PDA

View Full Version : Steppe as secondary PIE



Angela
10-10-16, 01:05
Johannes Krause, and perhaps Wolfgang Haak as well, have suggested another model for PIE language origin and dispersal, at least if this slide from one of Krause's recent speeches is any indication.

8084

I don't think this is necessarily an endorsement of any sort of Anatolian farmer hypothesis a la the Renfrew model, at least not the original one.

Rather, it seems to address a possibility we've also discussed here, i.e. that there was a pre-PIE language or a first stage language leading to the Anatolian languages, and then a movement onto the steppe, the European IE languages spreading from there.

They also seem to propose a spread of Tocharian and the eastern PIE languages directly from Anatolia, not from the steppe.

As to the first half of their proposal, I wonder if perhaps they've found a lot of R1b in or south of the Caucasus that is like Yamnaya R1b but predates it. That would take care of the CHG in Yamnaya and Catacomb without all the stealing wives business. If that's what leads them to this, then Krause really does have a loose mouth. (Didn't he leak something before?)

As to the second half, I have to think about it some more. How does R1a Z93/94 fit into all of this? No wonder Eurogenes was going on trying to discredit Gramkelidze and Ivanov. He must have gotten wind of it, and was trying to do a pre-emptive strike. Maybe the Reich Lab might want to move up the publication date of their paper.

Goga
10-10-16, 01:48
This is old news.


There is a consensus among the current established (supreme) academia. And that is that there were 2 stages of PIE. The early one and the first 1 were PIE folks who brought R1b into the Maykop/Yamnaya Horizon from the Iranian Plateau


Tocharians has to be from West Asia, because they had West Asian auDNA and belonged most probably to J2a and R1a-Z93 Y-DNA haplogroups. Both haplogroups are native to the Iranian Plateau.


Gramkelidze & Ivanov model is NOT the 'Anatolian' Model, but it has been called the so called 'Armenian' Model. It is a different model and should be actually renamed into the 'Western Iranian Plateau' Model.



Gramkelidze & Ivanov were ahead of their time and came to the right conclusion even before DNA-tests became popular. They should win the Nobel Price for being groundbreaking scientist who came with good answers!

Alan
10-10-16, 03:33
Finally the model I and many other have been proposing is been taken into account. Steppes as secondary homeland for most Indo European groups but the most archaic and first to split, did it already around the region of the Iranian_Plateau, Caucasus and East Anatolia.

bicicleur
10-10-16, 05:41
they seem to have some 4,5 ka Indus valley DNA, which is halfway the Indus valley civilisation

Tocharian is still a question mark

R1a CW would be R1b Yamnaya - derived

and what about Sintashta?

there is a lot to explain here

Fire Haired14
10-10-16, 06:18
Tocharians has to be from West Asia, because they had West Asian auDNA and belonged most probably to J2a and R1a-Z93 Y-DNA haplogroups. Both haplogroups are native to the Iranian Plateau.


We have no Tocherian DNA so those are just guesses. There were Bronze age Europeans with 90%+ R1a-Z93 living near where Tocherians lived, so if Tocherians had Z93 that isn't evidence they were of West Asian origin. You can argue those BA Euros with R1a Z93 got it from West Asia. They had ancestry in West Asia as do modern Europeans so this wouldn't make them West Asian, they were autosomally Europeans and from the continent of Europe.

Goga
10-10-16, 06:22
they seem to have some 4,5 ka Indus valley DNA, which is halfway the Indus valley civilisation

Tocharian is still a question mark

R1a CW would be R1b Yamnaya - derived

and what about Sintashta?

there is a lot to explain hereWhat is about Sintashta? There is NOTHING special about Sintashta. Sintashta was way to young to be proto-anything. It is not really an interesting culture to be studied. They were just a mixed race of native Steppe aboriginals and the incoming Iranians from the Iranian Plateau.

According to the Armenian Model of Ivanov the proto-Indo-Iranian has been born in Northern Iran among the same PIE people whose brothers migrated into Maykop/Yamnaya.

proto-Indo-Iranian languages were West Asian in nature native to the Iranian Plateau and spread via the Iranian Plateau into the Steppes and Northern India. In turn Iranian / Aryan languages are native to the Iranian plateau and were involved from the Indo-Iranian. That's why proto-Indic and proto-Iranic had an ergativity construction in their grammar.


I've seen the video (his lecture). And it seems that he came to this conclusion because only DNA from 'Northern' Iran is binding ancient Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya, Central Asia and Northern India with each other. According to him DNA from the 'Northern' Iran is very different from the DNA of the Anatolian Farmers and that only 'Northern' Iranian DNA is common among Yamnaya, Central Asia (Tocharian) and Northern India.

All those ancient historic Indo-European lands are connected with the DNA from the so called 'Northern' Iran = on Iranian Plateau just south of the Caspian Sea.

It seems that ancient Tocharians were full of that 'Northern' Iranian DNA

https://s15.postimg.org/8lmyazq8b/abc.jpg
8085

It seems that this picture is from Johannes Krause's not yet published academic paper.

Goga
10-10-16, 06:28
We have no Tocherian DNA so those are just guesses. There were Bronze age Europeans with 90%+ R1a-Z93 living near where Tocherians lived, so if Tocherians had Z93 that isn't evidence they were of West Asian origin. You can argue those BA Euros with R1a Z93 got it from West Asia. They had ancestry in West Asia as do modern Europeans so this wouldn't make them West Asian, they were autosomally Europeans and from the continent of Europe.There is a lot R1a-Z93 and huge amounts of the Iranian Plateau (Aryan) DNA in the areas where the Tocharians lived. In those areas of the ancient Tocharians there are no 'European' haplogroups. Central Asia is mostly J2a and R1a-Z93.


R1a-Z93 can't be from Europe. That's impossible since all ancient ancestros have been found on the Iranian Plateau.


Like R1b in Yamnaya, so was R1a hardcore Iranian Y-DNA haplogroup native to the IRANian Plateau, the legendary, mythical and glorious ARYANA VEYAH, the land of the mighty Aryans.


" The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley [46]. R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India. "

"Furthermore, BATWING results indicate that the Afghan populations split from Iranians, Indians and East Europeans at about 10.6 kya (95% CI7,100–15,825), which marks the start of the Neolithic revolution and the establishment of the farming communities."

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034288 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0034288)


" Origin of hg R1a

To infer the geographic origin of hg R1a-M420, we identified populations harboring at least one of the two most basal haplogroups and possessing high haplogroup diversity. Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a. "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf)

" Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence. "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf)

Alan
10-10-16, 06:34
They certanly have new DNA from South_Central Asia, Indus Valley and West Asia when they come up with such a new model, they definitely found something. There were rumors around that they had found R1a z93 in Indus Civilization prior to the actual Indo_Aryan migration.. When I look at the screenshot however I see that Harrapa was pretty much Iran_Neo and ASI. So if they found R1a there, it certanly didn't came from the Steppes.

Tomenable
10-10-16, 08:06
Finally the model I and many other have been proposing is been taken into account. Steppes as secondary homeland for most Indo European groups but the most archaic and first to split, did it already around the region of the Iranian_Plateau, Caucasus and East Anatolia.

Even if true (which I doubt), this model still doesn't alter the Steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which was not one of the most archaic and first to split IE languages, but rather one of the least archaic and last to split (from PIE continuum) IE languages.

Proto-Anatolian split from PIE continuum first, while all the rest of IE split much later.

Of course this alone is not a proof that Proto-Anatolian did not originate from the Steppe.

But it seems that Proto-Anatolian speakers split from the rest of PIE dialect continuum before the emergence of Yamnaya culture. Under Steppe Origin theory, they split from Sredni Stog culture (which was PIE in this theory), forming Cernavodă culture.

Tomenable
10-10-16, 08:19
By the way, what is "secondary PIE"? Is there even such a thing?

If so, then maybe there was also "proto-PIE" ("proto-proto-IE")?:

http://www.pcgamesn.com/far-cry-primal/far-cry-primals-proto-proto-indoeuropean-language-was-created-specially-by-linguistics-experts


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsUO1rfcKv4

Goga
10-10-16, 08:29
Even if true (which I doubt), this model still doesn't alter the Steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which was not one of the most archaic and first to split IE languages, but rather one of the least archaic and last to split (from PIE continuum) IE languages.

Proto-Anatolian split from PIE continuum first, while all the rest of IE split much later.

Of course this alone is not a proof that Proto-Anatolian did not originate from the Steppe.

But it seems that Proto-Anatolian speakers split from the rest of PIE dialect continuum before the emergence of Yamnaya culture. Under Steppe Origin theory, they split from Sredni Stog culture (which was PIE in this theory), forming Cernavodă culture.Wrong.

Iranian has to many different dialects and different languages to be of young age.


Iranian is actually one of the OLDEST Indo-European languages. It was already spoken at the era of BMAC!!! BMAC was ALREADY East Iranian.


Together with the Anatolian Hittites language, proto-Iranian is the oldest IE language ever attested in written form in Western Asia (Rojava, Western Kurdistan) among the Mitanni. The oldest proto-Iranian language ever attested was Kurdistan among the Mitanni. This fact should already ring some bells. Iranian is at least as old as Anatolian languages. Iranian already existed at least 3,500 years ago. Never heard of Graeco-Aryan connection? At the times when ancient sacred books of Ahura Mazda were written in Avestan language, people in Europe were still illiterate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan


Btw, this map


https://s15.postimg.org/8lmyazq8b/abc.jpg


is very similar to this map of the Armenian Model of Ivanov:

https://s13.postimg.org/pvyh8su4n/Indo_Europeans.jpg

Goga
10-10-16, 08:37
By the way, what is "secondary PIE"? Is there even such a thing?

If so, then maybe there was also "proto-PIE" ("proto-proto-IE")?:

http://www.pcgamesn.com/far-cry-primal/far-cry-primals-proto-proto-indoeuropean-language-was-created-specially-by-linguistics-experts


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsUO1rfcKv4
Secondary PIE was Yamnaya. Yamnaya people were already 'mixed' people between Iranians (PIE) and Steppes aboriginals (non-PIE). Yamnaya was not 'pure' Indo-European, but a hybrid between PIE from Iran and Steppe natives. Yamnaya was only 50% Indo-European. People of Europe are descendants of those mixed Yamnaya folks. Yamnaya folks Indo-Europized Europe. That's why Yamnaya is the homeland of the Indo-European speakers IN Europe. While the original URHEIMAT was Iran.


And some ancient Indo-Europeans, like (proto-)Iranians, Anatolians, Tocharians etc. were not from Yamnaya, but directly from the FIRST PIE source, the Iranian Plateau..

Alan
10-10-16, 09:44
Even if true (which I doubt), this model still doesn't alter the Steppe origin of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which was not one of the most archaic and first to split IE languages, but rather one of the least archaic and last to split (from PIE continuum) IE languages.

That is correct at least the East Iranic branch originated in the Steppes not much doubt there. However the origin of West Iranic is still a mystery and Indo_Aryan seems to be from the contact zone of Sintashta and BMAC( Basically Andronovo).

Taranis
10-10-16, 09:56
Johannes Krause, and perhaps Wolfgang Haak as well, have suggested another model for PIE language origin and dispersal, at least if this slide from one of Krause's recent speeches is any indication.

I don't think this is necessarily an endorsement of any sort of Anatolian farmer hypothesis a la the Renfrew model, at least not the original one.

Rather, it seems to address a possibility we've also discussed here, i.e. that there was a pre-PIE language or a first stage language leading to the Anatolian languages, and then a movement onto the steppe, the European IE languages spreading from there.

They also seem to propose a spread of Tocharian and the eastern PIE languages directly from Anatolia, not from the steppe.

As to the first half of their proposal, I wonder if perhaps they've found a lot of R1b in or south of the Caucasus that is like Yamnaya R1b but predates it. That would take care of the CHG in Yamnaya and Catacomb without all the stealing wives business. If that's what leads them to this, then Krause really does have a loose mouth. (Didn't he leak something before?)

As to the second half, I have to think about it some more. How does R1a Z93/94 fit into all of this? No wonder Eurogenes was going on trying to discredit Gramkelidze and Ivanov. He must have gotten wind of it, and was trying to do a pre-emptive strike. Maybe the Reich Lab might want to move up the publication date of their paper.

I have to say this: first, the idea that the Anatolian languages were the first branch of PIE to separate (or, conversely, that you have an ancestral split between Proto-Anatolian and a form of "Late" PIE) is a common ground between Kurganists and Anatolianists. I have also mentioned before, I'm not opposed to some hybrid model, because the above allows for some variability, because if we say the secondary home was indeed in the Pontic-Caspian steppe, we can reconcile this with the linguistic evidence. The problem I have with Krause's model is the following: first, with the IE branches of the east, the Indo-Iranic and Tocharian languages are both clearly descendants of "Late" PIE. You have common terminologies for "horse" and "wheel" that Indo-Iranic and Tocharian share with the 'western' IE languages.

Second, if I interpret the map right (I actually hope I don't), they're essentially saying that the Celtic languages arrived in Western Europe in 7500 YBP. Good luck with that, because Celtic languages too are clearly derived from "Late" PIE.

Third, another problem is, and this is critical to ask, where was the Proto-Anatolian homeland?

bicicleur
10-10-16, 10:01
What is about Sintashta? There is NOTHING special about Sintashta. Sintashta was way to young to be proto-anything. It is not really an interesting culture to be studied. They were just a mixed race of native Steppe aboriginals and the incoming Iranians from the Iranian Plateau.


there is a lot about Sintashta
it is a herding society in refuge settlements during a drought period on the steppe, and tribes fighting very hard to defend their refuge
it is an important development of bronze metalurgy
it is the home of chariots and chariot warfare

bicicleur
10-10-16, 10:05
Btw, this map


https://s15.postimg.org/8lmyazq8b/abc.jpg


is very similar to this map of the Armenian Model of Ivanov:

https://s13.postimg.org/pvyh8su4n/Indo_Europeans.jpg

no, it isn't, the connection through the Caucasus is essential in the first map

Goga
10-10-16, 10:07
The problem I have with Krause's model is the following: first, with the IE branches of the east, the Indo-Iranic and Tocharian languages are both clearly descendants of "Late" PIE. You have common terminologies for "horse" and "wheel" that Indo-Iranic and Tocharian share with the 'western' IE languages.Once again this is not a really a strong and valid argument. Some 'common' universal words could also be 'loan' words. Everybody is using the word 'Sushi' . But that doesn't mean that Japanese and Europeans share the same common roots."Sushi" is now a universal world. Everybody is now using it. From Africa to Georgia etc.The same was with the words like wheel and horse etc..

Goga
10-10-16, 10:11
there is a lot about Sintashta
it is a herding society in refuge settlements during a drought period on the steppe, and tribes fighting very hard to defend their refuge
it is an important development of bronze metalurgy
it is the home of chariots and chariot warfare
Don't know much about the first point.

Bronze metallurgy was born in West Asia.

Chariots were known in West Asia too, even at the times of the Sumerians

bicicleur
10-10-16, 10:12
There is a lot R1a-Z93 and huge amounts of the Iranian Plateau (Aryan) DNA in the areas where the Tocharians lived. In those areas of the ancient Tocharians there are no 'European' haplogroups. Central Asia is mostly J2a and R1a-Z93.


R1a-Z93 can't be from Europe. That's impossible since all ancient ancestros have been found on the Iranian Plateau.



you're confusing origin with destination
we all know IE were ousted from the Pontic steppe by Turkic and Hunnic tribes
and many migrated to Iran





" Origin of hg R1a

To infer the geographic origin of hg R1a-M420, we identified populations harboring at least one of the two most basal haplogroups and possessing high haplogroup diversity. Among the 120 populations with sample sizes of at least 50 individuals and with at least 10% occurrence of R1a, just 6 met these criteria, and 5 of these 6 populations reside in modern-day Iran. Haplogroup diversities among the six populations ranged from 0.78 to 0.86 (Supplementary Table 4). Of the 24 R1a-M420*(xSRY10831.2) chromosomes in our data set, 18 were sampled in Iran and 3 were from eastern Turkey. Similarly, five of the six observed R1a1-SRY10831.2*(xM417/Page7) chromosomes were also from Iran, with the sixth occurring in a Kabardin individual from the Caucasus. Owing to the prevalence of basal lineages and the high levels of haplogroup diversities in the region, we find a compelling case for the Middle East, possibly near present-day Iran, as the geographic origin of hg R1a. "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf)

" Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred ~5800 years ago. This suggests the possibility that R1a lineages accompanied demic expansions initiated during the Copper, Bronze, and Iron ages, partially replacing previous Y-chromosome strata, an interpretation consistent with albeit limited ancient DNA evidence. "

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf)

I agree for R1a* which was 10.000 years before IE expansion

bicicleur
10-10-16, 10:14
Don't know much about the first point.

Bronze metallurgy was born in West Asia.

Chariots were known in West Asia too, even at the times of the Sumerians

do you know the difference between chariots and carts ?

anyway, I'm not inclined to discuss all this in very detail
it is better to await the final publication

Taranis
10-10-16, 10:20
Once again this is not a really a strong and valide argument. Some 'common' words could also be 'loan' words. Everybody is using the word 'Sushi' . But that doesn't mean that Japanese and European share the same common roots.

"Sushi" is now a universal world. Everybody is now using it. From Africa to Georgia etc.

The same was with words like wheel and horse etc..

I for one think it is a very strong argument, because the words for 'horse' and 'wheel' are shifted according to the respective sound laws. If they were spread later, after (Late) PIE had already split up into the daughter branches, you would expect to see a clear sign of borrowing.

Goga
10-10-16, 10:20
do you know the difference between chariots and carts ?

anyway, I'm not inclined to discuss all this in very detail
it is better to await the final publication
It’s all about the concept and conceptualization. When people know how to use carts it is not a big jump to use chariots. So, carts & chariots were invented at the same time. And we all know that Sumerians at least were familiar with carts. Sumerians predate any Steppe culture.

Taranis
10-10-16, 10:30
It’s all about the concept and conceptualization. When people know how to use carts it is not a big jump to use chariots. So, carts & chariots were invented at the same time. And we all know that Sumerians at least were familiar with carts. Sumerians predate any Steppe culture.

Mesopotamia, to my knowledge, didn't have wheels before the Uruk period. I might add that the Sumerian word for 'wheel', ḫu-bu-um, bears no relationship with the Indo-European words for wheel (*kwekwelos and *(H)rotheH)).

Goga
10-10-16, 10:31
I for one think it is a very strong argument, because the words for 'horse' and 'wheel' are shifted according to the respective sound laws. If they were spread later, after (Late) PIE had already split up into the daughter branches, you would expect to see a clear sign of borrowing.
No, it is a very WEAK argument. It proves NOTHING. Only thin air. The only valid point is that it is a very ancient 'loan' word. It's not from yesterday or something. It is actually thousands of years old.

I'm sure that the universal word 'Sushi' will also continue to develop in all different languages in accordance to sound laws. I'm sure that people from al kind of places will change the word 'Sushi' in accordance to own sound laws overtime.


You can't prove a theory on 2 words. This is bull. You need much more than that. Once again those words are ancient loan words, like 'Sushi' is a modern common word of today.

Goga
10-10-16, 10:34
you're confusing origin with destination
we all know IE were ousted from the Pontic steppe by Turkic and Hunnic tribes
and many migrated to IranHuh? I can't follow you. And BEFORE the Turks and Huns, Central Asia and South Central Asia was populated by native aboriginal Steppe people mixed with Iranians. We have got auDNA evidence for that. There is ancient Iranian DNA in ancient Central Asian samples. That's a fact!

Goga
10-10-16, 10:37
Mesopotamia, to my knowledge, didn't have wheels before the Uruk period. I might add that the Sumerian word for 'wheel', ḫu-bu-um, bears no relationship with the Indo-European words for wheel (*kwekwelos and *(H)rotheH)).I think that wheel was invented during the Neolithic times by the first farmers. That's how farmers migrated into Europe. They predate the 'Uruk' Sumerians by thousands of years.


" The wheel is believed to date to the Neolithic period (about 12,000 years ago) appearing at different stages in different civilizations. The earliest use was probably for turning pottery; Mesopotamian diagrams show that use as early as 3500 B.C.

A wheel with spokes first appeared on Sumarian chariots around 2000 B.C., and wheels seem to have developed in Europe by 1400 B.C. After about 400 B.C. Nubians used wheels to turn pottery and as water wheels. The earliest record of a wheelbarrow comes from China in the Three Kingdoms period (A.D. 184-280). "



http://www.farmcollector.com/equipment/invention-of-the-wheel-zmmz13augzbea

Goga
10-10-16, 10:48
no, it isn't, the connection through the Caucasus is essential in the first mapLike migration from Iran into the Central Asia, SouthCentral Asia and Northern India.

Brother, you are in shock, that why you are in denial. Stop playing a fool. And stop playing games.


If you can't handle the truth and nothing but the truth look for a different hobby. Why do you like to get disappointed time after time? Do you like to be disappointed, time after time?


When are you Eurocentric people are going to acknowledge that you are all wrong big time?

A. Papadimitriou
10-10-16, 11:11
The word κύκλος in Greek didn't mean 'wheel' but pretty much 'circle' and 'any circular body', including wheels (but also rings, trenchers, places of assembly, vaults of the sky, orbs, disks of the sun and moon, round shields, eye-balls, cheeks, wreaths, cycles of poems etc)
It's more reasonable to assume that the Greek word meant 'circle' originally.

Goga
10-10-16, 11:25
The word κύκλος in Greek didn't mean 'wheel' but pretty much 'circle' and 'any circular body', including wheels (but also rings, trenchers, places of assembly, vaults of the sky, orbs, disks of the sun and moon, round shields, eye-balls, cheeks, wreaths, cycles of poems etc)
It's more reasonable to assume that the Greek word meant 'circle' originally.
Yeah, you might be right. But that doesn't even matter. It doesn't matter where a word originally is from. It is not necessary to share the common roots to use the same word. You can start using 'loan' words from different languages. And after you 'loaned' those words you CAN change it in accordance to own sound laws.

The word 'automobile' has FRENCH roots. It is not even a very old word. How old? maybe 150 years old? Kurds borrowed that recent French word and changed it in accordance to own sound laws into 'trombêl'. But It has still the French roots.

But that doesn't mean that Kurdish and French were the same languages 150 ago.


"automobile" in Georgian (Hurrian) is "saavtomobilo". Also changed in accordance to own specific sound laws. This doesn't mean that Georgian (Hurrian) and French (West IE) shared the same common roots 100 years ago.



I do really hope that you get the point..

bicicleur
10-10-16, 11:33
Like migration from Iran into the Central Asia, SouthCentral Asia and Northern India.

Brother, you are in shock, that why you are in denial. Stop playing a fool. And stop playing games.


If you can't handle the truth and nothing but the truth look for a different hobby. Why do you like to get disappointed time after time? Do you like to be disappointed, time after time?


When are you Eurocentric people are going to acknowledge that you are all wrong big time?


there's no need to be rude

let's await publication

maybe then we'll get a glimpse of the truth

I'm done for now

Goga
10-10-16, 11:39
there's no need to be rude

let's await publication

maybe then we'll get a glimpse of the truth

I'm done for nowI do already know the answer, because I do read ALL kind of sources from different perspectives and not just one way propaganda sources.

Wanna bet? I can miss ~3000 Euro. The winner takes it all.



PS. I'm sorry if I offended you.

Taranis
10-10-16, 11:48
No, it is a very WEAK argument. It proves NOTHING. Only thin air. The only valid point is that it is a very ancient 'loan' word. It's not from yesterday or something. It is actually thousands of years old.

I'm sure that the universal word 'Sushi' will also continue to develop in all different languages in accordance to sound laws. I'm sure that people from al kind of places will change the word 'Sushi' in accordance to own sound laws overtime.

You can't prove a theory on 2 words. This is bull. You need much more than that. Once again those words are ancient loan words, like 'Sushi' is a modern common word of today.

There's more than two words (two words for wheel, at that). You also have words for 'axle' and 'wagon'. Also, bear in mind that words cannot be subjected retroactively to past sound laws (because languages have no memories of past sound laws). When you look at the words for 'wheel' and 'horse', they are subject to the respective sound laws. The sound laws that occured from (Late) PIE to the daughter branches (for example when you have Greek "kyklos" and English "wheel" versus "chakra", the word obeys to the *l > *r merger in Indo-Iranic).


I think that wheel was invented during the Neolithic times by the first farmers. That's how farmers migrated into Europe. They predate the 'Uruk' Sumerians by thousands of years.

" The wheel is believed to date to the Neolithic period (about 12,000 years ago) appearing at different stages in different civilizations. The earliest use was probably for turning pottery; Mesopotamian diagrams show that use as early as 3500 B.C.

A wheel with spokes first appeared on Sumarian chariots around 2000 B.C., and wheels seem to have developed in Europe by 1400 B.C. After about 400 B.C. Nubians used wheels to turn pottery and as water wheels. The earliest record of a wheelbarrow comes from China in the Three Kingdoms period (A.D. 184-280). "

http://www.farmcollector.com/equipment/invention-of-the-wheel-zmmz13augzbea

I think they mean the start of the Neolithic by that date (12,000 YBP). I'm pretty sure that the Natufians didn't have wheels yet.


The word κύκλος in Greek didn't mean 'wheel' but pretty much 'circle' and 'any circular body', including wheels (but also rings, trenchers, places of assembly, vaults of the sky, orbs, disks of the sun and moon, round shields, eye-balls, cheeks, wreaths, cycles of poems etc)
It's more reasonable to assume that the Greek word meant 'circle' originally.

The word is etymologically related with the word for 'neck' in many branches of IE. Thus, *kwekwelos can be literally thought of as "that which turns", while *HroteH would mean "runner". Thus, it becomes very clear that the (Late) Indo-Europeans themselves invented the word, and that the term did not spread after the languages had separated into daughter branches.

For the whole matter in a digestable, relatively recent (2015) form, I suggest reading "The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives" by David W. Anthony and Don Ringe, which, I'm pretty sure, we discussed here on Eupedia last year.

A. Papadimitriou
10-10-16, 12:13
Saying that the word kuklos meant 'wheel' in Greek is misleading, because it didn't. It's like saying that it meant 'ring'. It meant circle and circular body.

The Sanskrit word was also used for many round or circular things that don't 'turn' necessarily.

Alan
10-10-16, 13:46
Mesopotamia, to my knowledge, didn't have wheels before the Uruk period. I might add that the Sumerian word for 'wheel', ḫu-bu-um, bears no relationship with the Indo-European words for wheel (*kwekwelos and *(H)rotheH)).

Recent archeologic sides have provent that the wheel was pretty much invented in Neolithic times, as wagons need wheels and wagons have been found in some Neolithic sides in Europe as well West Asia. Angela will be able to tell you more about this.

Alan
10-10-16, 13:54
I for one think it is a very strong argument, because the words for 'horse' and 'wheel' are shifted according to the respective sound laws. If they were spread later, after (Late) PIE had already split up into the daughter branches, you would expect to see a clear sign of borrowing.

I catched up a comment some user made on a blog and it had a quote of some famous scientist in it which I found quite funny and eye opening in taking linguistics too far (do not misunderstand me linguistics are pretty important part of it, but sometimes some linguists take it too far).

I quote, "from A Keith, via S Piggot. "taking the linguistic evidence too literally, one could conclude that the original IEs know butter but not milk, snow and feet but not rain and hands.. "
I guess the PIEs came from some bizarre alternate dimension via a matter transporter

The thing is many people have realized that you can't explain the Indo European expansion and language in a tree model, languages that should be more different from each other based on the Satem and Kentum division sometimes share more than to other languages in their respective group. the Indo European heritage is not linear it seems. But more like a Circle.

Angela
10-10-16, 14:01
Like migration from Iran into the Central Asia, SouthCentral Asia and Northern India.

Brother, you are in shock, that why you are in denial. Stop playing a fool. And stop playing games.


If you can't handle the truth and nothing but the truth look for a different hobby. Why do you like to get disappointed time after time? Do you like to be disappointed, time after time?


When are you Eurocentric people are going to acknowledge that you are all wrong big time?

Enough with the name calling or this is going to go the way it always goes with you.

Let's also stay with the facts. The earliest spoked wheel chariot found is in Sintashta.

Taranis
10-10-16, 15:19
Recent archeologic sides have provent that the wheel was pretty much invented in Neolithic times, as wagons need wheels and wagons have been found in some Neolithic sides in Europe as well West Asia. Angela will be able to tell you more about this.

I'm aware of this. I was under the impression that the wheel was invented essentially independently around the same time frame, i.e. the Late(st) Neolithic in Central Europe, the Pontic-Caspian steppe and Mesopotamia. The fact that the Sumerian word for 'wheel' (also borrowed into Akkadian) bears no relationship with the Indo-European would be indicative of this.


I catched up a comment some user made on a blog and it had a quote of some famous scientist in it which I found quite funny and eye opening in taking linguistics too far (do not misunderstand me linguistics are pretty important part of it, but sometimes some linguists take it too far).

I quote, "from A Keith, via S Piggot. "taking the linguistic evidence too literally, one could conclude that the original IEs know butter but not milk, snow and feet but not rain and hands.. "
I guess the PIEs came from some bizarre alternate dimension via a matter transporter

Well, I won't disagree with that quote. :laughing:

I would like to note that if we follow what Papadimitriou wrote, why would the Indo-Europeans have a common word for 'circle' (but not wheel) that was derived from the root for 'to turn' (as in 'turning of the neck')?


The thing is many people have realized that you can't explain the Indo European expansion and language in a tree model, languages that should be more different from each other based on the Satem and Kentum division sometimes share more than to other languages in their respective group. the Indo European heritage is not linear it seems. But more like a Circle.

I don't mean to explain it (wholly) as a tree. The Centum/Satem split is a good example for that. However, it is very clear to me that if we are talking about ancient split between Proto-Anatolian and a "Late" Proto-Indo-European, then the Indo-Iranic languages are part of said "Late PIE". Even David W. Anthony admits this (remarking on terminology for 'wheel'): Anatolian shares only ‘thill,’ which might be used with a plow or sledge, so Anatolian might have separated before wheels were invented; that is consistent with other evidence for archaism in Anatolian.

In my opinion, this is a model that could account for an earlier PIE homeland in Anatolia, or the Caucasus, or even northern Iran if it pleases Goga (even though the evidence for that I find lacking). If Indo-Iranic split off from earlier Proto-Indo-European (just like Proto-Anatolian), we would expect it to be as divergent as the Anatolian languages. However, in reality the Indo-Iranic languages are much closer with Balto-Slavic than you would expect in Krause's model. Instead, we would expect archaisms similar to those we find in the Anatolian languages.

In my opinion, "late" PIE branches would be:
- Armenian
- Balto-Slavic
- Celtic
- Germanic
- Greek
- Italic
- Indo-Iranic
- Paleo-Balkan languages (including whatever language was the ancestor to Albanian)
- Tocharian

I might add that the Centum/Satem divergence is even later (in my opinion clearly postdates invention of the wheel and domestication of the horse).

Goga
10-10-16, 15:57
Enough with the name calling or this is going to go the way it always goes with you.

Let's also stay with the facts. The earliest spoked wheel chariot found is in Sintashta.Look. It is true that they found the oldest war chariots with ' spoked wheel ' in Central Asia. But it doesn't mean that it is originally from there.

Those Sintashta chariots were dated ca 1700 - 1500 BC.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

Those were YOUNGER than the Anatolian spoked wheel war chariot !

And the oldest chariots that have been found are actually in Georgia. In Kurgans of Southern Caucasus, although as far as I know those oldest chariots they found didn't have ' spoked wheel ' .

https://s14.postimg.org/uvytnsxi9/Chariot_Burial_Discovery_1.jpg

http://www.livescience.com/46513-ancient-chariot-burial-discovered.html



I think about 4000 years ago the ' spoked wheels ' were the new technology of the ancients. That would mean that Yamnaya folks that invaded the Europe had chariots with ' solid wheels '. Late second PIE culture of Yamnaya was also not familiar with ' spoked wheels ' . Chariots of Yamnaya were identical to Chariots of Kurgans in Southern Caucasus (Georgia) and Mesopotamia. Yamnaya culture predate Sintashta culture at least by 1000 years. I mean there is a time frame of more than 1000 years between Yamnaya and Sintashta. They had at least 1000 of years of time to invent ' spoked wheels ' . This could be everywhere! That means that ' spoked wheels ' were either invented in Central Asia or on the Iranian Plateau (BMAC) or even the Yamnaya Horizon. The point is that EAST Iranian BMAC predate Sintashta by hundreds of years. I think that new technology came from the Iranian Plateau, because around the same time when earliest spoked wheel chariot that has been found in Sintashta was almost of the same age as Hittites war chariots. Hittites were NOT Iranian or even Indo-Iranian people, but they were Anatolian people. The techniques that Sintashta folks used were heavily influenced by the older BMAC culture.

Goga
10-10-16, 16:24
However, in reality the Indo-Iranic languages are much closer with Balto-Slavic than you would expect in Krause's model. Instead, we would expect archaisms similar to those we find in the Anatolian languages.No, wrong again.

Balto-Slavic and Iranian have similarities because they are neighbors of each other. Iranian is MUCH, MUCH older than Balto-Slavic.

https://s14.postimg.org/6vvy38q6p/map1.jpg



The biggest difference between Indo-Iranian ( Iranic/Aryan and Indic) and Balto-Slavic is that Indo-Iranian languages were ergative languages. Both ancient Iranic and ancient Indic had ERGATIVITY construction in their grammar.



Indo-European language tree.

https://s9.postimg.org/5yad368kt/2011_MCCtree_width_Cognate_Rate.jpg


http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/what-we-did/

bicicleur
10-10-16, 16:29
Look. It is true that they found the oldest war chariots with ' spoked wheel ' in Central Asia. But it doesn't mean that it is originally from there.

Those Sintashta chariots were dated ca 1700 - 1500 BC.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

Those were YOUNGER than the Anatolian spoked wheel war chariot !

And the oldest chariots that have been found are actually in Georgia. In Kurgans of Southern Caucasus, although as far as I know those oldest chariots they found didn't have ' spoked wheel ' .

https://s14.postimg.org/uvytnsxi9/Chariot_Burial_Discovery_1.jpg

http://www.livescience.com/46513-ancient-chariot-burial-discovered.html



I think about 4000 years ago the ' spoked wheels ' were the new technology of the ancients. That would mean that Yamnaya folks that invaded the Europe had chariots with ' solid wheels '. Late second PIE culture of Yamnaya was also not familiar with ' spoked wheels ' . Chariots of Yamnaya were identical to Chariots of Kurgans in Southern Caucasus (Georgia) and Mesopotamia. Yamnaya culture predate Sintashta culture at least by 1000 years. I mean there is a time frame of more than 1000 years between Yamnaya and Sintashta. They had at least 1000 of years of time to invent ' spoked wheels ' . This could be everywhere! That means that ' spoked wheels ' were either invented in Central Asia or on the Iranian Plateau (BMAC) or even the Yamnaya Horizon. The point is that EAST Iranian BMAC predate Sintashta by hundreds of years. I think that new technology came from the Iranian Plateau, because around the same time when earliest spoked wheel chariot that has been found in Sintashta was almost of the same age as Hittites war chariots. Hittites were NOT Iranian or even Indo-Iranian people, but they were Anatolian people. The techniques that Sintashta folks used were heavily influenced by the older BMAC culture.

afaik Hitites didn't use chariots untill they were introduced by the Mittani in this area ca 1500 BC

Assyrians, Hitites and Egyptian copied it from Mittani

there is a textbook for charriot horsetraining translated from Mittani into Hitite, but some words were in Indic language as no Mittani nor Hitite words existed for it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli

a war charriot was pulled by horses especially trained for warfare situations
and afaik had spoked wheels

why is this finding in Georgia a charriot and not a cart? it is not clear from the text
and even so, it still slightly postdates Sintashta

Goga
10-10-16, 16:30
Once again Indo-Iranian and even Iranian is MUCH older than Balto-Slavic. According to the tree Indo-Iranian is almost 5000 years old, while Balto-Slavic is 3000 years old.


And once again: the Indo-Iranian languages were ergative languages. Both ancient Iranic and ancient Indic had ERGATIVITY construction in their grammar. Kurdish and some Indic languages still have that ancient construction. Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic were VERY different languages.

https://s16.postimg.org/ekppg2305/IEchart2.jpg

https://s16.postimg.org/yglovlk1h/Indo_European_language_tree.jpg

Goga
10-10-16, 16:56
afaik Hitites didn't use chariots untill they were introduced by the Mittani in this area ca 1500 BC

Assyrians, Hitites and Egyptian copied it from Mittani

there is a textbook for charriot horsetraining translated from Mittani into Hitite, but some words were in Indic language as no Mittani nor Hitite words existed for it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli

a war charriot was pulled by horses especially trained for warfare situations
and afaik had spoked wheels

why is this finding in Georgia a charriot and not a cart? it is not clear from the text
and even so, it still slightly postdates SintashtaNo, the Hittites had also war chariots. Hittites chariotswere actually very contemporary to those chariots in Sintashta.
And Mitanni were not the oldest of West Asia


Have you ever heard of "Tepe Hissar" culture of the Iranian Plateau? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepe_Hissar

"Tepe Hissar" culture was related to BMAC and predate Sintashta by thousand of years. It has been said that "Tepe Hissar" culture is for about 5000 years old. It was maybe the time when Indo-Iranian split into Aryan/Iranian and Vedic Sansctrit (Indic).

They found cylinder seal from that culture with 'spoked wheels' on it. And those cylinder seals with 'spoked wheels' of "Tepe Hissar" culture predate Sintashta chariots.


https://s16.postimg.org/p30r4qhwj/tyyu.jpg


8087

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/the-earliest-near-eastern-spoked-wheels-and-their-chronology/59B5B775856754692DAD21F1AF178FB9



proto-Iranian language is OLDER than Sintashta by 1000 years!!! So when proto-Iranian was already spoken, Sintashta didn't even exist yet. SO, that's why I'm saying , what is so special about Sintashta???? The were just Iranized wild uncivilized aboriginal Steppe people

Goga
10-10-16, 17:18
" By 3600 BCE, people at thesite of Tepe Hissar were using a crucible that required a highdegree of pyrotechnic knowledge to produce (Thornton, C. P., and T. Rehren. 2009. A truly Refractory Crucible from Fourth Millennium Tepe Hissar, Northeast Iran. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2700–2712). At Hissar were found arsenic-bronze, lead-bronze, lead, silver and gold. (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). Multi-looped spiral-headed pins from Tepe Hissar (period IIB), which are identical to those from Parkhai II. "
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html


"Tepe Hissar" is about the same age as Indo-Iranian language and BMAC and predate Sintashta by 1000 ( !!! ) of years.


Also, Indo-Iranian is almost 2000 years OLDER than Balto-Slavic

+ Indo-Iranic (Vedic & Iranic ) had ergativity, while Balto-Slavic didn't have any ergativity. 2 very different languages.



There is no ergativity in the Steppes, so Indo-Iranian is NOT from the Steppes!


https://s9.postimg.org/5yad368kt/2011_MCCtree_width_Cognate_Rate.jpg

Taranis
10-10-16, 17:22
No, wrong again.

Balto-Slavic and Iranian have similarities because they are neighbors of each other. Iranian is MUCH, MUCH older than Balto-Slavic.

Indo-Iranic languages have a much longer attestation, yes (if we include the loanwords in Mitanni, 1400 BC), but you should not equate that automatically with "older". We're talking about Late IE languages (where the so-called "pharyngeals") vanish with vowel-colouring qualities while in the Anatolian languages they were largely preserved. Further the Indo-Iranic branch is also satemized (like Armenian and Balto-Slavic). The Indo-Iranic languages have the distinct feature that they then merge *e, *o > *a (as well as the long counterparts, *ē, *ō > *ā - here I would like to ammend that the word for horse, *(H)ekwos, is subject to this sound change, think of Persian "asb" and Hindi "ašva" versus Latin "equus"). However, at the same time (and this is where the limitations of the tree model come into play, where I agree with Alan, by the way), Iranic (but not Indic) shares with Armenian and Greek that word-initial *s- yields *h-. This shows you that we're talking about a late Indo-European dialect continuum. The latter issue, by the way, is also the reason why the Mitanni loanwords cannot come from an Iranian language.


The biggest difference between Indo-Iranian ( Iranic/Aryan and Indic) and Balto-Slavic is that Indo-Iranian languages were ergative languages. Both ancient Iranic and ancient Indic had ERGATIVITY construction in their grammar.

Get factual. I would assume you're basing that idea of modern Kurdish, Hindi-Urdu and Pashto (most of all Kurdish, I presume, since that is a language you speak). However:

- the Nuristani languages have no ergativity.
- Sanskrit had no signs of ergativity.
- Pali had no signs of ergativity.
- Avestan had no ergativity.
- Old Persian had no ergativity.
- Ossetian has no ergativity.
- Yaghnobi (https://yaghnobi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/a-of-yai-3-nominal-morphology.pdf) has no ergativity.


Indo-European language tree

http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/what-we-did/

That's Bouckaert, Gray and Atkinson's work, we've discussed it in many threads here. Their methodology is dubious and their dates are bizarre. Note how many of their dates are completely nonsensical. For example Romani (the Gypsi languages) are supposed to have diverged from the other Indic languages in about 1500 BC, while in reality, the Romani people did not arrive in Europe before the Middle Ages.

Goga
10-10-16, 17:43
Indo-Iranic languages have a much longer attestation, yes (if we include the loanwords in Mitanni, 1400 BC), but you should not equate that automatically with "older". We're talking about Late IE languages (where the so-called "pharyngeals") vanish with vowel-colouring qualities while in the Anatolian languages they were largely preserved. Further the Indo-Iranic branch is also satemized (like Armenian and Balto-Slavic). The Indo-Iranic languages have the distinct feature that they then merge *e, *o > *a (as well as the long counterparts, *ē, *ō > *ā - here I would like to ammend that the word for horse, *(H)ekwos, is subject to this sound change, think of Persian "asb" and Hindi "ašva" versus Latin "equus"). However, at the same time (and this is where the limitations of the tree model come into play, where I agree with Alan, by the way), Iranic (but not Indic) shares with Armenian and Greek that word-initial *s- yields *h-. This shows you that we're talking about a late Indo-European dialect continuum. The latter issue, by the way, is also the reason why the Mitanni loanwords cannot come from an Iranian language.



Get factual. I would assume you're basing that idea of modern Kurdish, Hindi-Urdu and Pashto (most of all Kurdish, I presume, since that is a language you speak). However:

- the Nuristani languages have no ergativity.
- Sanskrit had no signs of ergativity.
- Pali had no signs of ergativity.
- Avestan had no ergativity.
- Old Persian had no ergativity.
- Ossetian has no ergativity.
- Yaghnobi (https://yaghnobi.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/a-of-yai-3-nominal-morphology.pdf) has no ergativity.



That's Bouckaert, Gray and Atkinson's work, we've discussed it in many threads here. Their methodology is dubious and their dates are bizarre. Note how many of their dates are completely nonsensical. For example Romani (the Gypsi languages) are supposed to have diverged from the other Indic languages in about 1500 BC, while in reality, the Romani people did not arrive in Europe before the Middle Ages.No, like always WRONG again


Most modern Iranian languages 'lost' ergativity over time. Ergativity is attested in Old Persian. This is a FACT!



Avesta was an ergative language : " On the Origin of the Ergative Construction in Iranian: Evidence from Avestan "
http://www.academia.edu/939047/On_the_Origin_of_the_Ergative_Construction_in_Iran ian_Evidence_from_Avestan


Classical Sanscrit had also ergativiy (construction) : " All the historians of NIA since Kellogg (1875) and Grierson (1903) mention that ergativity is a further development of the particular type of nominal sentence in Sanskrit with a past passive participle as the predicate, "
http://www.academia.edu/16015882/Why_the_ergative_case_in_modal_in_transitive_claus es_The_historical_evolution_of_Aspect_modality_erg ative_and_locative_in_Indo-Aryan_in_Dahl_Eystein_and_Stronski_Kryzstof_eds._E rgativty_in_Indo-Aryan_Benjamins_TSL_


Avestan & Sanscrit had ergativity, that means that proto-Indo-Iranian was an ergative language. Ergative languages are VERY different from non-Ergative languages, the grammar is very different.
There was NOTHING common between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. The only thing what was common is that both groups used the same 'archaic' PIE words. But the grammarr and evolution of both groups totally different


Doesn't matter when Gipsies migrated into Europe. Gipsies could already have own language before they migrated into Europe. I don't see any problems


Indo-Iranian is much older than Balto-Slavic because there is a lot of diversity in that family (East vs. West Iranian. Iranian vs. Vedic etc.) and there was already a split between Vedic and Aryan (Iranic) even before Balto-Slavic languages were born, LMAO!

bicicleur
10-10-16, 17:44
They found cylinder seal from that culture with 'spoked wheels' on it. And those cylinder seals with 'spoked wheels' of "Tepe Hissar" culture predate Sintashta chariots.


https://static.cambridge.org/content/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:article:S0079497X00013980/resource/name/firstPage-S0079497X00013980a.jpg

8087

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/the-earliest-near-eastern-spoked-wheels-and-their-chronology/59B5B775856754692DAD21F1AF178FB9



proto-Iranian language is OLDER than Sintashta by 1000 years!!! So when proto-Iranian was already spoken, Sintashta didn't even exist yet. SO, that's why I'm saying , what is so special about Sintashta???? The were just Iranized wild uncivilized aboriginal Steppe people

I have no access to this.

bicicleur
10-10-16, 17:46
No, the Hittites had also war chariots. Hittites chariotswere actually very contemporary to those chariots in Sintashta.
And Mitanni were not the oldest of West Asia


Have you ever heard of "Tepe Hissar" culture of the Iranian Plateau? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tepe_Hissar

"Tepe Hissar" culture was related to BMAC and predate Sintashta by thousand of years. It has been said that "Tepe Hissar" culture is for about 5000 years old. It was maybe the time when Indo-Iranian split into Aryan/Iranian and Vedic Sansctrit (Indic).



BMAC items were found in Hissar IIIC, that's all

and for Hitites, I have no knowledge of war charriots before Mitanni, please show me

Angela
10-10-16, 17:51
Look. It is true that they found the oldest war chariots with ' spoked wheel ' in Central Asia. But it doesn't mean that it is originally from there.

Those Sintashta chariots were dated ca 1700 - 1500 BC.

https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

Those were YOUNGER than the Anatolian spoked wheel war chariot !

And the oldest chariots that have been found are actually in Georgia. In Kurgans of Southern Caucasus, although as far as I know those oldest chariots they found didn't have ' spoked wheel ' .

https://s14.postimg.org/uvytnsxi9/Chariot_Burial_Discovery_1.jpg

http://www.livescience.com/46513-ancient-chariot-burial-discovered.html



I think about 4000 years ago the ' spoked wheels ' were the new technology of the ancients. That would mean that Yamnaya folks that invaded the Europe had chariots with ' solid wheels '. Late second PIE culture of Yamnaya was also not familiar with ' spoked wheels ' . Chariots of Yamnaya were identical to Chariots of Kurgans in Southern Caucasus (Georgia) and Mesopotamia. Yamnaya culture predate Sintashta culture at least by 1000 years. I mean there is a time frame of more than 1000 years between Yamnaya and Sintashta. They had at least 1000 of years of time to invent ' spoked wheels ' . This could be everywhere! That means that ' spoked wheels ' were either invented in Central Asia or on the Iranian Plateau (BMAC) or even the Yamnaya Horizon. The point is that EAST Iranian BMAC predate Sintashta by hundreds of years. I think that new technology came from the Iranian Plateau, because around the same time when earliest spoked wheel chariot that has been found in Sintashta was almost of the same age as Hittites war chariots. Hittites were NOT Iranian or even Indo-Iranian people, but they were Anatolian people. The techniques that Sintashta folks used were heavily influenced by the older BMAC culture.

You didn't even read your own source. The article clearly states that the carbon dated horse finds at another burial with a spoked wheel chariot is dated to 2026 BC. It is, as the author of the article you cited said, the earliest spoke wheeled chariot found.

The rest of your post is full of unpersuasive conjecture or internal contradictions.

Like other people you let your agenda guide your analysis, and exhibit absolutely no objectivity. That is no way to persuade people to your point of view.

Goga
10-10-16, 17:57
BMAC items were found in Hissar IIIC, that's all

and for Hitites, I have no knowledge of war charriots before Mitanni, please show meThe point is that Tepe Hissar culture of the Iranian Plateau located close to BMAC is much older than Sintashta and they found Hassir cylinder seals with 'spoked wheels' on it.



Also, the Hittites became dominant around 1700BC, while Mitanni became dominant only 200 years later, 1500 BC. So the Hittites had their knowledge of war chariots not from Mitanni.


" The oldest testimony of chariot warfare in the ancient Near East is the Old Hittite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language) Anitta text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anitta_text) (18th century BC), which mentions 40 teams of horses (in the original cuneiform (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform) spelling: 40 ṢÍ-IM-TI ANŠE.KUR.RAḪI.A) at the siege of Salatiwara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salatiwara). Since the text mentions teams rather than chariots, the existence of chariots in the 18th century BC is uncertain. The first certain attestation of chariots in the Hittite empire dates to the late 17th century BC (Hattusili I (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattusili_I)).

Hittite horse-training text that is attributed to Kikkuli the Mitanni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikkuli_the_Mitanni) is from 15th century BC. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot

Goga
10-10-16, 18:05
Like other people you let your agenda guide your analysis, and exhibit absolutely no objectivity. That is no way to persuade people to your point of view.Sure okay, but what is you opinion about Hissar cylinder seals with 'spoked wheels' on it? Tepe Hissar of the Iranian Plateau predate Sintashta by at least 1000 years!

Angela
10-10-16, 18:09
Another point of importance in that graph is the pie chart showing what looks to be 85% ASI and 15% ANI (or perhaps they mean 15% Iran-N) in Harappa. That surprises me. Given the similarities in culture, I had assumed that the mix would be closer to 50/50.

If that's based on an actual ancient sample it means that the culture was almost completely changed by means not of a massive migration but by elite transfer.

It also means that the high amount of Iran N in some of these peoples of south central Asia and north India must have come later. Perhaps it was mediated via the Bactrian complex?

As to some comments made above, after combing through all the papers, it's basically unclear where the wheel was developed. There are finds placing it in TRB very early, as well as some indications it was invented in the Near East. Whether it was invented in one area and spread to the other or was invented simultaneously in both places I'm not sure.

However, I don't think horse domestication can be placed anywhere but the steppe. That is also, as I stated above, where the earliest spoked wheel chariots can be found.

The answer is not going to be found in the words for "wheel" or "horse", or, in the location of the first spoked wheel, in my opinion. It's going to be found in the ancient dna.

If they have found a lot of R1b of the Yamnaya variety south of the Caucasus somewhere, and a lot of early R1a1 there as well, then all bets are off.

Strange, it would be like the return of Dienekes without Dienekes. This is basically what he envisioned, if I remember it correctly.

Angela
10-10-16, 18:23
Sure okay, but what is you opinion about Hissar cylinder seals with 'spoked wheels' on it? Tepe Hissar of the Iranian Plateau predate Sintashta by at least 1000 years!

Stop posting inaccurate information.

The Hisar seals with a spoked wheel are dated to 1800 BC.

See:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FF5-7JVj4jYC&pg=PA688&lpg=PA688&dq=Hisar+cylinder+seals&source=bl&ots=Gdq9TajbfL&sig=KmzJEHoy8GR2AZOz7LSmbyNeEe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW-MOb0dDPAhUE8x4KHZd5AeIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Hisar%20cylinder%20seals&f=false

Goga
10-10-16, 18:38
Stop posting inaccurate information.

The Hisar seals with a spoked wheel are dated to 1800 BC.

See:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FF5-7JVj4jYC&pg=PA688&lpg=PA688&dq=Hisar+cylinder+seals&source=bl&ots=Gdq9TajbfL&sig=KmzJEHoy8GR2AZOz7LSmbyNeEe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW-MOb0dDPAhUE8x4KHZd5AeIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Hisar%20cylinder%20seals&f=falseOh, I see, I made a mistake. They found those seal from the third period of development (IIIB). So it was dated BEFORE 1800BC and not during the first period of development. But even that third period of Tepe Hissar is still at least at the same age (maybe even older) than Sintashta.


" (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html

berun
10-10-16, 18:42
ooops! It's seems that the happy time for Yamnayists is close to the end; now that genetists are realizing that DNA is not compatible with the Steppe's tales they have found that there was an alternative center in Armenia, so now we have a "everybodyhappy" theory... but unfortunately if you need more steps to get a result you are usualy more far from reality, and what is worse, in this case we get more problems: if getting the Caucasian route why no IE in Armenia but Hurrian and Urartian? What about the 1000 Caucasian languages left in the Caucasus? If getting the Aral route, why such area was in the Paleolithic yet in the third millenium? etc. Well, lets have fun with "Goganists" for some years then.

Sile
10-10-16, 18:49
the first indo-european speakers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians

absorbed by a unknowwn people
who took the name the hittites after taking Hatti lands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language

who then lost out to the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language

no linguist can tell where the original people who became the hittites came from except they where from gedrosia/south-asia area

berun
10-10-16, 19:01
Hattians and Hattic were not IE, just they were the native people before Hitties; IIRC half of the Hittite vocabulary is not IE...

bicicleur
10-10-16, 19:03
the first indo-european speakers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattians

absorbed by a unknowwn people
who took the name the hittites after taking Hatti lands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hittite_language

who then lost out to the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luwian_language

no linguist can tell where the original people who became the hittites came from except they where from gedrosia/south-asia area

http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/8/84/Hittite_Empire.png/280px-Hittite_Empire.png

the dark red ellipse on the map :

Nesa and Hattusa were in Hatti land, speaking Hurrite language
they were subjected by the Hitite speaking peoples in the southeastern edge of the dark red ellipse
those were the IE folks that founded the Hitite empire
the elite spoke Hitite, but natives of the Hatti land continued to speak Hattian
many soldiers were Hattians

Angela
10-10-16, 19:06
Oh, I see, I made a mistake. They found those seal from the third period of development (IIIB). So it was dated BEFORE 1800BC and not during the first period of development. But even that third period of Tepe Hissar is still at least at the same age (maybe even older) than Sintashta.


" (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html

Maybe doesn't cut it. Unless you have carbon dated evidence for a spoke wheel prior to 2026B.C. your argument fails.

Check your sources before you post.

Goga
10-10-16, 19:22
Maybe doesn't cut it. Unless you have carbon dated evidence for a spoke wheel prior to 2026B.C. your argument fails.

Check your sources before you post.They are saying prior to 1800BC. They don't know the exact when but it is at least. " (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html



What we do know for sure is that the Iranian Plateau Iranian 'Tepe Hissar' culture is much older than Sintashta. Iranian languages (split from the proto-Indo-Iranian) are much older than Sintashta. East Iranian speaking BMAC culture is also older than Sintashta. So, Sintashta is not proto-anything. It was just Iranized by people from the Iranian Plateau and we have got auDNA evidence for that. They have shown with Gedrosia auDNA that there was a massive invasion of Central Asia from Iran.




I checked the source once again. One group is saying that chariots of Sintashta are from 1700 - 1500 BC , while Anthony claims that it is from 2046 BC. Who should I do believe???


https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

A. Papadimitriou
10-10-16, 19:48
Well, I won't disagree with that quote.


I would like to note that if we follow what Papadimitriou wrote, why would the Indo-Europeans have a common word for 'circle' (but not wheel) that was derived from the root for 'to turn' (as in 'turning of the neck')?



The neck can turn but it is also round.


I didn't say anything about 'Indoeuropeans' though (or the meaning of any reconstructed root). But saying that the word meant 'wheel' in Greek is a misleading statement. As misleading as saying that it meant 'ring' or 'place of assembly'. People should accept that because it is a fact.


I saw that the way to derive Greek /'kuklos/ from *kwekwlos is pretty complex.


First of all, it is from an o-grade variety (?) of the word, *kwo-kwl-os
But why did that variety existed? Did this variety existed in 'PIE' too?


Then we need Cogwill's law to turn o to u
O becomes u between a labial or labiovelar and a sonorant. The sonorants are m, l, n, r, y, w. I don't see any of that, so I guess kw, gw (labiovelars) count as sonorants too (?).
(What phonemes count as 'sonorants'?)
The word becomes *kwukwlos


The we have the boukólos rule which states that "a labiovelar stop (*kʷ *gʷ *gʷʰ) dissimilates to an ordinary velar stop (*k *g *gʰ) next to the vowel *u or its corresponding glide *w"
So it becomes *kuklos

Sile
10-10-16, 19:58
http://static.newworldencyclopedia.org/thumb/8/84/Hittite_Empire.png/280px-Hittite_Empire.png

the dark red ellipse on the map :

Nesa and Hattusa were in Hatti land, speaking Hurrite language
they were subjected by the Hitite speaking peoples in the southeastern edge of the dark red ellipse
those were the IE folks that founded the Hitite empire
the elite spoke Hitite, but natives of the Hatti land continued to speak Hattian
many soldiers were Hattians

hattusa is the capital of the hittites ..............hittite language formed from hatti language and then was replaced by luwian.................none have any semitic components, not even the northern levant .
these are the origins of indo-european along with sanskrit

Sile
10-10-16, 20:00
Hattians and Hattic were not IE, just they were the native people before Hitties; IIRC half of the Hittite vocabulary is not IE...

link this not IE

Angela
10-10-16, 20:21
They are saying prior to 1800BC. They don't know the exact when but it is at least. " (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html



What we do know for sure is that the Iranian Plateau Iranian 'Tepe Hissar' culture is much older than Sintashta. Iranian languages (split from the proto-Indo-Iranian) are much older than Sintashta. East Iranian speaking BMAC culture is also older than Sintashta. So, Sintashta is not proto-anything. It was just Iranized by people from the Iranian Plateau and we have got auDNA evidence for that. They have shown with Gedrosia auDNA that there was a massive invasion of Central Asia from Iran.




I checked the source once again. One group is saying that chariots of Sintashta are from 1700 - 1500 BC , while Anthony claims that it is from 2046 BC. Who should I do believe???


https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

You may have checked it, but you don't seem to have grasped the meaning. I frankly don't understand your confusion, as the passage is very clear. The author of the book you cited says that the prior early dates from "X" location were based solely on some parallels with ones from Mycenae, hardly a reliable manner of dating. Anthony found another spoked wheel chariot in location "Y" which happened to be buried with a horse head. Therefore, luckily, carbon dating could be done, and that carbon date is 2026 BC. Therefore, the author concludes that, this is now the earliest and most reliable date for a spoke wheeled chariot.

All this source says is that he has dated a seal found at Hisar, which shows a spoke wheeled chariot, to the 3rd millennium. I don't know how he dated it.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html

What I do know is that in this source it says that the top layers at Hisar were disturbed, making it difficult to correctly date the layers. The opinion of this author is that the image of the spoke wheeled chariot is dated to the 18th century or slightly earlier.
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF5-7JVj4jYC&pg=PA688&lpg=PA688&dq=Hisar+cylinder+seals&source=bl&ots=Gdq9TajbfL&sig=KmzJEHoy8GR2AZOz7LSmbyNeEe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW-MOb0dDPAhUE8x4KHZd5AeIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Hisar%20cylinder%20seals&f=false

So, as of now, the most reliable date and place is Sintashta, approximately 2000 BC. If you can find a carbon dated and therefore equally reliable date for anything south of the Caucasus I would be happy to change my mind.

Milan
10-10-16, 20:55
The neck can turn but it is also round.


I didn't say anything about 'Indoeuropeans' though (or the meaning of any reconstructed root). But saying that the word meant 'wheel' in Greek is a misleading statement. As misleading as saying that it meant 'ring' or 'place of assembly'. People should accept that because it is a fact.
In Slavic is same "kolo" which is probably cognate with Greek "kuklos" mean both circle and wheel,by contrast neck is "vrat" in south-slavic finding it's cognate in "vrti"(to turn). But is true that the reconstructed word can be found as circle, wheel and as neck in Baltic among Indo-Europeans.

berun
10-10-16, 21:27
@Sile, I'm not in the computer to look at files but you can start here

http://gejl.info/articles/hattic_language

bicicleur
10-10-16, 21:31
You may have checked it, but you don't seem to have grasped the meaning. I frankly don't understand your confusion, as the passage is very clear. The author of the book you cited says that the prior early dates from "X" location were based solely on some parallels with ones from Mycenae, hardly a reliable manner of dating. Anthony found another spoked wheel chariot in location "Y" which happened to be buried with a horse head. Therefore, luckily, carbon dating could be done, and that carbon date is 2026 BC. Therefore, the author concludes that, this is now the earliest and most reliable date for a spoke wheeled chariot.

All this source says is that he has dated a seal found at Hisar, which shows a spoke wheeled chariot, to the 3rd millennium. I don't know how he dated it.
http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html

What I do know is that in this source it says that the top layers at Hisar were disturbed, making it difficult to correctly date the layers. The opinion of this author is that the image of the spoke wheeled chariot is dated to the 18th century or slightly earlier.
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF5-7JVj4jYC&pg=PA688&lpg=PA688&dq=Hisar+cylinder+seals&source=bl&ots=Gdq9TajbfL&sig=KmzJEHoy8GR2AZOz7LSmbyNeEe8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiW-MOb0dDPAhUE8x4KHZd5AeIQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Hisar%20cylinder%20seals&f=false

So, as of now, the most reliable date and place is Sintashta, approximately 2000 BC. If you can find a carbon dated and therefore equally reliable date for anything south of the Caucasus I would be happy to change my mind.

his own text re the Tepe Hissar seal :

https://s16.postimg.org/p30r4qhwj/tyyu.jpg

end of the 1st paragraph : the wheel depicted on the seal was not spoked

so, wrong again

I guess if anyone would find a spoked wheel dated before 2026 BC, it would be published largely and we would certainly hear about it

furthermore, a war charriot (with the spoked wheels as it had to be light) was useless without the well-trained horses
training the horses was as dificult - if not more - as building the charriot

there is no comparison with the solid-wheel Sumerian carts pulled by onagers

bicicleur
10-10-16, 21:48
hattusa is the capital of the hittites ..............hittite language formed from hatti language and then was replaced by luwian.................none have any semitic components, not even the northern levant .
these are the origins of indo-european along with sanskrit

hatti and hitite language are totally different

hitite was the language of the conquerors

LeBrok
10-10-16, 22:23
They are saying prior to 1800BC. They don't know the exact when but it is at least. " (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html



What we do know for sure is that the Iranian Plateau Iranian 'Tepe Hissar' culture is much older than Sintashta. Iranian languages (split from the proto-Indo-Iranian) are much older than Sintashta. East Iranian speaking BMAC culture is also older than Sintashta. So, Sintashta is not proto-anything. It was just Iranized by people from the Iranian Plateau and we have got auDNA evidence for that. They have shown with Gedrosia auDNA that there was a massive invasion of Central Asia from Iran.




I checked the source once again. One group is saying that chariots of Sintashta are from 1700 - 1500 BC , while Anthony claims that it is from 2046 BC. Who should I do believe???


https://books.google.nl/books?id=aSLqxDmPL6MC&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=war+chariots+sintashta+age&source=bl&ots=aCb3_iXvtb&sig=kMaOjUDt8EgfeanP6SXTsklmM4A&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7oOtqdDPAhWLORoKHanyACsQ6AEINDAD#v=on epage&q=war%20chariots%20sintashta%20age&f=false

Goga, please stick with best sources, be factual and don't let your imagination run too wild. Or you'll be ashamed the same way as you were when your idea of purity of Iranian "race" was discredited by recent genetic papers.

Goga
10-10-16, 22:42
his own text re the Tepe Hissar seal :

end of the 1st paragraph : the wheel depicted on the seal was not spoked

so, wrong againI do understand you confusion. After re-reading the sentence I'm a little bit confused to. While everybody else is saying that the wheel is spoked, according to this writer it is not spoked (???) and seal is not from later period than 2350 BC.


But once again according to another writer a seal shows a 4-spoke wheel and it's from 3rd millenium BCE. SO that means it is from before 2000BC


" At Hissar were found arsenic-bronze, lead-bronze, lead, silver and gold. (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html


I was trying to find a picture of that seal online, but I can't find it.


Location of Tell Hissar:

https://s11.postimg.org/8wgxk4uar/media_proper.jpg
8090

Goga
10-10-16, 22:53
Goga, please stick with best sources, be factual and don't let your imagination run too wild. Or you'll be ashamed the same way as you were when your idea of purity of Iranian "race" was discredited by recent genetic papers.I'm an open book. I'm just showing the sources that I use. Nothing to be ashamed of.


And about the purity. I'm a 'pure' blood. And my people will always remain 'pure'. Western Iranian people, at least the Kurdish people are practically the same as their ancestors of the Iron Age (1200 BC). Since the era of Mitanni. That's a very long time. When a race doesn't mix much for the last 3000 years you can assume that that race is practically a 'pure' race. I'm practically identical to the Iranians of 3000 years ago (1200BC). After 3000 years modern Kurds still cluster together with the Iron Age (Mitanni / Kassites ) Iranians. 3000 years is a lot of years. It was even before the Mitanni/Kassite became and started to call themselves the Medes. Then, of course I do consider myself as part of the 'pure' people. Nothing to be ashamed of being almost identical to people who lived 3000 years ago!


And actually those Iron Age Iranians were the most LEGENDARY one. Those who defeated the Semites in the southern parts of the Mesopotamia and found the FIRST Aryan Empire, called the Median Empire.

I'm genetically the same like those 'Iranians' (Aryans) who found the Median Empire.


http://www.kurdistanica.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=152&g2_serialNumber=3

Fire Haired14
11-10-16, 04:27
Another point of importance in that graph is the pie chart showing what looks to be 85% ASI and 15% ANI (or perhaps they mean 15% Iran-N) in Harappa. That surprises me. Given the similarities in culture, I had assumed that the mix would be closer to 50/50.


The green component on that map isn't ANI, it's Iran Neolithic/Mesolithic Caucasus, ANI is based on modern DNA. We know the researchers have Iran Neolithic aDNA. We don't know if they have pre-Neolithic South Asian aDNA. Their ASI reference might be modern Southern Indians and the 85% percentage may be masking a lot of Iran Neolithic ancestry.

Sile
11-10-16, 08:08
hatti and hitite language are totally different

hitite was the language of the conquerors


watch this 2015 doco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrmsEueb-Q

bicicleur
11-10-16, 08:27
watch this 2015 doco

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDrmsEueb-Q

sorry, Sile, I don't have time to watch a 3 hour documentary

the Hitite empire was actually a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic confederation of allies

bicicleur
11-10-16, 08:31
I do understand you confusion. After re-reading the sentence I'm a little bit confused to. While everybody else is saying that the wheel is spoked, according to this writer it is not spoked (???) and seal is not from later period than 2350 BC.


But once again according to another writer a seal shows a 4-spoke wheel and it's from 3rd millenium BCE. SO that means it is from before 2000BC


" At Hissar were found arsenic-bronze, lead-bronze, lead, silver and gold. (Tepe Hissar III, 3rd millennium BCE.: a seal shows a four-spoke wheel). "

http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.nl/2014/01/material-and-spiritual-culture-of.html


I was trying to find a picture of that seal online, but I can't find it.


Location of Tell Hissar:

https://s11.postimg.org/8wgxk4uar/media_proper.jpg
8090

Goga, I found it interesting to learn about Tepe Hissar,
but your new source may well be dealing with the same seal again

I'm sure, if earlier charriots would be found for sure, it would be big news,
and we shouldn't look very long on the internet to find about it.

bicicleur
11-10-16, 10:00
https://s11.postimg.org/8wgxk4uar/media_proper.jpg

afaik there is still no DNA at all for this whole area and time period
there remains a lot to discover

Sile
11-10-16, 12:06
sorry, Sile, I don't have time to watch a 3 hour documentary

the Hitite empire was actually a multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic confederation of allies

sorry then, you are in error remembering older studies

MarkoZ
14-10-16, 05:42
As to some comments made above, after combing through all the papers, it's basically unclear where the wheel was developed. There are finds placing it in TRB very early, as well as some indications it was invented in the Near East. Whether it was invented in one area and spread to the other or was invented simultaneously in both places I'm not sure.

However, I don't think horse domestication can be placed anywhere but the steppe. That is also, as I stated above, where the earliest spoked wheel chariots can be found.

The answer is not going to be found in the words for "wheel" or "horse", or, in the location of the first spoked wheel, in my opinion. It's going to be found in the ancient dna.

However, the alleged invention of spoked wheels in Sintashta-Petrovka is somewhat doubtful. The only reason we know about these chariots in the first place is the fact that they left impressions in the permafrost. Further south these vehicles wouldn't have left traces in the archaeological record.

Littauer and Crouwel, who are the foremost experts in the small field of chariot construction, believe that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles are too lightly & shoddily (the dimensions were completely off) constructed to have been of much practical use. They agree with the chief excavator of the Sintashta-Petrovka site, Vladimir Gening, who contended that these vehicles were purposely made grave goods much like those common in early imperial China, where the chariot had but a marginal role in warfare. These had little in common with the highly maneuverable war chariots that would come into use in the ancient Near East. Indeed, the researchers conclude that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles 'cannot have been true chariots yet' (Littauer, M A; Crouwel, J H. Antiquityhttp://search.proquest.com/assets/r20161.7.0.670.946/core/spacer.gif70.270http://search.proquest.com/assets/r20161.7.0.670.946/core/spacer.gif (Dec 1, 1996): 934.) . The obvious conclusion would be that we are dealing with a derived technology at this site.

In their book, Littauer and Crouwel trace the origin of the light horse-drawn vehicle to the Syrian Bronze Age site of Tell es-Sweyhat. Here we find in a damaged clay figurine the earliest depiction of a horse as a drought animal - the horse seems to have been part of a horse-chariot toy, dated to 2300 B. C. . Another site of interest in this particular context would be Anatolian Acemhöyük, where the earliest preserved spoked wheels were unearthed in a hoard containing two chariot figurines made from metal. Adjusted dates for these artifacts would probably be quite revealing. For what it's worth, Stanislav Grigoriev derives Sintashta-Petrovka from Syro-Anatolia, so this would neatly explain the early appearance of the light horse-drawn vehicle in northern Kazakhstan.

Dagne
14-10-16, 07:33
Mesopotamia, to my knowledge, didn't have wheels before the Uruk period. I might add that the Sumerian word for 'wheel', ḫu-bu-um, bears no relationship with the Indo-European words for wheel (*kwekwelos and *(H)rotheH)).

In the modern Lithuanian *kwekwelos = kaklas (neck) and (H)rotheH)= ratas (wheel)