbers to influence the local population of Urartu on a genetic level.

Armenians as an ethnic group, however, don't have much ancestry from the Balkans, as most of your ancestry is native to eastern Anatolia. But you do have some minor Balkan influences which Assyrians lack.

You can worship cows if it makes you happy, that doesn't make you Indo-European on a genetic level.

I'm not disputing that the proto-Armenians had a proto-Indo-European world-view, and I'm not disputing their descent from the Indo-Europeans.

But today, modern Armenians are Christian wogs. You're not really any more Indo-European than your neighbouring "African" Assyrian Semites are Indo-Europeans.

You Armenians are what David Anthony described as "elite recruitment"; i.e., the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to other people by recruiting them into their language family.

And although certainly we Armenians/Assyrians are obviously much closer related to the original proto-Indo-Europeans than we are to Mongoloids, you Aryanist Armenians are very similar to nationalist Anatolian pseudo-Turks who clown themselves with a belief in "Tengriism" and ridiculous shit like that.

Look, I can't put it any more honest than this: if you are Armenian, the Indo-Europeans are not your ancestors. If you're interested in your roots, you're chasing the wrong guy with the Indo-Europeans. You only speak a descendant of their language.

Everything fits into place now: we are actually on the same page here. I have no interest in making sweeping declarations in regards to the origins of IE and the development of the Armenian language in the Armenian Highland. The objective preservation of the native Armenian identity from deliberate falsification, usurpation and annihilation is the only thing that matters to me. I see all forms of national psuedo-mysticism as a detriment to the progress of the species, so don't call this guy an Aryanist... ;) . The bottom line is that the complex process of Armenian ethnogenesis in relation to and apart from the evolution of IE languages merits a more concrete, specialized approach from multiple fields.

Also, If you want to own the derogatory label 'wog', it is your right by all means. I for one don't give an honest damn about how I'm categorized in the "hierarchy" of things. I'm an Armenian individual, and that's all anyone needs to know.

Palisto
2012-02-08, 23:31
The proto-Armenians (i.e., the original speakers of the Armenian language) came from the Balkans, and before they settled in the Balkans, they like all other Indo-Europeans came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe:


With regards to the I2a branch, I am more and more enclined to believe it represents one of the major genetic components of the Indo-European speaking "Armen" people, themselves part of the Phrygian people, who came into Anatolia from the West around 1,300 B.C. As per Dr. Roy King: " ... Assyrians and Armenians are practically identical [genetically] except for language which must be reflected in the I2 and perhaps E1b1b1a-V13 frequencies for the Indo-European superstratum. This is interesting in that it suggests that the Indo-European Armenian speakers came from the Balkans rather than via the Caucasus."
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=news

You forgot to post the first part of the statement:
"Here's the most recent post on this subject by Ken Nordtvedt: "The I2* cluster is an enigma because overall I2* is probably the strangest haplogroup in Hg I. I2* is generally spread across every quarter of Europe except noticeably light in Scandinavia. I2* has a strong and much older Armenian/Turkish presence and shows up elsewhere in the MidEast/Levant. Because of the bias of our good databases, however, an objective statement of its relative strength across this vast span of territory can not yet be made. But no other subhaplogroup of I is so lacking in geographical concentration. And I2* is old in the time back to its TMRCA --- only being challenged as oldest Hg I clade by I2a1 M26+ Sardinian."

So, I2 is old, very old and present all over MidEast and Europe. There is no need to explain I2 in Armenians with influx from Europe.



^^ Before the original proto-Armenians had settled in the Balkans, they were R1a, and they subsequently mixed with some local Balkanites, and then proto-Armenian was carried along to east Anatolia either with a group of R-M17 proto-Indo-European descendants who brought along some local Balkanites (I2, E-V13), or the proto-Indo-European R-M17 descendants mixed with local Balkanites and they (I2, E-V13) brought over the the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia.

So, you are saying that Proto-Indo-European with R1a only came to the Balkans, made all the I2 and E-V13 from the Balkan to Indo-Europeans and then one group of these Indo-Europeanized Balkans migrated with I2 and E-V13 to Anatolia to become Armenians.:lol:

So, explain me why do Armenians have so little R1a? Did the Balkan people test for Y chromosome and just send the ones without R1a to Anatolia to ensure that not Indo-Europeans but only Indo-Europeanized Balkans migrate ?
Why do Assyrians have more R1a than Armenians?

http://twitter.com/#!/khborges/status/132903332254720000/photo/1/large
From that figure, it looks like Armenians have more haplogroup G, I2 and J2, while Assyrians have more R1a, R1b and T.

Why is it so hard to imagine that I2 and E-V13 are from the MidEast? Just because Assyrians don't have it?;)



Whatever happened and however the Armenian language was brought over to south of the Caucasus, the Indo-European Armenians (when they still had significant Indo-European ancestry), were probably not significant enough in numbers to influence the local population of Urartu on a genetic level.

Armenians as an ethnic group, however, don't have much ancestry from the Balkans, as most of your ancestry is native to eastern Anatolia. But you do have some minor Balkan influences which Assyrians lack.

Please show us individual Armenians that have Y-STR values that fit into the Balkan only to strengthen your claims.



You can worship cows if it makes you happy, that doesn't make you Indo-European on a genetic level.

I'm not disputing that the proto-Armenians had a proto-Indo-European world-view, and I'm not disputing their descent from the Indo-Europeans.

But today, modern Armenians are Christian wogs. You're not really any more Indo-European than your neighbouring "African" Assyrian Semites are Indo-Europeans.

How about that:
Modern Assyrians are Christian wogs. You're not really any more African Semitic than your neighbouring Armenians are African Semites.



You Armenians are what David Anthony described as "elite recruitment"; i.e., the proto-Indo-Europeans spread their language to other people by recruiting them into their language family.
You become Armenian by birth and endogamy is common in Armenians...

PBachman
2012-02-08, 23:36
Jesus Christ! There's more than four hundred words' worth of ad hominems in there!

That holds even if you remove the words that aren't real, namely "psuado-scienific", "schalors", "methodolies", "psuado-scientist", "psuado-science", "odasity", and "marginized".

Right and your buddy EA is real "objective" with his use of words. Those are spelling errors; please don't act like a two year old.

Humanist
2012-02-08, 23:46
Humanist,

Is there any data on the proportion of Armenian J1 that is part of the P58 subclade, in comparison to Assyrians?

From August, 2010. All data from Chiaroni et al., save for the Armenian data (FTDNA), and "Humanist" Assyrian data (FTDNA and SMGF).

Population (n=) J1(total) J1* J1c3

Sudan (Khartoum)(35) 74.29% 0.00% 74.29%
Yemen(62) 72.58% 4.84% 67.74%
Bedouin Negev(28) 67.86% 3.57% 64.29%
Ismaili Damascus(51) 58.82% 0.00% 58.82%
Qatar(72) 58.33% 1.39% 56.94%
Jordan(76) 48.68% 0.00% 48.68%
Sunni Hama(36) 47.22% 2.78% 44.44%
Oman(121) 38.02% 0.83% 37.19%
UAE(164) 34.76% 0.00% 34.76%
Saudi Arabia(12) 33.33% 0.00% 33.33%
Palestine(49) 32.65% 0.00% 32.65%
Alawites Syria(45) 26.67% 0.00% 26.67%
Iraq (Nassiriya)(56) 26.79% 1.79% 25.00%
Ethiopia Amhara(48) 29.17% 8.33% 20.83%
Egypt(147) 21.09% 1.36% 19.73%
Sudan-Arabic(35) 17.14% 0.00% 17.14%
Sednaya Syriac Catholic(14) 14.29% 0.00% 14.29%
Galilee Druze(172) 13.37% 1.16% 12.21%
Druzes Djebel Druze(34) 14.71% 2.94% 11.76%
Assyrians(114) 16.67% 10.53% 6.14%
Assyrians(Humanist)(52) 15.38% 11.54% 3.85%
Armenians(FTDNA)(~200) 13.00% 8.40% 4.60%
Syrian Catholic Damascus(42) 9.52% 0.00% 9.52%
Iran(15) 11.33% 2.67% 8.67%
Kurds Iraq(93) 11.83% 4.30% 7.53%
Turkey(523) 8.99% 3.06% 5.93%
Ma'loula Aramaean(44) 6.82% 4.55% 2.27%
Sudan-Nilo-saharan(61) 4.92% 3.28% 1.64%
Ethiopia Oromo(78) 2.56% 2.56% 0.00%

Edit: Note also the Ma'loula "Aramaeans." J1* > J1-P58. And J1 is not at all that abundant. Just like Palestinian Christians. The same for Druze, Iraqi Jews and Iranian Jews.

PBachman
2012-02-09, 00:01
Ashamed to be wog? What's so inflammatory about it anyway? I used to describe my phenotype as "Classical Wog" in my forum profile. I see no problem with it.

Even your use of wog is wrong:


Wog or Pog is a slang word with a number of meanings, sometimes considered derogatory and, in some instances, offensive when used in relation to ethnicity. The term is essentially used differently within the UK and Australian context: in the United Kingdom, historically it referred to "dark skinned" people and in its modern usage is considered overtly racist and is not used in polite conversation; while in Australian English the term was originally a pejorative for migrants of the 'Mediterranean,' though in recent decades its offensiveness has been defused in certain contexts by common usage in pop-culture produced by the descendants of Mediterraneans.



Not true, because Semitic isn't the same language family as Indo-European, and our genetic profile fits ten thousand times better as the parent population of the Palestinians, Bedouins, Jews, Eritreans etc., whereas your Assyroid genetic profile is totally incompatible as a descendant of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

First, semitic is not an IE language. Second, I don't care where the Assyrian genetic profile fits as long as it is not in Anatolia, as it is idiotic to assume that the various natives of Anatolia (i.e. Hitties, Haittians, and Hurrians) had any relationship to Semitics or Afro-Asiatics because it has been established that no population of Anatolia include the Sumerians that emigrated south did not have any semitic or afro-asiatic language or a proto-semitic or proto-afro-asiatic for that matter. You seem to not understand this and continually like a broken record you keep on citing the fact that Assyrians and Armenians share a genetic profile because they come from this "proto-semitic" or "proto-asiatic" mythical origin in Anatolia, when it is proven that Assyrian absorbed much of the Hurrian culture, identiy, and genes. Furthermore, it could even be the case that any older overlap in any area is due to the Semitic expansion that absorbed Sumerian population, culture, language, and genes. This does not imply anything close to your retarded and grandious make-believe fantasy narrative of a Pan-Assyrian origin in Anatolia and that this population is somehow the primordial clay of everyone in the world.

Furthermore, suppose this fantasy make-believe proto-population existed in Anatolia they would not be "Assyrian". These populations predate the Assyrian ethno-genesis. It would like claiming Hurrians are Armenians, when in fact, Armenians are not one and the same as Hurrians, rather, Armenians, if anything, are the amalgam of the Hittites, Hurrians, and Haittians. As the Hitties took from the Haitians, as well as the Hurrians. Hurrians ruled Hittites for some time and you see an Indo-Aryan ruling class in the later Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni. The developed to this point was not one of "langauge displacement"; it was a continuation of various populations that took from one another various things. It would be incorrect to label these indegenous populations of Anatolias as stemming from "Armenians". You on the other hand are doing this. You are taking a population that pre-date Assyrians by your own constructed timeline and placing an Assyrian stamp on it.


Just because you Armenians aren't descendants of the proto-Indo-Europeans, that doesn't mean we Assyrians aren't descendants of the proto-Semites. Humanist posted this earlier in the thread, look at highest variance:

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/fig_tab/ejhg2009166t1.html#figure-title

^^ That's why we Assyrians are the parent population of all Semitic speakers, among many other reasons.

I don't think you understand what you're saying. I'm not contradicting myself. I'm saying proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East (which it did according to linguistic paleontology; disprove this and then I'll shut up, until then you have no case).

Look I don't care where the Afro-Asiatics originated from, but it was not in Northern Mespothemia or anywhere in Anatolia. The Proto-Semites migrated later into Nothern Mespothemia wherever their origin is. I have proven this to you. You could just go to "wikipedia.com" and google Sumerian, Hurrian, Haittian, and Hittite. You don't need much to understand that you are trying to paint a very pro-Assyrian label on populations that, first and foremost, have no ties to Semites or Afro-Asiatics, and second, pre-date Assyrian ethno-genesis.


Who are these "schalors" and how did they reach this conclusion using what kind of genetic methodology?

I don't have access to my library, but I am done providing sources for you. It does not matter, as you brush them off as "psuado-science". Everything that does not suit your agenda is deemed "psuado". I am not arguing with you. I already proved that:

(1) IE origins in Anatolia is more possible than Kurgen.

(2) Your theory is BS


Dude, I'm serious: if you're going to continue spelling like a 14 year old dipshit, I'm going to ban you. You can't be this stupid to not know it's spelled pseudo, not "psuado". Are you playing dumb or trolling?

If you want me to "stop", you should disprove me by using logical evidence and valid arguments. Giving me orders like that leads you nowhere. Prove to me that Afro-Asiatic does not have a linguistic palaeontology profile that matches with the Near East. Prove to me that the Armenian language has a longer history in eastern Anatolia than Afro-Asiatic does. Prove to me that Elamite, Sumerian, Caucasian and Kartvelian have no connection whatsoever with proto-Afro-Asiatic, and I'll shut the fuck up.

But if you can't do that, then you're going to have to accept the facts sooner or later, and the facts are not taking your side.

It's spelled audacity, you dumbass.

Kids these days...

What does "basic regression" have to do with Indo-European theories? Please enlighten me.

I don't care. You are an idiot. Don't reply to my post and please, lets learn to agree to disagree.

Humanist
2012-02-09, 01:22
Why is it so hard to imagine that I2 and E-V13 are from the MidEast? Just because Assyrians don't have it? ;)

I2 has not been observed in Assyrians. E-V13, however, has. Including forum member, Sargon999. One of the four Iraqi Mandaeans is E-V13.

From a thread I created on DNA-Forums.

Y-DNA I in Near East "minority" groups:


PopID N I Language Source
Druze__ 751 0% Semitic Arabic Behar et al., Flores et al., Al-Zahery et al., Shlush et al.
PlChris 44 0% Semitic Arabic Fernandes et al.*
Alawi 104 2% Semitic Arabic Donbak et al.*
Assyr 79 0% Semitic Aramaic FTDNA, 23andMe (Pred. “Nestorian”)
NIqJ 99 1% Semitic Hebrew/Aramaic Nebel et al.*
IraqJ 79 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
IranJ 49 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
Armen 413 3% Indo-European Armenian Hererra et al.
GrkOrt 59 3% Semitic Arabic Haber et al.
Maron 196 5% Semitic Arabic/Aramaic Haber et al.
YemeJ 74 0% Semitic Hebrew/Arabic Behar et al.
Bakht 46 9% Indo-Iranian (IE) Luri Roewer et al.*
S_Tlsh 18 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.*
Gilak 43 2% Indo-Iranian (IE) Gilaki Roewer et al.*
Mazan 46 4% Indo-Iranian (IE) Mazandarani Roewer et al.*
N_Tlsh 43 5% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.*
* Based on STRs. See DMXX's (Humata) Roewer et al. thread (http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/11626-iranian-minority-y-dna/) (on DNA-Forums)

Breakdown of Iranian minority Y-DNA I, based on data provided in the thread referred to immediately above:

Bakhtiari I1-M253 - 8.7%
Gilaki I1-M253 - 2.3% (1/43)
Mazandarani I2-M438 - 4.4% (2/46)
North Talysh I1-M253 - 4.7% (2/43)
South Talysh 0

Breakdown of Herrera Armenians (62% from Gardman):

I2a2a-M223 – 0.5% (2/413)
I2-M438 – 2.7% (11/413)

Breakdown of FTDNA Armenian Y-DNA I men. Not included in frequency.

I2c* P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416- 3.7%
I2a2a3* P78+ 0.8%
I2a2a M223+ branch unknown 0.5%
I2a1b1* M423+ L69.2+ P41.2- 0.3%

FTDNA Armenian (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=results) frequency, as of November 2011, stood at 5%.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Map_Middle_East_I-1.jpg

New data, from Bertoncini et al.

Y-DNA I frequencies in Tats and Mountain Jews of Dagestan

Tats 0% (0/20)
M Jews ~5% (1/19) The lone Y-DNA I man was I2b1 (I2a2a-M223?)

Palisto
2012-02-09, 01:47
From August, 2010. All data from Chiaroni et al., save for the Armenian data (FTDNA), and "Humanist" Assyrian data (FTDNA and SMGF).

Population (n=) J1(total) J1* J1c3

Sudan (Khartoum)(35) 74.29% 0.00% 74.29%
Yemen(62) 72.58% 4.84% 67.74%
Bedouin Negev(28) 67.86% 3.57% 64.29%
Ismaili Damascus(51) 58.82% 0.00% 58.82%
Qatar(72) 58.33% 1.39% 56.94%
Jordan(76) 48.68% 0.00% 48.68%
Sunni Hama(36) 47.22% 2.78% 44.44%
Oman(121) 38.02% 0.83% 37.19%
UAE(164) 34.76% 0.00% 34.76%
Saudi Arabia(12) 33.33% 0.00% 33.33%
Palestine(49) 32.65% 0.00% 32.65%
Alawites Syria(45) 26.67% 0.00% 26.67%
Iraq (Nassiriya)(56) 26.79% 1.79% 25.00%
Ethiopia Amhara(48) 29.17% 8.33% 20.83%
Egypt(147) 21.09% 1.36% 19.73%
Sudan-Arabic(35) 17.14% 0.00% 17.14%
Sednaya Syriac Catholic(14) 14.29% 0.00% 14.29%
Galilee Druze(172) 13.37% 1.16% 12.21%
Druzes Djebel Druze(34) 14.71% 2.94% 11.76%
Assyrians(114) 16.67% 10.53% 6.14%
Assyrians(Humanist)(52) 15.38% 11.54% 3.85%
Armenians(FTDNA)(~200) 13.00% 8.40% 4.60%
Syrian Catholic Damascus(42) 9.52% 0.00% 9.52%
Iran(15) 11.33% 2.67% 8.67%
Kurds Iraq(93) 11.83% 4.30% 7.53%
Turkey(523) 8.99% 3.06% 5.93%
Ma'loula Aramaean(44) 6.82% 4.55% 2.27%
Sudan-Nilo-saharan(61) 4.92% 3.28% 1.64%
Ethiopia Oromo(78) 2.56% 2.56% 0.00%

Edit: Note also the Ma'loula "Aramaeans." J1* > J1-P58. And J1 is not at all that abundant. Just like Palestinian Christians. The same for Druze, Iraqi Jews and Iranian Jews.

What about the Caucasus?

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Languages-and-genes-in-North-Caucasus_Dagestan.jpg

Haplogroup J1*-M267(xP58) comprised 44–99% of the Avar, Dargins, Kaitak, Kubachi, and Lezghins (South-East Caucasus, Dagestan linguistic group).

That looks like an epicenter of J1* to me. Almost all Caucasian people with J1 are J1* (99.16%).

How about J1 originated in the Southeat Caucasus and moved South from there?

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 17:55 ----------


I2 has not been observed in Assyrians. E-V13, however, has. Including forum member, Sargon999. One of the four Iraqi Mandaeans is E-V13.

From a thread I created on DNA-Forums.

Y-DNA I in Near East "minority" groups:


PopID N I Language Source
Druze__ 751 0% Semitic Arabic Behar et al., Flores et al., Al-Zahery et al., Shlush et al.
PlChris 44 0% Semitic Arabic Fernandes et al.*
Alawi 104 2% Semitic Arabic Donbak et al.*
Assyr 79 0% Semitic Aramaic FTDNA, 23andMe (Pred. “Nestorian”)
NIqJ 99 1% Semitic Hebrew/Aramaic Nebel et al.*
IraqJ 79 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
IranJ 49 0% Semitic Hebrew Behar et al.
Armen 413 3% Indo-European Armenian Hererra et al.
GrkOrt 59 3% Semitic Arabic Haber et al.
Maron 196 5% Semitic Arabic/Aramaic Haber et al.
YemeJ 74 0% Semitic Hebrew/Arabic Behar et al.
Bakht 46 9% Indo-Iranian (IE) Luri Roewer et al.*
S_Tlsh 18 0% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.*
Gilak 43 2% Indo-Iranian (IE) Gilaki Roewer et al.*
Mazan 46 4% Indo-Iranian (IE) Mazandarani Roewer et al.*
N_Tlsh 43 5% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.*
* Based on STRs. See DMXX's (Humata) Roewer et al. thread (http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/11626-iranian-minority-y-dna/) (on DNA-Forums)

Breakdown of Iranian minority Y-DNA I, based on data provided in the thread referred to immediately above:

Bakhtiari I1-M253 - 8.7%
Gilaki I1-M253 - 2.3% (1/43)
Mazandarani I2-M438 - 4.4% (2/46)
North Talysh I1-M253 - 4.7% (2/43)
South Talysh 0

Breakdown of Herrera Armenians (62% from Gardman):

I2a2a-M223 – 0.5% (2/413)
I2-M438 – 2.7% (11/413)

Breakdown of FTDNA Armenian Y-DNA I men. Not included in frequency.

I2c* P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416- 3.7%
I2a2a3* P78+ 0.8%
I2a2a M223+ branch unknown 0.5%
I2a1b1* M423+ L69.2+ P41.2- 0.3%

FTDNA Armenian (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=results) frequency, as of November 2011, stood at 5%.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Map_Middle_East_I-1.jpg

New data, from Bertoncini et al.

Y-DNA I frequencies in Tats and Mountain Jews of Dagestan

Tats 0% (0/20)
M Jews ~5% (1/19) The lone Y-DNA I man was I2b1 (I2a2a-M223?)

Thanks, Humanist.
So, the Middle East has I frequency between 0-10%. Kurds have 10% haplogroup I based on my own summary (N=370). Haplogroup I seem to correlate with IE people.

Humanist
2012-02-09, 02:12
What about the Caucasus?

It was the combination of J1* and R-M269. The Lezgins of Dagestan, according to Balanovsky et al., have a R-M269 frequency of ~30%. The Tats of Dagestan, according to Bertoncini et al., have a R-M269 frequency of 25%. Though, the Tat sample was fairly small (N=20).

Yes. It is possible J1 originated in the Caucasus.

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 21:16 ----------



Thanks, Humanist.
So, the Middle East has I frequency between 0-10%. Kurds have 10% haplogroup I based on my own summary (N=370). Haplogroup I seem to correlate with IE people.

Yes. The Levantine Y-DNA frequencies aside, of course. But there there can be many possible explanations. Without extended haplotypes, and SNP testing, we cannot say much else.

---------- Post added 2012-02-08 at 21:25 ----------

Using the ethnically unidentified Lebanese and Syrian samples from Behar et al. as a proxy for Maronites, Leb. Greek Orthodox, and Alawites, of course, has its limitations, but, if we go by the Dodecad K12b run, the Lebanese and Syrians from Behar et al. have ~4% and ~3% of the"North European" component respectively. Their "North European" may be unrelated (in immediate origin) to the "North European" observed farther east.

We really need to get a few Maronites (and other Levantine minorities) tested and joined up at Dodecad and Eurogenes.

Jaska
2012-02-09, 03:09
So, you are saying that Proto-Indo-European with R1a only came to the Balkans, made all the I2 and E-V13 from the Balkan to Indo-Europeans and then one group of these Indo-Europeanized Balkans migrated with I2 and E-V13 to Anatolia to become Armenians.
What other explanation do you support? What lineage brought the Indo-European language to Armenia? We just have to accept the facts: Armenians differ from many other IE speakers genetically. There really is no other credible option in this case than assume that at every consequent step the language was spread by different haplogroup.


IE origins in Anatolia is more possible than Kurgen.
Weird claim, considering that you haven’t even read the basic arguments for the Kurgan (not Kurgen) theory. How, then, could you disagree with them?

Palisto
2012-02-09, 08:39
What other explanation do you support? What lineage brought the Indo-European language to Armenia? We just have to accept the facts: Armenians differ from many other IE speakers genetically. There really is no other credible option in this case than assume that at every consequent step the language was spread by different haplogroup.

Most IE speakers differ from many other IE speakers genetically, not only Armenians.
If you take the most frequent haplogroups of all IE speakers you have pretty much the haplogroup presence of Armenians.
All the major haplogroups of the IE language families can be found in Anatolia and around: Haplogroup R1a, R1b, R2, J2, G2a, I1, I2, E1b-V13.

The haplogroup frequency patterns observed in IE Europe (West R1b; Middle I; East R1a; South J2, E1b-V13) and IE Asia (R1a, R2, J2) might be explained by genetic drift.

PBachman
2012-02-09, 08:52
Weird claim, considering that you haven’t even read the basic arguments for the Kurgan (not Kurgen) theory. How, then, could you disagree with them?

That is fine, I don't spell check what I write as I am constantly mobile, but let us just accept the fact that we will on agree on the IE homeland. :)

EliasAlucard
2012-02-09, 09:17
You forgot to post the first part of the statement:
"Here's the most recent post on this subject by Ken Nordtvedt: "The I2* cluster is an enigma because overall I2* is probably the strangest haplogroup in Hg I. I2* is generally spread across every quarter of Europe except noticeably light in Scandinavia. I2* has a strong and much older Armenian/Turkish presence and shows up elsewhere in the MidEast/Levant. Because of the bias of our good databases, however, an objective statement of its relative strength across this vast span of territory can not yet be made. But no other subhaplogroup of I is so lacking in geographical concentration. And I2* is old in the time back to its TMRCA --- only being challenged as oldest Hg I clade by I2a1 M26+ Sardinian."

So, I2 is old, very old and present all over MidEast and Europe.I2 certainly is not present all over the Middle East, and that it can be found amongst "Turks" is probably the result of Turkey's assimilation of Balkan janissaries, or it could date back from the days of the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture.


There is no need to explain I2 in Armenians with influx from Europe.There is. It's the only logical explanation that makes sense how Indo-European was brought to Armenia from the Balkans.


So, you are saying that Proto-Indo-European with R1a only came to the Balkans, made all the I2 and E-V13 from the Balkan to Indo-Europeans and then one group of these Indo-Europeanized Balkans migrated with I2 and E-V13 to Anatolia to become Armenians.:lol:Not necessarily all I2 and E-V13, but at least some of them, yes. Why would that be so difficult to believe? You know, men are capable of having daughters who in turn have sons from other males who carry on the lineage/culture of their maternal grandfather.


So, explain me why do Armenians have so little R1a?For the very same reason Armenians have a low frequency of the "north European" component. It correlates with this component, and it means Armenians are not of Indo-European descent.


Did the Balkan people test for Y chromosome and just send the ones without R1a to Anatolia to ensure that not Indo-Europeans but only Indo-Europeanized Balkans migrate ?They obviously didn't know what haplogroups were back then. There are multiple explanations that could explain why Armenians have low R1a and some Balkan haplogroups. It could be that the original proto-Armenians were higher on R1a and that for whatever reason they died somehow and/or were prevented from reproducing with Armenian women in eastern Anatolia, or maybe the aR1ans in Armenia just had a lot of daughters. No one knows why because we're not omniscient.

But what we do know is that the Indo-European proto-Armenians did not have as successful group evolutionary strategy in Armenia, as they did in India. And that's why Armenian Y-DNA isn't all that high on R1a.


Why do Assyrians have more R1a than Armenians?I don't think we do. But it's difficult to say anything about that for now, because we don't have enough Assyrians tested at FTDNA.


http://twitter.com/#!/khborges/status/132903332254720000/photo/1/large
From that figure, it looks like Armenians have more haplogroup G, I2 and J2, while Assyrians have more R1a, R1b and T.There's only one Assyrian with verified R1a (the other R1a is not verified yet), whereas Armenians have ten R1a but a lot more Armenians tested, so that skews the frequencies and makes it seem like R1a is more common amongst Assyrians:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/AssyrianHeritageDNAProject/default.aspx?section=yresults

^^ Armenians probably have some recent minor Slavic ancestry from Russians or something, based on the presence of Z283. To my knowledge, no Assyrian on 23andMe so far has been tested as R1a.


Why is it so hard to imagine that I2 and E-V13 are from the MidEast? Just because Assyrians don't have it?;)I don't have a problem with it actually. As far as I'm concerned, Y-DNA IJ is most likely from Anatolia/Balkans originally, and E-V13 probably came to the Balkans via Anatolia. But I2 has been reintroduced to Armenians via the Balkans, and it was most likely this marker that brought the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia, and it was done by Indo-Europeanised Balkanites from the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, and they probably had partial proto-Indo-European ancestry at the time they moved to Armenia.


Please show us individual Armenians that have Y-STR values that fit into the Balkan only to strengthen your claims.I2 is Balkan.


How about that:
Modern Assyrians are Christian wogs.Sure. The proto-Indo-Europeans were not wogs, and they certainly weren't Christian. Modern Armenians are both Christians and wogs. And that's why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.


You're not really any more African Semitic than your neighbouring Armenians are African Semites.We're certainly not "African", but we are Afro-Asiatic, and we are Semites through and through. Armenians may not be Semites, but they are any day of the week more Semitic than they are Indo-European. Genetically speaking.


You become Armenian by birth and endogamy is common in Armenians...I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is Armenian endogamy has very little to do with descent from and/or to the proto-Indo-Europeans.

Humanist
2012-02-09, 09:40
Why do Assyrians have more R1a than Armenians?

http://twitter.com/#!/khborges/status/132903332254720000/photo/1/large
From that figure, it looks like Armenians have more haplogroup G, I2 and J2, while Assyrians have more R1a, R1b and T.

I spoke to Peter about that chart. The Assyrian frequencies in that visual are a bit old, and appear to reflect the haplogroup frequencies from before I became co-admin of the Assyrian project. There were three participants in the Assyrian project of non-Assyrian origin with R1a. An Indian, a Pakistani, and a Jewish man. One or more of the individuals may have been included in the Assyrian R1a frequency observed in Peter's chart.

Please see here:

"Genetic Testing of Language Replacement Hypothesis in Southwest Asia (http://www.rau.am/downloads/publ.kafedr/episkoposyan_medbiolog/Yepiskoposian_I&C_06.pdf)"
Levon Yepiskoposian, Ashot Harutyunian, Armine Khudoyan
Arya International University, Yerevan
Institute of Man, Yerevan
2006


n=x n=44 n=56 n=215 n=189 n=140 n=90 n=196 n=106 n=72 n=40 n=179 n=106
hgx ARA IRN KRB NRT SNK WST YZD ASR SRN AZR TRK GEO
hg1 22.7% 32.1% 42.8% 22.2% 40.0% 22.2% 27.6% 41.5% 9.7% 7.5% 18.4% 10.4%
hg2 18.2% 7.1% 11.6% 20.1% 7.9% 21.1% 5.1% 0.9% 4.2% 40.0% 44.1% 48.1%
hg3 0.0% 1.8% 5.6% 4.2% 9.3% 3.3% 2.0% 1.9% 2.8% 10.0% 11.2% 4.7%
hg7 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
hg8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
hg9 40.9% 44.6% 30.7% 38.6% 35.0% 36.7% 42.4% 37.7% 54.2% 40.0% 25.1% 30.2%
hg16 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 1.1% 0.0%
hg21 9.1% 14.3% 2.8% 6.9% 2.9% 5.6% 15.8% 2.8% 20.8% 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
hg26 4.6% 0.0% 5.1% 5.3% 5.0% 6.7% 6.1% 15.1% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 3.8%
hg28 4.6% 0.0% 1.4% 2.1% 0.0% 3.3% 1.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.9%
hg29 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 0.0% 1.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

hg3 is R1a1
hg29 is R1a*

From the study:
The distribution of hg3 (R1a1) is also geographically coherent: its highest levels were observed in Turks, Azerbaijanis, and in the southern region of Armenia (Syunik)―11.17%, 10.00% and 9.29%, respectively; the lowest values were revealed among the Iranian Armenians, Assyrians, and Yezidis―1.79%, 1.89% and 2.04%, respectively.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-09, 09:52
Even your use of wog is wrong:No it's not. Armenians are maxxed out wogs.


First, semitic is not an IE language.This is a strawman as no one here has stated Semitic is IE.


Second, I don't care where the Assyrian genetic profile fits as long as it is not in Anatolia, as it is idiotic to assume that the various natives of Anatolia (i.e. Hitties, Haittians, and Hurrians) had any relationship to Semitics or Afro-Asiatics because it has been established that no population of Anatolia include the Sumerians that emigrated south did not have any semitic or afro-asiatic language or a proto-semitic or proto-afro-asiatic for that matter.A good example of your bias and lack of objectivity is that you write Semitic and Afro-Asiatic with small letters, whereas you have no problem writing Hittites, Hattians and Hurrians with a capital letter (as you're supposed to do, grammatically).

So, why should I take you seriously when you say the Assyrian genetic profile doesn't fit in Anatolia? If the Assyrian genetic profile doesn't fit in Anatolia, then neither does the Armenian genetic profile, because they are both very much the same genetic profile. You're too fucking stupid to understand that.

And besides, Assyrian Akkadian has been spoken in Anatolia far longer than Indo-European Armenian has, and the Assyrian demographic presence in eastern Anatolia is much older in the region.


You seem to not understand this and continually like a broken record you keep on citing the fact that Assyrians and Armenians share a genetic profile because they come from this "proto-semitic" or "proto-asiatic" mythical origin in Anatolia, when it is proven that Assyrian absorbed much of the Hurrian culture, identiy, and genes.It's not proven. We don't have a single living Hurrian specimen. It's only speculation that Assyrians and Armenians share a Hurrian component.


Furthermore, it could even be the case that any older overlap in any area is due to the Semitic expansion that absorbed Sumerian population, culture, language, and genes.We don't have any living Sumerians to compare with, nor do we know anything about Sumerian ancient DNA. And in any case, Sumerian though a non-Semitic, non-Afro-Asiatic isolate, at the deeper linguistic level, has a closer relationship with Afro-Asiatic than it does with the Indo-European languages. I've posted sources for this, you are ignoring them.


Furthermore, suppose this fantasy make-believe proto-population existed in Anatolia they would not be "Assyrian". These populations predate the Assyrian ethno-genesis. It would like claiming Hurrians are Armenians, when in fact, Armenians are not one and the same as Hurrians, rather, Armenians, if anything, are the amalgam of the Hittites, Hurrians, and Haittians. As the Hitties took from the Haitians, as well as the Hurrians. Hurrians ruled Hittites for some time and you see an Indo-Aryan ruling class in the later Hurrian kingdom of Mitanni. The developed to this point was not one of "langauge displacement"; it was a continuation of various populations that took from one another various things. It would be incorrect to label these indegenous populations of Anatolias as stemming from "Armenians". You on the other hand are doing this. You are taking a population that pre-date Assyrians by your own constructed timeline and placing an Assyrian stamp on it.1) The Hittites probably did have some minor Indo-European ancestry, but they were in the main, of Hattian ancestry, and Hattian ancestry is closely related with other native Anatolians, like Assyrians and the thoroughly non-Indo-European Armenians. The Hittites were not Assyrians, but they were closely related with the Assyrians on a genetic level. That's why their phenotype has been described as Assyroid. In fact, when I look at Hittite phenotypes, I see a strong, eerie resemblance with one of my uncles.

2) The Mitanni kingdom was at the very heart of Assyria (northern Mesopotamia). Kurds and Armenians claiming descent from this kingdom in an attempt to make the their ancestry seem more indigenously Indo-European, are hilarious. If anything, Assyrians have more of a right to claim the Mitannis.

And in any case, all that's known from the Mitannis is that they had Indo-Aryan names for their deities. We don't really know how proto-Indo-European they were in ancestry at the time, or what kind of Indo-European language they spoke or anything about their genes. And based on modern Assyrians, they had little to no genetic influence on the Assyrians of today. So the Assyrians completely displaced their Indo-Aryan culture and genes in the region. Who knows, perhaps the 1.8% northern European component in Assyrians hails from the Mitanni? Or the Medes? It makes no difference to me.


Look I don't care where the Afro-Asiatics originated from, but it was not in Northern Mespothemia or anywhere in Anatolia. The Proto-Semites migrated later into Nothern Mespothemia wherever their origin is.It was in Anatolia, Mesopotamia or the Levant. Proto-Semitic has its origin in the Middle East, and it was a direct descendant of proto-Afro-Asiatic. The reason why proto-Afro-Asiatic originated in the Middle East is because it simply had to, since when proto-Semitic originated there, it was not done by wheel or horse migrations (people were less mobile back then).


I have proven this to you.You haven't proven shit, and you're too dumb to understand the facts.


You could just go to "wikipedia.com" and google Sumerian, Hurrian, Haittian, and Hittite. You don't need much to understand that you are trying to paint a very pro-Assyrian label on populations that, first and foremost, have no ties to Semites or Afro-Asiatics, and second, pre-date Assyrian ethno-genesis.You have more in common with Assyrians than you're comfortable acknowledging.


I don't have access to my library, but I am done providing sources for you. It does not matter, as you brush them off as "psuado-science". Everything that does not suit your agenda is deemed "psuado".You should at least have some sources from memory.


I am not arguing with you.You're not capable of debating on my level. I'm your superior and you know it :)


I already proved that:You haven't proven shit.


(1) IE origins in Anatolia is more possible than Kurgen.Keep telling yourself that.


(2) Your theory is BSIt's not, and no one in his right and well-informed mind takes the Anatolian hypothesis seriously nowadays. Well, unless they have a nationalist bias.


I don't care. You are an idiot. Don't reply to my post and please, lets learn to agree to disagree.Okay, if that's the attitude, I can do this really easy for you.

Hweinlant
2012-02-09, 09:58
I don't have a problem with it actually. As far as I'm concerned, Y-DNA IJ is most likely from Anatolia/Balkans originally, and E-V13 probably came to the Balkans via Anatolia. But I2 has been reintroduced to Armenians via the Balkans, and it was most likely this marker that brought the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia, and it was done by Indo-Europeanised Balkanites from the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, and they probably had partial proto-Indo-European ancestry at the time they moved to Armenia.


This sounds credible. Asko Parpola has convinced me that late stage Cucuteni must be considered as late Proto-Indo-European speaking (first wave of Indo-Europeanization at non-Steppic Europe).

It also imo is Graeco-Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Armenian) Urheimat. Neighbouring Yamna zone at east slowly formed the Indo-Iranians (direct genetic and cultural decendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans, non-Indo-Europeanized people), while the invaded Cucutenis went through process of Indo-Europeanization and became Graeco-Armenians. Later these people expanded to Anatolia and Balkans.

Similarities between Indo-Iranian and Graeco-Armenian become obvious when the late Yamna is recognized as Indo-Iranian.

Palisto
2012-02-09, 10:00
I2 certainly is not present all over the Middle East, and that it can be found amongst "Turks" is probably the result of Turkey's assimilation of Balkan janissaries, or it could date back from the days of the Cucutenti-Tripolye culture.

There is. It's the only logical explanation that makes sense how Indo-European was brought to Armenia from the Balkans.

There is no need to explain I2 in Armenians with influx from Europe, since Armenian I2 individuals are mostly I2c (P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416-: you can find it here under I2c B (A) 14-24 L596 L597 (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ycolorized)), this haplogroup hardly exists in Europe. I don't think that it came from Europe.



Not necessarily all I2 and E-V13, but at least some of them, yes. Why would that be so difficult to believe?

For a few I2 and E-V13 yes, for most I2 and E-V13 no.




For the very same reason Armenians have a low frequency of the "north Europoean" component. It correlates with this component, and it means Armenians are not of Indo-European descent.

This explanation is not satisfactory at all to explain low R1a frequency.



They obviously didn't know what haplogroups were back then. There are multiple reasons that could explain why Armenians have low R1a and some Balkan haplogroups. It could be that the original proto-Armenians were higher on R1a and that for whatever reason they died somehow and/or were prevented from reproducing with Armenian women in eastern Anatolia. No one knows why because we're not omniscient.

This explanation is not satisfactory at all to explain low R1a frequency, either.



But what we do know is that the Indo-European proto-Armenians did not have as successful group evolutionary strategy in Armenia, as they did in India.

Then, based on your previous explanation Indians should have more of "North European" component than Armenians but they don't. It does not fit that way.




I don't think we do. But it's difficult to say anything about that for now, because we don't have enough Assyrians tested at FTDNA.

There's only one Assyrian with verified R1a (the other R1a is not verified yet), whereas Armenians have ten R1a but a lot more Armenians tested, so that skews the frequencies and makes it seem like R1a is more common amongst Assyrians:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/armeniadnaproject/default.aspx?section=yresults
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/AssyrianHeritageDNAProject/default.aspx?section=yresults

^^ Armenians probably have some recent minor Slavic ancestry from Russians or something, based on the presence of Z283.

Then they should have more R1a...




I don't have a problem with it actually. As far as I'm concerned, Y-DNA IJ is most likely from Anatolia/Balkans originally, and E-V13 probably came to the Balkans via Anatolia. But I2 has been reintroduced to Armenians via the Balkans, and it was most likely this marker that brought the proto-Armenian language to Anatolia, and it was done by Indo-Europeanised Balkanites from the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture, and they probably had partial proto-Indo-European ancestry at the time they moved to Armenia.

I2 is Balkan.

I don't think that I2 is from Balkan, at least not the Armenian I2c, the most common form in Armenians.




Sure. The proto-Indo-Europeans were not wogs. Modern Armenians are. That's why Armenians aren't Indo-Europeans.

We're certainly not "African", but we are Afro-Asiatic, and we are Semites through and through. Armenians may not be Semites, but they are any day of the week more Semitic than they are Indo-European. Genetically speaking.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is Armenian endogamy has very little to do with descent from and/or to the proto-Indo-Europeans.

What do think of the high frequency of ancestral haplogroup J1* in populations of the Southeast Caucasus in relation to Assyrians (see my earlier post above)? Isn't that a sign that Assyrians are Semitized Caucasus people?

Humanist
2012-02-09, 10:20
Would any of the Armenian members be kind enough to translate this article (http://www.aztagdaily.com/?p=49436), on the recent lecture by Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan, at Haigazian University in Lebanon, on the subject of Armenian DNA? The Google Translation leaves much to be desired.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Yepiskoposyan, and his role in the efforts to understand Armenian genetics, see this article, from ArmeniaNow.com: "Armenian genes: Scientist in Yerevan launches a project to reveal genetic history of the nation (http://armenianow.com/news/21032/armenian_genetic_history)"

Peter Hrechdakian presented at Haigazian in October 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_juGljKFc). <-- Link to news coverage of the lecture (in Armenian).

A picture of Dr. Yepiskoposyan, presenting at Haigazian University, on January 23rd, 2012 (from the Aztag Daily article linked to at top):

http://www.aztagdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yebisgobos.jpg

EliasAlucard
2012-02-09, 10:26
There is no need to explain I2 in Armenians with influx from Europe, since Armenian I2 individuals are mostly I2c (P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416-: you can find it here under I2c B (A) 14-24 L596 L597 (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2nosubcladeM170P215/default.aspx?section=ycolorized)), this haplogroup hardly exists in Europe. I don't think that it came from Europe.Where do you think it came from then?


This explanation is not satisfactory at all to explain low R1a frequency.Why not? Do you think R1a originated in south Indians?


This explanation is not satisfactory at all to explain low R1a frequency, either.Why not? Elaborate why you think so. It's pointless to just say it's not satisfactory.


Then, based on your previous explanation Indians should have more of "North European" component than Armenians but they don't. It does not fit that way.They do. Look at Dodecad K12a, Indians have 7.7% northern European whereas Armenians have 4.6%:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0


Then they should have more R1a...Please elaborate why?


I don't think that I2 is from Balkan, at least not the Armenian I2c, the most common form in Armenians.I'd like to see your explanation then.


What do think of the high frequency of ancestral haplogroup J1* in populations of the Southeast Caucasus in relation to Assyrians (see my earlier post above)? Isn't that a sign that Assyrians are Semitized Caucasus people?Could be, but I'd say it's more likely that J1 in general is a case of Assyrians (or Semites in general really) sharing common ancestry with the proto-Kartvelians.

J-P58 is also important in Dagestanis and I don't think they have any Assyrian ancestry, but the Assyrians have highest variation of J-P58 and so it's unlikely that Assyrians are Semitized Caucasians. But for sure, we Assyrians do have a lot of ancestry in common with the Caucasus wogs.

Jaska
2012-02-09, 10:37
Most IE speakers differ from many other IE speakers genetically, not only Armenians.
If you take the most frequent haplogroups of all IE speakers you have pretty much the haplogroup presence of Armenians. All the major haplogroups of the IE language families can be found in Anatolia and around: Haplogroup R1a, R1b, R2, J2, G2a, I1, I2, E1b-V13.
Do you think there are enough R1a1 in Armenians to explain the spread of the IE language? If not, then there must have happened a shift of a lineage carrying the language. That is: it was not R1a anymore when the language arrived in Armenia.


That is fine, I don't spell check what I write as I am constantly mobile,
It cannot be a typo when it is continuous and consistent... ;)

Humanist
2012-02-09, 10:38
Armenians are maxxed out wogs.

The audience in the Peter Hrechdakian video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_juGljKFc) suggests otherwise.

My idea of a "maxxed out wog" is this half Jordanian/half Italian.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0071/0246/1_number_crop_340x234.jpg

Palisto
2012-02-09, 11:03
Where do you think it came from then?

South of Caucasus.



Why not? Do you think R1a originated in south Indians?
No, I think R1a is from Iran.



Why not? Elaborate why think so. It's pointless to just say it's not satisfactory.

You wrote: "It could be that the original proto-Armenians were higher on R1a and that for whatever reason they died somehow and/or were prevented from reproducing with Armenian women in eastern Anatolia. No one knows why because we're not omniscient."

It is not satisfactory because your explanation is a wild guess.




They do. Look at Dodecad K12a, Indians have 7.7% northern European whereas Armenians have 4.6%:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArJDEoCgzRKedGdRbkxKMDdlZkJWc21tdkpldWxwV mc#gid=0
Based on your previous explanation Indians should have more of "North European" component than Armenians but they don't. The Armenian sample sets are different:
Armenian_D has 4.6%, but Armenians (N=18) have 11.1% Northern European.




Please elaborate why?

Humanist explained it already here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=713687&postcount=181



I'd like to see your explanation then.
A comment was left here that is more satifactory:
"The representatives of haplogroup I are mostly designated “I2*” in figure 2. They presumably correspond to the 14 members of “I2c P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416-“ in the project. This separate branch of I2 has only been added to the ISOGG list this year, although Ken Nordtvedt recognized it a few years ago on the basis of STR data. It is especially characterized by DYS490=13. (Other STR figures clearly distinguish it from the above mentioned J1* group with 490=13). This group has been found in various parts of Europe, but it seems to be more common in Armenia than anywhere else. Haplogroup I is found mainly in Europe, but its relationship to haplogroup J points to a Middle Eastern origin. I think the ancestors of I2c could have stayed in the Middle East, when the ancestors of I1 and I2a went to Europe. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/armenian-y-chromosomes-revisited.html)"



Could be, but I'd say it's more likely that J1 in general is a case of Assyrians (or Semites in general really) sharing common ancestry with the proto-Kartvelians.

J-P58 is also important in Dagestanis and I don't think they have any Assyrian ancestry, but the Assyrians have highest variation of J-P58 and so it's unlikely that Assyrians are Semitized Caucasians. But for sure, we Assyrians do have a lot ancestry in common with the Caucasus wogs.

My topic was not J1c3 (alias J-P58) but ancestral J1* in Caucasus people. Almost all of J1's in the Caucasus are J1*, while J1c3 (that is more common in Semitic people) is very rare in the Caucasus, so the gene-flow was more likely from Caucasus to Mesopotamia/Levant.

Humanist
2012-02-09, 11:07
I2 has not been observed in Assyrians. E-V13, however, has. Including forum member, Sargon999.

Speaking of. :) I received this email from FTDNA today.


Family Tree DNA test kit # 217107 was received today.

That is Sargon999.

Palisto
2012-02-09, 11:14
Do you think there are enough R1a1 in Armenians to explain the spread of the IE language? If not, then there must have happened a shift of a lineage carrying the language. That is: it was not R1a anymore when the language arrived in Armenia.

I never said that Armenians are the prototype of the PIE people. I said:"All the major haplogroups of the IE language families can be found in Anatolia and around"

R1a is lower in Armenians but higher in e.g. neighboring Kurds and other Iranians. Frequency does not matter too much (especially in nomadic pastoral societies), it's the SNP diversity that matters more. Based on the few R1a people from that area that got tested, the SNP diversity is relatively high.

Humanist
2012-02-09, 12:04
Two recent papers suggested a principally Near Eastern origin of the Caucasus populations. This does not include Armenians.

I am not as convinced by the data. We need better coverage, and more thorough testing. But, it certainly is a possibility.

1.

The Caucasus as an asymmetric semipermeable barrier to ancient human migrations (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/13/molbev.msr221.abstract)

Yunusbayev et al.
Mol Biol Evol (2011) doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr221

Abstract


The Caucasus, inhabited by modern humans since the Early Upper Paleolithic and known for its linguistic diversity, is considered to be important for understanding human dispersals and genetic diversity in Eurasia. We report a synthesis of autosomal, Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation in populations from all major subregions and linguistic phyla of the area. Autosomal genome variation in the Caucasus reveals significant genetic uniformity among its ethnically and linguistically diverse populations, and is consistent with predominantly Near/Middle Eastern origin of the Caucasians, with minor external impacts. In contrast to autosomal and mtDNA variation, signals of regional Y chromosome founder effects distinguish the eastern from western North Caucasians. Genetic discontinuity between the North Caucasus and the East European Plain contrasts with continuity through Anatolia and the Balkans, suggesting major routes of ancient gene flows and admixture.

2.

Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126.short?rss=1)

Balanovsky et al.
Mol Biol Evol (2011) doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr126

A bit from the conclusion:


We conclude that the Caucasus gene pool originated from a subset of the Near Eastern pool due to an Upper Paleolithic (or Neolithic) migration, followed by significant genetic drift, probably due to isolation in the extremely mountainous landscape. This process would result in the loss of some haplogroups and the increased frequency of others. The Caucasus meta-population underwent a series of population (and language) splits. Each population (linguistic group) ended up with one major haplogroup from the original Caucasus genetic package, while other haplogroups became rare or absent in it. The small isolated population of the Kubachi, in which haplogroup J1*-M267(xP58) became virtually fixed (99%, Table 2), exemplifies the influence of genetic drift there. During population differentiation, haplotype clusters within haplogroups emerged and expanded, often becoming population specific. The older clusters became characteristic of groups of populations. Many younger clusters were specific to individual populations (typically speaking different languages).

A DNA Tribes Digest (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2010-10-28.pdf), from October 2010, based on autosomal STR data, suggested the same:


The largest single genetic contribution of 49.9% identified was from the Mesopotamian region that characterizes populations of eastern Anatolia and northern Southwest Asia, associated with the development of early urban civilizations. This is consistent with Georgia’s geographical location near eastern Anatolia and suggests the possibility of ancient contacts with populations of the Fertile Crescent.

From a couple of posts of mine, on another forum, on the general topic:

1.

