Corded Ware / Iranic-Aryan split of IE?

[Aberdeen]

...........
Do you believe true the errors that were made in dating ydna I in Europe ?

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/yDNA_I1

Haplotype I appears to be ancient in Europe, both as I* and I2. It's specifically I1 that's much more recent than was originally thought.

 

[Silesian]

Haplotype I appears to be ancient in Europe, both as I* and I2. It's specifically I1 that's much more recent than was originally thought.

I don't want to veer away from the R1a theme in this thread. However just point me to the thread which is dedicated to the language/s this ancient clade spoke and mixed with the in coming Indo-European R1a and R1b. For example are there any loan words that might be recognized as spoken by the ancestors of I* I1, I2 ?

 

[Aberdeen]

I don't want to veer away from the R1a theme in this thread. However just point me to the thread which is dedicated to the language/s this ancient clade spoke and mixed with the in coming Indo-European R1a and R1b. For example are there any loan words that might be recognized as spoken by the ancestors of I* I1, I2 ?

Haplogroups and subclades don't speak specific languages, as far as I know. Are there specific languages and/or locations that are connected to certain haplogroups and subclades at a particular point in history (such as the time of the IE expansion)? I think that's what we're arguing about with respect to R1a. Haplotype I languages appear to have been wiped out by the IE expansion so we don't know anything for sure about them (unless you believe that the Basques were originally I, despite now mostly being R1b).

 

[Silesian]

I don't believe you noticed but nobody here argues either R1a started around Iran area or not. This wasn't IE culture and happened 20 thousand years ago. This thread is about Indo European split, to Europeans and Indo-Iranians about 5 thousand years ago (15 thousand years after R1a!) where Z93 were dominant haplogroup, or at least a very good signature and indicator of Indo-Iranians. Notice that the paper sets time of diversification into Z93 and Z282 but not a place. However we can infer the place from archaeological, written and language material and perhaps Z93 spread.

R1a was dormant for 15,000 years, made some technological advancements, and tweaked their chariots from[Siberia-Russia-Poland Kurgan/Volga-Andronovo] into what must have seemed panzer-like vehicles to the poor guy in bare feet farming his crops with his family ? Then proceeded to conquer most of the established world around them, and teach them Indo-European languages? Where are all these chariots ? Are the chariots of similar construction, Mitanni, Andronovo, Kurgan, Volga, Hittite.

We have technology that can now test 20,000 and 60,000 year old dna. One way we can get some clear resolution is to compare Gogas R1a with Ealau Germany R1a, to see where it exactly fit's in time.

n central Europe, Corded Ware period human remains at Eulau from which Y-DNA was extracted appear to be R-M17(xM458) (which they found most similar to the modern German R-M17* haplotype.^[4]

We could also test Kromsdorf Germany R1b M343 and M269 and compare them to Kurdish R1b M343* and Grugni's- Zoroastrian R1b M269 samples.

Lee et al. (May 2012) analysed the ancient DNA of human remains from the Late Neolithic Bell Beaker site of Kromsdorf, Germany identifying two males as belonging to the Y haplogroup R1b.^[14]

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.22074/abstract

 

[Angela]

I've finally plowed through the supplements and the posts here and on Anthrogenica, and I agree as to the R1a-420 diversification in and around Iran and eastern Turkey. In fact, I think that conclusion could have been predicted even before this study; I think it's been clear for quite a while that both R1a and R1b have a connection to the area around the Caspian.

I also think, if you accept their sort of middle of the road mutation rate, which shows a date of around 4000 B.C.E. for the diversification of M-417, it looks like that and its downstream markers are very good candidates for yDNA lineages that were heavily involved with the spread of "Indo-European" culture.

Then, the question becomes where did this diversification of M-417 and the creation of the "Indo-European" package take place. I don't think that this study provides any definitive answers. However, it's clear that the two main groups below M-417, roughly the Z282 "European" group and the Z93 "Asian" group are widely separated with very little overlap, as if, perhaps, two groups traveled to areas, perhaps niche areas, initially not densely populated, where their technological advances could make an impact.

I think archaeology should point us in the right direction. It has to be someplace where they adopted agriculture, as that would explain their sudden population expansion. It has to be somewhere on or near a "steppe like" environment given the proto-Indo-European lexicon. (This is a map I use for reference for the Eurasian steppe, although I don't know if it's the best one. http://davidderrick.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/eurasian-steppe.gif ) It has to be someplace where they learned metallurgy, and adopted Kurgans.

I don't think the area adjacent to the Balkans makes the most sense given the modern distribution of M417 and particularly of Z93, and other reasons as well. (Much of that R1a is M458 and related markers and is from the much later Slavic expansions) Perhaps that area was initially more R1b?

The area just north of the Caucasus might fit the bill, but, depending on the theory one adopts, it could be either the primary or the secondary area of spread, or it could be the area of spread only for the so called "European" lineages.

Ancient DNA results will be of great help, but not just of the Yamna/Catacomb people, or even the Afanasievo/Andronovo people (did they carry different subclades of R1a?) but also of people to the east and southeast of the Caspian. Just finding out that the steppe groups in the Ukraine were M417 isn't going to resolve the issue in my opinion.

In terms of the archaeology, I'm a great admirer of Dr. Anthony and his book, but he is not the only word on the subject, although the English speaking world might think so, because they don't have the same kind of access to the work of people in other countries.

There is also, as just one example, Stanislav Grigoriev, whose works 'have' been translated into English.
https://islandvera.academia.edu/StanislavGrigoriev

In his on line book on the Indo-Europeans he provides extensive archaeological support for a Near Eastern urheimat that is not quite identical to that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, although the analysis to some extent supports their work as well. (Part of the problem with any of these other theories gaining adherents, in my opinion, is that they are written in turgid 'academese', in comparison to the very well written and accessible work of David Anthony.)
https://www.academia.edu/3742220/Ancient_Indo-Europeans._Chelyabinsk_Rifei_2002_496_pp

Or there are papers like this one that posit that the Indo-European homeland might have been more mountainous than precisely "steppe" like.
http://jolr.ru/article.php?id=108

There is also Tservchkov's book from 2012, which I haven't read, but which Mallory claims supports the "Near Eastern" theory.

And even Mallory is honest enough to acknowledge that if there are problems with the other theories about the Indo-European urheimat, there are problems with the Pontic Caspian theory as well. It's only the internet 'authorities' who are so very...well...authoritarian about it, for a myriad of reasons...they, and those for whom this is a career breaker.
http://jolr.ru/article.php?id=112

On balance, I think there is much that makes sense about a "Near Eastern" urheimat, although it would require incorporating the ideas of several of these scholars, and especially, in my opinion, making sure to posit a 'secondary' homeland north of the Caucasus, However, the Pontic Caspian theory is probably, in my view, still more probable. I think making a final determination is just going to require more data.

It just isn't as clear as some people propose; if it were, all of these eminent specialists wouldn't still be in such disagreement.

Oh, this is the original Gamkrelidze and Ivanov paper.
http://rbedrosian.com/Classic/sciam1.htm

There are a few interesting short papers listed here that are unfortunately only written in Russian. If someone reads it and could give us a brief summary, that would be great...they say summary in English for some of them, but I can't seem to access it for some reason.
http://jolr.ru/publications.php?sort=issue&year=2013&issue=9

 

[Alan]

I don't want to veer of the Iranian R1a theme suggested by this paper. However I have a couple of questions.
Do you believe true the results IJ-M429* were reported to have been observed in the Iranian plateau (Grugni et al. 2012)?

Why shouldn't the findings of IJ be true? I do believe they are right.

Do you believe true the errors that were made in dating ydna I in Europe ?

Yes I2 is likely older but I1 looks to be relatively young.

Do you believe true G2a3 has a presence older than both R1a and R1b in Europe?

The current data suggest so.

Do you believe true Lurs/Kurds and Ossetians are a related nomadic people with common roots ?

Just a century ago all Lurs were considered Kurds and Lor has only a meaning in Kurdish. But nowadays Lors are divided into two groups because one part of Lurs was linguistically heavily influenced by Persian that it is classified as Southwest Iranian. These Lors are called Bakthiari. They live in Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Province. Than you have the small Lurs also known as Lak, Feyli their dialect is less influenced and is clustered under the Kurdish branch of Northwestern Iranic and they live in Kermanshah, Ilam, Lorestan and Iraqi Kurdistan. Since Ossetians and Kurds have one linguistic origin, they must have ultimately some genetic relation too.

Do you believe the Grugni results with regards what they classify as: Zoroastrians

I do believe these results. Kurds generally have around 10-15% R1b. The reason why R1b in Kurdistan Turkey is 6% here is because of sample size and that they were taken only from few provinces. For example on 23andme most Kurdish R* are rather on the R1a side while on ftDNA most Kurdish results are rather on the R1b side you can check it out. Also Cinnioglu found over 15% in Southeast Anatolia. The reason why I don't mention East Anatolia is because in Cinnioglu He put together Kurdish East Anatolian provinces with some Turkish majority provinces further North like most of Erzurum, Bayburt and mixed provinces like Ardahan and Kars.


Persian Zoroastrians are dominant in J2 with R1a and R1b beeing also significant. This is even evident in the Parsis which are Zoroastrians who fled to South Asia and mixed with the locals. Yet their dominant Haplogroup is J2.

Tehran-Rey-Ragha, also the same where the Magi-Kurdish Mangi are from, which some historians connect Zoroaster and or the priests and fire temples ?

I repeat again. When the median empire was on it's peak a religion called Zoroastrianism wasn't yet bron. So what were they before there was anything called Zoroastrianism? In the past many scientists made the mistake that they generally tended to connect anything in connection with Fire to Zoroastrians. And they also tended to call any Iranian religion Zoroastrian like using an "umbrella term". But newer studies and well known scientists like Kreyenboerk confirm that Fire and Sun worshipping goes further back to some older rituals and religion. Which he calls the "proto Iranic religion" To which Mithraism is closer to and was the first to split off. Later Zoroastrianism split off Mithraism. Zarathustra was basically a Mithra worshipper who started to invent his own religion with mostly elements of Mithraism.
In no ancient Iranian text will you see the Magi labeled as Zoroastrians.

 

[Nobody1]

In his on line book on the Indo-Europeans he provides extensive archaeological support for a Near Eastern urheimat that is not quite identical to that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, although the analysis to some extent supports their work as well. (Part of the problem with any of these other theories gaining adherents, in my opinion, is that they are written in turgid 'academese', in comparison to the very well written and accessible work of David Anthony.)
https://www.academia.edu/3742220/Ancient_Indo-Europeans._Chelyabinsk_Rifei_2002_496_pp

Actually he doesnt;
Gregoriev only claims that the Sintashta settlements have a Near Eastern origin; And the cultural exchange and contact between the steppes and the Near East (Anatolia/South Caucasus) is well illustrated also by Anthony as well as Kohl and Kristiansen; And whether Anatolian, Near East or Steppes all these scholars agree on a common origin of all Indo-European branches and that is the fundamental point regardless where they locate it; The location ultimately heavily depends on which model is archaeologically attestable for both the West expansion and the East expansion i.e. a continuity for both directions and the steppes are (as also Gregoriev mentions but disagrees with his colleagues) archaeologically the most convincing place for it and linguistically very well possible;

 

[Aberdeen]

Some of the opponents of the steppe hypothesis are attacking a straw man by assuming that the proponents of the steppe hypothesis are arguing that the Indo-Europeans came out of a prairie vacuum, uninfluenced by surrounding cultures, which is not what advocates of the steppe hypothesis are arguing at all. Now, some of the advocates of the Anatolian hypothesis, I'm not sure what their arguments are because some of them are in fact quite difficult to read. That doesn't mean that their ideas, to the extent that one can understand them, are more valid.

I would say that some popularists, including Anthony, are easy to read not because they over-simplify and not solely because their language is more fluid but in large part because they have a knack for cutting through the bull and creating a cohesive over-view that's easy to understand because it's well thought out on a macro level.

 

[Silesian]

I repeat again. When the median empire was on it's peak a religion called Zoroastrianism wasn't yet bron. So what were they before there was anything called Zoroastrianism? In the past many scientists made the mistake that they generally tended to connect anything in connection with Fire to Zoroastrians. And they also tended to call any Iranian religion Zoroastrian like using an "umbrella term". But newer studies and well known scientists like Kreyenboerk confirm that Fire and Sun worshipping goes further back to some older rituals and religion. Which he calls the "proto Iranic religion" To which Mithraism is closer to and was the first to split off. Later Zoroastrianism split off Mithraism. Zarathustra was basically a Mithra worshipper who started to invent his own religion with mostly elements of Mithraism.
In no ancient Iranian text will you see the Magi labeled as Zoroastrians.

Thanks, it is interesting to get a viewpoint from someone who is ancestrally related. The reason Zoroastrianism is of interest is their unique sky burials. How did Mithraism religion dispose of their dead? Kurgan now modern day Ukraine and Afanasevo are same, 39:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d864bwyCAoA
However Indians are not like Kurgan, they cremate.

Many examples are in the Bhagavad Gita.

Another interesting difference between Ukraine/Kurgan and Indian Harrapan burial, horse, very view, chariots according to Srinivasan Kalyanaraman· 8:20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyN0zs_tBRY
I don't really know that much about R1a in India other than R1a-Z93, is it possible it is from PIE Ukraine/Kurgan heimat model Gimbutas:Anthony:Mallory , if so is R1a z-93 found in Ossetians for example?

The Harappan chariot is not quite as I imagined an invading force. Very different from the Hittite chariot. Are there any examples of these chariots in Ukraine/Kurgan PIE model or Afanasievo culture or Mitanni?

Coach driver 2000 B.C.E. Harappa, Indus Valley Civilization

 

[LeBrok]

Coach driver 2000 B.C.E. Harappa, Indus Valley Civilization

This one is not a war chariot. This is some perhaps kind of ceremonial chariot pulled by bulls (holly cow), or first Rickshaw?

Try to compare images/technology of Andronovo to Mittani and Hittite war chariots. If out of steppe theory is right (and if they invented war chariots first) we should find older and simpler models in Andronovo and newer and improved (with time going by) in Mittani and Hittite.

 

[Angela]

Actually he doesnt; Gregoriev only claims that the Sintashta settlements have a Near Eastern origin

.

Would you prefer detailed, as Professor Mallory puts it?
View attachment 6336

And whether Anatolian, Near East or Steppes all these scholars agree on a common origin of all Indo-European branches and that is the fundamental point regardless where they locate it;

Of course. Did I ever say or imply otherwise?

The location ultimately heavily depends on which model is archaeologically attestable for both the West expansion and the East expansion i.e. a continuity for both directions and the steppes are (as also Gregoriev mentions but disagrees with his colleagues) archaeologically the most convincing place for it and linguistically very well possible.

Absolutely as to the first part; I'm just not quite as sure about the second part as you are. I would also add that it all has to align with the genetics. And I'll just note that a staging ground north of the Caucasus is perfectly compatible with the Ivanov model. I think I'll stick with Professor Mallory on this one...

View attachment 6335

There's quite a lot in those 400 plus pages of the Grigoriev book; I really think it's doing him a disservice to reduce it all to one "sound bite".

