G-M406 in the Copper & Bronze Age

Haplogroup G-M3302 In The Copper & Bronze Age

Written & Compiled by Todd Paradine(Last edited February 2022)*This text is always under construction - the firm conclusions of today are the obsolete ponderings of yesterday*Please direct any comments, concerns, and criticisms to me at paradinet@yahoo.com

I: THE HATTI BULLSEYE

The prevailing theory regarding those bearing the M3302 SNP mutation is that it likely first formed around 6,000 BCE among Native Anatolians living along the bend of the Halys (Kızılırmak) River as well as the southern coast of the Black Sea in Central Anatolia.  These people may have received the Neolithic package later than their cousins to the south.  In those days the now less forgiving landscape of Central Anatolia was in part covered by dense forest.  The men of M3302 likely lived alongside men of its sister clades downstream from M406 and FGC5089 in small semi-permanent settlements which would be abandoned for more favorable nearby locations as resources and materials ran dry.

Very few traces from Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter gatherers have been discovered in northern Anatolia.  The men of G-M3302 (and G-FGC5089, G-M406) do not appear to have developed permanent settlements or experienced the population explosion during the Neolithic that famously spurred their G2a cousins into Europe.  The early Neolithic farming societies of their G cousins apparently did not find the wooded, mountainous landscape to their liking.  Instead, these men almost certainly made up a percentage of the Hattic civilization that flourished in the Early Bronze Age

Today all men bearing G-M3302 appear to descend from a man bearing the mutation who lived about 4,700 BCE, at a time when the first metal implements made with copper began to appear in Anatolia.  The oldest G-M3302 YDNA sample was found in Camlibel Tarlasi (near the ancient city of Ḫattuša) circa 3500 BCE.  Autosomally, the sample shared about 50% of its ancestry with its G2a cousins to the south who occupied some of the world's first settlements like Çatalhöyük, Boncuklu, Göbekli Tepe, Hasilar, Pinarbasi, etc. suggesting a common descent sometime during the Mesolithic period.  In addition they sample held about 30% Caucasus Hunter Gatherer, 15% Natufian (Levant), and about 10% from the Iranian Mesolithic. 

The settlement of Camlibel Tarlasi was situated on a low plateau within a narrow valley branching off from the main plain.  They were likely drawn to the site due to a nearby deposit of copper ore and evidence of metallurgical activity is found throughout the site.  The houses unearthed at the sight contained graves under the floors and several skeletons show signs of body modification and skull elongation.  Livestock, particularly pigs, played a large role in their sustenance.  There was also evidence of trade from exotic Flint blades, to Mediterranean shells, and Obsidian from Cappadocia. 

Due to its deposits of Copper, Central Anatolia played an important role in the advancement of metallurgy that led to the Bronze Age.   The Native Anatolians flourished as bronze metallurgy spread to Anatolia from the Kura-Araxes culture in the late 4th millennium BCE.  Settlements began to prosper in the region as a result of an enhanced trade network and innovations.  One city, Ḫattuša, became the focal point of what would become known as the Hattic civilization. The Hatti were a non-Indo-European indigenous people and almost certainly G-M3302 (FGC5089 and M406) made up a sizable percentage of it's male lines.

The Hatti had a special relationship with Assyrians traders from Mesopotamia who provided them with the tin needed to make bronze and connected Anatolia with the greater Mesopotamian world at large. These trading posts or Karums played an important role in Anatolia, the fall of Assyria, and the rise of the Hittites in around 1700 BC. These Karums represented separate residential areas where the traders lived, protected by the Hatti, and paying taxes in return.  We find an ancient M406 sample in the burnt remains of an Assyrian trade building at Kaman-Kalehöyük.  The sample dated from 2000-1750 BCE and was likely killed in the Hittite destruction of the city. 

II. KURA ARAXES AXIS 

The Kura-Araxes culture arose contemporaneously with the Proto-Hattic, Native Anatolian civilization taking root to the west along the Black Sea and the Halys River.  Named for the two rivers that formed the culture’s heartland, the Kura, and the Araxes, in the highlands of the South Caucasus. The distinctive identities marking this period began to arise around 4,000 BCE.  After a slow start, the culture began to spread north, west, and south spreading several markers of innovation towards the Zagros, Caucasus, and Taurus Mountains by 3,000 BCE.  Whether or not this was a movement of people or just a slow spread of innovation to existing inhabitants, this culture certainly overlapped or bordered the eastern range of the Proto-Hattic people among which almost certainly contained men bearing the G-M3302 (G-M406 and G-FGC5089) signature.

According to author Mitchell S. Rothman, the Kura-Araxes was a “...tradition representing an adaptive regime and a symbolically encoded common identity spread over a broad area of patchy mountain environments. By 3000 BCE, groups bearing this identity had migrated southwest across a wide area from the Taurus Mountains down into the southern Levant, southeast along the Zagros Mountains, and north across the Caucasus Mountains. In these new places, they became effectively ethnic groups amid already heterogeneous societies.”  Yet,  it appears this influence was less direct on the Proto-Hattic peoples as a whole than in other parts of Anatolia.

The Kura-Araxes economy was farm-based and dependent on livestock like cattle and sheep.  Their population centers show evidence of advanced metalworking.  They made flour and inherited wine making from the earlier Shulaveri-Shomu culture.  They raised cattle, sheep, goats, dogs, and in later phases, horses.  Domesticated horses were not found in Anatolia prior to their appearance among the Kura-Araxes culture starting in 3300 BCE (arrival of PIE).  Evidence of  trade with other cultures is also found from up the Volga, Dnieper and Don-Donets river systems in Europe as well as Syria and Palestine.

It doesn’t take much of a stretch to see how the Kura-Araxes culture transmitted some aspects of their culture (influence) to the Proto-Hattic peoples.  Trade likely played a large part in this continuum.  This is especially true in the area of metallurgical development where they worked in copper, arsenic, silver, gold, tin, and bronze and greatly influenced surrounding regions, among them the Hatti.

Some evidence of this interconnectivity can be found in Arslantepe, a settlement in South Central Turkey, near the Syrian border.  Arslantepe was a crossroads settlement in terms of its position in the Early Bronze Age, intersecting several cultural industries.  The study Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia, Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus places at least on G-M406 samples living in the Mesopotamian influenced palace culture settlement at approximately 3400 BC.  Shortly after, this culture seems to disintegrate and the appearance of Kura-Araxes pottery becomes prominent. 

Another major area of overlap may have been in the area that  correlates to the modern day Trabzon and Erzurum Provinces of Turkey.  In the mountainous Erzurum Province, early forms of Kura-Araxes pottery were found alongside local ceramics as early as 3500-3300 BC.  By 3000 BCE, the area was firmly part of the Kura-Araxes cultural complex.  In comparison, the coastal Black Sea triangle of Trabzon (Trebizond), Gimesun (Cerasus/Pharnacia), and Gümüşhane contain some of the highest concentration of G-M3302 individuals, suggesting that this area would have been within the sphere of the Proto Hattic Native Anatolians.  Both areas seem to be the epicenter of   Hayasa-Azzi, a coalition hostile to the Hittites in the Late Bronze Age, which will be detailed later.

Some speculate that the Kura-Araxes culture spread individuals and ideas that sparked the civilizations of Crete (Minoan) and Cyclade Islands of the Aegean based on high levels of G2a, J1, and J2a Haplogroups present in these areas and a cultural association with the bull (minotaur).  To date, no smoking gun has been found to link the Minoans as a descendant culture of the Kura-Araxes nor has any ancient G-M3302 have been found in the core Kura-Araxes zones or on Ancient Crete.

III. ANATOLIAN ARRIVAL OF PIE

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that the first G-M3302 (G-FGC5089 & G-M406) were Native Anatolians who shared a male lineage that had occupied the Near East  as far back as the Early Neolithic period.  The same can not be said for the Anatolian branch of the Proto-Indo-Europeans (PIE).  It is widely assumed that the Proto-Anatolian peoples arrived in Asia Minor during the Bronze Age from the Caspian Steppe.  

How and when these Proto-Anatolian tribes entered Anatolia is still up for debate.  However, linguists suggest that the Anatolian branch separated from their PIE cousins at an early juncture, indicating a geographical migration or separation slightly earlier than some of the other European or Indo-Asiatic PIE groups.  Today, a reasonable estimate of the arrival of the Proto-Anatolians is about 3,000-4,000 BCE.  This may indicate that the Proto-Anatolians reached Anatolia with wagons, but prior to the Indo European shift of using chariots for war.  Many researchers suggest the establishment of their language and culture in Asia Minor was more of a gradual settlement and cultural assimilation rather than a male dominated conquest as seen from other PIE groups in Europe. 

In terms of movement into Anatolia, scholars are split between hypothesizing a Balkan Route for the Proto-Anatolians, while some speculate that the Proto Anatolians traveled south through the Caucuses likely hugging the shores of the Caspian Sea.  Either way, it is hypothesized that initially the Proto-Anatolian groups shared many commonalities in language which began to diverge around 3400 BC into three daughter languages, Luwian, HIttite, and Palaic.  There are many similar features that these languages shared that they didn’t share with other Proto-Indo-European tongues.  Linguists can determine that given the differences in the Luwian and Hittite languages from primary Bronze Age sources, the two languages split several millennia before and evolved over time.  The same can be said for Palaic, spoken by the inhabitants of Palas, which became extinct around 1400 BCE.  *See V. TRACE OF THE KASKA*

The Caucuses theory places the Proto Anatolians in the area of what is now Armenia and Azerbaijan living a semi-nomadic lifestyle.  It also coincides with mentions of 'barbarians from the north' harassing Mesopotamian cities.  Not to mention, there is also evidence that the Guptans, PIE peoples of Iran, began appearing in the Zagros Mountains around this time.  From about 3500 BCE onwards, the Proto-Anatolian groups would have expanded westwards, separating from each other and developing different dialects that would eventually emerge into full fledged languages of Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic.

Conversely, the Balkans theory proposes that an early group or groups of Indo Europeans migrated around the western shores of the Black Sea and eventually crossed the Bosphorus into Anatolia around 3,000 BCE.  There they would have established a foothold in Northwestern Anatolia for hundreds of years before separating into several subgroups.  These continued migrations resulted in the splintering of the Anatolian PIE language family.  This continued incursion into Anatolia resulted in the Luwian kingdoms of Kizzuwa to the southwest, and Arzawa to the west of the indigenous Hattic Civilization.  The Pala tribe then settled to the northwest of Hatti.  Finally, the Hittites, first referred to as the Nešili', are thought to have circled south of Hatti and appeared in the city of Nesa (Kanesh) about 200 miles south and east of Ḫattuša. 