I prepared the attachment, a PC scatter diagram based on the Balanovsky Y-DNA frequencies for all Caucasian populations, Armenians (FTDNA), and Assyrians (FTDNA, 23andMe, and SMGF), last week, for my friend, the Armenian DNA Project admin, Peter Hrechdakian. I had been meaning to prepare the plot, since I found a few cases of J1* w/ DYS438=11 in Balanovsky's paper, but only got around to it recently. The DYS438=11 value in J1* men is exceedingly infrequently observed in J1* men w/DYS388=13. I have marked the DYS438=11 populations on the plot. The central location of the Armenians and Assyrians on the PCA plot, relative to the Caucasian populations, might lend support to the conclusions in Balanovsky et al.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Caucasus_Anatolia_Mesopotamia.jpg

2.

They [Caucasus peoples] are not Middle Easterners [as the meaning is understood by most today]. At least not genetically. It is apparent their Y-DNA lines entered the Caucasus (assuming origins external), when the Near East was a much different place. They barely have any of the "Southwest Asian" component. And, as Dienekes has demonstrated, the "Southwest Asian" component quite clearly correlates with Semitic languages and Arabian influence when it exceeds a certain quantity. [Not so certain about this. See the Cypriot Dodecad values.]

Another scatter plot based on y-DNA frequencies I prepared for a few populations, including a number of Christian ME populations from Haber et al. The Caucasians were not included, but knowing their major haplogroups (J1*, J2a*, J2a4b*, etc.), their placement would likely be consistent with geography. Which is to say, outside the grey (Middle East, Semitic-speaking) region.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/y-dna_ME_scatter21.jpg

Jaska
2012-02-09, 18:15
I never said that Armenians are the prototype of the PIE people. I said:"All the major haplogroups of the IE language families can be found in Anatolia and around"
Yes, but what do you want to say by this? That all these haplogroup together could have carried the IE language to Armenia?


R1a is lower in Armenians but higher in e.g. neighboring Kurds and other Iranians. Frequency does not matter too much (especially in nomadic pastoral societies), it's the SNP diversity that matters more. Based on the few R1a people from that area that got tested, the SNP diversity is relatively high.
Yes, but lineage is even more important than diversity: if the few R1a1 are not derivable from the same area and do not represent the same subhaplogroup, then they have dropped in secondarily. Diversity is valid only when we assess the descendants of the same founder haplotype; it is pointless to measure the diversity of few tip-branches only, if they are too remote to have been differentiated within a certain population and time-frame.

Like, there is no point to measure a diversity of R1 in Armenians just because they have both R1a and R1b, for we know that the differentiation of R1 did not happen in Armenia.

Ardi
2012-02-09, 18:59
Would any of the Armenian members be kind enough to translate this article (http://www.aztagdaily.com/?p=49436), on the recent lecture by Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan, at Haigazian University in Lebanon, on the subject of Armenian DNA? The Google Translation leaves much to be desired.

For those unfamiliar with Dr. Yepiskoposyan, and his role in the efforts to understand Armenian genetics, see this article, from ArmeniaNow.com: "Armenian genes: Scientist in Yerevan launches a project to reveal genetic history of the nation (http://armenianow.com/news/21032/armenian_genetic_history)"

Peter Hrechdakian presented at Haigazian in October 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_juGljKFc). <-- Link to news coverage of the lecture (in Armenian).

A picture of Dr. Yepiskoposyan, presenting at Haigazian University, on January 23rd, 2012 (from the Aztag Daily article linked to at top):

http://www.aztagdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/yebisgobos.jpg


Organized by the Department of Armenolgy at Haigazian University, Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan lectures on the physical distinctiveness of the Armenian populations of Van, Gardman and the Ararat Valley as an uniform ethnic group

By the organized initiative of the Department of Armenology at Haigazian University, a lecture attended by students and figures of science and academia was presented in the school auditorium at 7 PM, Monday, January 23rd.

On behalf of the university’s Armenological department, Armen Yurneshlyan welcomed the attendees and introduced the evening’s speaking Dr. Prof. Levon Yepiskoposyan in a concise manner. Yurneshlyan provided the lecturer’s academic credentials and achievements, recognizing the guest as the expert author of numerous monographs and studies on the genetics and related biological aspects of the Armenian ethnic population. He underlined that Dr.Yepiskoposyan has been honored by much professional praise and numerous prestigious prizes. He then ceded the floor to the speaker.

Aided by slides and lasting over an hour, the facts regarding the genetic geneology of the Armenian people, especially the population of the occupied Western Armenia were presented. Furthermore, the research studies founded upon the results of DNA tests also encompassed the populations of eastern Armenia, central Iran ( New Julfa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Julfa)- A.) and the Mountainous Republic of Artsakh.

Dr. Yepiskoposyan revealed that the work conducted by him and his colleagues intends to confute the baseless circulating discords and the unfounded questions on whether the Armenians are a native people, or if have they come from the Balkans. “Time flows to our disadvantage”, highlighted the compatriot professor, remarking that the Armenian people have over 100 distinct dialects and hundreds of further sub-dialectal varieties. Dr. Yepiskoposyan added that the Houshamadyan (http://www.houshamadyan.org/) project, dedicated specifically to the chronicling of Western Armenian history, has already been underway for two years now.

Speaking about the Armenia DNA Project, professor Yepiskoposyan disclosed that activities of the program have also provided incite into the origins of Hamshen Armenians and the likelihood of their affinity with the Central Asian (Turkmen) Oghuz. “Have the Central Asian peoples left a trace in our genetic history?”- This and similar question are often propagated in attempts to consider us non-indigenous and newcomers.

"My ancestry is from Gandzak (the cultural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandzasar_monastery) capital (http://www.gandzasar.com/)of Artsakh- A.), which currently falls outside of the borders of the Armenian republic, meaning that at the moment we are unable to conduct genealogical studies there”, Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan continued, giving clear visibility to the fact that Azeri and especially Turkish historians and scientists try to interfere and ban such endeavors by us. Turkey specifically insists on denying the Armenian Genocide because it knows far too well that such a step of recognition will immediately result in further genealogical studies of the occupied regions, something that will yet go on to confirm that the children of the Armenian people are the legitimate descendents of the autochthonous ethnic element of the territory.

“In agreement with the results of our genetic study of Western Armenia, especially pertaining to Sasun, Van and the Ararat valley, the Armenian people have an undeniable past and a history of more than 6500 years on their paternal lands”, underlined Yepiskoposyan, going on to say that such efforts directed at the Kurdish and Jewish populations of central Iran, as well as the Assyrian minority in Armenia are now underway. Studies intended for the regions of Bayazit, Khoy, Syuniq and Alashkert will take place in the near future.

Considering the abovementioned territories, the compatriot scientist called the situation surrounding the Ararat valley “painful and tragic”, reminding everyone that as far back as the 7th century CE, Armenians had already begun to be driven out of the area as result of the Arab invasion. He noted that in the aftermath of the Sumgait massacre, the last Armenian left Azerbaijan in 1997. Professor Yepiskoposyan added that “today, almost no Armenians are left in the Ararat valley. The only remaining native Armenian-populated settlement is the village of Oshakan”.

Our inquiries into eastern Turkey confirm that only a mere 6-7% of the region’s geneologic lineage is truly Turkic. Our evidence goes as far back as the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Azeri scientists have a specific order: to “prove” that the Armenians are not the native people of the region.

In his closing remarks, Yepiskoposyan especially thanked the executive body of the Haigazian University and Dr. Peter Hrechdakian. He then processed to answer questions from the audience.

Palisto
2012-02-09, 20:02
Yes, but what do you want to say by this? That all these haplogroup together could have carried the IE language to Armenia?

No. I am saying that all these haplogroups together have carried the IE language from Armenia to Western Eurasia.

I don't think that PIE people had just one or two Y haplogroups like a lot of people are trying to claim.



Yes, but lineage is even more important than diversity: if the few R1a1 are not derivable from the same area and do not represent the same subhaplogroup, then they have dropped in secondarily. Diversity is valid only when we assess the descendants of the same founder haplotype; it is pointless to measure the diversity of few tip-branches only, if they are too remote to have been differentiated within a certain population and time-frame.

Like, there is no point to measure a diversity of R1 in Armenians just because they have both R1a and R1b, for we know that the differentiation of R1 did not happen in Armenia.

I totally agree here. In other words the roots and maybe a few subclades of those haplogroups (R1a1a, R1b, R2, J2, G2a, I1, I2, E1b-V13) should be present in the area. I have to look into that.

Ardi
2012-02-09, 20:30
A DNA Tribes Digest (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2010-10-28.pdf), from October 2010, based on autosomal STR data, suggested the same:

The largest single genetic contribution of 49.9% identified was from the Mesopotamian region that characterizes populations of eastern Anatolia and northern Southwest Asia, associated with the development of early urban civilizations. This is consistent with Georgia’s geographical location near eastern Anatolia and suggests the possibility of ancient contacts with populations of the Fertile Crescent.

The December 2011 issue of the digest (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2011-12-01.pdf) is on Armenians. It is an impressively complete summary of our current understanding of Armenian ethnogenesis, omitting little if any information. As I have previously stated, there is certainly a Balkan element in Armenians, however it continues to be endlessly exaggerated. The dogmatic adherence to the Thraco-Prygian paradigm also serves to ignore the extensive Armeno-Hellenic ties in historic times, not to mention the undermining of the Armenian presence in the region to obvious political ends. At the risk of repetition, it is the native "Caucaso-Anatolo-Fertile Crescentic" descent of the Armenian ethnos is self-evident and effectively impossible to disprove.


Results in Table 1 indicate genetic links with two world regions: the Mesopotamian region (74.8%); and Aegean (20.1%). The Mesopotamian contribution (74.8%) suggests predominantly autochthonous (local) origins for Armenian populations. This might reflect local roots in Southwest Asia dating (at least) to the period of the Hurrian and Urartian speaking cultures of the Bronze Age and Iron Age. This might also express ongoing links with neighboring cultures, including historically attested Sumerian, Assyrian and Persian contacts.

The Aegean contribution (20.1%) suggests links with populations of Western Anatolia and the Aegean Sea, perhaps dating at least to the Hittite period. Anatolian contacts have included both westward and eastward migrations: westward of Hurrians and other Transcaucasus populations into Anatolia; and eastward of Hittites and other Anatolian populations into the Transcaucasus. Genetic links with Anatolia might have included (to some degree) migrations from the Phrygian kingdoms, thought to have played a role in shaping the Armenian language.

Results in Table 2 indicate two sources of regional admixture in Armenian populations based on SNP data: Caucasus-Anatolian (83.3%) and Arabian (16.7%). The first, Caucasus-Anatolian regional component of Armenian populations (83.3%) is similar to the predominant local Mesopotamian regional link identified based on STR data (see previous section of article) and is consistent with autochthonous Armenian origins in Highland Southwest Asia. The Caucasus-Anatolian component is shared with surrounding populations of the Caucasus Mountains (such as Abkhazians), Anatolia (such as Turkey) and near the Iranian Plateau (such as Kurds). In addition, Caucasus-Anatolian admixture is found in populations of the Levantine coast (such as Druze, Samaritans and Jordanians) and as distant as Cyprus, Greece and Romania. The second, Arabian regional component of Armenian populations (16.7%) is consistent with the long history of contacts between the Armenian Highland and Fertile Crescent, including Bronze Age Hurrian migrations between the Levant and Transcaucasus.

However, Armenians are distinguished from Dargins and Lezgins (whose Northeast Caucasian languages are possibly related to ancient Hurro-Urartian) by the absence of Indus Valley and Baltic-Urals components. This suggests genetic differences between these Northeast Caucasians and the ancestors of Armenians (including any ancestral Hurro-Urartian speaking populations). In addition, the absence of substantial Atlantic European admixture distinguishes Armenians from Greek, Romanian and Bulgarian populations of the Balkan Peninsula. This suggests that direct gene flow from Europe is not greater in Armenians than in neighboring populations. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent with possible Armenian ancestry from Phrygian kingdoms (whose Phrygian language might have been adopted by indigenous Anatolian populations that later moved into the Transcaucasus).

annihilus
2012-02-09, 20:49
Didn't I tell you that you come from further south?

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/ermeniler.jpg

Mosov
2012-02-09, 21:32
Didn't I tell you that you come from further south?

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/ermeniler.jpg

From your own source it says Armenians have 94.6% of genetic contribution from Anatolia-Caucasus region...:whoco:

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2011-08-01.pdf

Jaska
2012-02-09, 21:32
No. I am saying that all these haplogroups together have carried the IE language from Armenia to Western Eurasia.
Ahaa, thanks.
But how do you explain away the linguistic results, pointing to the Ukrainian homeland of PIE? And showing that there were earlier other, non-IE languages in and near Armenia?


I don't think that PIE people had just one or two Y haplogroups like a lot of people are trying to claim.
So far the ancient IE-related findings show heavily R1a1... I also think that they may have had several lineages, but if they were not so frequent, they may have narrower distribution, not pan-IE.

ZephyrousMandaru
2012-02-09, 21:42
Two recent papers suggested a principally Near Eastern origin of the Caucasus populations. This does not include Armenians.

I am not as convinced by the data. We need better coverage, and more thorough testing. But, it certainly is a possibility.

1.

The Caucasus as an asymmetric semipermeable barrier to ancient human migrations (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/13/molbev.msr221.abstract)

Yunusbayev et al.
Mol Biol Evol (2011) doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr221

Abstract



2.

Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126.short?rss=1)

Balanovsky et al.
Mol Biol Evol (2011) doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr126

A bit from the conclusion:



A DNA Tribes Digest (http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2010-10-28.pdf), from October 2010, based on autosomal STR data, suggested the same:



From a couple of posts of mine, on another forum, on the general topic:

1.


http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Caucasus_Anatolia_Mesopotamia.jpg

2.


http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/y-dna_ME_scatter21.jpg

For the record, I would postulate that J1* has an origin somewhere between Eastern Anatolia and Northern Iraq. There's still this lingering question of the origins of J*, which has high frequencies in Socotra (70%) and it's also to a much, much lesser extent been found outside of Socotra. It's been observed in Ashkenazi Jews, Omanis, Saudi Arabians, Pakistanis, Czechoslovakians and Greeks and Turkic ethnic groups. So the origins of Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) remain a mystery to me. By the way, do you know if J* has been found in Eastern Anatolia or the Caucasus?

Here's a couple studies I think you might be interesting in.

Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region

Abstract



We analyzed 40 SNP and 19 STR Y-chromosomal markers in a large sample of 1,525 indigenous individuals from 14 populations in the Caucasus and 254 additional individuals representing potential source populations. We also employed a lexicostatistical approach to reconstruct the history of the languages of the North Caucasian family spoken by the Caucasus populations. We found a different major haplogroup to be prevalent in each of four sets of populations that occupy distinct geographic regions and belong to different linguistic branches. The haplogroup frequencies correlated with geography and, even more strongly, with language. Within haplogroups, a number of haplotype clusters were shown to be specific to individual populations and languages. The data suggested a direct origin of Caucasus male lineages from the Near East, followed by high levels of isolation, differentiation and genetic drift in situ. Comparison of genetic and linguistic reconstructions covering the last few millennia showed striking correspondences between the topology and dates of the respective gene and language trees, and with documented historical events. Overall, in the Caucasus region, unmatched levels of gene-language co-evolution occurred within geographically isolated populations, probably due to its mountainous terrain.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126.short?rss=1

http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf

Ardi
2012-02-09, 21:46
Didn't I tell you that you come from further south?

http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu38/ann1h1lus/ermeniler.jpg

You didn't tell me jack squat.

The thing is, you see, upon seeing the the word "Mesopotamia", a normal person would first pick up a dictionary of the English language and see that the phrase literally means "between the rivers". Then this person would find a map of the world and spot the exact place where "Mesopotamia" is written on it. By putting a respective index fingers on the two blue lines labeled "Tigris" and "Euphrates", he would then drag his extended digits all the way up each squiggly line. To his delight, that would take him RIGHT to the middle of the rectangle that says "Armenians" in the picture above. Noting that there are NO geographic barriers anywhere up these rivers, our normal person would happily conclude that people have ALWAYS moved up AND DOWN in those parts.

But sadly, a troll is NOT a normal person, and just because it sees a green rectangle with an arrow symbolizing RECIPROCAL GENETIC FLUX placed aesthetically below a geographic area by an unknowing and innocent graphic designer, it thinks that gives it permission to say any manner of bullcrap it desires.

Mosov
2012-02-09, 22:27
You didn't tell me jack squat.

The thing is, you see, upon seeing the the word "Mesopotamia", a normal person would first pick up a dictionary of the English language and see that the phrase literally means "between the rivers". Then this person would find a map of the world and spot the exact place where "Mesopotamia" is written on it. By putting a respective index fingers on the two blue lines labeled "Tigris" and "Euphrates", he would then drag his extended digits all the way up each squiggly line. To his delight, that would take him RIGHT to the middle of the rectangle that says "Armenians" in the picture above. Noting that there are NO geographic barriers anywhere up these rivers, our normal person would happily conclude that people have ALWAYS moved up AND DOWN in those parts.

But sadly, a troll is NOT a normal person, and just because it sees a green rectangle with an arrow symbolizing RECIPROCAL GENETIC FLUX placed aesthetically below a geographic area by an unknowing and innocent graphic designer, it thinks that gives it permission to say any manner of bullcrap it desires.

His own source showed that Armenians have about 95% genetic contribution from Anatolia/Caucasus area...:lol:

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-d...2011-08-01.pdf

http://moderateleft.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/failedtroll.jpg

annihilus
2012-02-09, 22:34
Yes Mesopotamia, why do you think we deported you to Syria?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Karte_Mesopotamien.png/800px-Karte_Mesopotamien.png

Ardi
2012-02-09, 23:04
Yes Mesopotamia, why do you think we deported you to Syria?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Karte_Mesopotamien.png/800px-Karte_Mesopotamien.png

First of all, get your geography right little wolf cub. This is the Mesopotamian river-system.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Tigr-euph.png

It's all irrelevant to our discussion though- I'm just an advocate of equal education for all species.

To answer your question, because your entirety is nothing but an artificial mass of genocidal illegitimacy.

annihilus
2012-02-09, 23:06
No mate, this about you not being native as you claim.

Ardi
2012-02-09, 23:10
No mate, this about you not being native as you claim.

I'm sorry that it isn't written in "Turkish", but here is what this is really about. Again.


Results in Table 1 indicate genetic links with two world regions: the Mesopotamian region (74.8%); and Aegean (20.1%). The Mesopotamian contribution (74.8%) suggests predominantly autochthonous (local) origins for Armenian populations. This might reflect local roots in Southwest Asia dating (at least) to the period of the Hurrian and Urartian speaking cultures of the Bronze Age and Iron Age. This might also express ongoing links with neighboring cultures, including historically attested Sumerian, Assyrian and Persian contacts.

The Aegean contribution (20.1%) suggests links with populations of Western Anatolia and the Aegean Sea, perhaps dating at least to the Hittite period. Anatolian contacts have included both westward and eastward migrations: westward of Hurrians and other Transcaucasus populations into Anatolia; and eastward of Hittites and other Anatolian populations into the Transcaucasus. Genetic links with Anatolia might have included (to some degree) migrations from the Phrygian kingdoms, thought to have played a role in shaping the Armenian language.

Results in Table 2 indicate two sources of regional admixture in Armenian populations based on SNP data: Caucasus-Anatolian (83.3%) and Arabian (16.7%). The first, Caucasus-Anatolian regional component of Armenian populations (83.3%) is similar to the predominant local Mesopotamian regional link identified based on STR data (see previous section of article) and is consistent with autochthonous Armenian origins in Highland Southwest Asia. The Caucasus-Anatolian component is shared with surrounding populations of the Caucasus Mountains (such as Abkhazians), Anatolia (such as Turkey) and near the Iranian Plateau (such as Kurds). In addition, Caucasus-Anatolian admixture is found in populations of the Levantine coast (such as Druze, Samaritans and Jordanians) and as distant as Cyprus, Greece and Romania. The second, Arabian regional component of Armenian populations (16.7%) is consistent with the long history of contacts between the Armenian Highland and Fertile Crescent, including Bronze Age Hurrian migrations between the Levant and Transcaucasus.

However, Armenians are distinguished from Dargins and Lezgins (whose Northeast Caucasian languages are possibly related to ancient Hurro-Urartian) by the absence of Indus Valley and Baltic-Urals components. This suggests genetic differences between these Northeast Caucasians and the ancestors of Armenians (including any ancestral Hurro-Urartian speaking populations). In addition, the absence of substantial Atlantic European admixture distinguishes Armenians from Greek, Romanian and Bulgarian populations of the Balkan Peninsula. This suggests that direct gene flow from Europe is not greater in Armenians than in neighboring populations. However, this is not necessarily inconsistent with possible Armenian ancestry from Phrygian kingdoms (whose Phrygian language might have been adopted by indigenous Anatolian populations that later moved into the Transcaucasus).

Seriously. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Mosov
2012-02-09, 23:14
No mate, this about you not being native as you claim.

You are such an idiot. Upper Mesopotamia overlaps with Armenian highland in Eastern Anatolia...:whoco::whoco:

Any more attempts at trolling?

annihilus
2012-02-09, 23:19
There is no Armenian highland, that is a stupid way to define geography. It is called transcaucasia.

Lol_Race
2012-02-09, 23:24
No mate, this about you not being native as you claim.
If Armenians aren't "native" (whatever that means), why are they so similar to the Anatolian ancestors of Turks? :unsure: Are Turks also mostly Mesopotamian, with some Central Asian ancestry?

annihilus
2012-02-09, 23:28
similar yes, the same no

Mosov
2012-02-09, 23:31
There is no Armenian highland, that is a stupid way to define geography. It is called transcaucasia.

No Armenian Highland is widely used as a term referring to the ancestral land of Armenians. It encompass much of Eastern Anatolia and South Caucasus.

So annihilus, any more attempts to prove that Armenians are secretly disguised Arabs, that came to the Anatolia region to disturb Turks?? :lol::lol: I love seeing trolls fail...

annihilus
2012-02-09, 23:44
If that is your ancestral land as you claim, then where is your east asian? You missed it because you were further south.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif

annihilus
2012-02-09, 23:53
Sana ne oluyo kiz? It's true isn't it? Where is their east asian? Everybody has it where the Mongols have been but they don't. What probably happened is that the Mongols killed most people there and they repopulated it from the south.

Ashina
2012-02-10, 00:08
I don't know what you mean with 'Mongolian' or if you are referring to 'Turkic peoples' but Armenians are not the only ethnic group without any Asian admix. Other Christian groups like Georgians don't have any Asian admix either. The same goes for the minority ethnic groups in Northeastern Turkey.

Humanist
2012-02-10, 00:21
I don't know what you mean with 'Mongolian' or if you are referring to 'Turkic peoples' but Armenians are not the only ethnic group without any Asian admix. Other Christian groups like Georgians don't have any Asian admix either. The same goes for the minority ethnic groups in Northeastern Turkey.

Ashina. What is the mtDNA distribution of Anatolian Turks? If you know, that is. I posted the below plot a bit earlier. It is a PC diagram based on Y-DNA frequencies. In contrast to autosomal plots, Turks appear to plot consistent with geography (i.e. not east of the Armenians), after rotating the plot (not superimposing and stretching).

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/y-dna_ME_scatter21.jpg

Ardi
2012-02-10, 00:29
As I promised little buddy: Geography/Language/History/Genetics lesson #2

(Because clearly, none were on kemal baba's list of educational priorities.)


A) trans-

[tranz]

1. a prefix occurring in loanwords from Latin ( transcend; transfix ); on this model, used with the meanings “across,” “beyond,” “through,” “changing thoroughly,” “transverse,” in combination with elements of any origin: transisthmian; trans-Siberian; transempirical; transvalue.

B) Cau·ca·sus

[kaw-kuh-suhs]

noun

1.the, Also called Caucasus Mountains. a mountain range in Caucasia, between the Black and Caspian seas, along the border between the Russian Federation, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Highest peak, Mt. Elbrus, 18,481 feet (5633 meters).

2.Also, Caucasia. a region between the Black and Caspian seas: divided by the Caucasus Mountains into Ciscaucasia in Europe and Transcaucasia in Asia.

Therefore, Trans+Caucasus= "across the mountain range called Caucasus".


There is no Armenian highland, that is a stupid way to define geography. It is called transcaucasia.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/ArenTMA/TROLL.jpg


If that is your ancestral land as you claim, then where is your east asian? You missed it because you were further south.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Mongol_Empire_map.gif


Sana ne oluyo kiz? It's true isn't it? Where is their east asian? Everybody has it where the Mongols have been but they don't. What probably happened is that the Mongols killed most people there and they repopulated it from the south.

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/ArenTMA/q.jpg

nakit ödeme canım...

The first wave of Asiatic people to overrun the Armenian Highland were indeed your boys, the Mongols. They came in the 1200s.

I have underwear older than that.

Any uestions? Please don't be shy!


(Apologies to forum members for the length of the post, but visually-based special education must be provided to all in need.)

Palisto
2012-02-10, 00:39
Ahaa, thanks.
But how do you explain away the linguistic results, pointing to the Ukrainian homeland of PIE? And showing that there were earlier other, non-IE languages in and near Armenia?
I don't think that Ukraine is the homeland of PIE, maybe it is the homeland of the late PIE. I don't doubt that Ukraine played a major role in IE history.

70 years ago, Coon (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/10/migrationism-strikes-back.html) made some assumptions (based on skull and pots) about European ancestry. This is his proposed migration pattern:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/SryZSE8IgBI/AAAAAAAACAM/keCfb_yFyAs/s1600-h/troemap2.jpg

What do think is the oldest IE language family in terms of linguistics? Slavonic???

In general, I think that in Paleolithic times there were a lot of small languages around, I imagine a language diversity similar to Papuan languages today. Just by cultural invention and interaction some languages became the lingua franca for wider areas.



So far the ancient IE-related findings show heavily R1a1... I also think that they may have had several lineages, but if they were not so frequent, they may have narrower distribution, not pan-IE.

The problem here is that ancient Y DNA samples from the Middle East are nearly impossible to get (aDNA degrades faster in warmer climate).

Additionally, we know from Central Asia today that nomadic pastoral societies tend to show reduced Y chromosome diversity (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/01/reduced-y-chromosome-diversity-of.html). So 100% R1a in some ancient pastoral Central Asian samples does not mean that the next ancient cemetery in Central Asia shows 100% R1a again, it might turn out as 100% Q or R1b.
Polako observed the same recently and made a post about it, but he claims that it has something to do with male genocides in prehistoric times. Ah, well.

Here is the paper: "Genetic snapshot from ancient nomads of Xinjiang.
...Regarding the Y chromosomal DNA analysis, nearly all samples belonged to haplogroup Q which is thought to be the mark of the Northern Asian nomads. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/01/clear-signals-of-european-admixture-in.html)"

Here is another paper discussing this pastoralism issue:
"Two particularly striking features were seen: an extremely high level of Y-chromosomal differentiation between geographically close populations, accompanied by low diversity within some populations. These were due to the presence of high-frequency population-specific lineages and suggested the occurrence of several recent bottlenecks or founder events. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=12145751)"

Here is another paper discussing it, too.
"We show that in patrilineal herder groups of Central Asia, in contrast to bilineal agriculturalists, the effective number of women is higher than that of men. We interpret this result, which could not be obtained by the analysis of mtDNA and NRY alone, as the consequence of the social organization of patrilineal populations, in which genetically related men (but not women) tend to cluster together. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=18818760)"

Ardi
2012-02-10, 01:04
I don't know what you mean with 'Mongolian' or if you are referring to 'Turkic peoples' but Armenians are not the only ethnic group without any Asian admix. Other Christian groups like Georgians don't have any Asian admix either. The same goes for the minority ethnic groups in Northeastern Turkey.

First of all, allow me to say thank you for engaging in civilized discourse, unlike certain others. By ethnic minorities of Northeastern Turkey, are you referring to Laz Georgians and Hamshen Armenians?

Polako
2012-02-10, 01:08
Additionally, we know from Central Asia today that nomadic pastoral societies tend to show reduced Y chromosome diversity (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/01/reduced-y-chromosome-diversity-of.html). So 100% R1a in some ancient pastoral Central Asian samples does not mean that the next ancient cemetery in Central Asia shows 100% R1a again, it might turn out as 100% Q or R1b.
Polako observed the same recently and made a post about it, but he claims that it has something to do with male genocides in prehistoric times. Ah, well.

You make it sound here like it was a random process, but it wasn't.

Specific Y-DNA lineages are clearly linked to specific cultures, like R1a with Andronovo and Scythians, and Q with North Asia nomads.

So why didn't they mix on the male side after several thousand years of interaction? How come Andronovo skeletons from the Bronze Age show R1a, and so do Andronovo skeletons from the late Iron Age? Where's all the Q?

Clearly, a few guys got knocked over the head when these groups met, and only the women incorporated into the tribes (as we can see from mtDNA).

Palisto
2012-02-10, 01:24
You make it sound here like it was a random process, but it wasn't.

Specific Y-DNA lineages are clearly linked to specific cultures, like R1a with Andronovo and Scythians, and Q with North Asia nomads.

So why didn't they mix on the male side after several thousand years of interaction? How come Andronovo skeletons from the Bronze Age show R1a, and so do Andronovo skeletons from the late Iron Age? Where's all the Q?

Clearly, a few guys got knocked over the head when these groups met, and only the women incorporated into the tribes (as we can see from mtDNA).

But we know Western and Eastern populations mixed in Central Asia, even in ancient times. This is obvious when looking at the mtDNA. It is just the Y chromosome that does not show the admixture, which could be explained with exogamy and patrilocality and it is still common in Central Asia.
This is how Central Asia is:

"Sixteen Y-chromosomal microsatellites and 16 binary markers have been used to analyze DNA variation in 408 male subjects from 15 populations in Central Asia. Large genetic differences were found between populations, but these did not display an obvious geographical or linguistic pattern like that usually seen for Y-chromosomal variation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=12145751). "

Polako
2012-02-10, 01:42
But we know Western and Eastern populations mixed in Central Asia, even in ancient times. This is obvious when looking at the mtDNA. It is just the Y chromosome that does not show the admixture, which could be explained with exogamy and patrilocality and it is still common in Central Asia.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here?

Ancient Y-DNA in Central Asian tribes is closely associated with the culture they practiced, and not just the village or cluster of villages they came from.

So no, if you dig up an Andronovo cemetery in one place, and then another 1000 Kms away, they won't show 100% R1a and 100% Q respectively. They'll both show 100% R1a. On the other hand, a cemetery of Asian nomads not too far away is likely to show 100% Asian Y-DNA.

But, late Andronvo mtDNA is around 30% North Asian, and the ancient North Asian nomad mtDNA around 30% West Eurasian.

So considering we know that these groups were usually very war like, and not too kind to their enemies, how would you interpret these ancient DNA results? Just exogamy, with the women beng swapped peacefully? Or do you think that maybe many of the males were killed, and the best looking chicks taken as prize?

Humanist
2012-02-10, 02:48
Organized by the Department of Armenolgy at Haigazian University, Dr. Levon Yepiskoposyan lectures on the physical distinctiveness of the Armenian populations of Van, Gardman and the Ararat Valley as an uniform ethnic group

By the organized initiative of the Department of Armenology at Haigazian University, a lecture attended by students and figures of science and academia was presented in the school auditorium at 7 PM, Monday, January 23rd.

Many thanks, Ardi. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to translate the entire article.

Good to hear about plans for additional testing of Assyrians in Armenia. The DNA-Forums member DMXX (ABF=Humata), a few weeks back, posted the following, regarding a soon-to-be-published paper on Assyrians:

Harutyunyan A.S. Genetic affinity of Assyrians living in Armenia to different ethic groups of the Near East and South Caucasus. (http://www.molbiol.sci.am/publication.html) Biological Journal of Armenia, 2011, 63(4), 46-50.

Edit: I should have said, soon-to-be-accessible.

Jaska
2012-02-10, 02:56
I don't think that Ukraine is the homeland of PIE, maybe it is the homeland of the late PIE. I don't doubt that Ukraine played a major role in IE history.
But the palaeolinguistic evidence for PIE also consists the Anatolian words for 'horse' and 'wheel' etc. Horse was a steppe animal, and the oldest wheels are from Europe. Such peaces of evidence which Anatolian shares with the rest of IE are very difficult to fit in the Anatolian homeland. And when we take the names for metals and wagon parts, at least the Neolithic Anatolian homeland cannot stand. Bronze Age Anatolian homeland has very serious problems, too, because it cannot explain all the Indo-European branches archaeologically (+ 'horse' and 'wheel').



What do think is the oldest IE language family in terms of linguistics? Slavonic???
Oldest? Anatolian is the oldest branch, as it is seen to split off first.
Most archaic? Greek and Baltic, at least measuring how well and how similar the PIE words have generally preserved their form.


In general, I think that in Paleolithic times there were a lot of small languages around, I imagine a language diversity similar to Papuan languages today. Just by cultural invention and interaction some languages became the lingua franca for wider areas.
Yes, there were many non-IE languages in Europe still 2 000 years ago.



The problem here is that ancient Y DNA samples from the Middle East are nearly impossible to get (aDNA degrades faster in warmer climate).

Additionally, we know from Central Asia today that nomadic pastoral societies tend to show reduced Y chromosome diversity (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/01/reduced-y-chromosome-diversity-of.html). So 100% R1a in some ancient pastoral Central Asian samples does not mean that the next ancient cemetery in Central Asia shows 100% R1a again, it might turn out as 100% Q or R1b.
But the ancient DNA samples are small; modern samples show that the Central Asian populations have preserved even more of different haplogroups than other Eurasian populations.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-10, 03:19
This sounds credible. Asko Parpola has convinced me that late stage Cucuteni must be considered as late Proto-Indo-European speaking (first wave of Indo-Europeanization at non-Steppic Europe).

It also imo is Graeco-Armenian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Armenian) Urheimat. Neighbouring Yamna zone at east slowly formed the Indo-Iranians (direct genetic and cultural decendants of Proto-Indo-Europeans, non-Indo-Europeanized people), while the invaded Cucutenis went through process of Indo-Europeanization and became Graeco-Armenians. Later these people expanded to Anatolia and Balkans.

Similarities between Indo-Iranian and Graeco-Armenian become obvious when the late Yamna is recognized as Indo-Iranian.Yeah:


“If we accept the arguments for some form of expansion from the steppe into Southeastern Europe as sufficient evidence for a Pontic-Caspian homeland, then we must envision the resulting society of the late fourth millennium BC as a hybrid production of native Balkan populations and intrusive Indo-Europeans.”
— J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, p. 243

It could of course be that R1a males brought proto-Armenian to Transcaucasia together with a few I2 males. But that I2 males is found amongst Armenians and so far completely lacking in Assyrians is telling us something. I don't think we'll find Assyrians with I2 because our north European component is very low.


The audience in the Peter Hrechdakian video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_juGljKFc) suggests otherwise.

My idea of a "maxxed out wog" is this half Jordanian/half Italian.

http://cdn.bleacherreport.com/images_root/image_pictures/0071/0246/1_number_crop_340x234.jpgAs opposed to Susianna Kentikian?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Kentikian.png

^^ She looks so Indo-European, with emphasis on Indo :p


South of Caucasus.What makes you think that?



No, I think R1a is from Iran.R1 could be from Iran or further east. But R1a is hardly from Iran.


You wrote: "It could be that the original proto-Armenians were higher on R1a and that for whatever reason they died somehow and/or were prevented from reproducing with Armenian women in eastern Anatolia. No one knows why because we're not omniscient."

It is not satisfactory because your explanation is a wild guess.Well, something has to explain it, and these are of course speculations, but fully possible guesses.

Proto-Indo-Europeans = predominantly R1a for the most part. Probably around 95% or more. They had a very male-centred kinship, in which paternal genealogy was important. And that's why R1a was so dominant in far away early Indo-European descendants such as the Tocharians; R1a was dominant amongst Scythians in Siberia; R1a was dominant amongst proto-Indo-Iranians (which is why you're R1a yourself); R1a is dominant amongst Slavs and exists amongst Scandinavians and so on.

This is not a coincidence; the more R1a scientists find amongst early Indo-European descendants, the less likely it is that the proto-Indo-Europeans had a different male haplogroup.

So something must explain how come Armenians don't have much R1a today and where the I2 in Armenians came from.


Based on your previous explanation Indians should have more of "North European" component than Armenians but they don't. The Armenian sample sets are different:
Armenian_D has 4.6%, but Armenians (N=18) have 11.1% Northern European.Aren't these Slavic admixed Armenians? In any case, 11% is still not enough; the proto-Indo-Europeans certainly had a lot more than 11%. Even Sicilians who are often accused of being the Arabs of Europe, have 12.5% and Greeks have 18.3% of this component. Point is, that we can even find a "north European" component amongst Indians should tell you something. How is it that we can find a "north European" component amongst all Old World Indo-European speakers who aren't considered Nordics at all? And how come a lot of them have R1a?


Humanist explained it already here.
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=713687&postcount=181So what's your position now? Do you still think we Assyrians have a higher frequency of R1a than Armenians have?


A comment was left here that is more satifactory:
"The representatives of haplogroup I are mostly designated “I2*” in figure 2. They presumably correspond to the 14 members of “I2c P215+ L596+ L597+ P37.2- P217- L416-“ in the project. This separate branch of I2 has only been added to the ISOGG list this year, although Ken Nordtvedt recognized it a few years ago on the basis of STR data. It is especially characterized by DYS490=13. (Other STR figures clearly distinguish it from the above mentioned J1* group with 490=13). This group has been found in various parts of Europe, but it seems to be more common in Armenia than anywhere else. Haplogroup I is found mainly in Europe, but its relationship to haplogroup J points to a Middle Eastern origin. I think the ancestors of I2c could have stayed in the Middle East, when the ancestors of I1 and I2a went to Europe. (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/11/armenian-y-chromosomes-revisited.html)"Yes, I2 and even I1 for that matter, probably originated in the Middle East or perhaps somewhere in Anatolia or the Balkans. Perhaps early I1 and I2 men spoke a cousin of proto-Afro-Asiatic? Perhaps they gave the western Yamnaya proto-Indo-Europeans the proto-Semitic loanwords for seven and bull?


My topic was not J1c3 (alias J-P58) but ancestral J1* in Caucasus people. Almost all of J1's in the Caucasus are J1*, while J1c3 (that is more common in Semitic people) is very rare in the Caucasus, so the gene-flow was more likely from Caucasus to Mesopotamia/Levant.Caucasus folks are more like a subset of northern Middle Easterners, so it's highly unlikely that Assyrians are Semiticised Caucasians. Proto-Kartvelian is younger than proto-Semitic, and that we have a younger subclade of J1 than them and J1, as well as J2, indicates that we are the original Y-DNA J people.


Like, there is no point to measure a diversity of R1 in Armenians just because they have both R1a and R1b, for we know that the differentiation of R1 did not happen in Armenia.What do you think of Polako's speculation?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-origins-and-expansions-of-r1a-and.html


No. I am saying that all these haplogroups together have carried the IE language from Armenia to Western Eurasia.This is highly unlikely. The European and Indian genepools, however, are largely derived from the Armeno-Assyrian genepool.

It's unlikely because you can't explain how come R1a is so dominant in Indo-European speakers and how well it matches the distribution of the Indo-European language family in not only Slavs and Indians/Iranians, but also in Scandinavians, Germans, Greeks, Armenians (minor, but it's still there), and Balts, as well as Tocharians and Scythians.

A bottleneck that favoured R1a for some reason could perhaps be a reasonable explanation if we were talking about one Indo-European speaking ethnic group, but it's highly unlikely when we see R1a in almost all Indo-European speakers of the Old World.


I don't think that PIE people had just one or two Y haplogroups like a lot of people are trying to claim.The proto-Indo-Europeans really were for a long time only R1a-M17.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-10, 03:40
OT deleted and OT split moved here (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=28727). Topic is the Indo-Europeanness of Armenians and the possibility of locating the PIE urheimat in Armenia.

//mod

Humanist
2012-02-10, 03:40
As opposed to Susianna Kentikian?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Kentikian.png

^^ She looks so Indo-European, with emphasis on Indo :p

Susianna Kentikian

http://www.etoday.ru/uploads/2007/12/07/susi_kentikian01.jpg

http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/5/df08e5495a10c9a73ea01be16f8c43e4/l.jpg

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/98161015.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921A343B2C87A49D8F5C4296A6BDB94C269 CCD575C5C20047220D1ABDEFB8132117E30A760B0D811297

---------- Post added 2012-02-09 at 22:42 ----------


OT deleted and OT split moved here (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=28727). Topic is the Indo-Europeanness of Armenians and the possibility of locating the PIE urheimat in Armenia.

//mod

Give me a break. There is so much OT, in so many threads, it is not even funny. Thanks for deleting what took me a while to post.

Ardi
2012-02-10, 04:01
Even though the initial speakers of IE were ethnically uniform carriers of certain genetic signals, this insistence on associating a language family with some monolithic phenotype is inconsequential in the contemporary context.

Edit: "Wog" and proud ;)

Humanist
2012-02-10, 08:53
There are many people on this forum who clearly degrade and downgrade us because we are today a small nation, hence disregarding valuable historical information because they look a history through a modern lens, and fail to place it in its proper context.

Like I said before, if anyone is going to debate, do it in a civilized manner. This is not for the Armenians only. I reciprocate the respect to Assyrians, as neighbors.

Thank you. And, point taken. I can certainly see where you are coming from. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on the subject.

From my perspective, and from the perspective of many other non-Armenians, Armenia is indeed special. All people are special, in their own way. But, when compared to many other individual modern populations, understanding the genetic profile of Armenians may contribute significantly more to our understanding of the history of our species. This is not a ridiculous claim. Something I posted on the other forum, and which is also immediately relevant:


I sing his accolades often, but, thanks to the efforts of Peter Hrechdakian, the Armenian DNA project is the most successful FTDNA national project, in my opinion, and of many other folks. So successful, that Peter was asked to speak, recently, alongside such industry "heavyweights" as Spencer Wells (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-9-2010/spencer-wells), at the recent FTDNA administrator's conference. Just in the last year, roughly, from his home in Belgium, in his time off from work, Peter has traveled to Lebanon, Turkey, Armenia, California, Michigan, and Canada, to promote the project, and to hopefully encourage Armenians to test with the project. His efforts have paid off immensely. There is no financial reward from this. In fact, he incurs great financial costs related to his administrator duties. He does it out of his love for his people. So that the story of Armenia, and Armenians, will hopefully, one day, with the aid of genetics, be told, with greater resolution than anyone could have imagined, only a few years ago. Some past words of appreciation (http://www.arslanmb.org/ArmenianDNAProject/ArmenianDNAProject-Feedback.pdf):

Quote:
From: Ted Kandell
Date: 29 May 2010 8:55:35 AM GMT+02:00
To: Peter Hrechdakian <kaylig@skynet.be>, Ray Banks
Subject: Re: Armenian G whom you thought was L
Armenians never cease to surprise!

From: Vasken Andonian
Date: 26 May 2010
To: Peter Hrechdakian
It takes total dedication to embark on such a thankless endeavor as you have with regard to the administration of the project. You should be commended for your youthful enthusiasm for helping Armenians and Armenianism.

From: Bonnie Schrack
Date: 19 May 2010
To: Peter Hrechdakian <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: First J2* found !
The Armenians have shown the greatest diversity of members of such rare, basal lineages of any localized ethnic group so far. This intriguing phenomenon suggests that the earliest population in which the haplogroup J first arose is well represented in the Armenians. It would be valuable to have more participants from other peoples closely related to them and from the areas surrounding their homeland.

Bonnie Schrack, Administrator of the Y-Haplogroup J DNA Project at Family Tree
DNA

From: Bennett Greenspan
Date: 29 April 2010 3:34:05 PM GMT+02:00
To: Peter Hrechdakian <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: Re: Strange Armenian haplotypes
Hi Peter
These unusual samples are wonderful for the database. We love them.
Bennett Greenspan, President, Family Tree DNA

From : Betty Apigian Kessel
To: marslan@nc.rr.com
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:24 PM
Subject: Keghi
Sireli Mark. Thank you for the wonderful work you continue to do on the project. It is so gratifying to have so much information available to us. I applaud you for your dedication. What you are doing is historic and a tribute to our ancestors forever more. I am proud of you.

From: Patrick Movsessian
Date: 14 April 2010 5:55:13 AM GMT+02:00
To: Peter Hrechdakian <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: Re: DNA PROJECT
Thank you for the wonderful information. Your research is truly amazing. I always enjoy communicating with you because you are an encyclopaedia of genetics.

From: "Ray Banks"
Date: 29 March 2010 1:33:19 AM GMT+02:00
To: <HaploGNewsGrp@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [HaploGNewsGrp] Delayed Haplo G Newsletter for 21 March 2010
Reply-To: HaploGNewsGrp-owner@yahoogroups.com
Thanks to Peter Hrechdakian who has been seeing to very complete testing for Armenian men which has added considerably to our knowledge of multiple G subgroups, such as L13.

From: Harout Jamgotchian
Date: 24 March 2010 11:35:00 PM GMT+01:00
To: kaylig@skynet.be
Subject: Re: Interesting results for Y-DNA haplogroup J1*
Seems like it's getting more and more interesting. Thank you so much for your
interest and research in this.

From: Daniel A. Koojoolian
Date: 16 February 2010 4:19:28 PM GMT+01:00
To: 'Peter Hrechdakian' <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: RE: You have a perfect 37 marker match
Dear Peter--- THANK YOU SO MUCH regarding Ken [Andonian] --- Friday night we talked for an 1 ½ hours; it was great--- he is 77 years old; both of us ended up “doing questions and answers “ , and both of us taking lots of notes. I have a new COUSIN(S) he has 3 children and 7 grandchildren --- wow!!!!!—

From: Ken Andonian
Date: 12 February 2010 10:33:22 PM GMT+01:00
To: marslan@nc.rr.com
Cc: kaylig@skynet.be, hovanns@aol.com
Subject: FTDNA Armenian DNA Project
Thank you very much for notifying me of the fact that Dan Archie Koojoolian and I match exactly on all 37 markers. Wow!!! What an exciting prospect! I have already contacted Dan by email and gave him phone numbers where he can reach me. In this connection, I strongly commend you and your co-administrators of the Armenian DNA Project for your untiring efforts to serve fellow Armenians. Abrik!

From: Bob Babigan
Date: 11 February 2010 6:04:35 PM GMT+01:00
To: kaylig@skynet.be
Subject: Re: your complementary DNA results
Thanks for your help and the interest you helped to fan.

From: Eric Martin
Date: 13 January 2010 5:28:37 AM GMT+01:00
To: "'Peter Hrechdakian'" <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: RE: Haplogroup Clade I2*
Absolutely brilliant and so much new info to learn and integrate into my journey….With much curiosity here…

From: Roy J King Jr
Date: 1 January 2010 11:43:52 PM GMT+01:00
To: Peter Hrechdakian <kaylig@skynet.be>
Subject: lack of J1e among Armenians
I was looking again at your fantastic Family Tree Armenian site…
Dr. Roy J. King, Stanford University.

From: Cesar J. Chekijian
Date: 8 December 2008 8:30:58 PM GMT+01:00
To: "Peter Hrechdakian" <p.hrechdakian@unifert.com>
Subject: Jackpot
Peter:This is nothing short of a “Miracle”; my first discovery of a family member through DNA search of a Chekijian who came to USA 120 years ago and changed his name to Emerson…
THANK YOU.

From: Greg Stubbs [mailto:stubbsg@stubbsleone.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:17 PM
To: Cesar J. Chekijian
Subject: RE: J2 - M172, Y -DNA - 12 Market 'Exact Match"
I'm amazed that this gene project produced this result. Sounds like we need to sit down with some good black coffee and paklava.… I believe that the MD you refer to is my paternal grandfather. I have very few written records and most of my information is leftover oral folk history since all the witnesses are now dead. My father was born in 1916 and grew up in LA, attended UCLA and Harvard Business school. He was a captain in the US Army on the general staff of the Third Army, under General Corlett, and died in February 1945 in the Solomon Islands when Third Army headquaters was overrun by Japanese resistance during post-invasion mop-up activities following the retaking of Guadalcanal by US forces. I was originally christened Henry Gregory Emerson. My mother remarried Barry Stubbs in 1946 and I was adopted and name changed to Gregory Emerson Stubbs. My mother was extremely "closed" about her marriage to my father...perhaps out of concern that her marriage to Barry Stubbs be and remain her "first"..the practical result of this "closure" was that Laura Emerson didn't talk much about my dad and in fact I didn't learn of him until I was about 10 or 12.

From: Bob Babigan
Date: 18 November 2009 3:14:50 PM GMT+01:00
To: kaylig@skynet.be
Subject: Re: More documents
My cousin June, the daughter of Elbis (who came with Satinig from Turkey) and I thank you so very much, for all that you've done. I'll pray for your success.

From: Roy J King Jr
Date: 15 October 2009 3:50:08 PM GMT+02:00
To: unifertgroup@skynet.be
Subject: Re: Chiaroni, King et al. - EJHG 2009
I really enjoyed your new Armenian DNA project website. You have an amazing number of members with Y SNP and STR data!
Dr. Roy J. King, Stanford University.

---------- Post added 2012-02-10 at 04:13 ----------


Humanist, yes I did have some quarrel with Assyrians back then. Did you ever see me write anything bad about Assyrians after it blew over?


No. I believe it was limited to that thread, and another. That was several months ago.

---------- Post added 2012-02-10 at 04:29 ----------


http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u277/ArenTMA/q.jpg

And, the handful of cases of Q in Armenians may be unrelated to the relatively recent (< 1000 years) invasions by the peoples from the east.

From the "semipermeable" Caucasus. Data from Balanovsky et al.

(Rounded to nearest whole %)

Q-M242

Circassians: 1%
Ossets-Iron: 1%
Ossets-Digor: 4%
Chechen (Ingushetia): 6%
Chechen (Chechnya): 3%
Avar: 1%
Kaitak: 3%

And, from the Armenian DNA Project:

Armenians: 1%

EliasAlucard
2012-02-10, 09:44
More OT deleted, and discussion about PBachman moved to his ban thread (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=28694).

//mod

Silesian
2012-02-10, 16:13
With the recently published Y-DNA frequencies for the Tats of Dagestan, we can say that, based on all data available, the combination of J1* and R-M269, at relatively elevated frequencies, is found in four locations, in our region (West Asia):

NW Syria
1. Alawite R-M269 data from Dönbak et al. (sampled in Adana, Turkey)
2. Aleppo Syrians of unknown ethnicity J1* from El-Sibai et al.

N Mesopotamia
Assyrians

Armenian Highlands
Armenians

Dagestan
1. Lezgin R-M269 and J1* from Balanovsky et al.
2. Tat (Muslim) R-M269 and J1* from Bertoncini et al.


R-M269. Donbak samples 33%, were taken in Adana Turkey/Anatolia.

Adana:

"According to numerous sources, the name Adana is derived from the Hittite"

"The history of the Tepebağ tumulus in the middle of Adana dates to the Neolithic Period, 6000 B.C., and the time of the first human settlements. It is considered to be the oldest city of the Çukurova region. A place called Adana is mentioned by name in a Sumerian epic, the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the geography of this work is too imprecise to identify its location."

That would explain Felix von Luschan observations;

Professor Felix von Luschan (1911), according to his conclusions from anthropometric measurements, made the Alawites and other Near Eastern religious minorities the modern representatives of the ancient Hittites.[22]


Armenian Highlands R-M269 samples;

"R1b is found in approximately 30% of the Armenian population (mainly as R1b1a2a1 using the current nomenclature), it reaches concentrations of 40 to 45% in Artsakh (Karabagh) and Syunik."

What is also interesting is the close proximity to the Indo-Iranian tribes who also have elevated frequencies of R1b.

S_Tlsh 18 44% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.
Gilak 43 23% Indo-Iranian (IE) Gilaki Roewer et al.
Mazan 46 15% Indo-Iranian (IE) Mazandarani Roewer et al.
N_Tlsh 43 19% Indo-Iranian (IE) Talysh Roewer et al.

The Talysh are considered indigenous to the area;

"Talysh (also Talishi, Taleshi or Talyshi) are an Iranian people indigenous to a region shared between Azerbaijan and Iran which spans the South Caucasus and the southwestern shore of the Caspian Sea. They speak the Talysh language, one of the Northwestern Iranian languages. It is spoken in the northern regions of the Iranian provinces of Gilan and Ardabil and the southern parts of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Northern Talysh (the part in the Republic of Azerbaijan) was historically known as Talish-i Gushtasbi. In Iran there is a Talesh County in Gilan. Anthropologically they belong to the Balkan-Caucasian type of the European race"

"The Talyshi language is a Northwestern Iranian language spoken in the northern regions of the Iranian provinces of Gilan and Ardabil and the southern regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Historically, the language and its people can be traced through the middle Iranian period back to the ancient Medes. "

Roughly 80% of R1b samples, are Adana/Armenia/North Western Iran/ Assyria/ Arbil/Adiabene district.

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=25913

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Map_Middle_East_R1b.jpg

Humanist
2012-02-10, 17:58
That would explain Felix von Luschan observations;
Professor Felix von Luschan (1911), according to his conclusions from anthropometric measurements, made the Alawites and other Near Eastern religious minorities the modern representatives of the ancient Hittites.[22]

Interesting. Thanks for posting that. A photo of Syrian Alawites, below:

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_landing/alawites2.jpeg

You know, speaking of R-M269 and J1*, there are several men in Europe with some old forms of J1* (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/J1_asterisk_Y-DNA/default.aspx?section=yresults). This includes Polish and German men:

116792 Germany
62226 Welnau, Prussia, Poland
N49488 Germany
125412 Germany
187286 Germany
184357 Gramatikovo, Bulgaria
164954 Kavala, Greece
85654 Slovakia
2797 Hungary
181880 Poland
192940 British Isles
N50051 Germany
18215 Martinhagen, Germany
45267 Northern European?

Silesian
2012-02-10, 18:57
Interesting. Thanks for posting that. A photo of Syrian Alawites, below:

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_landing/alawites2.jpeg

You know, speaking of R-M269 and J1*, there are several men in Europe with some old forms of J1* (http://www.familytreedna.com/public/J1_asterisk_Y-DNA/default.aspx?section=yresults). This includes Polish and German men:

116792 Germany
62226 Welnau, Prussia, Poland
N49488 Germany
125412 Germany
187286 Germany
184357 Gramatikovo, Bulgaria
164954 Kavala, Greece
85654 Slovakia
2797 Hungary
181880 Poland
192940 British Isles
N50051 Germany
18215 Martinhagen, Germany
45267 Northern European?

The profile of the man reminds me of this particular piece of Scythian art, showing two men.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/media/39544/Scythian-apparel-consisting-of-tunics-trousers-and-short-boots-detail

BTW I was wondering were your yDNA originated from? Being neither J or R, is it common among Assyrians? Do you have any matches, if so were?

EliasAlucard
2012-02-11, 11:19
Give me a break. There is so much OT, in so many threads, it is not even funny. Thanks for deleting what took me a while to post.I know, sorry about that ahuno, but the thread is in Urheimat Theories for a reason, and we're supposed to discuss proto-Indo-European stuff here. Perhaps you should read some Mallory instead of posting PC game screenshots? ;)


Even though the initial speakers of IE were ethnically uniform carriers of certain genetic signals, this insistence on associating a language family with some monolithic phenotype is inconsequential in the contemporary context.

Edit: "Wog" and proud ;)The proto-Indo-Europeans looked something like a mix of Polako and Brad Pitt (the heavy, maxed out jaws especially). But they were indeed of pretty much entirely R1a-M17 lineage. How do we know this? Well, for one, because R1a matches so well with the geographic expansion of the Indo-European languages, especially the earlier you go back. R1a in "Turkey" could be from the Hittites when they were still somewhat proto-Indo-European and before they were assimilated by the larger Hattic genepool.

And the linguistic evidence supports the dominant and entirely single male lineage of the proto-Indo-Europeans as R1a1a:


“All linguistic evidence suggests that Proto-Indo-European society was patrilineal in descent and male dominated according to that much overworked term patriarchal.”
— J.P. Mallory, In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology, and Myth, ISBN 050005052X, p. 123

^^ So that's one very important reason why Armenians aren't the proto-Indo-Europeans, because their male haplogroups do not consist of a single lineage of entirely R-M17 descendants. And that's also exactly why all ancient DNA from early Indo-European associated cultures are constantly popping up as R1a. The linguistic evidence supports that the proto-Indo-Europeans were a very consciously male-centric, tribal and clan-like ethnic community. It's not like they were tolerant of allowing foreign males to breed with their women. It was resource competition and women were seen as one of many resources they competed over.

OT-split about R1b moved here (http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=28788).

//mod

Silesian
2012-02-11, 18:37
A closer look at the 4000 year old Beauty of Loulan show's that her profile could easily fit in somewhere in South Caucasus/Transcaucasia. Could that include Armenia?

http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_curiosity/2003-12/03/content_44421.htm

She was found around Loulan, West bank of Lop Nur lake.

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



She clearly, does not have Mongoloid features.

Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eskimo_women_and_one_Eskmo_man_Mongoloid_Amer ican_Indian.png

http://www.semp.us/images/Biot665PhotoT.jpg

Could the Transcaucasia be the center of outward migrations?

If mtDNA x2 is used as just one proxy of far our ancestor's could have possibly travelled.

"Sub-group X2 appears to have undergone extensive population expansion and dispersal around or soon after the last glacial maximum, about 21,000 years ago. It is more strongly present in the Near East, the Caucasus, and Mediterranean Europe; and somewhat less strongly present in the rest of Europe. Particular concentrations appear in Georgia (8%), the Orkney Islands (in Scotland), (7%) and amongst the Israeli Druze community (27%). Subclades X2a and X2g are found in North America, but are not present in native Latin Americans."


"Unlike the four main Native American mtDNA haplogroups (A, B, C, D), and the Y-chromosome sub-haplogroup Q1a3a, X is not at all strongly associated with East Asia. The main occurrence of X in Asia discovered so far is in the Altay people in Southwestern Siberia,[10] and detailed examination[4] has shown that the Altaian sequences are all almost identical (haplogroup X2e), suggesting that they arrived in the area probably from the South Caucasus more recently than 5,000 BP."

This statement from Wiki would make perfect sense when looking at the phenotype/profile of the Beauty of Looulan, who looks like she could fit in the South Caucasus, maybe even Armenia.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=news
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=mtresults

If migration of genes came from South Caucasus and ended up in Lop Nur region then why not the also a migration in a Westward direction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EuropoidMaskLopNurChina2000-1000BCE.jpg

For such a archeological/genetic gold mine such an unfortunate fate,

Lop Nur Nuclear Weapons Test Base

"The first Chinese nuclear bomb test, codenamed "596", was tested at Lop Nur in 1964. The PRC detonated its first hydrogen bomb on June 17, 1967. Since 1964, the lake has been used as a nuclear test site. Until 1996, 45 nuclear tests were conducted. The headquarters of the test base is at Malan, about 125 km (78 mi) northwest of Qinggir."

Palisto
2012-02-13, 07:56
R1 could be from Iran or further east. But R1a is hardly from Iran.

I think that R1a is from Iran or at least Middle East because R1a, R1a1, and R1a1a are present in the region. You hardly find R1a in Eastern Europe. The root points to the Middle East.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1928/1or1a.jpg



What do you think of Polako's speculation?

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-origins-and-expansions-of-r1a-and.html

As you can see, Polako puts the starting point of R1a into the Middle East, not Eastern Europe.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9580/r1az283z93.png

In his new post, he is expressing his point of view very visually.



It shows the distribution of ancestral forms of R1a, and basically says all that I've been arguing for the past few years; that R1a originated in West Asia, moved into Europe early after the LGM, via Anatolia, and then expanded from Europe east across the steppe and forest steppe. What this means, of course, is that the often parroted theory that R1a (and R1b) spread to Europe from the Eurasian steppe, is the biggest pile of horseshit to see the light of day as far as the prehistory of Europe is concerned. (http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2012/02/on-origins-and-expansions-of-r1a-and.html)


I agree here with Polako.


Originally Posted by Palisto View Post
No. I am saying that all these haplogroups together have carried the IE language from Armenia to Western Eurasia.



This is highly unlikely. The European and Indian genepools, however, are largely derived from the Armeno-Assyrian genepool.

I don't care if you call it the "Armeno-Assyrian genepool" as long as you realize that the main Y haplogroups of Europe and India are derived from the Middle East (not the other way around), most likely during the neolithic expansion.



It's unlikely because you can't explain how come R1a is so dominant in Indo-European speakers and how well it matches the distribution of the Indo-European language family in not only Slavs and Indians/Iranians, but also in Scandinavians, Germans, Greeks, Armenians (minor, but it's still there), and Balts, as well as Tocharians and Scythians.

A bottleneck that favoured R1a for some reason could perhaps be a reasonable explanation if we were talking about one Indo-European speaking ethnic group, but it's highly unlikely when we see R1a in almost all Indo-European speakers of the Old World.
Pastoralism induces low Y chromosome diversity and thus genetic drift. Pastoralism is the typical culture of the steppes since ancient times.



The proto-Indo-Europeans really were for a long time only R1a-M17.

I don't think so. We have just seen a few ancient bottlenecks in the Eurasian steppes.

Another thing that I realized is that the root of European mtDNA haplogroups can be found either in the Middle East or South Asia.

Data from Ian Logan (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/u5b2_genbank_sequences.htm):

U2a: India
U2b: India, Thailand
U2c: India
U2c1: India, Pakistan
U2d: Jordan
U2e: India
U2e1: India, Caucasus, Italy, Russia
U2e1a1: India, Spain, Portugal
U2e1a1a: Finland
U2e2: Jordan

U3a: Armenian, Azeri, Georgian, Moroccan
U3a1: Canary Islands, Spain, Russian, English, Polish
U3a2: Yemen
U3b: Armenian, Adyghe, Iranian, Indian, Spain
U3b1: Portugal, Italy
U3b1a: Yemen
U3b2: Armenian, Egypt

U4a: Asia
U4a1: Kalash (Pakistan)
U4a1a: Spain, Italy, Poland, Belarus, Russia
U4a1b: Poland, Slovakia
U4a1c: Czech, Poland
U4a2: Czech, Belarus, Russia, Slovakia
U4a2a: Czech, Russia, Slovakia
U4a2a1: Poland? (Grzybowski)
U4a2b: Finland
U4a2c: Belarus
U4a2c1: Poland? (Grzybowski)
U4a3: Czech, Italy
U4b: Russia
U4b1a: Belarus
U4b1a1: Adyghe, Italy, Tunisia
U4b1a2: Italy
U4b1a3: Poland
U4b1a3a: Hungary
U4b1b: Armenian, Georgian, Slovakian
U4b3: Russia
U4c: Slovakia, Scottish
U4c1: Hungary
U4c1a: Slovakia, Belarus, Poland
U4d1: Netherlands, Russia, Finland
U4d2: Mongolia, Czech

U5: ?
U5a: ?
U5b: ?
U5b1: Sardinia
U5b1a: Russia, England
U5b1b1: Belarus, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Algeria
U5b1b1a: Finland, Saami, Belarus, Russia, Slovakia
U5b1b1a1: Finland, Saami
U5b1b1a1a: Finland
U5b1b1d: Spain
U5b1b1e: Berber
U5b1b1b: Hispanic, Czech, Poland, Russia
U5b1b2: Finland
U5b1c: Spain
U5b1c1: Italy
U5b1c2: Caucasian, Poland
U5b1e: Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Crimean Tatar
U5b1d1: Berber, Italy
U5b1g: Spain

U5b2: India
U5b2a: England
U5b2a1a: Finland
U5b2a1a1: Finland, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Norway
U5b2a1a2: Italy, Spain, Russia, Finland
U5b2a1b: Poland, Russia
U5b2a2: Poland
U5b2a2a: Italy, Poland
U5b2a2b: Belarus
U5b2a2b1: Czech Poland, Germany
U5b2b: Sardinia, England
U5b2b1: Russia, Slovakia
U5b2c: Ireland

etc.

Last but not least, I think that Humanist's latest post fits to this discussion:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=721465&postcount=3888

Jaska
2012-02-13, 08:27
I think that R1a is from Iran or at least Middle East because R1a, R1a1, and R1a1a are present in the region. You hardly find R1a in Eastern Europe. The root points to the Middle East.
There is R1a* even in Scandinavia. But I suppose it's due to migrations. Asia seems to be the best candidate of origin for R1a and R1a1. But they are much, much later subgroups we are concerned in this IE matter.

Palisto
2012-02-13, 08:46
There is R1a* even in Scandinavia. But I suppose it's due to migrations. Asia seems to be the best candidate of origin for R1a and R1a1. But they are much, much later subgroups we are concerned in this IE matter.

How many? Source?
You are H5a1, I believe that H5a1 moved with R1a1 from Mideast to Europe.

Jaska
2012-02-13, 13:47
How many? Source?
Sorry, I remembered wrong: R1a1* is in Scandinavia, not R1a*. Source: Wikipedia. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#R1a_.28R-M420.29



You are H5a1, I believe that H5a1 moved with R1a1 from Mideast to Europe.
It is possible. They have also claimed Iberian homeland for H5a1, but then it would be difficult to explain the Near East occurrences.

EliasAlucard
2012-02-15, 00:51
I think that R1a is from Iran or at least Middle East because R1a, R1a1, and R1a1a are present in the region.Remnants from the proto-Aryans in Iran.


You hardly find R1a in Eastern Europe.So? You hardly find Y-DNA J* in northern Mesopotamia but you find J* in Soqotra, doesn't mean J* actually originated in Soqotra.


The root points to the Middle East.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1928/1or1a.jpgWell, R1a is probably from the "Middle East" anyway.


As you can see, Polako puts the starting point of R1a into the Middle East, not Eastern Europe.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9580/r1az283z93.pngI know, and I agree with Polako. But that's beside the point. When R1a was in the Middle East, the proto-Indo-European language family did not exist. Armenians didn't exist either as an ethnic identity or group.

It was when R1a came to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, settled down there, domesticated the horse as a cheap economic meat source during the winter, invented the wheel, and subsequently expanded to the rest of Europe, when R1a began diversifying rapidly, and from there also spread to Iran.

The Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses are both entirely incompatible with this scenario. They are incompatible with this scenario because Renfrew was ignorant of linguistics. And you cannot scientifically theorise a diversification of Indo-European languages from Armenia since 7,000 BC (i.e., 9,000 YBP) into the modern Indo-European languages as they are today, with pretty much all of them having the same cognate for wheel that are not loanwords from one branch of the Indo-European language to another branch, but all dating back to the original reconstructible PIE word (*kwekwlo-). And the wheel wasn't invented 9,000 years ago.

The earliest evidence of the wheel is about 5,000-6,000 years old (around 3,500 BC). So proto-Indo-European is not older than that. Of course, the linguistic ancestor to proto-Indo-European in its earliest recognisable stages is probably a few thousand years older, probably around 10,000 years old, or even older than that, who knows? But diversification of proto-Indo-European into its modern daughter languages did not happen before the wheel was invented, and it seems like the proto-Indo-Europeans knew the horse (and most likely were the ones who domesticated the horse too), as the horse in pretty much all Indo-European languages is reconstructible to its proto-Indo-European form (*ekwo-).

The earliest evidence for the wheel is found in Poland during the Funnelbeaker culture, around 3,500 BC, and the earliest evidence of horse domestication is slightly older than the earliest evidence for the wheel in Poland, and bit wear is found in Ukraine. So unless you can find earlier evidence of bit wear and wheels in Armenia, the Armeno-Anatolian hypothesis can safely be discarded until then.

I personally don't think it's a coincidence that *kwekwlo- and *ekwo- are so similar words for two different objects: this to me is evidence the proto-Indo-Europeans were behind both horse domestication and the wheel, and named them both similar names because they thought the wheel was supposed to be used together with the horse. But I'm no linguist so I could be wrong here.


In his new post, he is expressing his point of view very visually.Polako doesn't think the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in Armenia.


I agree here with Polako.Agree all you like; Polako doesn't agree with you. And more importantly, Polako doesn't seem to have read Mallory and Anthony, or maybe he has and he's simply ignoring how well the linguistic evidence fits with the archaeological evidence. The proto-Indo-European urheimat was somewhere in eastern Europe. It could have been in Poland (seriously, it is a possibility). But it's more likely it was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It was, however, not in Armenia or Anatolia.


I don't care if you call it the "Armeno-Assyrian genepool" as long as you realize that the main Y haplogroups of Europe and India are derived from the Middle East (not the other way around), most likely during the neolithic expansion.That's what I've been saying all along. But it doesn't mean all the Armeno-Assyrian haplogroups that are now spread in Europe and India, were spread there by proto-Indo-Europeans. Various haplogroups such as the subclades of IJ, R1a, R1b, G, etc were spread to Europe and India from the Middle East at different waves by different tribes. The ancestors of the proto-Indo-Europeans obviously came from the Middle East at some point, and that's why the autosomal DNA of modern Europeans is still so similar to the autosomal DNA of Assyrians and Armenians.

But it's important to understand: modern Armenians are in no way Indo-Europeans themselves, in the sense that the Armenian genepool is not descended from the proto-Indo-European ethnogenesis (and all its bottlenecks and patrilineal group evolutionary strategy etcetera). The Armenian hypothesis is weak and entirely incompatible with both the archaeological evidence and the linguistic evidence. And the same is true of the Anatolian hypothesis.

But yes, it's likely the proto-Indo-Europeans at one point came from "West Asia". But that was long before they spoke classical proto-Indo-European.

Silesian
2012-03-05, 18:22
R1b in Armenians Talysh/Tat/Assyrians North West Iranians almost come to a complete halt at the Afro-Asiatic border. Why?

P312-U106-

L23+L51-L11-
http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ht35new/default.aspx?section=ymap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Asiatic_languages

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Afroasiatic-en.svg

Palisto
2012-03-14, 20:27
The Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses are both entirely incompatible with this scenario. They are incompatible with this scenario because Renfrew was ignorant of linguistics. And you cannot scientifically theorise a diversification of Indo-European languages from Armenia since 7,000 BC (i.e., 9,000 YBP) into the modern Indo-European languages as they are today, with pretty much all of them having the same cognate for wheel that are not loanwords from one branch of the Indo-European language to another branch, but all dating back to the original reconstructible PIE word (*kwekwlo-). And the wheel wasn't invented 9,000 years ago.

The earliest evidence of the wheel is about 5,000-6,000 years old (around 3,500 BC). So proto-Indo-European is not older than that. Of course, the linguistic ancestor to proto-Indo-European in its earliest recognisable stages is probably a few thousand years older, probably around 10,000 years old, or even older than that, who knows? But diversification of proto-Indo-European into its modern daughter languages did not happen before the wheel was invented, and it seems like the proto-Indo-Europeans knew the horse (and most likely were the ones who domesticated the horse too), as the horse in pretty much all Indo-European languages is reconstructible to its proto-Indo-European form (*ekwo-).

The earliest evidence for the wheel is found in Poland during the Funnelbeaker culture, around 3,500 BC, and the earliest evidence of horse domestication is slightly older than the earliest evidence for the wheel in Poland, and bit wear is found in Ukraine. So unless you can find earlier evidence of bit wear and wheels in Armenia, the Armeno-Anatolian hypothesis can safely be discarded until then.



I mean here is yet another study agreeing with the Anatolian hypothesis, it's hardly 'dead' or 'crazy'. If anything it seems like all the newer stuff is pointing to it's direction.
...

I'm not into linguistics much so I can't tell you anything for certain, but regarding the wheel Dienekes once made this argument when someone brought up the wheel and dating. I'm not sure if that can be backed up by sources though.

Dienekes

"As for "wheel" it is a topic that has been addressed to death. No need to infer the presence of "wheels" in PIE, just of a common word for "round" or "twist", and nature provides many examples of round things. Indeed, wheels themselves could've been used much earlier than their use for transport (as toys, for example). "


I just read that they found a "toy car" in Kurdistan (near Mardin), at least 7500 year old (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/02/oldest-toy-car-is-from-kurdistan-c-5500.html).

http://www.sondakika.com/haber-foto/989/dunyanin-en-eski-oyuncagi-ile-tapu-senedi-mar-3219989_300.jpg
http://www.worldbulletin.net/resim/250x190/2011/12/27/car-toy-2.jpg


Does this play any role in this discussion? :confused:

newtoboard
2012-03-14, 20:43
I think that R1a is from Iran or at least Middle East because R1a, R1a1, and R1a1a are present in the region. You hardly find R1a in Eastern Europe. The root points to the Middle East.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1928/1or1a.jpg



As you can see, Polako puts the starting point of R1a into the Middle East, not Eastern Europe.
http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/9580/r1az283z93.png

In his new post, he is expressing his point of view very visually.




I agree here with Polako.


Originally Posted by Palisto View Post
No. I am saying that all these haplogroups together have carried the IE language from Armenia to Western Eurasia.



I don't care if you call it the "Armeno-Assyrian genepool" as long as you realize that the main Y haplogroups of Europe and India are derived from the Middle East (not the other way around), most likely during the neolithic expansion.


Pastoralism induces low Y chromosome diversity and thus genetic drift. Pastoralism is the typical culture of the steppes since ancient times.



I don't think so. We have just seen a few ancient bottlenecks in the Eurasian steppes.

Another thing that I realized is that the root of European mtDNA haplogroups can be found either in the Middle East or South Asia.

Data from Ian Logan (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/u5b2_genbank_sequences.htm):

U2a: India
U2b: India, Thailand
U2c: India
U2c1: India, Pakistan
U2d: Jordan
U2e: India
U2e1: India, Caucasus, Italy, Russia
U2e1a1: India, Spain, Portugal
U2e1a1a: Finland
U2e2: Jordan

U3a: Armenian, Azeri, Georgian, Moroccan
U3a1: Canary Islands, Spain, Russian, English, Polish
U3a2: Yemen
U3b: Armenian, Adyghe, Iranian, Indian, Spain
U3b1: Portugal, Italy
U3b1a: Yemen
U3b2: Armenian, Egypt

U4a: Asia
U4a1: Kalash (Pakistan)
U4a1a: Spain, Italy, Poland, Belarus, Russia
U4a1b: Poland, Slovakia
U4a1c: Czech, Poland
U4a2: Czech, Belarus, Russia, Slovakia
U4a2a: Czech, Russia, Slovakia
U4a2a1: Poland? (Grzybowski)
U4a2b: Finland
U4a2c: Belarus
U4a2c1: Poland? (Grzybowski)
U4a3: Czech, Italy
U4b: Russia
U4b1a: Belarus
U4b1a1: Adyghe, Italy, Tunisia
U4b1a2: Italy
U4b1a3: Poland
U4b1a3a: Hungary
U4b1b: Armenian, Georgian, Slovakian
U4b3: Russia
U4c: Slovakia, Scottish
U4c1: Hungary
U4c1a: Slovakia, Belarus, Poland
U4d1: Netherlands, Russia, Finland
U4d2: Mongolia, Czech

U5: ?
U5a: ?
U5b: ?
U5b1: Sardinia
U5b1a: Russia, England
U5b1b1: Belarus, Russia, Slovenia, Spain, Algeria
U5b1b1a: Finland, Saami, Belarus, Russia, Slovakia
U5b1b1a1: Finland, Saami
U5b1b1a1a: Finland
U5b1b1d: Spain
U5b1b1e: Berber
U5b1b1b: Hispanic, Czech, Poland, Russia
U5b1b2: Finland
U5b1c: Spain
U5b1c1: Italy
U5b1c2: Caucasian, Poland
U5b1e: Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Crimean Tatar
U5b1d1: Berber, Italy
U5b1g: Spain

U5b2: India
U5b2a: England
U5b2a1a: Finland
U5b2a1a1: Finland, Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Norway
U5b2a1a2: Italy, Spain, Russia, Finland
U5b2a1b: Poland, Russia
U5b2a2: Poland
U5b2a2a: Italy, Poland
U5b2a2b: Belarus
U5b2a2b1: Czech Poland, Germany
U5b2b: Sardinia, England
U5b2b1: Russia, Slovakia
U5b2c: Ireland

etc.

Last but not least, I think that Humanist's latest post fits to this discussion:
http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showpost.php?p=721465&postcount=3888

Interesting. Why do some articles still associate U2i(U2a, U2b, U2c) with South Eurasian migrations?

I was surprised to learn there is some U4/U5 in South Asia and South Central-Asia.

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 20:12 ----------


Remnants from the proto-Aryans in Iran.

So? You hardly find Y-DNA J* in northern Mesopotamia but you find J* in Soqotra, doesn't mean J* actually originated in Soqotra.

Well, R1a is probably from the "Middle East" anyway.

I know, and I agree with Polako. But that's beside the point. When R1a was in the Middle East, the proto-Indo-European language family did not exist. Armenians didn't exist either as an ethnic identity or group.

It was when R1a came to the Pontic-Caspian steppe, settled down there, domesticated the horse as a cheap economic meat source during the winter, invented the wheel, and subsequently expanded to the rest of Europe, when R1a began diversifying rapidly, and from there also spread to Iran.

The Anatolian and Armenian hypotheses are both entirely incompatible with this scenario. They are incompatible with this scenario because Renfrew was ignorant of linguistics. And you cannot scientifically theorise a diversification of Indo-European languages from Armenia since 7,000 BC (i.e., 9,000 YBP) into the modern Indo-European languages as they are today, with pretty much all of them having the same cognate for wheel that are not loanwords from one branch of the Indo-European language to another branch, but all dating back to the original reconstructible PIE word (*kwekwlo-). And the wheel wasn't invented 9,000 years ago.

The earliest evidence of the wheel is about 5,000-6,000 years old (around 3,500 BC). So proto-Indo-European is not older than that. Of course, the linguistic ancestor to proto-Indo-European in its earliest recognisable stages is probably a few thousand years older, probably around 10,000 years old, or even older than that, who knows? But diversification of proto-Indo-European into its modern daughter languages did not happen before the wheel was invented, and it seems like the proto-Indo-Europeans knew the horse (and most likely were the ones who domesticated the horse too), as the horse in pretty much all Indo-European languages is reconstructible to its proto-Indo-European form (*ekwo-).

The earliest evidence for the wheel is found in Poland during the Funnelbeaker culture, around 3,500 BC, and the earliest evidence of horse domestication is slightly older than the earliest evidence for the wheel in Poland, and bit wear is found in Ukraine. So unless you can find earlier evidence of bit wear and wheels in Armenia, the Armeno-Anatolian hypothesis can safely be discarded until then.

I personally don't think it's a coincidence that *kwekwlo- and *ekwo- are so similar words for two different objects: this to me is evidence the proto-Indo-Europeans were behind both horse domestication and the wheel, and named them both similar names because they thought the wheel was supposed to be used together with the horse. But I'm no linguist so I could be wrong here.

Polako doesn't think the proto-Indo-European urheimat was in Armenia.

Agree all you like; Polako doesn't agree with you. And more importantly, Polako doesn't seem to have read Mallory and Anthony, or maybe he has and he's simply ignoring how well the linguistic evidence fits with the archaeological evidence. The proto-Indo-European urheimat was somewhere in eastern Europe. It could have been in Poland (seriously, it is a possibility). But it's more likely it was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe. It was, however, not in Armenia or Anatolia.

That's what I've been saying all along. But it doesn't mean all the Armeno-Assyrian haplogroups that are now spread in Europe and India, were spread there by proto-Indo-Europeans. Various haplogroups such as the subclades of IJ, R1a, R1b, G, etc were spread to Europe and India from the Middle East at different waves by different tribes. The ancestors of the proto-Indo-Europeans obviously came from the Middle East at some point, and that's why the autosomal DNA of modern Europeans is still so similar to the autosomal DNA of Assyrians and Armenians.

But it's important to understand: modern Armenians are in no way Indo-Europeans themselves, in the sense that the Armenian genepool is not descended from the proto-Indo-European ethnogenesis (and all its bottlenecks and patrilineal group evolutionary strategy etcetera). The Armenian hypothesis is weak and entirely incompatible with both the archaeological evidence and the linguistic evidence. And the same is true of the Anatolian hypothesis.

But yes, it's likely the proto-Indo-Europeans at one point came from "West Asia". But that was long before they spoke classical proto-Indo-European.

Thought you and Polako said the proto Indo-Iranians were Z283. R1a in Iran is Z93+.

Wojewoda
2012-03-14, 21:40
I just read that they found a "toy car" in Kurdistan (near Mardin), at least 7500 year old (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/02/oldest-toy-car-is-from-kurdistan-c-5500.html).

http://www.sondakika.com/haber-foto/989/dunyanin-en-eski-oyuncagi-ile-tapu-senedi-mar-3219989_300.jpg
http://www.worldbulletin.net/resim/250x190/2011/12/27/car-toy-2.jpg


Does this play any role in this discussion? :confused:

It is very interesting, but does any source for the dating of this artifact other than a popular newspaper exist?

annihilus
2012-03-14, 21:50
It is very interesting, but does any source for the dating of this artifact other than a popular newspaper exist?

It is a claim http://www.datelinezero.com/2012/02/14/claim-7500-year-old-stone-toy-car-found-in-eastern-turkey/

Also it was found in eastern Turkey, when you refer to a location you look on a real map, not an imaginary one:whoco:

Wojewoda
2012-03-14, 22:04
It is a claim http://www.datelinezero.com/2012/02/14/claim-7500-year-old-stone-toy-car-found-in-eastern-turkey/

Also it was found in eastern Turkey, when you refer to a location you look on a real map, not an imaginary one:whoco:

As far as I am concerned this place is located in Southern (future) Poland. What I was asking was a scientific source for this extraordinary dating.

Palisto
2012-03-14, 22:14
Also it was found in eastern Turkey, when you refer to a location you look on a real map, not an imaginary one:whoco:

The region is called Kurdistan by the local people there. Just go there and ask them. But you are right, the country is still called Turkey, let's see for how long.

So, do you belong to the group of Turks who have issues to say Kurdistan? Do you say 'Güneydoğu Anadolu" instead:lol:[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 14:17 ----------




As far as I am concerned this place is located in Southern (future) Poland. What I was asking was a scientific source for this extraordinary dating.

I read that it was discovered very recently. So, maybe it will be published somewhere in the near future.

EliasAlucard
2012-03-14, 22:18
I just read that they found a "toy car" in Kurdistan (near Mardin), at least 7500 year old (http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/2012/02/oldest-toy-car-is-from-kurdistan-c-5500.html).
It's anachronistic to call it Kurdistan, as no such thing as Kurds existed back then. As a Mardin native, I find it offensive that you call it Kurdistan :mad:


Does this play any role in this discussion? :confused:No, 7,500 years ago is still too young for the Neolithic Revolution / Anatolian farming hypothesis. However, this could imply that the proto-Indo-Europeans did not invent the wheel, but rather, the ancestors of the Assyrians did ;)

annihilus
2012-03-14, 22:24
As far as I am concerned this place is located in Southern (future) Poland. What I was asking was a scientific source for this extraordinary dating.

My second comment wasn't directed at you. It is just a claim made by the the director of the museum.



The region is called Kurdistan by the local people there. Just go there and ask them. But you are right, the country is still called Turkey, let's see for how long.

So, do you belong to the group of Turks who have issues to say Kurdistan? Do you say 'Güneydoğu Anadolu" instead:lol:

I refer to the southeast of my country as Güneydoğu Anadolu yes, what is wrong with that?

Palisto
2012-03-14, 22:46
It's anachronistic to call it Kurdistan, as no such thing as Kurds existed back then.
So, to call it Turkey would be even more anachronistic, correct?:D



As a Mardin native, I find it offensive that you call it Kurdistan :mad:

Sorry, but I doubt that you are actually born in Mardin.



No, 7,500 years ago is still too young for the Neolithic Revolution / Anatolian farming hypothesis.

Hopefully, we will see a precise dating for the toy chariot one day.



However, this could imply that the proto-Indo-Europeans did not invent the wheel, but rather, the ancestors of the Assyrians did ;)

So, do you think that the PIE word for wheel is Semitic?

(kurdish "x" is like "kh" in Kazakh)

"Round" in Sorani Kurdish is "xir".
"Bended" in Sorani Kurdish is "xuar".
"Sun" in Sorani Kurdish is "xurshid" or "roj".

In Sorani Kurdish "to roll", "to revolve" is "xulandin" (خۆلاندن (http://wapedia.mobi/enwiktionary/revolve)).
"it's rolling" (English) - "(d)a-xule" (Sorani Kurdish).
"To roll" in Pashto is څرخول (carkhawəl).

cycle (n.)
late 14c., from L.L. cyclus, from Gk. kyklos "circle, wheel, any circular body, circular motion, cycle of events," from PIE *kwel- "to roll, to move around, wheel" (cf. Skt. cakram "circle, wheel," carati "he moves, wanders;" Avestan caraiti "applies himself," c'axra "chariot, wagon;" Gk. polos "a round axis" (PIE *kw- becomes Gk. p- before some vowels), polein "move around;" L. colere "to frequent, dwell in, to cultivate, move around," cultus "tended, cultivated," hence also "polished," colonus "husbandman, tenant farmer, settler, colonist;" Lith. kelias "a road, a way;" O.N. hvel, O.E. hweol "wheel;" O.Rus., Pol. kolo, Rus. koleso "a wheel"). (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=cycle&allowed_in_frame=0)

Do you have anything similar in your Assyrian language?

---------- Post added 2012-03-14 at 14:50 ----------



I refer to the southeast of my country as Güneydoğu Anadolu yes, what is wrong with that?

I see, you have never been in "Güneydoğu Anadolu"

annihilus
2012-03-14, 23:26
I see, you have never been in "Güneydoğu Anadolu"

Nope, I have never been in Istanbul either. Yet I know both are in Turkey and part of my country.