The big bubble: Indoeuropean Yamnayans

[Alan]

Please do not respond to any of my posts again. Saying that 'Cimmerian' is 'obviously' an extinct Iranic branch is pseudoscience. Saying that the 'Cimmerians' could have been Thracian or Iranian can be considered speculative science but it's irrelevant. Cimmerian prehistory especially is semi-mythical. Also, I have to note that you didn't use any arguments again.

I can respond to whatever comment I like lol. If you don't want people to respond to you than don't post/comment at all. Thats basically like saying "Hey I will provide my assumption/claims as facts but dare you to dispute it" Kim Jong style.

Labelling R1a-Z93 'Indo-Iranian' is based on a series of presuppositions and I don't accept it.

It doesn't matter much to me what you think about this, but no one with a tiny bit of knowledge would dispute the Indo_Iranian-ness of Z93 from 1500 BC downward.

All you did was dispute other peoples comments underlined by sources but I have yet to see anything from your side. Disputing is easy but giving reasoning for your own claims isn't right?

 

[Alan]

Now I am not going to take any sides here but Goga is in one point right. Iranic as well Hittite elements have been identified among Kassites, the Lullubi and Zubaru. I had red few recently published studies about these and they mentioned it. Now it could be false alarm but we can't rule it out entirely. However that thing with aliens, too much History Channel.

:grin:

 

[Alan]

A war wagon with solid wheels is attested very early in the Middle East. Do you deny the evidence? The first spoke-wheeled chariot is attested in Sintashta and seems to radiate out from there. That's what the evidence shows despite Goga's xenophobic attempt to spin it otherwise. The two things should be able to be accommodated in a reasoning person's brain. No invention emerges sui generis from someone's head like Athena from the head of Zeus. Inventions build on prior knowledge and ideas. Sometimes the adjustment or advancement is minor, and sometimes it has larger implications. In the case of the spoke wheeled, lighter, and differently guided chariot it was a big leap forward. I couldn't care less personally where it was invented, but so far the evidence points to it being a Sintashta invention.

Correct
4,000-year old chariot burial from Georgia

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2014/06/4000-year-old-chariot-burial-from.html

It was basically a four wheeled "chariot" or wagon used for war. And looked quite similar to the later two wheeled chariots just not with two spoked wheels. Therefore I doubt the Sintashta charriots evolved without any influence from these in Western Asia. Sintasha charriots look basically like modified West Asian chariots or call them war wagons if you like.

 

[Goga]

Now I am not going to take any sides here but Goga is in one point right. Iranic as well Hittite elements have been identified among Kassites, the Lullubi and Zubaru. However that thing with alians, too much History Channel.

:grin:

Mitanni and Kassites were the same people of the same stock/race who gave birth to the Medes & Persians. Mitanni/Kassites were evolved from the Sumerians. Only, Mitanni found their kingdom in Rojava, Western Kurdistan + Shengal Northern Mesopotamia, while the Kassites invaded Babylon and found their kingdom in Babylon, called Karduniash. Later Kassites understood that it was not worth of effort to stay in Babylon after the Semitic tribes arrived,. They didn't want to mix with or destroy the Semites, so they went back to the mountains in Eastern Kurdistan.


Anunnaki or aliens were in Kurdistan, more precisely in the Northern Mesopotamia, Shengal, Ezdixan. The ancient mighty Sumerians wrote about them. Anunnaki (aliens) came down to earth mostly for gold. There is a huge, huge amount of GOLD in the mountain of Shengal + some other valuable minerals which I don't want to talk about. There is a lot ancient architecture from the Sumerian Ubaid culture buried under the Mountain of Shengal.

 

[Milan]

@Milan

Cimmerian culture has been connected with the Catacomb and their successors the Srubna culture by many reliable archeologists/linguists. That is simply a fact. You can claim that it is still a little disputed but you can't disregard it like their is no ground to it.

Cimmerian language itself must have been at least partly if not fully Iranic that is also what most scientists say so how can you claim that only "few Iranic tribes were among them". To me and many scientists it is clear that this people were predominantly Iranic but had possibly connections to the Thracians too.



There are only few personal names and all of them have clearly been identified as Iranic. Coincidence?

And about the Massagetae, really? they have been historically identified with the Scythians. And descend of the same branch as the Dahe confederation of which the Parni (the Parthian elite tribe) are descend of.







In which world do the Massagetae not belong to the Iranic branch? Give me a break or do more research dear friend.

The thing is that there two linguistic group meet a Thracian and Iranian,you still have the Iranic branch the Ossetian language,I will not dispute the Iranic origin of names on those that migrated south account found also in Herodotus,but applying still the same term on the Thracian tribes there is not right,Cimmerian Bosporus that is,we found Thracian names.Who was "exact" Cimmerian is irrelevant. Those that migrated south could be from Srubna? Massagetae that name pretty much resemble the Getae,their neighbours the Dahae,both of names connected further to Daci and Getae -Thracians from further Balkans and north of it,according to scholars.I really have no reason to think any of them were Iranians originally without proof,reffering to them as Schytians is irrelevant the term is vague and often represent a territory,nomads,archers etc,if i wrote how many other people were called Scythians it will be more confusing.According to Procopius the Huns were called Massagetae earlier.. Is it right? Thracians were most numerous after the Indians,I still believe Herodotus and for once I do not think he was mistaken.They often formed confederation with Iranian Alan's for example and were attacking the Roman empire.

 

[berun]

I'm triying to know which hard drug takes Goga that he is not capable to read about Kassite as language isolate and to be able to distinguish between Sumerian, Hurrian, Kassite and Indo-Iranic adstrates... but I have no ideas, and the worst is that I'm sure that the next step will be to explain that IE is the language of the alien Annunaki gods... well, it would be not so much worse than the Yamnayan theory for now...


Oh, to prevent unsanity I give up.

 

[Goga]

Huh? I was talking about the origin of the modern day (Western) Iranians and not about PIE at all. Original PIE folks from the Iranian Plateau (Leyla-Tepe) that invaded Yamnaya Horzion were never in the Mesopotamia. The point is that there was a time when original PIE migrated from the Iranian Plateau into South Central Asia (Northern India) Mesopotamia AND Yamnaya Horizon.
Modern day Western Iranians have nothing to do with the Yamnaya, since they came into the existence and evolved from ancient people in their current habitat. Iranians are VERY different from the second stage late Indo-European speakers who came from Yamnaya and invaded Europe. Those Yamnaya folks were only partly from the Iranian Plateau, while ancient ancestors of the Iranians full descendants of the PIE from the Iranian PlateauOnce ALL Northwestern Asian language groups (Caucasian & Iranian) shared the same ancestors and later at some point languages went their own different way. That proto-language was neither Caucasian nor Indo-European (Iranian), but it was ancestral to Caucasians and West Iranian languages. West Iranian has many common things with the neighboring languages.

I don't know who you are, you can be everything, but they are clearly HUGE differences between West Iranian speakers and Indo-European speakers in Europe. If Iranian/Aryan is not your native language, I'm NOT talking about YOUR history, but about MY history.

The only thing what Indo-European 'speakers' in Europe and Western Iranians share with each other is their link to the PIE URHEIMAT on the Iranian Plateau (Leyla-Tepe ??). Later all groups went their own way and evolved separately. When I'm talking about the Kassites, I'm NOT talking about the history of the Europeans, but about history of West Iranians. Europeans don't have ancestry from the people like Kassites, but West Iranians do have ancestry from the people like Kassites. (Western) Iranian are very different from all other human races on this planet.

 

[berun]

Yes, by having a more Annunaki share in autosomal DNA...

Ok, I try to give up now.

 

[LeBrok]

Correct
4,000-year old chariot burial from Georgia

http://dienekes.blogspot.de/2014/06/4000-year-old-chariot-burial-from.html

It was basically a four wheeled "chariot" or wagon used for war. And looked quite similar to the later two wheeled chariots just not with two spoked wheels. Therefore I doubt the Sintashta charriots evolved without any influence from these in Western Asia. Sintasha charriots look basically like modified West Asian chariots or call them war wagons if you like.