IV. HITTITE IMPRINT

The Hittites were an Indo-European people who many scholars speculate had occupied areas of Anatolia south of the Halys River (the Hittites called it Maraššantiya) for hundreds of years (at least) before they came into direct and sustained conflict with the Hattic people.  By 1700 BCE, Anita, the king of a Hittite town called Kussara and ruler of the important trading center Kanes, twice defeated Piyusti, the Hattic King of Ḫattuša in battle.  The second time Anita’s troops stormed the city of Ḫattuša at night after its defenders were weakened by famine and destroyed the Hattic capital.  By this time it appears the Hatitan city of Zalpuwa on the Black Sea had also been subjugated by the Hittites.

By about 1600 BCE, the Hittites subjected and assimilated the native Hattic people throughout the region, although many aspects of Hattic society remained.  It is assumed that a genetic admixture between the two peoples almost assuredly took place over time.  The Hittites adopted the former Hattic capital of Ḫattušas as their own and even called themselves "Hittites" as in "People of the land of Hatti".  

While male lineages from the Hittites likely increased in proportion due to advantageous social hierarchy, there was no complete replacement of Hattic lineages in Central Anatolia as seen in the Indo European conquests of Europe.  In all likelihood the conquest was a merging of the two cultures, and almost assuredly the smaller Hattic farming communities that supplied larger Hittite strongholds remained primarily Hattic in ancestry.  

We know that Hattic culture remained important in the Empire as the Hittites absorbed the Hattic pantheon and several Hattic legends such as Telipinu and the serpentine dragon Illuyanka were incorporated into Hittite lore.  In addition, the Hattic language is present in various Hittite texts.  Linguists were able to detect evolutionary shifts in the Hattic language  from Old Hittite to New Hittite texts implying that the Hattic tongue remained alive until at least the end of the 14th century BCE.  This was likely especially true in the rural areas of the Hittite core territory where small farming villages supplied larger Hittite towns with grain that fueled their war machine.

The Hittite army was constructed in a fashion similar to feudal Europe with the exception of a core professional force loyal to the king.  Leadership of the Hittite army according to the website Realm of History, was essentially left to relatives of the King and nobles who controlled large rural estates and contributed men, money, and food to the army.  These men would command their own troops on the field and likely often went to war in the interest of protecting or increasing their own lands and power.  While initially it was unlikely that men of Hattic descent would have occupied these posts, they almost certainly were found serving under these Hittite nobles.  Perhaps later during the New Kingdom (1400-1200 BCE), as a result of further admixture, Hattic male lineages may have been represented in the nobility.  During this time, the Hittites became one of the first peoples to manufacture iron artifacts. 

The bulk of the Hittite army could be split into three tiers.  The lower-ranking officers and the soldiers of the Hittite army often made a career out of their military service  and could be called at a moment’s notice during any time of the year to fight for their lord.  Most of these men lived in provincial barracks and were provided with rations all throughout the year. A significant percentage of these men were volunteers but many more were conscripted into service by the order of their province.  The responsibility of selecting such troops fell upon the governors, who were directed to only pick free-men and not slaves. In addition, another group of reservists known as the Lu Gistukul or ‘Men of Weapon’, were engaged in agricultural activities most of the year but were trained soldiers and sworn to muster when called upon by their lords.  Instead of payment in terms of rations and housing, these reservists were paid in small lands.  

Finally, levied troops were made up of barely trained and often unwilling peasants. When needs dictated, they would be levied, equipped with what weapons were available and directed to fight by their lords.  These standing army, reservists, and levied peasant ranks were much more likely to have contained men of Hattic descent and certainly could have accounted for the spread of the G-M3302 (as well as G-FGC5089 and G-M406) to other areas of Anatolia.  

The frontier of the Hittite Kingdom was in a constant state of ebb and flow in terms of the territory it claimed or subjugated and the military campaigns it conducted.  These periods of strengths and then weaknesses led to a changing lineup of vassals providing assistance at war one day, and unfriendly hosts rising up against Hittite rule the next.  The Hittites would also be weakened from time to time by civil war as ruling factions turned on each other at the expense of the kingdom.  

In 1595 BC, after securing Central Anatolia, the Hittites under Muršili I raided down the Euphrates River, capturing Mari and Babylonia.  Muršili I was not able to add Mesopotamia into his domain due to Hittite infighting back in Anatolia.  Muršili was assassinated shortly after his return home, and the Hittite Kingdom was plunged into chaos. The Kingdom entered into a period of decline with very sparse surviving records.  Historians attribute this weakness to the political infighting as well as invasions by the Kaška, a non-Indo-European people native to the northern area along the shores of the Black Sea. Kaška is essentially the Hattic word for Moon.  It is very likely these people spoke a form of Hattic and were possibly a more wild, reclusive extension of the native culture.  At the very least, we have an idea that the Kaška were also G-FGC5089 (G-M406.)  *See V. TRACE OF THE KASKA*

However, the once mighty Hittite Empire would not stay down forever.   During the reign (c. 1400 BC) of King Tudhaliya I, the Hittites vanquished the Hurrian states of Aleppo and Mitanni, and expanded to the west at the expense of Arzawa (a Luwian state).  The Empire would become strong enough to control much of Anatolia by 1350 BCE bringing vassal states to heel in Western Anatolia and leveraging trade routes and metallurgic advancements into prosperity.  For a time, the empire even rivaled the Egyptians standing toe to toe with them at the famous battle of Kadesh in 1274 BCE.  It is very likely men of G-M3302, G-FGC5089, and G-M406 marched in the Hittite armies, represented the Empire in trade, and potentially as settlers in other parts of Anatolia.

After 1180 BCE, amid general turmoil in the Levant with the sudden arrival of the Sea Peoples—people of unknown nationality who used ships to raid Mediterranean and Egyptian cities—the kingdom scattered into several independent Neo-Hittite city-states  While many of the Sea Peoples are unknown to scholars even today, we know that the Lukka, a former Hittite vassal from Southwest Anatolia as well as the Kaška, and possibly the Phrygians who were involved in burning almost all major Hittite cities to the ground and erasing all traces of the once mighty empire.

V. TRACE OF THE KASKA

While the waxing and waning power of the Hittites in the 2nd Millennium BC dominated the political and power structure of Anatolia, they did not live in a region without danger.  Their kingdom was under almost constant attack from the Kaška, a tribe of non-Indo-European people living to the north of Ḫattuša along the shores of the Black Sea in a region known as Pontis.  The Kaška position in the mountainous territory around the mouth of the Halys river bordered on Hittite territory making it easy for them to raid Hittite settlements and strike fear into the very heart of Hittite Civilization.  According to historian Igor M. Diakonoff in The Pre History of the Armenian People, "Their territory stretched from the mouth of the Halys (Kizil-Irmak), or a point to the west of it, to the upper Euphrates west of present-day Erzincan, including the valley of the rivers Iris (Yesil-Irmak) and Lycus (Wolf River, Gaylget, Kelkit)."  In times of peace, they raised pigs and wove linen, and some of their men also served as mercenaries for the Hittites.

Although some have speculated that the Kaška originated elsewhere beyond the Pontic region, the more reasonable conclusion is that they were Native Central Anatolians.  They may even represent a more wild, less civilized, and unvanquished branch of the Hattic peoples.  We  know that G-M3317 (upstream from G-FGC5089) was present in İkiztepe, on the Black Sea Coast as early as 3500 BCE.  The settlement was inhabited from the early Bronze Age until the beginnings of the Hittite period.  Combined with previously mentioned ancient G-FGC5089 and G-M3302 samples from Çamlıbel Tarlası (near Ḫattuša), as well as a G-M406 sample from Arslantepe from the same time period, it paints the picture of a range of Native Central Anatolians bearing these signatures.  These same subclades are found in the region today, suggesting that both the Hatti and Kaška may ultimately have been cut from the same cloth.

.  

The Kaška name itself seems to have come from the Hattic moon god Kašku.  While no one knows what the tribe actually called themselves, this Hattic term was certainly used by the Hittites to identify them.  It likely stemmed from a phrase taken from the first known Kaška conquest at Nerik or perhaps came from old Hattic traditions that may have identified these tribes as followers of Kašku.  It is also possible that the Kaška received their name due to being inhabitants of the region where the God Kašku is said to have fallen from his place in the sky and into the marketplace of the city of Laḫzan (close to the cities of Zalpa and Nerik).  

The Kaška did not leave much in the way of archeological evidence which is a strong clue that they initially occupied simple settlements that were loosely allied with one another and difficult for their Hittite foes to extinguish.  Clues to their history are also sparse in the written record.  They are first mentioned in Hittite text as conquering the city of Nerik and its surrounding territory under the reign of the Hittite King Hantili I (c. 1590-1560 BCE).  The Kaška burnt the holy city of Nerik to the ground and then moved into its ruins.  We know this because of a famous Hittite prayer pleading for the return of Nerik to the empire.  At this time, the Kaška also inhabited the cities of Kammama and Zalpuwa.

According to Jak Yakar (The Archeology of the Kaška, 2008): 

“The Kaška Land should not be perceived as a broad territorial mass. Perhaps centered in the east-central Black Sea region, it seems to have consisted of bulging pockets of land inhabited by a population with a Kaška majority. These pockets expanded or shrunk in size according to the scope of Hittite success in ending or curtailing the hostile activities of the Kaška tribes.  We may assume that prominent landmarks would have constituted the borders of the Kaška with the Hittite Upper Land, Pala and Tummanna The eastern Kaška territory could have included the Çarşamba plain, the lower Yeşilırmak and the Kelkit valleys. The Bafra plain including the lower Kızılırmak valley, the districts of Durağan, Kargı, could have constituted the central Kaška region. The Sinop and Kastamonu provinces including the area south of the Ilgaz Mountains could have been territories inhabited not only by the western Kaška tribes, but also by farmers of Dahara River Land, identified with the eastern Gökırmak valley, as well as communities of Tummanna and Pala.”

Yakar laments that thus far there is very little archeological evidence of Kaška settlement during the Hittite period despite written records from the Hittites themselves.  The disconnect is derived mainly from the lack of Late Bronze Age (LBA) pottery found in these places that had previously been well connected to the surrounding region during the preceding Assyrian Colony period.

Some speculate that in order to mount an opposition to the Hittite invaders, many Kaška combatants may have dispersed to small settlements in the mountains leaving behind their farming kinsman who would have fallen under periodic Hittie control.  Taking advantage of the Black Sea region’s rugged terrain would have been an effective way to oppose the more powerful Hittites.  

Yakar hypothesizes that the Kaška could have primarily relocated to these mountain hamlets subsisting “on semi-nomadic economic activities involving herding, horticulture, hunting, and foraging, while their farmers may have  inhabited villages in the countryside.”  These farmers too could have pursued a seasonal migration between the plains and the mountains which would help explain the lack of LBA pottery found in supposedly Kaška settlements.  Yakar also speculates that the economic interaction between Kaška and Hittite farmers in border districts would have led Kaška pottery to have been indistinguishable between any other central Anatolian ceramics of the Hittite period.

The semi-nomadic lifestyle of the Kaška meant that the Hittites could not fully control the regions around Samsun and Sinop which were inhabited by their tribes.  The freedom of the Kaška warriors to move at will would have rarely been challenged by the Hittites.  This would have allowed them to strike easily at Hittite settlements and evade the larger formations of the Hittite armies.  This type of Guerrilla warfare, according to Yakar, allowed the Kaška to “break contact, evade the enemy, and regroup in well-hidden mountain villages.”   In response, the Hittites looked to repopulate former Kaška population centers, tighten their control on popular roads and outposts, as well as resettling the Kaška in other districts of the empire.

Perhaps more of a threat to the Hittites was the Kaška ability to organize in large tribal confederations, as well as ally with other Hittite enemies.  The Kaška are also thought to have conquered and settled the land of Pala to the west of Pontis in an area known as Paphlagonia.  The Proto-Indo-European Pala were recorded in Old Hittite period texts, but that contact ceased because of the Kaška conquest.  Subsequently, the Pala disappeared from history.

This very real threat from what may have amounted to a Kaška confederation or proto state in Anatolia occupied the attention of the Hittites over several generations. Around 1350 BC, it is said in Hittite texts that a plague of locusts ate the Kaška’s grain.  The hungry Kaška joined with Hayasa-Azzi to the west and Isuwa to the east to burn Ḫattuša to the ground.  In the Amarna letters, Egyptian Pharaoh Amenhotep III was so intrigued by these wild people that he wrote to the Arzawan king Tarhunta-Radu asking for him to send him some of these Kaška people of whom he had heard.

Later, under Hittite King Suppiluliuma (1344-1322), the Hittites regained Hatusa and moved on to Hayasa.   Twelve tribes of Kaška were said to have assembled a large force at Nerik under Piyapili in defense of the Hayasa Azzi, but were defeated.  This did not keep the Kaška from continuing to menace the Hittites.  They would later unite for the first time under Pihhuniya of Tipiya, who was said to have “ruled like a king”.  He was defeated during the rule of Muršili II (1325-1295).  Later, under the rule of Muršili’s son, Muwatalli II (1295-1272), the Kaška again sacked Ḫattuša.  Muwatalli II retaliated by removing Kaška troops from his army and sending his brother Hattusili III to defeat the tribes and recapture Nerik.

It is thought that the Kaška ultimately had the last laugh against the Hittites during the 12th century BCE, a period of time known as the Bronze Age collapse.  The Kaška joined in with the Phrygians and perhaps other mysterious invaders known as the Sea Peoples to destroy Ḫattuša and the Hittite Empire for good.  As the Hittites themselves were the primary source of the Kaška people, there is very little reference to them following the fall of Ḫattuša.

They are referenced by the neighboring Assyrian empire who described a conflict with Kaška tribes around 1100 BCE.  Kaška forces their allies Mushki and Urumu were said to have thrust southwards from the Hatti heartland, coming into contact with the Assyrians who called them “Apishlu”.  The last reference to the Kaška comes from the time of the Assyrian king Sargon II around 700 BCE, who also fought them.

Some believe that after their defeat by the Assyrians, a subdivision of the Kaška might have retreated north-eastwards to the Caucasus, where they blended with the people there and formed the state known as Colchis to the Greeks. Another branch might have established themselves in Cappadocia, which in the 8th century BC became a vassal of Assyria and ruled some Anatolian areas.  However this is speculation.

In all likelihood, the Kaška continued their semi-nomadic lifestyle for some time after the fall of the Hittites.  Without the threat of Hittite rule, they would have gradually assumed a more sedentary lifestyle coalescing with the remnants of the former Hittite populace.  Like the Kaška, many of these former subjects were of primarily Native Anatolian stock but by this time had been culturally converted to a Proto Indo European tongue and cultural practices.  This would suggest that despite the Hittite dominance of the Hattic Civilization and its perhaps wild, unvanquished remnants, the Kaška; the G-M406 (FGC5089>G-M3302) bloodline would have still remained strong in north central Anatolia at the end of the Bronze Age.

VI. HAYASA-AZZI and the ARMENIANS

Another foe of the Hittites during the second millennium BC was a coalition of little known tribes known as Hayasa-Azzi.  Known to history only through Hittite texts and inferences from other contemporary civilizations, there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding this minor political entity.  It is still not known if Hayasa-Azzi was one unified force or a coalition of two major tribes, however it is clear that they were a major player in several centuries of strife between the Hittites and its vassal states.

Hayasa-Azzi was likely centered in the area known today as Lesser Armenia but may have stretched from the Black Sea (modern day Trabzon and Erzurum Provinces of Turkey) eastward along the Armenian Plateau to Lake Van.  Some scholars believe Hayasa lay to the south of Trabzon near the Black Sea coast, while Azzi may have been near Lake Van.  A likely consideration was that Hayass and Azzi were once separate entities only later becoming a permanent union.

In 1375 BCE, likely spurred on by famine, Hayasa-Azzi united with the Kaška, Ishuwa, and the Lukka, against the Hittites.  Hayasa-Azzi conquered Samuha, a leading Hittite city.  This suggests that this area likely occupied the Hittite frontier with Hayasa-Azzi territory.  Around 1370 BCE, they were defeated by the Hittite King Suppiluliuma and soon became his vassal.  Hakkana, the leader of the confederation, agreed to a peace treaty and married Suppiluliuma's sister.  Each state agreed to swap prisoners of war.  The confederation was still listed as a Hittite vassal in 1336 BCE, but soon under Anniya of Hayasa-Azzi, they raided the Hittite border of Dankuwa and subjugated the area’s population.  This drew the ire of Hittite King Muršili II, who was at first preoccupied with the Kaška.  

Muršili II launched a campaign across the Euphrates while Anniya embarked on a major counter-offensive invading the Upper Land region on the Hittite north-eastern frontier.  The Hittites launched a force of ten thousand men and seven hundred chariots against the forces of Hayasa-Azzi in the Hittite Upper Land driving the confederation into retreat.  Muesli II again invaded Hayasa-Azzi and conquered the territory in 1321 BC.  It is never mentioned again in Hittite records, suggesting a complete conquest, destruction, or annexation of the territory into the greater Hittite Kingdom.  With the fall of the Hittites, neither the name Hayassa or Azzi directly survived the Bronze Age Collapse.  Other groups who emerged around Lake Van ultimately gave way to the Kingdom of Urartu and eventually Armenia.

Today, the western reaches of Hayasa-Azzi, the coastal Black Sea triangle of Trabzon (Trebizond), Gimesun (Cerasus/Pharnacia), and Gümüşhane contain some of the highest concentration of G-M3302 individuals, suggesting that this area would have been within the sphere of the Proto Hattic Native Anatolians.  This also adds to the thought that the population within the confederation were made up of Native Central Anatolians with the G-M3302 (G-M406 and G-FGC5089) signature.

A percentage of this population not only persisted through the Bronze Age, but also as the area changed hands over and over again until the modern era.  Today, modern Armenians share a high genetic affinity with Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Medieval skeletons who historically inhabited the Armenian Highlands.  Armenians are also one of the few Anatolian peoples who share a significant connection to the Neolithic farmers who expanded into Europe beginning around 8,000 years ago.   This affinity is likely via the Native Central Anatolian connection of G-M406 men (and corresponding female clades) to the other G clades found in Boncuklu and Catalhoyuk as previously noted.  .

Some scholars point out that Hayasa has been connected with the Armenians, and their own name for themselves Hayas, and the name of their country, Hayastan.  The founding father of the Armenians is said to be a man named Hayk.  It is certainly possible that the oral tradition of the Hayasa may have survived and at least part of Armenia's heritage was developed from the Native Anatolian society of Hayasa.  

On the other hand, the Armenian language is thought to be a descendant of the Indo European language family suggesting the contribution of PIE tribes who made linguistic, genetic, and cultural impact on the natives.   This fits the data suggesting a genetic admixture in Armenians between 3000 BC and 2000 BC which reaches a stable admixture consistent with modern Armenians by the Bronze Age Collapse.  This likely indicates the actual Indo European admixture bringing the Armenian dialect which would eventually become dominant into the equation.  This ethnogenesis was likely solidified by the emergence in the area of the Iron Age state of Urartu.

VII. THE LUWIANS: A MISSING LINK

Luwian is a branch of the Anatolian Proto-Indo-European language family.  While the arrival of Proto Indo European languages in Anatolia is hotly debated, Luwian personal names can be found as early as 2000 BCE in documents from the Assyrian karum (trading colony) in Kültepe.  The term Luwian was also used very early by the Assyrians to describe western Asian Minor.  The description of this region as Luwiya comes to us from Hittite documents written in Akkadian cuneiform.  However in modern academia, the term Luwian is primarily used to identify a language group and not typically a civilization.  The culture had its own hieroglyphic script that lasted from at least 2000 BCE to 600 CE but has consistently taken a back seat to more famous and widely studied Bronze Age cultures on the eastern Mediterranean.

Unlike their linguistic cousins the Hittites and the Pala, Luwian speakers aren't typically identified as a common political entity.  Instead, as the most common, widely spread, and most populous of the Anatolian PIE dialects, the Luwian speakers of Bronze Age Anatolia are most often referred to by the names of their petty kingdoms.  Most of what we know about them comes from Hittite records that document the waxing and waning of various Luwian speaking political entities.  The Luwian pretty kingdoms at times served as Hittite vassals and other times created temporary alliances to oppose Hittite rule.  

One of the most famous instances occurred in 1400 CE with the formation of the Assuwa Confederation.  According to the Hittites, 22 Luwians city states formed an alliance to oppose their political and military influence in western Asia Minor.  The Hittites named some of these entities, many of which have not been located with certainty: Kišpuwa, Unaliya, Dura, Ḥalluwa, Ḥuwallušiya, Karakiša [Caria], Dunda, Adadura, Parišta, Waršiya, Kuruppiya, Alatra, Pahurina, Pasuhalta, Wilušiya [Troy], and Taruisša [Troas].  

The center for Luwian Studies, details the political landscape of the Luwian culture in Bronze Age Anatolia:

"The term Luwiya in Hittite documents soon disappears and is seemingly replaced by the largely synonymous use of the name of the most influential Luwian kingdom: Arzawa. The latter can be broken down into its main constituents, the petty kingdoms of Wiluša, Šeha, Mira, Hapalla and Arzawa in the narrower sense. The mainland of Arzawa lay in the valley of the Büyük Menderes River (Maeander in antiquity). Most researchers assume that its capital, Apaša, was the predecessor of ancient Ephesus and as such was located near the modern town of Selçuk.  Arzawa reached the peak of its political power during the 15th and early 14th century BCE, at a time when the Hittite Empire was insignificant. Letters in the Amarna archives reveal that Arzawa then ranked as the leading power in Asia Minor; its kings even cultivated contacts with Egypt.

Hittite documents mention another dozen Luwian kingdoms in west and south Asia Minor, which sometimes were vassals of the Great Kings of Hatti and sometimes enemies. These include, in addition to those already mentioned, Lukka, Karkiša, Pedasa, Tarhuntašša, Kizzuwatna, Walma and Maša.  The two dozen Luwian kingdoms, large and small, hardly appear on any historical maps dealing with Late Bronze Age Aegean civilizations. On the contrary, most maps currently show a vast Hittite Empire covering almost all of Asia Minor. This situation refers to the time after 1300 BCE, when it was valid for a relatively short period. The Bronze Age, however, lasted for 2000 years, while the Hittite Empire existed for only about 400 years – and even then it was essentially limited to central Asia Minor. In addition, from about 1450 to 1380 BCE, the Hittites were powerless. The maps showing the huge expansion of the Hittite Empire give the impression that the Hittite kings were overpowering – and disguise our lack of knowledge. In reality, the neighboring states in the west caused a lot of trouble for the great Hittite kings. Not once, but twice, they even contributed to the downfall of the Hittite Empire."

While the Hittites very specifically documented their conquest and assimilation of the Native Anatolian Hattic speaking peoples, the initial Luwian relationship with them is not attested.  It is very possible, if not probable, that the Luwians also admixed with Native Anatolians in a manner similar to the Hittites.  It is generally accepted that the Luwian language does contain loan words from Hattic.  In a paper from 2020, Linguist Petra M. Goedegebuure even goes as far as to argue for a pre-conquest "cultural merger" of some proto-Hattic and proto-Luwian language communities in Central Anatolia predating the Hittite conquest.  Goedgegebuure stated that while Hattic loan words existed in Luwian and Hittite, there is conversely a detectable impact the other way around.  This Proto Indo European influence on the Hattic language, he argues, would have occurred before the Hattic peoples were conquered in some sort of "symbiosis" between the Hattic people and the Luwians.  The author points to evidence in Hittite records where Luwian cult recitations existed for Hattic deities, whereas the Hittites themselves relied on Hattic alone for these recantations.  Goedgegebuure provides further evidence from Luwian religious texts which "...contain Hattic mythological motifs, again pointing at close contact with Hattic culture (Soysal 2002). In addition, the indigenous Anatolian Telipinu myth and other related Old Hittite compositions show a mixture of Hattic and Luwian motifs."  He also cites several scholars who have argued that Luwian speakers were present in Central Anatolia and possibly North Anatolia before migrating to Western Anatolia during the Middle Bronze Age.  Whether this is correct is uncertain.  However if this is the case, it would make it all the more likely that men of G-M3302 (G-M406 & G-FGC5089) could have been present among the Luwian city states of Western Anatolia.

VII. MYCENAE, CRETE, and the CYCLADIC ISLES

During the Bronze Age, the Mycenaean culture dominated mainland Greece and the Aegean Sea from about 1600 BCE to 1200 BCE.  The palace-based civilization left very little historical and cultural writings.  The culture collapsed rather suddenly with evidence of a violent conquest being drawn from a burned-layer accompanied by arrowheads and other evidence of destruction.  We do know from the decoding of Linear B writing that the Myceneans spoke a form of Proto-Greek, demonstrating at least a partial descent from the great Proto-Indo-European migration that began around the Chalcolithic Period some time between 4500–3200 BCE.

Prior to the arrival of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, it is believed that Greece was inhabited primarily by farmers descended from the inhabitants of the first cities of southwestern Anatolia.  According to The Origins of Europe’s First Farmers: The Role of Hacılar and Western Anatolia, Fifty Years On written by Maxime Brami and Volker Heyd, the Neolithic farming communities in Greece, Crete, and the Cycladic Islands may have originated from several waves of Anatolian migrants from 7,000 to 6,000 BCE.  It is likely that mainland Greece was influenced by Neolithic Farmers crossing the Anatolian land bridge as well as by Neolithic seafarers who may have island hopped and traveled along the coast reaching destinations as far as Italy and Spain.  Many of these First Farmers were of Haplogroup G, however thus far no men bearing G-M3302  (FGC-5089, or G-M406) have been found in the Anatolian First Farmer communities, Neolithic Greece, or in Neolithic Europe.  

These Neolithic Greeks likely spoke a language brought from their early Anatolian communities.  The remnants of this language is thought to be detectable in Ancient and Modern Greek, in what is referred to as a Pre-Greek substrate.  Some researchers have outright connected this language to Hattic, a theory put forth by Giampaolo Tardivo and Philippos Kitselis in Prometheus or Amirani part 2: An updated study on the Pre-Greek substrate and its origins.  However, the Hattic language known to scholars is one that is attested to us via the Indo-European speaking Hittites.  Given the known archeological time frame and known haplotypes associated with the First Farmer migrations, it is more likely this Neolithic Greek substrate represents an undocumented sister language descended from the same language family as Hattic.  

A groundbreaking paper, The ancient Mycenaeans and Minoans were most closely related to each other by Lazardis et. al. found that today’s Greeks get three-quarters of their DNA from the First Farmers who lived in Greece and southwestern Anatolia. 

Another interesting find from the paper was an influx in individuals with elevated levels of Eastern Caucasus/Iranian ancestry.  This could signify a number of scenarios including a possible connection to the Kura Araxes expansion.  According to Genetic History of the Population of Crete by Petros Drineas et. al, “Eastern Crete received waves of new immigrants from the Anatolian coast through the Dodecanese in the Final Neolithic/Early Minoan (around 3,500 to 3,000 BCE).”  In addition, the Bronze Age arrived from Anatolia first in Cycladic Islands and then emerging in Crete and Mainland Greece in the 4th Millennium BCE.  If G-M406 had made its way into Bronze Age Greece of Minoan society, this could have been the most likely time period for migration.

While the Caucuses element was found both in Minoan and Mycenaean autosomal DNA, the key difference between the two ancient cultures was a 4 to 16 percent Steppe admixture.  This suggests that the Indo-European arrival into Greece brought both a new language to the region and an gene flow.  The Indo Europeans did not make it to Crete, which would explain the lack of genetic imprint as well as the inability of linguists to decode the Minoan Linear A tablets which are not Indo European based.

The flourishing Minoan civilization on Crete was likely dealt a fatal blow via the huge eruption of a volcano on the island of Santorini (Thera) 1500-1600 BCE.  The cataclysmic event caused wide-spread destruction as well as tsunamis that many scholars believe brought about the beginning of the end for the Minoans.  Researcher Floyd McCoy provides a reasonable perspective on how the eruption slowly undermined the Minoan Civilization. Not only did the eruption eradicate a key trading center for the civilizations, tsunamis caused widespread destruction of Minoan coastal villages and resources.  Then, the potential climatic effects of the volcano may have played a role in ruined harvests and social unrest.  Many scholars believe the ringed island of Santorini and the spectacular collapse of the advanced Minoans to be the real life progenitor of the mythical civilization of Atlantis.  As the Minoan way of life disappeared, the Mycenaeans began to encroach on the island of Crete, borrowing from the now defunct civilization.  However, like the stories of many other Bronze Age civilizations, they too would soon be the subject of legends.

In perhaps an echo to far more ancient times, the term Pelasgian was utilized by Classical Greek writers to refer to the mysterious inhabitants of Greece, before the arrival of the Greeks themselves.  The word essentially became a catch all term for the indigenous inhabitants of the Aegean Sea region and their cultures, but may be an ancient recollection to pockets of Non-Indo European speaking peoples in Greece, the Cyclades, and Crete in the post Minoan, Iron Age era.  It is likely that Iliad and Odyssey written by the Ionian Greek Homer in the 8th century BCE captures oral traditions dating back to the Mycenaean age of Greece.  For thousands of years, Homer’s Troy was thought to be all but a myth.  Heinrich Schliemann and his compatriots discovered the ruins of the ancient city in 1871.  It is now thought that Troy was possibly a Hittite vassal or sometimes ally known to them as Wilusa.  Therefore, it is quite possible that Homer’s Iliad captures a military conflict between the Mycenaeans (possibly referred to as Ahhiyawa in Hittite texts) and Wilusa backed by the Hittites.

Classical Greek authors also refer to an invasion by the Dorians that occurred at some point in the past.  We know from the burned out layers at Mycenae and elsewhere on the mainland that this likely occurred around 1150 BC.  Given that the Myceneans already spoke a form of Greek and that the Dorians spoke a different dialect of what is considered the same language, it is assumed that the Dorians represented less-civilized Greek tribes living on the northern periphery of Greece.  They likely pushed further south for what could have been a variety of reasons reigning destruction on their more sophisticated cousins.

Therefore, we can look at the major tribes that constituted the well-known Classical Greek world: Aeolians, Ionians, Dorians, and Achaeans and perhaps make assumptions about their Bronze Age origins.  The Ionians and Achaeans may have been the original inhabitants of the southern peninsula known as the Peloponnese.  This could suggest that these two tribes had closer genetic affinities with the original Mycenean culture.  While they also shared many commonalities with the Dorian and Aeolian Greeks (language, Steppe signatures), the Achaean and Ionian admixture may have more closely resembled the Minoans and Cycladic Aegean peoples.  When the Dorians invaded the Peloponnese, it seems that the Ionians took refuge with their kin in Attica (Athens) and eventually settled on the island of Euboea, while the Achaeans took refuge in the mountainous area of the peninsula.  Therefore, I would expect to find a higher propensity of Haplogroup G in these regions as well as on Crete and the Cyclades.  If G-M406 were to be found in Bronze Age Greece, it would be in these locations as well.