Biological relationships of the Hittites

Kahotep · Dec 4, 2010

While surfing the Internet for information about the Hittites, I came across an astonishing claim that they were of a "Mongoloid" appearance (i.e. related to East Asians like Mongolians, Chinese, and Japanese). Supposedly this claim originated in the 19th century and was espoused by scholars such as Samuel Birch of the British Museum, Archibald Sayce, and Sir William H. Flower. Have there been any recent bio-anthropological studies on Hittite remains that compared them to other populations? I haven't found much information on Google.

Salah · Dec 4, 2010

I've read a theory that there is a connection between the Assyrian name for the Hittite Empire (Hatti), and Cathay, an old name for China.

The Hittites are generally believed to have had long black hair but little or no facial hair - but of course one need not be "Mongoloid" to have these traits.

As for recent bio-anthropological studies, I would have no idea, the Hittites are not my forte. Okamido will probably have something much more enlightening to say about this topic.

okamido · Dec 4, 2010

Well the ruling elite of the Hittites were definately not from Anatolia as they migrated in and imposed themselves as conquerors over the native Hattians. The Egyptians also made note that the Hattians and the ruling elite were very different in appearance, with the natives being described as having what could be interpreted as European facial features.

Since the ruling elite is considered by modern archaeologists to have been Indo-European in origin, and from the Caucasus region in particular, it is possible that there was a migration to the Eastern Steppes that could account for the supposed "cranial" similarities mentioned by Sayce.

With Birch and Flower though, the majority of their hypothesis comes from ancient artistic representation, so that could be interpreted in many ways, just as the artistic representations of some ancient Egyptian Kings/ Pharoahs have some people calling them aliens. Art is always subjective and one such interpretation is of a Hittite ruling elite represented on a Bas relief as having a ponytail and being clean shaved, like the Manchu of the 17th century. Kind of a huge variance in time to be attempting a connection, but that is how they used to do it.

Out of curiosity, are you referencing The Empire of the Hittites ?

beorna · Dec 4, 2010

, we can find a lot in the www. I wouldn't trust it.

Midas · Dec 5, 2011

The Hittites or more specifically the Nessians who spoke an Indo-European language were not Mongoloid. The Hatti (thus the name of the Empire) who lived there before the coming of the Indo-European speakers (Nessians, Luwians, Lydians and later the Greeks, Phrygians and Armenians) were related to Hurrians, Urarteans and the people of the Aegean. There are some claiming difference in the appearance of the Hittite officers and the soldiers but not in the sense they were completely different like Mongol appearance or so. It is mainly the nose that differs as you will see from the reliefs below. Personally, I don't know if that truly represents the difference between Nessians and Hatti.

midas-albums-+land+++hatti-picture3190-hittite-priests.jpg

midas-albums-+land+++hatti-picture3189-soldiers.jpg

Now, if you look at genetic data from the pre-IE people of Anatolia, you will notice their haplogroups are not much different from their surroundings. They have J2, G2a, E-M78, I2, E-V13 etc. With the coming of the Indo-European Hittite and Luwian speaking people R1B haplogroups were added. More or less you would find this in the people who are living there today and only a small percentage has Central Asian traces.

I hope this was helpful.

Turkmen · Dec 5, 2011

Hitites,I mean original Nesi people spoke a centum language and supposed to be R1b people like most of the western İ.E speakers.There is allmost a concensus about this,but the problem is Hattis;
-Hatti language is classified as isolate,but have a lot of common in gramer and vocabulary with south west Caucassian languages,Circassian and Abhaz.Considering the higher percantage of hg G in central and northern Anatolia,this might be more than a linguistic resamblence.No need to mention autoctonous hg.s of the area such as J2a,I,paragroup J1 or E subclades.

Kahotep said:
Have there been any recent bio-anthropological studies on Hittite remains that compared them to other populations?

Unfortunately not,so far.İn fact we have no ancient Anatolian DNA.

Midas,nice post and I completely agree with you except this part;

Midas said:
The Hatti (thus the name of the Empire) who lived there before the coming of the Indo-European speakers (Nessians, Luwians, Lydians and later the Greeks, Phrygians and Armenians) were related to Hurrians, Urarteans and the people of the Aegean.

Hurrians and their close relatives Urartians were related to another Caucassian group;Nakh people.Within the last decade a lot of linguists suggested that Hurrian language has remarkable similarities with Nakh languages such as Chechen and İngush.
Hurrians were predominantly J2a people,in fact despite the all İ.E,Semitic and Turkic migrations,J2a is still the most common hg in this area.And the higher percantage of J2a is found in Chechens and İngushs,more than % 50,according to 2010 study of Yunusbayev.

Midas · Dec 5, 2011

Hello Turkmen!
Thanks for your contribution! Nice to see more people know some things about the pre-IE Anatolians!

