Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 78

Thread: Steppe as secondary PIE

  1. #26
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands





    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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/equipme...-zmmz13augzbea

  2. #27
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    0 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    no, it isn't, the connection through the Caucasus is essential in the first map
    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?

  3. #28
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    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.

  4. #29
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    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..

  5. #30
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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

  6. #31
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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
    I 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.

  7. #32
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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).

    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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/equipme...-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.

    Quote Originally Posted by A. Papadimitriou View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Regular Member Achievements:
    Veteran5000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    17-03-16
    Posts
    526
    Points
    5,076
    Level
    21
    Points: 5,076, Level: 21
    Level completed: 6%, Points required for next Level: 474
    Overall activity: 30.0%


    Country: Greece



    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.

  9. #34
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    28,134
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,134, Level: 51
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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.

  10. #35
    Elite member Achievements:
    VeteranThree FriendsRecommendation Second Class25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    14-11-10
    Posts
    2,504
    Points
    28,134
    Level
    51
    Points: 28,134, Level: 51
    Level completed: 54%, Points required for next Level: 516
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a1a1
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV2a1 +G13708A

    Ethnic group
    Kurdish
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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.

  11. #36
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,538
    Points
    290,879
    Level
    100
    Points: 290,879, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  12. #37
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    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.

    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).

  13. #38
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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=aSL...%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 ' .



    http://www.livescience.com/46513-anc...iscovered.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.

  14. #39
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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.





    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.




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

  15. #40
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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=aSL...%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 ' .



    http://www.livescience.com/46513-anc...iscovered.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

  16. #41
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    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.




  17. #42
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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
    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).

    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.





    firstPage-S0079497X00013980a.jpg

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...AD21F1AF178FB9



    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
    Last edited by Goga; 10-10-16 at 19:22.

  18. #43
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    " 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/20...ulture-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!



    Last edited by Goga; 10-10-16 at 18:26. Reason: " By 3600 BCE, people at thesite of Tepe Hissar were using a crucible that required a highdegree of pyrotechnic knowledge to

  19. #44
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsTagger Second ClassOverdriveVeteran25000 Experience Points

    Join Date
    07-11-12
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,383
    Points
    27,727
    Level
    51
    Points: 27,727, Level: 51
    Level completed: 17%, Points required for next Level: 923
    Overall activity: 3.0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1b2a* (inferred)

    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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 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.

  20. #45
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Taranis View Post
    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 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_th...e_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...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!

  21. #46
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post

    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.




    firstPage-S0079497X00013980a.jpg

    https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...AD21F1AF178FB9



    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.

  22. #47
    Advisor Achievements:
    Three FriendsVeteran25000 Experience Points
    bicicleur's Avatar
    Join Date
    27-01-13
    Location
    Zwevegem, Belgium
    Posts
    5,382
    Points
    47,218
    Level
    67
    Points: 47,218, Level: 67
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 1,132
    Overall activity: 54.0%


    Country: Belgium - Flanders



    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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

  23. #48
    Advisor Achievements:
    VeteranThree Friends50000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    15,538
    Points
    290,879
    Level
    100
    Points: 290,879, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 99.6%


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Goga View Post
    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=aSL...%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 ' .



    http://www.livescience.com/46513-anc...iscovered.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.

  24. #49
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by bicicleur View Post
    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
    The 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 Anitta text (18th century BC), which mentions 40 teams of horses (in the original cuneiform spelling: 40 ṢÍ-IM-TI ANŠE.KUR.RAḪI.A) at the siege of 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).

    Hittite horse-training text that is attributed to Kikkuli the Mitanni is from 15th century BC.
    "

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

  25. #50
    Banned Achievements:
    OverdriveThree FriendsVeteran10000 Experience PointsRecommendation Second Class

    Join Date
    06-06-11
    Posts
    2,651
    Points
    15,622
    Level
    37
    Points: 15,622, Level: 37
    Level completed: 97%, Points required for next Level: 28
    Overall activity: 0%

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1a*
    MtDNA haplogroup
    HV1b2

    Country: Netherlands



    Quote Originally Posted by Angela View Post
    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!

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •