Should Armenia be considered Middle East? Poll!

[Petros Agapetos]

Should Armenia be considered Middle East? Poll!

Armenia has historic ties to the Persian, Roman, and Greek empires.
Armenia has cultural similarities to other Caucasus nations, such as Georgians and Azeris.
Armenians resemble other Caucasus people, such as Georgians and Azeris.
Armenia is a member of the European Council, which means it is eligible to be considered for EU membership.

 

[Petros Agapetos]

The term Middle East has an Islamic connotation to it. When people hear of Middle East, they think of Arabian countries, Iran, etc.

Which term do you think is most appropriate to identify Armenians?

South Caucasus
Anatolia
Mesopotamia
Middle East
West Asia

 

[John Doe]

The term Middle East has an Islamic connotation to it. When people hear of Middle East, they think of Arabian countries, Iran, etc.

Which term do you think is most appropriate to identify Armenians?

South Caucasus
Anatolia
Mesopotamia
Middle East
West Asia

South Caucasus or Anatolia.

 

[Seanp]

I think Armenia has some ties to nearly all regions of Western Eurasia including the geographically accepted term Europe. I'd say and it's my own personal observation that Armenia and Armenians can be considered as part of the modern European geopolitical structure and definitely has more potential to integrate in a Western society than most parts of the Balkans and Turkey.

 

[bicicleur 2]

I think of Armenia as more European than Asian.
But it has more affinity to Russia than to western Europe.

 

[Coriolan]

I'd say Caucasian or Middle Eastern but definitely not European.

 

[Maciamo]

I don't see how Armenia could be considered European. Geographically it is in Asia. It is not locked between the North and South Caucasus ranges like Georgia, which could still be seen as ambiguous if the Caucasus marks the boundary between Europe and Asia. Genetically, Armenians are typically northern Middle Easterners, like Turks, Azeri and Iranians. In fact, the (western) Turks have a higher percentage of European ancestry thanks to their partial Greek ancestry and a small amount of Celtic (Galatian), Roman and even Gothic ancestry. In conclusion, while I would be inclined to classify western Turks as partially European, Armenians are typically Middle Easterner and their small percentage of European ancestry (mostly dating from the Indo-European migrations) is shared by all other Middle Eastern populations (except perhaps in the southern Arabian peninsula) and even in South Asia. Actually many Indian Brahmins and Kshatriyas are more genetically European than Armenians. The only reason Armenians may look more European is because of their relatively fair skin and the Neolithic ancestry they share with Europeans (especially with Greeks and South Italians).

 

[Seanp]

I don't see how Armenia could be considered European.

Europe is a political term based on economical interests and barely, if ever it even existed as a homogeneous cultural-genetic community. There's little to no genetic relatedness when you compare a Finn and a Sardinian. You may find more genetic relatedness between a Sicilian or Greek compared to a Bedouin.
Armenians are part of the Indo-European branch and no, they're genetically not less outlier than Sardinians, Finns or Greek Cypriots would be.

Actually many Indian Brahmins and Kshatriyas are more genetically European than Armenians.

Brahmins may be more European than Poles or Germans.. what's next?
This proves you know little to nothing about genetic and first of all what's considered European? The so called Mediterranean component has originated from the Near East via Neolithic-Bronze age migrations. The so called "Caucasus-CHG" component shares more affinity with North Europeans than Mediterranean/Southwest Asian which makes the major part of South European genetic cluster.
North Europeans have significant Eurasian admixture, especially Finns and Russians and if we consider genetic they have less affinity to West Eurasia than Armenians do.



All North Europeans share more affinity with East Asia than Armenians do, while South Italians and Portuguese are the opposite end being African shifted.

 

[Boreas]

The term Middle East has an Islamic connotation to it. When people hear of Middle East, they think of Arabian countries, Iran, etc.

Which term do you think is most appropriate to identify Armenians?

South Caucasus
Anatolia
Mesopotamia
Middle East
West Asia

First of all, I don't support the idea of giving to much meaning that kind of definations.

Example:
1-Greece is also Eastern Mediterreanean country, same similar things with also those people. Of course they are sharing things with Balkans and also Italians
2-Pakistan is belogns to Indian world and Middle East etc.