Turkmen said:
-Hatti language is classified as isolate,but have a lot of common in gramer and vocabulary with south west Caucassian languages,Circassian and Abhaz.

What you mention is the reason why I am not 100% convinced it is an isolate. Unfortunately the vocabulary is very limited, but I am optimistic about finding a missing link that will demonstrate a greater prehistoric group that won't let Hatti in its loneliness.

Turkmen said:
Considering the higher percantage of hg G in central and northern Anatolia,this might be more than a linguistic resamblence.No need to mention autoctonous hg.s of the area such as J2a,I,paragroup J1 or E subclades.

Very well said!

Turkmen said:
Midas,nice post and I completely agree with you except this part;

Hurrians and their close relatives Urartians were related to another Caucassian group;Nakh people.Within the last decade a lot of linguists suggested that Hurrian language has remarkable similarities with Nakh languages such as Chechen and İngush.

Agreed! Especially, Ingush are almost all J2.

Turkmen said:
Hurrians were predominantly J2a people,in fact despite the all İ.E,Semitic and Turkic migrations,J2a is still the most common hg in this area.And the higher percantage of J2a is found in Chechens and İngushs,more than % 50,according to 2010 study of Yunusbayev.

J2 is simply speaking for itself. Would you be surprised if I told you that the most common haplogroup found in Greeks and Anatolian Turks is this neolithic J2? In Turkey it has an average of 24% and in Greece it can reach up to 34% in Crete and the Aegean.

Last but not least, while many seek answers in Etruscan, for the Aegean and West Anatolian coast prehistory, I believe there is more to find within pre-IE Anatolian and Caucasian languages.

Midas · Dec 5, 2011

In order to be more specific about my last paragraph, I would give the following examples...

Gk. chó̱ra = land, place, earth
Phr. qó̱ros = place, space
Urart. quira = earth
Hatti wuur = earth

Gk. kodo = barley
Hurr. kade = barley
Hatti kait = corn

Gk. ichó̱r = ichor, aqueous component of blood
Urart. χur = to drink, water supply

For the "Greek" terms above you won't find any IE etymology, so they are considered substratum words.

Turkmen · Dec 5, 2011

Midas said:
Last but not least, while many seek answers in Etruscan, for the Aegean and West Anatolian coast prehistory, I believe there is more to find within pre-IE Anatolian and Caucasian languages.

I believe this connection too Midas,and we can add this link Raetians as well.I checked out the subclades of İtalian hg.s,not only G,but also J2a and J2b subclades seemed to be related to Anatolian subclades.

Considering Kaskians were related to Hattis,most of the Anatolia were part of the Caucassian languages area before İndo-Europan migrations.I allways thought that Anatolians look very similar to west Caucassians,this phenotypical resemblence is probably result of the Hattic-Kaskian legacy.

Midas said:
J2 is simply speaking for itself. Would you be surprised if I told you that the most common haplogroup found in Greeks and Anatolian Turks is this neolithic J2? In Turkey it has an average of 24% and in Greece it can reach up to 34% in Crete and the Aegean.

Thats true,but some of the J2a probably came from Central Asia as well.J2a is the second common hg. in Turkmenistan where is the major source of Turkic migration.The same is for R1b as well,its the most common hg. in Turkmenistan.Gokcumens study in Anatolian Turkmens have higher R1b and J2a as far as I remember.
But most of the these hg.s are probably native Anatolian,as you mentioned.When they make a detailed study in Turkmenistan,then we can be sure which subclades are really Anatolian or not.

I don' understand why we have very limited ancient y-DNA all around the world,I have a lot of questions about origins of ancient people and don't want to die before I learn.

Midas · Dec 6, 2011

Turkmen said:
I believe this connection too Midas,and we can add this link Raetians as well.I checked out the subclades of İtalian hg.s,not only G,but also J2a and J2b subclades seemed to be related to Anatolian subclades.

Yes, Italy has J2 and G as well! Basically, when it comes to Etruscans I believe their migration was far back in time, way before there was such an ethnonym like "Lydian". G2 in Greece is found mainly in Thessaly and must be related to the spread of farming from Anatolia to Europe. This might be related to this theory [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory]Black Sea deluge theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] and such a dating would explain why Etruscan was a language isolate. Also, even the cows in Northern Italy are genetically similar to those of Northern Turkey

(I am serious, no joke about this). In any case, any trace of Etruscan remained only in Lemnos as 2 and not just 1 inscription show today.

However, the the reason why an Minoan & Aegean substrate makes me look towards Hatti and Hurro-Urarteans, is a) the placenames (Phalassarna, Korinthos, Parnassos, Kyparissos, Tylissos etc -> same endings as the Lydian, Carian and Lycian coast), b) the fact that there is more comparative material on words than that of Etruscan that has only few examples like goddess Pipituna etc.

Turkmen said:
Considering Kaskians were related to Hattis,most of the Anatolia were part of the Caucassian languages area before İndo-Europan migrations.I allways thought that Anatolians look very similar to west Caucassians,this phenotypical resemblence is probably result of the Hattic-Kaskian legacy.

Although Kaskians were speaking Palaic (which is irrelevant to their origin), I believe that too.

Turkmen said:
Thats true,but some of the J2a probably came from Central Asia as well.J2a is the second common hg. in Turkmenistan where is the major source of Turkic migration.The same is for R1b as well,its the most common hg. in Turkmenistan.Gokcumens study in Anatolian Turkmens have higher R1b and J2a as far as I remember.
But most of the these hg.s are probably native Anatolian,as you mentioned.When they make a detailed study in Turkmenistan,then we can be sure which subclades are really Anatolian or not.

Basically, J2 is almost native to Anatolia. It developed in northern Mesopotamia, that is to say eastern Anatolia and north eastern Syria. The existence in Turkmenistan can be due to migrations. Btw, my father in law is Turkmen.

Turkmen said:
I don' understand why we have very limited ancient y-DNA all around the world,I have a lot of questions about origins of ancient people and don't want to die before I learn.

Basically, the during the last years the samples from Anatolia are very very rich. However, we still have way to go globally.

Turkmen · Dec 6, 2011

Midas said:
Basically, the during the last years the samples from Anatolia are very very rich. However, we still have way to go globally.

I said ''ancient'' y-DNA dude.İmagine they test İonians,Hurris or Hattis.

Or what happens if a crazy sciencist revive a Hitite one

Midas · Dec 6, 2011

Turkmen said:
I said ''ancient'' y-DNA dude.İmagine they test İonians,Hurris or Hattis.

Or what happens if a crazy sciencist revive a Hitite one

Did you ask for something like this?

Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic - King - 2008 - Annals of Human Genetics - Wiley Online Library

As you can see the ancient samples are numerous!

Turkmen · Dec 6, 2011

Midas said:
Did you ask for something like this?

Differential Y-chromosome Anatolian Influences on the Greek and Cretan Neolithic - King - 2008 - Annals of Human Genetics - Wiley Online Library

As you can see the ancient samples are numerous!

Awesome

Do we have any Hitite sample then?

Midas · Dec 6, 2011

Turkmen said:
Awesome
Do we have any Hitite sample then?

I've read by accident that they have collected samples from Hittite sites, but I have not seen an academic paper on specifically Hittite DNA. To be honest, I don't think geneticists are ethnically treating DNA samples, since the Hittites should follow the equation

Hittite person = neolithic Anatolian haplogroups + R1b

I dunno, I am not a geneticist after all, but I am sure that when they collect samples from Anatolia they don't think "This is Hittite DNA, this is a Lydian, this is a Hurrian" etc. They treat it as DNA from a specific period of time and evaluate the impact certain migrations might have during that time. Usually, such migrations don't affect that much since the invaders were for sure less than the locals.

If you ever see bronze age data from Anatolia, then you can probably safely assume some Hittites are included.

Frank81 · Dec 6, 2011

Midas said:
The Hittites or more specifically the Nessians who spoke an Indo-European language were not Mongoloid. The Hatti (thus the name of the Empire) who lived there before the coming of the Indo-European speakers (Nessians, Luwians, Lydians and later the Greeks, Phrygians and Armenians) were related to Hurrians, Urarteans and the people of the Aegean. There are some claiming difference in the appearance of the Hittite officers and the soldiers but not in the sense they were completely different like Mongol appearance or so. It is mainly the nose that differs as you will see from the reliefs below. Personally, I don't know if that truly represents the difference between Nessians and Hatti.

Now, if you look at genetic data from the pre-IE people of Anatolia, you will notice their haplogroups are not much different from their surroundings. They have J2, G2a, E-M78, I2, E-V13 etc. With the coming of the Indo-European Hittite and Luwian speaking people R1B haplogroups were added. More or less you would find this in the people who are living there today and only a small percentage has Central Asian traces.

I hope this was helpful.

Hittites are portrayed in several places with long black hair, bear shaved, from there I suppose it comes the idea of mongoloid:

The guy on top right is Hittite

Midas · Dec 7, 2011

Frank81 said:
Hittites are portrayed in several places with long black hair, bear shaved, from there I suppose it comes the idea of mongoloid:

The guy on top right is Hittite

Yes, you have right. Egyptians are portraying them like that. However, the Hittites depicted themselves differently. Many do have beard or a hairy chest. The ruling class seem to have a clean shave

like the image of the priests I posted.

Sargon of Akkad · Dec 7, 2011

The Dark Lords of Hattusha documentary seemed to think they were Indo-European.

Search

Search

Biological relationships of the Hittites

Kahotep

Salah

okamido

beorna

Midas

Turkmen

Midas

Midas

Turkmen

Midas

Turkmen

Midas

Turkmen

Midas

Frank81

Midas

Sargon of Akkad

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions