Steppe as secondary PIE

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.

IEchart2.jpg


Indo_European_language_tree.jpg
 
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.


tyyu.jpg



firstPage-S0079497X00013980a.jpg

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...r-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
 
Last edited:
" 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!


2011_MCCtree_width_Cognate_Rate.jpg

 
Last edited:
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.
 
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_t...Construction_in_Iranian_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/Wh...f_eds._Ergativty_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!
 
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


View attachment 8087

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...r-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.
 
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
 
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=aS...=onepage&q=war chariots sintashta age&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 ' .

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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
Stop posting inaccurate information.

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

See:

https://books.google.com/books?id=F...HDAA#v=onepage&q=Hisar cylinder seals&f=false
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[SUB]
[/SUB]
 
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.
 
Hattians and Hattic were not IE, just they were the native people before Hitties; IIRC half of the Hittite vocabulary is not IE...
 
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

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
 
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[SUB][/SUB]

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.
 
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=aS...=onepage&q=war chariots sintashta age&f=false
 
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
 

This thread has been viewed 40350 times.

Back
Top