 

[LeBrok]

In this case we have one archer per one horse. In case of chariots we have two horses pulling 2-3 people, one driver, on with a shield and one archer. One archer on a horse have same firepower as chariot with 3 men and is faster. For the cost of one fully loaded chariot we can furnish 3-4 horse archers. Actually one archer can shoot one horse and the whole expensive chariot is crippled during a battle. I think at the end of a day this was a demise of chariots and they were abandoned as war weapons.
I think they had mostly psychological impact on infantry, especially the ones who saw chariots the first time.

Continuing this thought. With time all armies got used to chariots and developed technics fighting them. I think there is a description of Alexander using one of technics destroying Darius 3rd chariots. One can always mix few archers into an infantry, making it too dangerous and costly for charioteers to attack such group. Especially well armored and well shielded professional armies of Greeks and Romans.
After Alexander victory over Darius we don't see extensive chariot use anymore. I think Romans exploited them in couple of battles, but generally used them only in races. They were a race cars of antiquity, they were really fun to drive.

 

[Silesian]

This one is not a war chariot. This is some perhaps kind of ceremonial chariot pulled by bulls (holly cow), or first Rickshaw?

Try to compare images/technology of Andronovo to Mittani and Hittite war chariots. If out of steppe theory is right (and if they invented war chariots first) we should find older and simpler models in Andronovo and newer and improved (with time going by) in Mittani and Hittite.

Well between the two I'd rather been seen in the Hittite model when pulling into Tim's to pick up my timbits and hot chocolate that's for sure. Joking aside, that would be great to compare Andronovo chariot with newer and improved. However something perplexes me in James Mallory discussion about the Tocharians/Iranians/Saka

Tocharian or Tokharian (/təˈkɛəriən/ or /təˈkɑriən/) is an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family, formerly spoken by Tocharian peoples

and Afanasevo. 52 minutes he uses the term weird because there does not seem to be a connection with steppe. Then he points out they come from the Andronovo horizon somehow; that does not seem like a very firm conviction. Do you think we will find the same chariots among the isolated branch of I.E. speakers known as Tocharians as in Andronovo? Where exactly are the oldest branches of R1a- Z93? What is the oldest dated sample of R1a-Z93 in Ukraine/Kurgan region?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw

 

[Nobody1]

Absolutely as to the first part; I'm just not quite as sure about the second part as you are. I would also add that it all has to align with the genetics. And I'll just note that a staging ground north of the Caucasus is perfectly compatible with the Ivanov model. I think I'll stick with Professor Mallory on this one...

View attachment 6335

There's quite a lot in those 400 plus pages of the Grigoriev book; I really think it's doing him a disservice to reduce it all to one "sound bite".

I cant see the detailed attachment;
But since you have read the 400 plus pages of Grigoriev could you just highlight the passages about the Urheimat maybe i missed them; As for Mallory (i have already written this on post#99) Mallory criticizes all Urheimat (proto-Indo-European homeland) theories not just the steppes in fact in many respects he agrees with the steppes over the other theories;

Asko Parpola -
http://www.royalasiaticsociety.org/site/files/Part 3 - Aryans and Nomads.pdf
' It should be a culture connected through a chain of genealogically related cultures with the often widely dispersed areas where the various branches of Indo-European were first attested. This and various other criteria have suggested the Srednij Stog culture (c 4500-3350 BC) of Ukraine as the most likely candidate. (Mallory 1989) '

But most importantly all these scholars (linguists/archaeologists) agree that there is a proto-Indo-European homeland out which all branches emerged from; And what if Grigoriev is correct that Sintashta is Near Eastern or even non-Indo-European; Ultimately nothing dramatic in the light of BMAC and the Andronovo-Fedorovo expansion;

Philip L. Kohl [p.208] clearly illustrates an (archaeological attested) increase of "steppe" influence/culture into BMAC by the mid 2nd mil BC and Final Bronze-age with pastoralism becoming a greater part of the economy as a result [Andronovo/Fedorovo];

This is the latest (2013) from Prof. D. W. Anthony (linguistics/archaeology)
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(104)jlr2013-9(1-21).pdf

Some of the opponents of the steppe hypothesis are attacking a straw man by assuming that the proponents of the steppe hypothesis are arguing that the Indo-Europeans came out of a prairie vacuum, uninfluenced by surrounding cultures, which is not what advocates of the steppe hypothesis are arguing at all.

Spot on;

 

[Angela]

Some of the opponents of the steppe hypothesis are attacking a straw man by assuming that the proponents of the steppe hypothesis are arguing that the Indo-Europeans came out of a prairie vacuum, uninfluenced by surrounding cultures, which is not what advocates of the steppe hypothesis are arguing at all.

Who is assuming any such thing? I'm certainly not, nor have I seen any indication that any of the proponents of the various Near Eastern hypotheses assume that proponents of the Pontic Caspian theory deny the influence of the Near Eastern cultures on the steppe peoples. While I would say that earlier incarnations of the Pontic-Caspian hypothesis posited that these people were the originators of many of the hallmarks of the culture which they spread, and which current scholarship has shown to be highly doubtful, current proponents do see that influence more clearly.

Also, we are not just discussing the flow of culture. We are discussing the genetic composition of the people who created this Indo-European package and trying to locate a specific locale for where it occurred. In other words, was it a group of people on the "prairie" as you put it, who put this package together from influences from the Near East and adapted them to their own environment, or was it a group of people in eastern Anatolia/western Iran who moved with their culture in various directions, obviously mixing with other groups along the way.

I have no dog in this fight since I'm from neither of the areas discussed and I don't have a career or a well-known internet reputation that rests on the solution to this question. Nor, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity, do I much care which it should turn out to be. Wherever they originally came from, if they destroyed "Old Europe", a pox on their houses as they used to say! I'm kidding here, of course. While the reading of Gimbutas to which I was exposed certainly didn't encourage a positive view of them, I'm now older and wiser. It's the way of mankind... civilizations rise and fall.

Now, some of the advocates of the Anatolian hypothesis, I'm not sure what their arguments are because some of them are in fact quite difficult to read. That doesn't mean that their ideas, to the extent that one can understand them, are more valid.

I would say that some popularists, including Anthony, are easy to read not because they over-simplify and not solely because their language is more fluid but in large part because they have a knack for cutting through the bull and creating a cohesive over-view that's easy to understand because it's well thought out on a macro level.

I didn't think this needed to be said, but...whatever... turgid, poor writing doesn't make the content more accurate, and clear, organized, accessible writing doesn't make the content more incorrect, or, vice versa.

 

[Angela]

I cant see the detailed attachment;
But since you have read the 400 plus pages of Grigoriev could you just highlight the passages about the Urheimat maybe i missed them; As for Mallory (i have already written this on post#99) Mallory criticizes all Urheimat (proto-Indo-European homeland) theories not just the steppes in fact in many respects he agrees with the steppes over the other theories;

Asko Parpola -
http://www.royalasiaticsociety.org/site/files/Part 3 - Aryans and Nomads.pdf
' It should be a culture connected through a chain of genealogically related cultures with the often widely dispersed areas where the various branches of Indo-European were first attested. This and various other criteria have suggested the Srednij Stog culture (c 4500-3350 BC) of Ukraine as the most likely candidate. (Mallory 1989) '

But most importantly all these scholars (linguists/archaeologists) agree that there is a proto-Indo-European homeland out which all branches emerged from; And what if Grigoriev is correct that Sintashta is Near Eastern or even non-Indo-European; Ultimately nothing dramatic in the light of BMAC and the Andronovo-Fedorovo expansion;

Philip L. Kohl [p.208] clearly illustrates an (archaeological attested) increase of "steppe" influence/culture into BMAC by the mid 2nd mil BC and Final Bronze-age with pastoralism becoming a greater part of the economy as a result [Andronovo/Fedorovo];

This is the latest (2013) from Prof. D. W. Anthony (linguistics/archaeology)
http://www.jolr.ru/files/(104)jlr2013-9(1-21).pdf



Spot on;

Must you always respond to even minor disagreements with such an inappropriate tone? It's totally unnecessary, and most unbecoming.

If you can't see the attachment, try refreshing your page. It's working for me right now, although I will check again after this post. If not, you can just go to Mallory's article...I've provided the link. it's very short, not the four hundred pages of Grigoriev.

Which brings me to your snarky comment. I never said that I had already read all four hundred plus pages. It is indeed very difficult and detailed reading for a non-specialist, and so it is very slow going for me. (and part of the difficulty is that it is poorly written) My comment was actually about the chariots that are being discussed and which he addresses in his work. I was going to skip to that part of the book and report back, but frankly I now don't know why I should bother either about that or finding quotes from him about his theory of the Near Eastern urheimat. (which is not identical to that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, by the way, although his research could be seen, I think, as partially supporting it. ) If you're really interested in his alternative views on the issue, you can do the work yourself.

I must say that you have quite a habit on this and on other responses to my posts of either repeating things I have myself already stated, or quoting scholars for propositions with which I obviously agree, in such a manner as to imply that I disagree with such statements or propositions, or accusing me of things I obviously didn't say. So, much of your post doesn't advance the discussion at all. As an example, my specific point in quoting Mallory is precisely that there are problems with all the hypotheses.

Btw, that latest article from Anthony is in the list of articles I provided which also includes Mallory's article, the article on the physical environment, and one I didn't mention, which is about their social organization. It's also where those Russian articles appear with which I requested help from any Russian readers on the site.

 

[LeBrok]

Well between the two I'd rather been seen in the Hittite model when pulling into Tim's to pick up my timbits and hot chocolate that's for sure. Joking aside, that would be great to compare Andronovo chariot with newer and improved. However something perplexes me in James Mallory discussion about the Tocharians/Iranians/Saka and Afanasevo. 52 minutes he uses the term weird because there does not seem to be a connection with steppe. Then he points out they come from the Andronovo horizon somehow; that does not seem like a very firm conviction. Do you think we will find the same chariots among the isolated branch of I.E. speakers known as Tocharians as in Andronovo? Where exactly are the oldest branches of R1a- Z93? What is the oldest dated sample of R1a-Z93 in Ukraine/Kurgan region?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw

A great lecture, a very objective one I might add. If these presented facts are true, I believe they are, it means that in first stage of Tocharian culture (2k BC) they are unrelated to Andronovo, the Indo-Iranians, and must have migrated from far away, from farmer's lands from other IE stock. Their language points to no recent relation to Iranien either. They lack horses in their culture therefore we won't be able to find chariots either.
In later stage we see strong Iranic/Saka influence and also strong Chinese influence. We can find chinese like pottery and I believe we should be able to find chariots too. At this stage horses are attested, buried together with warriors in graves.

 

[Aberdeen]

Who is assuming any such thing? I'm certainly not, nor have I seen any indication that any of the proponents of the various Near Eastern hypotheses assume that proponents of the Pontic Caspian theory deny the influence of the Near Eastern cultures on the steppe peoples. While I would say that earlier incarnations of the Pontic-Caspian hypothesis posited that these people were the originators of many of the hallmarks of the culture which they spread, and which current scholarship has shown to be highly doubtful, current proponents do see that influence more clearly.

Also, we are not just discussing the flow of culture. We are discussing the genetic composition of the people who created this Indo-European package and trying to locate a specific locale for where it occurred. In other words, was it a group of people on the "prairie" as you put it, who put this package together from influences from the Near East and adapted them to their own environment, or was it a group of people in eastern Anatolia/western Iran who moved with their culture in various directions, obviously mixing with other groups along the way.

I have no dog in this fight since I'm from neither of the areas discussed and I don't have a career or a well-known internet reputation that rests on the solution to this question. Nor, other than as a matter of intellectual curiosity, do I much care which it should turn out to be. Wherever they originally came from, if they destroyed "Old Europe", a pox on their houses as they used to say! I'm kidding here, of course. While the reading of Gimbutas to which I was exposed certainly didn't encourage a positive view of them, I'm now older and wiser. It's the way of mankind... civilizations rise and fall.



I didn't think this needed to be said, but...whatever... turgid, poor writing doesn't make the content more accurate, and clear, organized, accessible writing doesn't make the content more incorrect, or, vice versa.

If we're primarily focussing on genetics as one of the keys to the problem, the difficulty is that we don't have enough old DNA from the various locations to have an honest discussion, IMO. I'm very sceptical of the idea of using current DNA results to tell us anything about where people were living 5800 years ago or whatever other point in the past. But we do have those results from the Andronovo horizon - 9 out of 10 DNA results were R1a. Does that suggest anything to you in terms of genetics and the Indo-Europeans? Perhaps it doesn't seem relevant to those who favour the Anatolian hypothesis, but if you're going to sit on the fence and consider the view in every direction like Mallory, DNA results might seem relevant when looking at a population of farmers who were in the right location to have easily have shifted into pastoral nomadism, which I see as one of the requirements for rapid expansion over a wide area.

As I said in my previous post, one of my assumptions is that some people are better writers precisely because they do have a better grasp of the material to be considered. I stand by that statement.

 

[Aberdeen]

Would you prefer detailed, as Professor Mallory puts it?
View attachment 6336

.........

Can you please explain to me why people living in Anatolia would migrate east of the Caspian Sea in order to reach an area north of the Black Sea? Goga mentioned that but didn't explain it when asked. And, to be honest, I think that idea is silly.

 

[Nobody1]

Must you always respond to even minor disagreements with such an inappropriate tone? It's totally unnecessary, and most unbecoming.
If you can't see the attachment, try refreshing your page. It's working for me right now, although I will check again after this post. If not, you can just go to Mallory's article...I've provided the link. it's very short, not the four hundred pages of Grigoriev. Which brings me to your snarky comment. I never said that I had already read all four hundred plus pages. It is indeed very difficult and detailed reading for a non-specialist, and so it is very slow going for me. (and part of the difficulty is that it is poorly written)

I was just asking you a question because after reading Grigoriev2002 and his article Investigation of Bronze Age Metallurgical Slag i only read about Sintashta; So your commercial for Grigoriev2002 was a bit misleading; Nonetheless very informative books/articles and if i read it all correctly than Grigoriev even doubts the Indo-Iranian connection with Sintashta as 'not convincing' (which makes his Near East connection in the light of BMAC and before Andronovo/Fodorovo even less spectacular);

I can see the attachment now and if you add Gogas map to it than that is pretty much the concept;

My comment was actually about the chariots that are being discussed and which he addresses in his work. I was going to skip to that part of the book and report back, but frankly I now don't know why I should bother either about that or finding quotes from him about his theory of the Near Eastern urheimat. (which is not identical to that of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, by the way, although his research could be seen, I think, as partially supporting it. ) If you're really interested in his alternative views on the issue, you can do the work yourself.

As for your comment about chariots; Its not so much the actual chariots as it is the common vocabulary in all major Indo-European branches about chariots (wheeled-wagons) that is the significance terminus post quem;

I must say that you have quite a habit on this and on other responses to my posts of either repeating things I have myself already stated, or quoting scholars for propositions with which I obviously agree, in such a manner as to imply that I disagree with such statements or propositions, or accusing me of things I obviously didn't say. So, much of your post doesn't advance the discussion at all. As an example, my specific point in quoting Mallory is precisely that there are problems with all the hypotheses.

Well than we obviously agree on the same point;

Btw, that latest article from Anthony is in the list of articles I provided which also includes Mallory's article, the article on the physical environment, and one I didn't mention, which is about their social organization. It's also where those Russian articles appear with which I requested help from any Russian readers on the site.

Even better;