Corded Ware Culture admixture against Yamnayans

First of all there was no history in the Tarim in 2000 BC, just prehistory, so we must rely in archaeology, so then you might deliver here which archaeological proofs are linking the Altai with the Tarim desert (weapons? pots?)

Well, that's a opinion of some Russian/Soviet archeologists as Danilenko, Safronov etc.
Along with this, the Proto-Tocharian possible to associate with the Karasuk culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
karasuk culture.jpg
On the whole, only two culture can be Tocharians. Afanasevo or Karasuk.

For example Russian archaeologist Klein believes that Afanasievo and Karasuk culture (about Karasuk confirmed by genetics) does not come from Yamnaya culture. He also writes that Karasuk culture more suited to Tocharian migrations. Karasuk type items were found in Xinjiang, where lives Tochars. Tocharians have Finno-Ugric substratum in their language. And Finno-Ugric have substratum from Tocharian ( honey 'mete' (fu) from 'met' (tochar) etc). Hence the conclusion that they were walking along the forest belt, far from steppe.
 
And where can I read about it?

Mallory's and Adam's 'The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World' is where I first found it. They give verbatim:

Hittite arā 'member of one's own group, peer, friend'.

Lycian arus- 'citizens'
 
Tocharians have Finno-Ugric substratum in their language. And Finno-Ugric have substratum from Tocharian ( honey 'mete' (fu) from 'met' (tochar) etc). Hence the conclusion that they were walking along the forest belt, far from steppe.

The case is that FU mete is an Indo-Iranian loanword (*medhu), so it's needed a time frame (2000 BC) and a space frame (Central Asia / Sintashta - Adrononovo) to deliver the loanword to Finnougric, and then proto-Tocharians get this word from their Finnougric neighbours. Of course this little history puts aside Afanasievans.
 
The case is that FU mete is an Indo-Iranian loanword (*medhu), so it's needed a time frame (2000 BC) and a space frame (Central Asia / Sintashta - Adrononovo) to deliver the loanword to Finnougric, and then proto-Tocharians get this word from their Finnougric neighbours. Of course this little history puts aside Afanasievans.
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)
 
Going off the genetics, as Angela pointed out, Yamnayans didn't seem to be very depigmented, but Andronovo was like a modern Danish population. It seems strange.

(west?) Catacombs C seem having got dark hairs and eyes, but 'european' light skin; they were not the same as Yamnaya (not completely) but the culture overlapped with Yamnaya, and some scholars think that physically Catacomb is more "central"/common to almost all the immediately subsequent cultures of the Steppes; not completely different from Yamnya, but showing other elements?. Yamnaya would not be the most productive culture on the demic side?
 
Both derived from the root *ar-, used as a social designator: in Anatolian & I-I meaning 'compatriot - in Greek something more exclusive (which could explain the superlative). The subsequent parallel evolution into a word with generic positive connotations is also striking. Thus, aristos became 'the best' in Greek and arya came to mean something like 'pious' or 'perfect' in India.

But I don't understand what it has to do with placing the homeland of 'Indo-Iranians' in the West. By itself it doesn't mean anything about any homeland.

Also the Hittites didn't use the term 'Aryan' as an ethnic term. They used the adverb 'nesili' with the meaning 'in "hittite" language', so the ethnonym would have been something like 'Nesians'
Not even the Persians used it imo (I mean they didn't use it as an ethnic name originally, although I wouldn't insist on that much). Because Herodotus just mentions that the Medes once did. Greeks didn't either and it isn't attested anywhere in Europe.

Then the terms in 'Hittite' and Lycian probably just meant 'men' like similar terms which exist even in non-IE languages. Ιn Athens the orators addressed the citizens with "Ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι".
'Andres' means 'men' but it can be translated as 'citizens' in that context.

Mallory and people like him are propagandists. For example, as I have mentioned there's no real evidence that the primary meaning of the world 'kuklos' (reconsructed pGr *kwokwlos) in proto-Greek was wheel. Because in classical Greek it could have been used for anything circular, even for 'a place of assembly'. And the Greeks used the word 'τροχός' (tro'khos, modern Greek tro'xos) for the wheel from 'тρέχω΄ ('=I run), supposedly from IE *dʰregʰ-, like Old Irish droch (pronounced /drox/, x in IPA is more like German ch, Dutch ch, Modern Greek χ).

I originally placed IE homeland in Central-Eastern Europe. But for me various scenarios work and even though my views can be considered 'Eurocentric' too, I don't like misleading statements and oversimplifications.
 
Last edited:
Lol, my last post came out a bit cryptic, sorry.

The broader issue that the talk about Iranian Aryans will not convince anyone. A Lycian or a Hittite would also have used a cognate of 'Arya' to refer to his fellow citizen, and Anatolia wasn't invaded by Iranians until much after the expansion of the Anatolian branch. From this we can infer that 'Arya' or a cognate thereof must have been the ethnic designator used by the early Indo-European speaking peoples.

Similarly, India was not invaded by Aryans before the Battle of the Ten Kings in the later books of the Rig-Veda, yet the inhabitants of India referred to themselves as Aryan from the beginning. This means that the Indo-Iranians already considered themselves Aryans.

The fact that no semantically related cognate exists in the younger European languages actually strenghtens your point that there isn't much of a demic impact in mainland Europe from the 'original' Indo-Europeans (well, probably with the exception of Greece). A good analogy would be the fact that few self-respecting Frenchmen would consider themselves Italic, for example.
I don't think that ancient Greeks called themslves 'Aryans'. Philosophers like Plato, Aristoteles, Socrates never said that the Greeks were 'Aryan' people. According to them the Medes and other Iranian speaking people were called by all ancients 'Aryans', but the Greeks never mentioned that Greeks and the Medes were identical to each other..

Greeks said that the Medes were 'Aryans' only to indicate that the Medes spoke an Iranian dialect. People like the Medes, Persians, Sogdians, Bactrians etc.

Also, no other ethinc group than ancient Iranians called themselves explicitly 'Aryan' 2000 years ago. Think of the Persian kings who called themselves 'Aryans'.


Even today the designation 'Iranian' has the same meaning as 'Aryan'. 'Aryan' was nothing than an ethnic name of people of 'Iranian' heritage.

'Aryan' = 'Iranian'


But I do agree with you that so called 'Aryans' were more tied to West Asia than SouthCentral Asia, although Vedidad was written in East Iranian (SouthCentral Asian) dialect and 'Aryans' that invaded India came from BMAC..
 
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)

In fact all these words are of IE origin: met from IE *medhu 'mead', wäs from *eus / *wes 'to shine', and even Finish kulki 'to go, to move, wander' is coming somehow from IE *kwelkul (or something alike) which stands now as English 'wheel'. But well, FU and Tocharian are far from my scope and it must be taken into account phonetic laws.
 
Now, looking in retrospect, I have a feeling that linguistics has said long time ago, that we are now discussing:

- Indo-European lexicon of flora and fauna clear indicates to the north.

- Slavic and Germanic languages ​​are best preserve the original PIE lexicon of flora and fauna.

- Baltic, Slavic, Germanic (well, almost) speakers have no a serious non-Indo-European substrate. The largest non-Indo-European substratum there is in Armenian and Hittite. This suggests that first people closer to the hypothetical PIE homeland.

- Heroes of the Rigveda and Mahabharata have light pigmentation and eye color "as the blue lotus." Now this is confirmed by genetics Sintashta/Andronovo and CW.
Moreover, Ahiless, Menelaus have a light pigmentation to.

- Indo-Europeans, and even Indo-Iranians, had contact with Finno-Ugrians . This is reflected in the language of the Finno-Ugric peoples.

- A common word for "winter" in Indo-European, and absence or the difference for other times of the year.

In general, all the theses clearly point to the north (eastern) Europe, and exclude Anatolia, Caucasus and Middle East.

I feel like I've hammered these points and similar ones millions of times on here. People who have opposing views don't seem to care about these things.

Happy new year everyone
 
I feel like I've hammered these points and similar ones millions of times on here. People who have opposing views don't seem to care about these things.
I reacted billions of times on these invalid unsientific points. I debunked them one by one, but it seems that people like you just ignore it. I'm not going to do it again and again and again.

People like you still keep repeating some invalid unsientific nonsence. You are like parrots, like a broken record. If you think that by keep repeating lies you make it somehow valid, well think again. This is NOT how science (and Y-DNA patterns) works...

I mean, c'mon what has winter to do with the Indo-Europeans? Like there are no winters on the Iranian Plateau or Central Asia, lol. The eternal snow on the mountain peaks in Iran and the mountains in Iran are much higher than in the whole Eastern Europe combined.


Mount Damavand, 5,610 m (18,410 ft)
 
Mallory and people like him are propagandists. For example, as I have mentioned there's no real evidence that the primary meaning of the world 'kuklos' (reconsructed pGr *kwokwlos) in proto-Greek was wheel. Because in classical Greek it could have been used for anything circular, even for 'a place of assembly'. And the Greeks used the word 'τροχός' (tro'khos, modern Greek tro'xos) for the wheel from 'тρέχω΄ ('=I run) supposedly from IE *dʰregʰ-, like Old Irish droch (pronounced /drox/, x in IPA is more like German h, Dutch ch, Modern Greek χ).


.
I found probable cognate 'τροχός'(wheel) and 'тρέχω΄trékhō ('=I run),is found in South Slavic- tъrk (to run),tъrka(race),development for wheel can be seen in Macedonian Slavic where "tъrkalo"(wheel) comes from the same verb,maybe influenced with it's development like the Greek.I would assume English "track" to be cognate with some of this words.
As for "kolo"(wheel,circle etc) which is cognate to Greek "kuklos" is also used for wheel and for every other circular object,i found far fetched also that it meant a wheel primarily.
 
(west?) Catacombs C seem having got dark hairs and eyes, but 'european' light skin; they were not the same as Yamnaya (not completely) but the culture overlapped with Yamnaya, and some scholars think that physically Catacomb is more "central"/common to almost all the immediately subsequent cultures of the Steppes; not completely different from Yamnya, but showing other elements?. Yamnaya would not be the most productive culture on the demic side?

I've been saying for more than two years that the demic impact in Europe from the actual "Indo-Europeans" (according to David Anthony, ie the "Yamnayans") was probably not very substantial and that the real genetic impact was from people further north and west. As MarkoZ stated above, the only exception might be the Greeks and people descended from them.

Nothing yet has changed my mind, although there is still a question of the composition of the people of the far western Yamnaya horizon.
 
I've been saying for more than two years that the demic impact in Europe from the actual "Indo-Europeans" (according to David Anthony, ie the "Yamnayans") was probably not very substantial and that the real genetic impact was from people further north and west. As MarkoZ stated above, the only exception might be the Greeks and people descended from them.

Nothing yet has changed my mind, although there is still a question of the composition of the people of the far western Yamnaya horizon.

afaik we don't have any Catacomb DNA, nor western Yamna DNA
so long there is no way telling whether Yamna had a big genetic impact on Europe or not
that DNA should be compared to Carpathian Basin DNA like Vucedol et al, which we don't have either

another trace that has to be explored further is early Iberian Bell Beaker, to be compared with Iberian CA on one hand and El Portalon on the other hand

I wondered many times whether there could be a link between Yamna and El Portalon
 
afaik we don't have any Catacomb DNA, nor western Yamna DNA
so long there is no way telling whether Yamna had a big genetic impact on Europe or not
that DNA should be compared to Carpathian Basin DNA like Vucedol et al, which we don't have either

another trace that has to be explored further is early Iberian Bell Beaker, to be compared with Iberian CA on one hand and El Portalon on the other hand

I wondered many times whether there could be a link between Yamna and El Portalon

We don't have y dna for Catacomb, that's true, but we do have mtDna (and pigmentation snps).
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

I may be wrong, but I thought they'd been plotted, no? Maybe someone with a better recall of it can remind us.

As I said, I think they "probably" didn't have all that much demic impact. We need more ancient dna clarity. I also, as I've said before, don't think that Yamnaya "migrated" wholesale into Corded Ware.

Btw, we agree that something different was introduced to Spain from the east in the El Portalon time period. I'm just not sure it was from Yamnaya. They weren't seafarers. I've always been intrigued by the similarity between El Portalon and the modern Tuscan samples.
 
But I don't understand what it has to do with placing the homeland of 'Indo-Iranians' in the West. By itself it doesn't mean anything about any homeland.

If we accept for the sake of an argument that cognates of *ar- constituted a common ethnonym among at least the early Indo-European speakers, this would provide us with a clue to the puzzle of the PIE homeland insofar as these ethnonyms occur irregularly in the various Indo-European branches. In West and South Asia they were encompassing terms that were used describe the entire ethnos of the Indo-European communities, always meaning something like 'compatriot', 'citizen' or 'one of us'. In the European languages on the other hand *ar- derived social designators either don't occur at all or acquire a more exclusive meaning. I mentioned Greek 'aristos' - more speculatively there's also Proto-Celtic *aryos for 'noble, freed man'. This could mean that in Asia the spread of Indo-European had something to do with the expansion of the original population, while in Europe those languages spread as a result of something like an elite dominance.

Also the Hittites didn't use the term 'Aryan' as an ethnic term. They used the adverb 'nesili' with the meaning 'in "hittite" language', so the ethnonym would have been something like 'Nesians'
Not even the Persians used it imo (I mean they didn't use it as an ethnic name originally, although I wouldn't insist on that much). Because Herodotus just mentions that the Medes once did. Greeks didn't either and it isn't attested anywhere in Europe.

In the historically attested Indo-European languages 'Aryan' and cognates were never really the primary ethnonym. My point is that there was something like a meta-ethnos that might have been retained from more ancient times.

Mallory and people like him are propagandists.

That's an unfair characterization - you might not agree with all of his conclusions but Mallory is usually very objective and points out the problems with his own theories.
 
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)

rus. gulyat' - go, wander, tch. B kälk – go, hung. halad – pass, go, fin. kulkea – go, pass

rus. tsena - price, tch.B cane - unit of money, lat. quantus – “how much” , lit. kaina - price, latv. cena – price, fin. hinta = price, est. hind = price.

rus. vertet’ – rotate, turn, vorot – wheel and axle, tch.A wärkänt - wheel , tch.B. yerkwanto – wheel, lat. vertere – turn, rotate, hung. forog – turn, rotate, fin. pyörä - wheel, est. pööre – turn, wheel, veeretama – rotate, turn

rus. mesto – land, place, location, tch. B. mise – field, place, missi – settlement, community, lit. miestas – community, village, latv. muiža – household, thrac. midne, muka – community, village, lydian mous – field, place, fin. maa, maadoitus– land, field, est. maa, mandus - land, field, country

rus. siniy – dark blue, tch.B. kentse – copper rust, oxide, greek kyanos – dark blue, lin.B. kuwanowoko - worker of lapis lazuli and glass, hett. kuwanna - copper blue, dark blue, luw. kuwanzu – copper, sumer. kuan – sky colored metal, est. sinine - dark blue, fin. sininen - dark blue.
 
Last edited:
I reacted billions of times on these invalid unsientific points. I debunked them one by one, but it seems that people like you just ignore it. I'm not going to do it again and again and again.

People like you still keep repeating some invalid unsientific nonsence. You are like parrots, like a broken record. If you think that by keep repeating lies you make it somehow valid, well think again. This is NOT how science (and Y-DNA patterns) works...

I mean, c'mon what has winter to do with the Indo-Europeans? Like there are no winters on the Iranian Plateau or Central Asia, lol. The eternal snow on the mountain peaks in Iran and the mountains in Iran are much higher than in the whole Eastern Europe combined.


Mount Damavand, 5,610 m (18,410 ft)

You've debunked nothing, ever. Well that's not true, I guess you continually debunk yourself with your ridiculous posts.

That's a nice looking mountain though.
 
You've debunked nothing, ever. Well that's not true, I guess you continually debunk yourself with your ridiculous posts.

That's a nice looking mountain though.

He's right though - all early Indo-European speakers must have been familiar with comparatively cold winters, including North-West India.

Related to this, in one of my favorite recent papers on the PIE question Anna Dybo tries to reconstruct the topography of the Indo-European homeland. She concludes:

The peculiarities of the landscape-related lexicon in both families are as follows. First ofall, the steppe must be excluded from the regions potentially inhabited by Proto-Indo-Europeans. Some relatively high mountains with many kinds of rocks and sharp or bigstones are present. Some of these mountains are covered by forests. There are words for narrowpassages, canyons, precipices, mines and caves, foothills, valleys and dells, meadows in forests and on the river-banks. The rivers have fords and are definitely smaller than theirProto-Altaic counterparts (there is no semantic variation between “river” and “sea”; nota benethat the only trace of the name of flood is GA; the lower Danube?); cf. here the noticeablyweaker function of fish in the Indo-European economy (expressed in a substantially smallernumber of terms for fishing tools, fish body parts and fish species — see the example below).But they could have lived near a sea or a big lake with sandy banks.

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.
 

This thread has been viewed 91327 times.

Back
Top