tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post1839705971631025782..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Armenians as Phrygian colonists, or, rolloff analysis of Armenians as a mixture of Sardinians+BalochiDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-5539703683905005082012-10-05T05:21:09.765+03:002012-10-05T05:21:09.765+03:00I might remind everyone of the so-called "Din...I might remind everyone of the so-called "Dinaric" / "Geton" / "Thracian" I2a2 found in the Balkans, which parallels the I2b1 found in Sardinia.<br />Notice I2a2 was found in Mesolithic Central Europe:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.buildinghistory.org/distantpast/ancientdna.shtml" rel="nofollow">Ancient European DNA samples</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.familytreedna.com/public/I2aHapGroup/default.aspx?vgroup=I2aHapGroup&section=ycolorized" rel="nofollow">Haplogroup I2a Project</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.familytreedna.com/public/ArmeniaDNAProject/default.aspx?section=ycolorized" rel="nofollow">Armenian DNA Project Y results</a>Ted Kandellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13245279435975443065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-78526133224172963442012-10-04T19:36:31.404+03:002012-10-04T19:36:31.404+03:00Strabo speaks about the similarity of the three na...Strabo speaks about the similarity of the three nations <i>in Mesopotamia</i>, where they live side by side.<br /><br /><i>For the nation of the Armenians and that of the Syrians and Arabians betray a close affinity, not only in their language, but in their mode of life and in their bodily build, and particularly wherever they live as close neighbours. Mesopotamia, which is inhabited by these three nations, gives proof of this, for in the case of these nations the similarity is particularly noticeable.</i><br /><br />There is no reason to doubt Herodotus' matter-of-fact statement about the relationship between Armenians and Phrygians. Of course, an ancient historian would not know comparative linguistics to perceive that Armenian is closely related to Greek and Phrygian and not to Semitic languages, so he would probably go by vocabulary, and, indeed, Armenian vocabulary has been largely replaced by non-Armenian words, and this effect would have been noticeable in the Mesopotamian Armenians Strabo speaks of.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64254625035420182962012-10-04T18:43:17.432+03:002012-10-04T18:43:17.432+03:00This topic shows just how persistent old paradigms...This topic shows just how persistent old paradigms can be.<br /> <br />Despite the scarcity of the extant linguistic material, they are sufficient to conclude that Armenian cannot derive from Phrygian. Archeology provides <i>even less</i> support for a concrete Armeno-Phrygian connection than linguistics. The only positive evidence is Herodotus’ statement, which continues to serve as the main impetus of seeking a Balkan origin for Armenians, while remaining empirically uncorroborated. A historian as competent as Strabo -a native of Asia Minor and no doubt personally acquainted with Armenians- wrote that the Armenians, Syrians and Arabs were closely connected not only by physical and cultural characteristics, but by language as well (See Petrosyan, my comments above). Caution must therefore be exercised when dealing with ethnographic statements of ancient authors. <br /><br />That the Armenian people are the primary biological and cultural heir of the autochthonous element of the Armenian Highland is beyond question. Armenians are <i>painstakingly</i> Near Eastern, and along with the Assyrians, represent the most intact archaic West Asian population. The only real ambiguity is the nature and development of the Armenian language, which does not correspond conclusively to any particular historical coordinate. In other words, it is essential to discern that we speculatively seek the <i>linguistic</i> ancestors of Armenians. Allocating genetic signals to the framework of a dated scenario is taking the simplistic validity of that very scenario for granted. That, of course, does not mean that all possible links between the Balkans and the Armenian Highland are to dismissed, nor that the Armenian language can be thoroughly understood independent of the larger Indo-European system, yet the intricacies of ethnogenesis demand at least a more detailed account than what we are able to currently formulate.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10387130442339819378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-74660900543636702502012-10-04T17:38:30.629+03:002012-10-04T17:38:30.629+03:00@Slumbery
About the Haplogroup I in Kurds, we hav...@Slumbery<br /><br />About the Haplogroup I in Kurds, we have two out of 14 private participators who belong to Haplgroup I. Yet non of them is I2a but I2b and I1*! Its not clear what kind of origin the I in Kurds has. Of course it is possible that some of the I found in future might turn out I2a*.Kurtihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15370578131814705759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-75815528388097230122012-10-04T12:57:42.847+03:002012-10-04T12:57:42.847+03:00Slumbery,