I like your way of thinking and rationale on many subjects, but here you are pushing West Asian "patriotism" too much. Extending your metaphor we could say that modern car was invented in West Asia because it resembles the Wagon in many ways. Let's not stretch the comparisons too far, because wagons pulled by animals were known everywhere in Eurasia at the time the chariots were invented. And most likely the wagon was invented 2 thousand years before the first chariot rendering linking it and it's culture to IEs pretty much useless. Too much time elapsed, too many cultures knowing wagons, to link any of them to Chariots.
We can also extend this discussion and and we can argue who invented the first wagon and if it was invented independently in many places, endlessly. It won't lead us anywhere.
It shouldn't even be a point in this discussion, because we can only link expansion of IEs with chariots, not the wagons. It matters here the most, who invented chariots, not who invented wagons. To do this we should not mix these two under one label of wagons. There is a distinct difference between these two to help us. One is build to be sturdy and to carry goods, the other is very light and built for speed and only to carry people. Other words, one is a truck, the other is a sports car. One is Ford 350, the other Ferrari. That's why it was important to make it as light as possible. That's why the spoked wheels, almost empty wheels when compared to full wooden wheels of wagons. That's why only two wheels not four like on wagons. That's why woven basket to stand in instead of solid wood body of the wagon. Everything in a chariot is light and build for speed. There is a lot of new technologies invented for a chariot, new wheels, body, axles, materials used in novel ways, etc. Thanks to these distinctions, one can't mistake chariot for a wagon. And if as such was invented by Sintashta, or not invented but embraced to industrial level for militaries purposes there, we could use it to trace parts of IE expansion, the invasion from the steppe part.

 

[Angela]

I like your way of thinking and rationale on many subjects, but here you are pushing West Asian "patriotism" too much. Extending your metaphor we could say that modern car was invented in West Asia because it resembles the Wagon in many ways. Let's not stretch the comparisons too far, because wagons pulled by animals were known everywhere in Eurasia at the time the chariots were invented. And most likely the wagon was invented 2 thousand years before the first chariot rendering linking it and it's culture to IEs pretty much useless. Too much time elapsed, too many cultures knowing wagons, to link any of them to Chariots.
We can also extend this discussion and and we can argue who invented the first wagon and if it was invented independently in many places, endlessly. It won't lead us anywhere.
It shouldn't even be a point in this discussion, because we can only link expansion of IEs with chariots, not the wagons. It matters here the most, who invented chariots, not who invented wagons. To do this we should not mix these two under one label of wagons. There is a distinct difference between these two to help us. One is build to be sturdy and to carry goods, the other is very light and built for speed and only to carry people. Other words, one is a truck, the other is a sports car. One is Ford 350, the other Ferrari. That's why it was important to make it as light as possible. That's why the spoked wheels, almost empty wheels when compared to full wooden wheels of wagons. That's why only two wheels not four like on wagons. That's why woven basket to stand in instead of solid wood body of the wagon. Everything in a chariot is light and build for speed. There is a lot of new technologies invented for a chariot, new wheels, body, axles, materials used in novel ways, etc. Thanks to these distinctions, one can't mistake chariot for a wagon. And if as such was invented by Sintashta, or not invented but embraced to industrial level for militaries purposes there, we could use it to trace parts of IE expansion, the invasion from the steppe part.

Exactly, LeBrok.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

IE expansion has nothing to do with chariots. I also don't understand why steppe nomads decide to expand to mostly mountainous regions like Italy, Balkans, Greece and parts of Iran.

Chariot burials for example are uncommon in most IE cultures while they existed in cultures known (or likely) to have been non-IE.

 

[Sile]

IE expansion has nothing to do with chariots. I also don't understand why steppe nomads decide to expand to mostly mountainous regions like Italy, Balkans, Greece and parts of Iran.

Chariot burials for example are uncommon in most IE cultures while they existed in cultures known (or likely) to have been non-IE.

agree

ancient samples of early neolithic central european haplogroups did not need any chariots to migrate, Ydna markers of I1, G2, T1 and H where already there ( central europe and beyond ) at 5500 BC


who are these fantasy chariot people, what a joke

 

[arvistro]

Which IE groups are believed to be expanded because of chariots? Indo-Iranians? Greeks (pre-Greeks) too? Celts??

 

[LeBrok]

Which IE groups are believed to be expanded because of chariots? Indo-Iranians? Greeks (pre-Greeks) too? Celts??

Chariots are not very functional in Europe. They need flat grassy and semi desert expense to be very useful. Places where army of chariots can roam and conduct sudden attacks, the ancient blitzcrieg. Steppe, Central Asia and Middle East are the best places for it. For that reason a good place to start charioting was Sintashta, with its vast flatlands and being close to places where horses were domesticated. Since Botai and Yamnaya, we have cultures which revolve around horses there. They had a mixture of the right ingredients: the horses, nomadic culture, flatlands, and roaming warrior nature. It makes it most likely place for chariot to be invented, or at least if not invented there, embraced in industrial way for sport (chariot racing) and war. On top of it we have the oldest chariot found there, and archeological records of northern horsemen culture IE invading South Asia.
Chariots wouldn't do much in Europe, with too many forests, rivers and hills. Besides, Europe was already in IndoEuropean hands or almost, from Western Expansion of IEs, when chariots were being perfected in Sintashta for war purpose. Later, when chariots got to Europe, they were used more as a sign of prestige or for racing, not much for war.

 

[Milan]

There is even completely arbitrary assumption that prehistoric populations used the horse as a military weapon,let alone the chariot.
In our case the IE's,let's check some later dates;

1.Chariot have nothing to do with IE expansion and warfare by that time they were already spread in Europe.
2.Stirrup made it's way in Europe in about 6th,7th century,steppe people brought it.The stirrup, which gives greater stability to a rider, has been described as one of the most significant inventions in the history of warfare, prior to gunpowder. As a tool allowing expanded use of horses in warfare, the stirrup is often called the third revolutionary step in equipment, after the chariot and the saddle.
3.In Europe that we know two great early empires that spread widely were relying mostly on infantry in fact.There is now general agreement among military historians that a major change took place in Roman battlefield tactics when the cavalry replaced the infantry as the main offensive tactical arm of the Roman army.Second, shifting the emphasis from infantry to cavalry and turning cavalrymen into highly versatile warriors on horse-back was a response to the kind of warfare waged upon Romans, ever since the early 5th century, by their nomadic neighbors-Huns,Bulgars,Avars.
Romans lost so many wars against the new steppe innovation in warfare,until they adopted to it?
Conclusion;Cavalry altogether in warfare becomed much later popular in Europe upon influence on various nomadic groups.
Or does our steppe ancestors with time forget how to fight on horseback,but once conquered all of Europe with them?
Did they used and in which way their horses in warfare?
If anyone want to reply on my comment please do it and tell me where i am wrong.

 

[arvistro]

That is all good. But still - which IEs were chariot users from Sintashta?
Only Indo-Iranian folk?
Say without Sintashta India would stay Dravidian and Iran something else? and II folk would be marginal steppe population??

 

[MarkoZ]

1.Chariot have nothing to do with IE expansion,it is fact that they already spread to Europe by the time chariot was invented.

Well, we find alongside the earliest concrete evidence of an Indo-European language in Europe the earliest depiction of a chariot. The Indo-European identity of Corded Ware is pretty much considered a done deal on the internet at this point, but the earlier assumption that despite its general impracticability in most types of terrain the chariot became the status object at an early stage of the Indo-European development wasn't so stupid.

 

[Milan]

Well, we find alongside the earliest concrete evidence of an Indo-European language in Europe the earliest depiction of a chariot. The Indo-European identity of Corded Ware is pretty much considered a done deal on the internet at this point, but the earlier assumption that despite its general impracticability in most types of terrain the chariot became the status object at an early stage of the Indo-European development wasn't so stupid.

That's a cart,how can you use that in warfare?
I am practicaly asking here,how and in which way they used the horse in warfare as suggested by Marija Gimbutas,or the chariot.
There is some tool from Cucuteni Tripolye oxen on wheels if im not mistaken

 

[MarkoZ]

That's a cart,how can you use that in warfare?
I am practicaly asking here,how and in which way they used the horse in warfare as suggested by Marija Gimbutas,or the chariot.
There is some tool from Cucuteni Tripolye oxen on wheels if im not mistaken

I meant to say that the earliest proper chariots in Europe appear, to my knowledge, in the Mycenaean shaft graves which are roughly contemporary to the Linear B tablets.

 

[Angela]

I meant to say that the earliest proper chariots in Europe appear, to my knowledge, in the Mycenaean shaft graves which are roughly contemporary to the Linear B tablets.

To restate the obvious, that's much later and has nothing to do with Corded Ware, so to say that the chariot had nothing to do with the early Indo-European expansion in Europe is correct.