South Caucaus
Definately, also these kind of narrow geographic descriptions give best results

Anatolia
Anatolia is much more small place then Turkey's Officals Thesis (All Asian part of Turkey)

Anatolia province in Ottoman (1393–1827)

Roman Asia province (Asia Minor/Anatolia)

So I don't think Anatolia is a True defination

Mesopotamia
Even I don't think that you believe it, so NO

Middle East
If we need to put Armenia into large geopraphic area such as Europe. Yes, we can put Armenians. But I am sure that all Iranian, Turks etc share same unplesant feelings about Arab-MiddleEast perception.
Western Asia
Just Iran is out. All Arab countries are still in it

And Here is border of Europe (1700). Even North Caucausia is not in Europe

 

[Milan.M]

Actually many Indian Brahmins and Kshatriyas are more genetically European than Armenians. The only reason Armenians may look more European is because of their relatively fair skin and the Neolithic ancestry they share with Europeans (especially with Greeks and South Italians).

Is it there a genetic difference between Ksatriyas,Brahmins,Vaisyas and Shudras or is just an assumption,considering they are "highest" ranks in the caste?

 

[Milan.M]

Today Europe is defined differently,if we first go in ancient times region that was named Europe was firstly the Balkans,later shifted to entire continent,today many will doubt the "Europeanness" of some Balkan people,by ancient classification perhaps Armenia belong in Asia geographicaly.
But Europe today it is clearly a cultural term to extend which rely more on our "own imagination of our world".
Perhaps this is the best ancient division and imagination.

The term "Europe" is first used for a cultural sphere in the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. From that time, the term designated the sphere of influence of the Western Church, as opposed to both the Eastern Orthodox churches and Islamic world.

In short;

I think that Armenians belong culturaly and historicaly in "this Europe" as much the Balkan people altogether considering their similar histories.

 

[Yetos]

ok guys,

Minor Asia, Μικρα Ασια,
at antique was the West parts of modern Turkey, (ιωνια Δωρις Αεολις)
No Phrygia No black sea,
Today the term includes the areas of Pontus Kastamone Phrygia Attaleia till Myrsine and Cappadokia,
that is due to Con/polis patriarch authorities at 1900,

Ανατολη Anatolia (Eastern territory )
it means sun rise, East
at antigue was the areas East of minor Asia, till Persia borders,
mainly modern Trurkey Syrria,
the term was used from Byzantine themes (Ρωμανια Ρωμυλια Ανατολια etc)
Later Ottomans used this Term to name the areas East of Con/polis to Asia, as Anadolu,

Near East Εγγυς Ανατολη
it is the East meditterenean coach
Egypt Iesrael Palaistine Lebanon Syrria Jordania
Geographiccaly Cyprus belongs to that area, as also parts of Turkey,
but they are not culturally, but I see no mistake to use these terms,
lately Aithiopia and Saudi Arabia can be considered also due to Suez channel,

Aραπια Αραβια Arabia
with term Arapia at Greek is the old Muslim world of mediterennean Africa and Arabia,
from Algeria to Persian gulf, but not Persia, till Somalia
but Arabia is the land among Red sea and Persian gulf
Saudi Yemen emirates and rest,
in a wider term includes Egypt Aithiopeia Palestine Jordania, and reaches down to Zanzibare island,

Middle East Μεση Ανατολη
the term is used often to describe areas with war tense,
it is Iraq, Iranian world and old Turkic tribes,
lately we use term for Syrria Jordania etc but is wrong,
it starts from Iraq ends to India and also has areas like Uzbekistan Kazakstan Afganistan, Azerbaizan

India
it the south of Imalia
Pakistan Nepal etc etc

Far East Απω Ανατολη
North Imalia and east of deserts
China Japan Korea etc,

Indochina and Indonesia
no need to describe,

lateley after the collapse of ex USSR
a need to describe areas of tense created Caucasia
the south and east of Caucas
Chechnia Azerbaizan Armenia etc etc,
but I do not know how correct it is,
many consider Azerbaizan and Armenia and chechnia as middle East

 

[Goga]

Actually many Indian Brahmins and Kshatriyas are more genetically European than Armenians. The only reason Armenians may look more European is because of their relatively fair skin and the Neolithic ancestry they share with Europeans (especially with Greeks and South Italians).

Are you for real? What the **** are you talking about? Armenians still plot muh, much, much closer to West and South Europeans than any population of India.

Also, there is nothing European in Indian Brahmins, Kshatriyas etc. In no way there is a direct European ancestry in Brahmins. The point is that Brahmins have some Steppes ancestry and Steppes ancestry has been considered as EAST European. But it is actually NOT an East European ancestry, but simply NorthWest EurASIAN ancestry.

Indians have NOTHING to do with Europe at all, and as much as Chinese or Korean people, lol.

That so called 'NE European' ancestry, which is actually a Steppes ancestry, can be explained by many historic evenent / invasions from Central Asia. From Indo-Scythians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians ) & Massagetae ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae ) to Turkic and Mongol invasions of India ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India ). Turkic and Mongol tribes were mixed with Slavic ('Russian') people, moslty with Slavic women. Turks/Mogols took many Slavic women with them after they raided Western Russia / Eastern Europe.

 

[Goga]

Btw, of course I voted that Armenia is a Middle Eastern country. In all ways it is part of West Asia

 

[LeBrok]

I don't see how Armenia could be considered European. Geographically it is in Asia. It is not locked between the North and South Caucasus ranges like Georgia, which could still be seen as ambiguous if the Caucasus marks the boundary between Europe and Asia. Genetically, Armenians are typically northern Middle Easterners, like Turks, Azeri and Iranians. In fact, the (western) Turks have a higher percentage of European ancestry thanks to their partial Greek ancestry and a small amount of Celtic (Galatian), Roman and even Gothic ancestry. In conclusion, while I would be inclined to classify western Turks as partially European, Armenians are typically Middle Easterner and their small percentage of European ancestry (mostly dating from the Indo-European migrations) is shared by all other Middle Eastern populations (except perhaps in the southern Arabian peninsula) and even in South Asia. Actually many Indian Brahmins and Kshatriyas are more genetically European than Armenians. The only reason Armenians may look more European is because of their relatively fair skin and the Neolithic ancestry they share with Europeans (especially with Greeks and South Italians).

Exactly. Plus their culinary culture is Middle Eastern, traditional clothing and music, language fits the region too, so is Christian religion which started in Middle East anyway. I have no freaking idea why would someone want them to fit in Europe, other than they are Christians and an "ally in fight against Muslims" which are considered to be typical Middle Eastern, or from some other insecurities.

 

[Maciamo]

Are you for real? What the **** are you talking about? Armenians still plot muh, much, much closer to West and South Europeans than any population of India.

Also, there is nothing European in Indian Brahmins, Kshatriyas etc. In no way there is a direct European ancestry in Brahmins. The point is that Brahmins have some Steppes ancestry and Steppes ancestry has been considered as EAST European. But it is actually NOT an East European ancestry, but simply NorthWest EurASIAN ancestry.

Indians have NOTHING to do with Europe at all, and as much as Chinese or Korean people, lol.

That so called 'NE European' ancestry, which is actually a Steppes ancestry, can be explained by many historic evenent / invasions from Central Asia. From Indo-Scythians ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Scythians ) & Massagetae ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massagetae ) to Turkic and Mongol invasions of India ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_India ). Turkic and Mongol tribes were mixed with Slavic ('Russian') people, moslty with Slavic women. Turks/Mogols took many Slavic women with them after they raided Western Russia / Eastern Europe.

If by "plot closer" you are referring to the PCA plot, it's no wonder that you reach wrong conclusions. PCA plots give you the average of all selected ancestral components. It doesn't tell you the percentage of a specific component. If someone was say, half European and half Australian aborigine, on a PCA plot that person would be very far away from both Europeans and Australian aborigines, probably in the middle of nowhere. Yet that person has 50% of European ancestry, much higher than any Middle Eastern person. You see why PCA can be very misleading.

Have a look at actual percentages of specific ancestry, like the Dodecad K12 and Dodecad K12b results. At K12b, Armenians score about 4.3% for combined North European and Atlantic Med. Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh score 15.3%, over three times more. You can't argue that North European and Atlantic Med are ancient North Asian. These components are almost exclusively European. The Mongols score 8.5% but they have about 15% of Y-haplogroup R1a1a1. Their Oroqen neighbours, who lack R1a, have 0% of European admixture.

At K12, you can cut out the shared Neolithic Near Eastern ancestry between modern Europeans and Middle Easterners by excluding the Mediterranean admixture. Just take East European + West European, and you see that Armenians score 5.7% of European. Brahmins are not listed, but the Burusho people of northern Pakistan score 17.7% European, while the Pathans of Afghanistan score 19.5% European. By genetics alone, Afghanistan and Pakistan are much more European than Armenia.

 

[Goga]

If by "plot closer" you are referring to the PCA plot, it's no wonder that you reach wrong conclusions. PCA plots give you the average of all selected ancestral components. It doesn't tell you the percentage of a specific component. If someone was say, half European and half Australian aborigine, on a PCA plot that person would be very far away from both Europeans and Australian aborigines, probably in the middle of nowhere. Yet that person has 50% of European ancestry, much higher than any Middle Eastern person. You see why PCA can be very misleading.

Have a look at actual percentages of specific ancestry, like the Dodecad K12 and Dodecad K12b results. At K12b, Armenians score about 4.3% for combined North European and Atlantic Med. Brahmins from Uttar Pradesh score 15.3%, over three times more. You can't argue that North European and Atlantic Med are ancient North Asian. These components are almost exclusively European. The Mongols score 8.5% but they have about 15% of Y-haplogroup R1a1a1. Their Oroqen neighbours, who lack R1a, have 0% of European admixture.

At K12, you can cut out the shared Neolithic Near Eastern ancestry between modern Europeans and Middle Easterners by excluding the Mediterranean admixture. Just take East European + West European, and you see that Armenians score 5.7% of European. Brahmins are not listed, but the Burusho people of northern Pakistan score 17.7% European, while the Pathans of Afghanistan score 19.5% European. By genetics alone, Afghanistan and Pakistan are much more European than Armenia.

Wait a minute, I didn't mean that Armenians had more of the so called NE_European (Steppes) ancestry. What I meant is that the Europeans are more similar to the Armenians than to people in Pakistan & Afghanistan. Europeans plot closer to the Armenians than to peopl eof Pakistan/Afghanistan.

 

[Goga]

Maciamo, what you do consider European is actually NOT European, but more related to the 'Armenians'. Take DODECAD. If Lithuanians are 93% Europeans and Armenians ONLY 4.5%, then why do Luthuanis plot closer to Armenians than to Central Asians or Kalash IF Central Asians have so much of European ancestry, lol??

My answer is that Lithuanians are NOT 93% native European. No way that Lithuanians are 93% native to Europe. A lot of their DNA is from Yamnaya. And Yamnaya folks were for a huge part from a region closer to Armenia. Yamnaya (second stage Indo-Europeans) was heavily mixed. Most of Lithuanian component has to be from a region from or not far from 'Armenia'. Otherwise they would never plot that close to Armenians. Also, Central Asians score some of the so called 'East European' auDNA, because they share some Mongoloid auDNA with the Eastern Europeans. But my question is how 'European' is actually that 'Mongoloid' auDNA in Europe.

R1b in Yamnaya was from an Armnenian region.

Yamnaya (late proto-Indo-European) & farmer ancestry in Lithuanians is not native to Europe at all. It is also closely related to a region close to native Armenian population.

 

[Goga]

Let change positions. Maciamo, can you explain WHY Lithuanians plot closer to Armenians than to Central Asians (Mongols) and SouthCentral Asians (Pathan, Kalash), while Lithuanians pretendingly have 93% of the natve European ancestry and Armenians only 4.5%.

Why do the Lithuanians actually plot so close to the Armenians, if Lithuanians don't have Armenian ancestry and Armenians don't have Lithuanian ancestry. Did you ask yourself this question?

 

[LeBrok]

Let change positions. Maciamo, can you explain WHY Lithuanians plot closer to Armenians than to Central Asians (Mongols) and SouthCentral Asians (Pathan, Kalash), while Lithuanians pretendingly have 93% of the natve European ancestry and Armenians only 4.5%.

Why do the Lithuanians actually plot so close to the Armenians, if Lithuanians don't have Armenian ancestry and Armenians don't have Lithuanian ancestry. Did you ask yourself this question?

If I may. They plot closer thanks to relationship of old hunter-gatherers. Let's say (not necessarily 100% exact, just a rough interpretation) Lithuanians and Armenians had common ancestor 20 kya, but Lithuanians and Mongolians 40 kya. However if it comes to Pakistan or Afghanistan, they received "fresh" European genes from Steppe invasion at 15% level, Armenians only at 5%. Again, a rough example, but it is about two layers of relationship. One recent through steppe, other older through ancient hunter gatherer relationship. Maciamo is talking about the recent when we can call some of genes "European". PCA takes all genetics under consideration giving average distance.