That's kind of the point, though, t...Slumbery,<br /><br />That's kind of the point, though, this is what happens during an expansion: a newly or recently created subgroup by chance gains a huge advantage - one can see the same effect in a few very specific Slavic R1a subgroups that stand out over other ones much more ancient in Eastern Europe (and that are <i>not</i> related to Slavic expansion). And it is a long way off I2a - most consider I2 paleolithic, and I in general is pan-European. This is why one has to keep in mind how deep on the tree one is looking when thinking about source locations and migrations.<br /><br />If you think of the main haplogroup designation letters as rather arbitrary (as they are), you can imagine in a different universe I2a1b may have been called U, a subgroup of T, a subgroup of S, etc. You don't know by the nomenclature how deep in the tree you are, exactly, in terms of actual time scales, or even in terms of number of mutations.<br /><br />In fact, many haplogroups are not as well studied as e.g. R1b - so one often can't really say much anything more recent than several thousand years ago. Worse, much of the early ancient DNA wasn't/couldn't be done at the high resolution possible today.<br /><br />For example, much European neolithic seems to be G2a. But which one? Ötzi may have been G2a2b - but is that really G2a2b1a2... etc? Who knows, at this point.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-80325627232941114272012-10-03T19:57:47.080+03:002012-10-03T19:57:47.080+03:00eurologist
I misunderstood you then. The linked s...eurologist<br /><br />I misunderstood you then. The linked site does not specify what subgroup the Kurds have, so I can't say too much about this.<br /><br />However I2a had to be present in the southern regions for ages, since its Sardinian branch is hardly East Germanic/Slavic. <br />Also the mentioned most common Balkan version (I2a1b1a*) seems to be a way to frequent in to be a heritage of some caught up East Germanic elements, since its frequency practically zero in many other areas where East Germanic were documented.<br /><br />Anyway, I tried to look up the sources of the Eupedia map and now I am even more suspicious of its reliability. <br /><br />Thank you for your answer. :)Slumberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139930329199925111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-48020433194627454782012-10-03T19:51:26.737+03:002012-10-03T19:51:26.737+03:00I am pursuing that question.
For example, is the ...<i>I am pursuing that question.</i><br /><br />For example, is the satem structure of Armenian of Iranic origin or independent from it? If the former is true, this will bolster but not prove the hypothesis that Armenian is of Phrygian or Greco-Phrygian origin. If the latter is true, this will effectively disprove the Phrygian or Greco-Phrygian origin hypothesis, as it will mean that Armenian descends from an already satem parent language and not from Phrygian or Greco-Phrygian, which are centum languages. People more knowledgeable about Armenian and the Iranic languages may contribute with their comments here. Any help will be appreciated.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31486864111938059282012-10-03T16:34:21.403+03:002012-10-03T16:34:21.403+03:00All of this can be settled with further archaeolog...All of this can be settled with further archaeological excavations in Armenia and the Highlands, particularly in the 3-5 kya range. Comparison genomic data from the early bronze age to the iron age is our only hope of solving this confusion. With the evidence available, I don't see why Armenian must have originated as far West as the Balkans or the Western coast of Asia minor. It could very well have originated in Central or even Eastern Anatolia and then displaced with the Hittite rise to power. It's what happened to the Luwians, and other Anatolian people. Who's to say proto-Armenian didn't have such beginnings. We know that the Armenian language has a phonology most similar to that of the Caucasus, and we would be hasty to date the arrival of Armenians to the collapse of the Urartian Kingdom. The caucasian phonology indicates an intimate contact far earlier than the Urartian collapse. In essence, to tease out this tenuous history, we need genomic data from archaeological sites in the region. Too bad we have uninterested parties and limited funding for more extensive genotyping of modern and ancient populations. With costs coming down though, I estimate that in 5-10 years, we'll have a comprehensive picture of the temporal genomic landscape.AgnosticThoughthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07609257719190217536noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86820363163509428812012-10-03T14:50:12.069+03:002012-10-03T14:50:12.069+03:00Genetics is a secondary issue here.
Onur,
Which ...<i>Genetics is a secondary issue here.</i><br /><br />Onur,<br /><br />Which is equivalent to my "anyway."<br /><br />At any rate, if it were not for the proposed (if not established) existence of very early Anatolian IE branches, a theory of a Balkan (W to NW Pontic) IE origin would be a slam-dunk. I hope we will find out the true story, but in any case I am sure it must and will involve very early trans-Pontic connections. <br /><br />On the flip side, all this makes it difficult to characterize rogue Anatolian IE languages.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85786224036984342012012-10-03T14:11:34.926+03:002012-10-03T14:11:34.926+03:00I don't see anything wrong with this. The Thra...<i>I don't see anything wrong with this. The Thracian (and/or vicinity) admixture to modern Armenians seems to be low-ish, anyway. Neighboring Georgians aren't all that different autosomally (except for a few telling characteristics), with a completely different language family.</i><br /><br />Genetics is a secondary issue here. Much more important than it is linguistics. Is the scenario I mentioned linguistically plausible? I am pursuing that question.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-17868119750311509232012-10-03T14:04:04.484+03:002012-10-03T14:04:04.484+03:00...if... ...it must have formed as a result of a h...<i>...if... ...it must have formed as a result of a huge impact from the Urartian and Iranic languages...</i><br /><br />I don't see anything wrong with this. The Thracian (and/or vicinity) admixture to modern Armenians seems to be low-ish, anyway. Neighboring Georgians aren't all that different autosomally (except for a few telling characteristics), with a completely different language family.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-27949566564929737562012-10-03T12:49:03.649+03:002012-10-03T12:49:03.649+03:00Nevertheless, the page I linked earlier shows the ...<i>Nevertheless, the page I linked earlier shows the Kurds with elevated level of I2a/I2a1, not the Armenians. I just brought it up as an interesting side story that may refer to some migration from the Balkan.</i><br /><br />Armenians do not have high levels Y haplogroup I: only ~5% of Armenians possess haplogroup I, the same haplogroup I ratio as that of Anatolian Turks. <br /><br />http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml<br /><br />So, just as in the "Atlantic_Med" component ratio, Armenians are not different from Anatolians in their haplogroup I ratio. <br /><br /><i>Onur, keep in mind that Armenian is a hybrid language with very strong Caucasian substrate. So it's no surprise that it differs from Phrygian proper.</i><br /><br />On the hypothesis that Armenian is a highly creolized version of Phrygian as a result of contact with the Urartian language, that hypotheis cannot explain the satemization: Armenian is a satem language while Phrygian is a centum language, so in order to derive Armenian from Phrygian you also need a satem IE contact language in the formation of Armenian. The Iranic languages, which are well known to have had a very significant effect on the development of Armenian, may fit the bill here. Therefore, if Armenian is really descended from Phrygian or Greco-Phrygian (the hypothetical parent language of Greek and Phrygian), it must have formed as a result of a huge impact from the Urartian and Iranic languages. I am open to that possibility, though I need to further study the subject, especially the linguistic technicalities: are they compatible with such a scenario or not?Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-11473791083568958782012-10-03T08:41:17.706+03:002012-10-03T08:41:17.706+03:00Slumbery,
Yes, if you wish read my sentence again...Slumbery,<br /><br />Yes, if you wish read my sentence again as "The subgroup of Hg I2a that is the most common I2a ..." if you wish (that's why I didn't write I2a*). While I2a is quite common in the NW Balkans, almost all of it is this specific subgroup. I don't know of any I2a* of relevance, so clearly we must look at subgroups, and very deep ones, indeed.eurologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03440019181278830033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63092965399131674402012-10-03T05:27:34.704+03:002012-10-03T05:27:34.704+03:00As I understnad it Sardinian and Dienekes Atlantic...As I understnad it Sardinian and Dienekes Atlantic-Med are NOT synonymous.<br /><br />Oetzi was very Sadinian-like:<br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/first-look-at-genome-of-tyrolean-iceman.html<br /><br />and he was certainly not 100% Atlantic-Med. I quote from your blog:<br /><br />"Oetzi turns out to be 57.7% "Atlantic_Med" and 22.3% "Caucasus" in this analysis".<br /><br />Sardinian may turn out to represent an ancestral population, but in my opinion Atlantic-Med is not. There is something wrong with that component, it behaves like a mixture IMO.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11000684388615334278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28117339453436775692012-10-03T05:24:50.727+03:002012-10-03T05:24:50.727+03:00"To be fair, doesn't the Sardinia compone..."To be fair, doesn't the Sardinia component peak in the Arabian peninsula?"<br /><br />hmmm..think about it. If it peaked in the arabian peninsula it would no longer be "a Sardinian component". Doesn't make sense.truthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08622344688109770244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37088678886860201652012-10-03T04:32:33.315+03:002012-10-03T04:32:33.315+03:00There are some very strong ancient genetic links b...<i>There are some very strong ancient genetic links between Sardinians, Semites and North Africans.</i><br /><br />There is no reason to look for the exotic, now that we know that at the time of the rolloff signal there was a Sardinian-like population in the Balkans.<br /><br /><i>I'd look for the origins of this signal in nearby Syria, or in the Semitic Assyrians.</i><br /><br />The purest Semites (Saudis and Yemenese) largely lack the Atlantic_Med component, and Syrians possess similar amounts as Assyrians, perhaps from Hellenistic times. Certainly no reason to treat Syrians as a source for this component in Armenians.<br /><br /><i>The Atlantic_Med component from your runs isn't relevant, because it includes an Atlantic component which is basically missing in Semitic groups.</i><br /><br />There is no "Atlantic" component. The Atlantic_Med component appears _the_ most unadmixed Caucasoid component.<br /><br />http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/09/inter-relationships-between-dodecad-k7b.html<br /><br />Which accords very well with what is becoming increasingly clear about it corresponding very well to an actual prehistoric population.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-72461773405341482282012-10-03T02:20:52.953+03:002012-10-03T02:20:52.953+03:00There are some very strong ancient genetic links b...There are some very strong ancient genetic links between Sardinians, Semites and North Africans.<br /><br />This signal also affects the Armenians to a greater extent than other populations of Anatolia and the South Caucasus.<br /><br />So there's no need to postulate a Sardinian-like substrata in the Armenians from a Phrygian source.<br /><br />I'd look for the origins of this signal in nearby Syria, or in the Semitic Assyrians.<br /><br />The Atlantic_Med component from your runs isn't relevant, because it includes an Atlantic component which is basically missing in Semitic groups.Davidskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04637918905430604850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-61615871228440812772012-10-02T22:18:06.745+03:002012-10-02T22:18:06.745+03:00“I thought that this fact was so well known that w...“I thought that this fact was so well known that we didn't have to add any further details. Phrygian was just a centum language, while Armenian is a satem language!!! The hypothesis connecting Armenian with Thracian probably won't be far from the truth.”<br /><br />I hope that this analysis evited possible false intepretations taking into account the fragmentary knowledge of Phrygian, also there might be more characteristics to put aside both languages: at fist it was to me like someone saying "French is a satem language so its not related to centum Latin".<br /><br />By the way there are facts that show that Armenian didn't evolve in Armenia, as the old Hurrite and Urartian toponyms of the area, which haven't followed the phonetic evolutions of such language; also the supposed Urartian substrate found in Armenian is quite suspicious (many words shared with Assyrian, high-civilization loanwords but scanty words of local plants or animals).<br /><br />So Armenian is not from Armenia (OK, there was an Armani tribe, but actual Alvernians aren't speaking Gaulish, right ?...), then, from where it came ? well, the most easy answer is given by Herodotus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-88834087733826184522012-10-02T21:37:53.283+03:002012-10-02T21:37:53.283+03:00Onur, keep in mind that Armenian is a hybrid langu...Onur, keep in mind that Armenian is a hybrid language with very strong Caucasian substrate. So it's no surprise that it differs from Phrygian proper.Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04768797187589534069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-69652372233521287652012-10-02T21:10:43.978+03:002012-10-02T21:10:43.978+03:00@Charles Nydorf,
Yes, the f3(Ashkenazi; Near East...@Charles Nydorf,<br /><br />Yes, the f3(Ashkenazi; Near East, Europe) signal is not negative, however, probably because of the drift that has affected the Ashkenazi population. But it would be interesting to do a rolloff analysis which might confirm admixture if present.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-53196912056724359032012-10-02T20:23:56.362+03:002012-10-02T20:23:56.362+03:00eurolgist
"The Hg I2a that is most common in...eurolgist<br /><br /><i>"The Hg I2a that is most common in the NW Balkans is a very specific and recent subgroup that may originate from East Germanic tribes that were caught up in the "Slavic" expansion - so it postdates any Armenian question by more than a millennium."</i><br /><br />So you say that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_%28Y-DNA%29" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia Artticle</a> about I2a is wrong? Because it says: <br /><br /><i>"<b>I2a1</b><br />Former I2a in the Y2010 tree. The subclade divergence for P37.2 occurred 10.7±4.8 kya. The age of YSTR variation for the P37.2 subclade is 8.0±4.0 kya."</i><br /><br />You probably mistook it with one of its subgroups. <br /><br />Nevertheless, the page I linked earlier shows the <i>Kurds</i> with elevated level of I2a/I2a1, not the Armenians. I just brought it up as an interesting side story that may refer to <i>some</i> migration from the Balkan. Slumberyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05139930329199925111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16635396524815827952012-10-02T15:41:42.856+03:002012-10-02T15:41:42.856+03:00Some Jewish groups, the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, ...Some Jewish groups, the Ashkenazim and Sephardim, show strong West Asian-Mediterranean admixture. It would be interesting to see what what Roll-off says about the date of the admixture.Charles Nydorfhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16291667302870991631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38406073510944788902012-10-02T15:25:38.202+03:002012-10-02T15:25:38.202+03:00Hello Mr. Dienekes,
First of all, thanks for your ...Hello Mr. Dienekes,<br />First of all, thanks for your wonderful analytical work, it fills lots of gaps that academic research sometimes tend to overlook.<br /><br />with respect to your analysis, in your opinion:<br /><br />1- Who were the Armenians? The incoming Phrygian settlers? or the local people they have encountered?<br /><br />2- what is the proportion of this mixture you have discovered? can your genetic analysis determine the magnitude of the colonization? large scale? small scale? 50/50?<br /><br />3- who were the local tribes living in Armenia highalnds by the time Phrygians colonized it 3200 years ago? <br /><br /><br />Heinrichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14595220539854269251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-8478815506752174122012-10-02T14:30:06.332+03:002012-10-02T14:30:06.332+03:00Plato says that Phrygian is close to Greek, he say...<i>Plato says that Phrygian is close to Greek, he says nothing about Phrygian being closer to Greek than to Armenian.</i><br /><br />Yes, but as is clear from my previous posts, I mentioned Plato's statement only to bolster the consensus view that Phrygian is phylogenetically closer to Greek than to Armenian, which is, as I already made clear, based on linguistics and not based on Plato's statement.<br /><br /><i>That is IRRELEVANT, because as I pointed out the fact that two languages are "well-separated" says nothing about their relationships. The language of the Romanians is well separated from that of Italians, and yet people speak it because the Romans paid a visit.<br /><br />Also, we do expect Phrygian and Armenian to be well-separated because the EVIDENCE for them is 1000+ years apart, which is more than sufficient time for them to diverge linguistically, and indeed, the Armenian language is written down 1.5ky+ after the arrival of the Phrygians into Asia Minor, and 1ky+ after they were already a distinct people.</i><br /><br />Phrygian was put into writing - this time with the Greek alphabet - also during the first few centuries of the Common Era thus immediately before Armenian was first put into writing. This Neo-Phrygian language was still a very distinct language from Armenian and was basically the same language as the Phrygian of the independent Phrygia of many centuries before (=Paleo-Phrygian) despite the many changes during the intervening centuries. So your 1000+ apart argument is wrong, hence your Armenian = a form of Phrygian argument is wrong too.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67890908668854206742012-10-02T13:17:17.761+03:002012-10-02T13:17:17.761+03:00I mentioned Plato's testimony as part of my de...<i>I mentioned Plato's testimony as part of my demonstration that Phrygian is phylogenetically closer to Greek than to Armenian. </i><br /><br />Plato says that Phrygian is close to Greek, he says nothing about Phrygian being closer to Greek than to Armenian.<br /><br /><i>The Phrygian and Armenian languages are distinct enough to be labeled as phylogenetically well-separated languages.</i><br /><br />That is IRRELEVANT, because as I pointed out the fact that two languages are "well-separated" says nothing about their relationships. The language of the Romanians is well separated from that of Italians, and yet people speak it because the Romans paid a visit.<br /><br />Also, we do expect Phrygian and Armenian to be well-separated because the EVIDENCE for them is 1000+ years apart, which is more than sufficient time for them to diverge linguistically, and indeed, the Armenian language is written down 1.5ky+ after the arrival of the Phrygians into Asia Minor, and 1ky+ after they were already a distinct people.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.com