History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedGenetic evidence ends Aryan origin theory

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 22:27
Alot of this discussion seems to suffer from a fundamental flaw: the migrations of languages are being assumed as the same thing as the migrations of people. In fact, this is not the case: languages can migrate without much movement of population, and likewise, populations can migrate and abandon their original language for a new one at their destination.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 03-Dec-2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 552
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Oct-2008 at 23:29
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Alot of this discussion seems to suffer from a fundamental flaw: the migrations of languages are being assumed as the same thing as the migrations of people. In fact, this is not the case: languages can migrate without much movement of population, and likewise, populations can migrate and abandon their original language for a new one at their destination.
That's exactly the problem. And it seems to be quite impossible to say what was going on.
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1673
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 02:05
Originally posted by Slayertplsko Slayertplsko wrote:

Originally posted by Asawar Hazaraspa Asawar Hazaraspa wrote:

Originally posted by Suren Suren wrote:

  we are still superior to you, Germanic sub-Iranic language tribal federation, yeath that's how we rule!?Big%20smileWackoNuke 

You simply believed all these?! Such studies has nothing to do with superiority. But Do not forget William Durant words: "Indo-Europeans have lost many lands throughout history and proably will do the same in future".



I think he was just joking around.


Yes, I was joking. I think it is obvious, isn't it?
Anfører
Back to Top
Slayertplsko View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-May-2008
Location: Slovakia
Status: Offline
Points: 1064
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Slayertplsko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 08:34
To me, definitely yes.
A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it's not open.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 19:50
What is also lacking in the discussion is the fact that the term "Aryan" or rather "Arya" was a self-identification name.  Darius called himself "an Ariya of Ariya lineage", the Avesta makes reference to "Airya nations" and the RigVeda mentions "Arya tribes".  Herodotus was told that the original name of the Medes was Arioi.  When Wells speaks of western Iranians as being genetically similar to Middle Easterners, he did not exclude a minority group of Iranic speakers being present to expand their languages.  Remember, that, in terms of inscriptions, the Elamite language eventually was replaced by Persian, and let's not forget that the Hurrian spoken in the Middle East eventually adopted Indic words, hence groups speaking Indo-Iranian languages present to influence or dominate non-II groups linguistically and culturally.
 
However, it is quite interesting, based upon what Wells has stated that this reflects the usage of the term "Ariana" as used by classical geographers.  "Ariana" did not include western Iran but the majority of eastern Iran and seems to reflect the way it was used in the Avesta as well.  Despite political dominance first by the "Aryan" Medes and then by the "Aryan" Persians, it still was not "Aryan" enough to be included in Ariana.  Western Iran does not seem to have been included until either late Parthian times or early Sassanian times, when it became definitely a part of "Eran". 
 
For earlier references to "Arya" or a "homeland of the Arya" the Avesta seems to describe an Airya Vaeja adjacent to known geographic entities such as Bactria and Sogdiana (i.e. to the northeast of Iran).  Since we already know that "Arya" is a self-identification, those who wrote the Avesta were perhaps conscious of a northern origin of their name.  The rest is archaeology.  We know of an Andronovian expansion into the north of Iran coming from central Asia.  While this coincides with the eastern distribution of R1a, nothing can really be said to either prove or disprove, that R1a is diagnostic of the migration of the Arya into Iran, India, and eastern Europe.   
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 22:54
Andronovo was only a 'suggested' homeland for Indo-Iranians. The material culture of the Andronovo complex never penetrated into Iran.

The first who are identified as "Aryan" are the Medes, who are connected to the more ancient Matiene. The Medes were very involved with the Babylonian and Elamites against the Assyrians, and for centuries they and other proto-Indo-Iranians were under heavy influence from Middle Easterners. 

Tracing the actual origin of Aryans goes back about 2000BC to the divergent Indo-European tribes moving out of Anatolia such as the Mushki and Kaska. They gained prominence by acting as mercinaries to more powerful Semitic kingdoms.  Starting from the 7th century BC the Hurrian kingdom of Urartu suffered many attacks from the Assyrians and other allied tribes. The origin of the Armenians is also traced by this wave and they were able to take over Urartu completely. The Medes were expanding into Iran and new entities were forming by absorbing segments of the original Iranian population.

In this earliest sense Aryan is not an ethnicity but an 'upper class' that dominated the different Iranic tribes. 

Andronovo and BMAC were at a closer proximity to India, yet the earliest Indo-Iranian was found in Southwest Asia then to Iran proper. If you want to base all your conclusions by religious text then you must also believe humans came from "Eden".


Edited by CiegaSordomud - 31-Oct-2008 at 23:03
Back to Top
Asawar Hazaraspa View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 21-Apr-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 100
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Asawar Hazaraspa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 31-Oct-2008 at 23:59
I think this is one of the migration paths Barthold was talking about. Yet I would like to know how it has proven according to you that Andronovo didn't have any traces in historical Iran?
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 02:39
Quote Andronovo was only a 'suggested' homeland for Indo-Iranians.
 
True, but not without qualification.  In the excavations of Sintashta, which was ancestral to Andronovo, the archaeologists found artefacts which parallel what we find in the oldest parts of the RigVeda, including burying in kurgans, pillared burial chambers, horse sacrifice, feasting on horse flesh, and the ritual overturning of pots.  I may also point out that the earliest evidence of true war-chariots were found at Sintashta.  As you may know, the terminology for parts of the war-chariot are consistent in all ancient Indo-Iranian languages. 
 
Quote The material culture of the Andronovo complex never penetrated into Iran.
 
That depends upon how one defines "Iran".  True, Andronovo did not penetrate Iran as we know it today, however, it did make contact with, and communicated with the BMAC culture of region of Bactria and Margiana which are considered part of "ancient Iran".  Later, however, there is evidence of penetration into the BMAC cultural zone, since we have a fully complete Sintashta-like culture within the BMAC area.  By about 1800 BC the Tazabagyab Culture (of Andronovo origin) had superceded BMAC. 

Quote The first who are identified as "Aryan" are the Medes, who are connected to the more ancient Matiene.
 
Umm, no.  The Assyrian inscriptions distinguish the inhabitants of the region south of Lake Urmiya (earlier Zamua, later Mana) from the Medes. 
 
Quote The Medes were very involved with the Babylonian and Elamites against the Assyrians, and for centuries they and other proto-Indo-Iranians were under heavy influence from Middle Easterners. 
 
We already have the names of early Medes and the majority of them have Iranian etymologies, hence "Iranian", not "proto-Indo-Iranian".  However, I will agree that a sizable element, perhaps the majority in the "Mede" population was native.

Quote Tracing the actual origin of Aryans goes back about 2000BC to the divergent Indo-European tribes moving out of Anatolia such as the Mushki and Kaska. They gained prominence by acting as mercinaries to more powerful Semitic kingdoms.
 
Nothing suggests an Aryan origin from the direction of Anatolia.  Although the linguistic affiliation of the Kaska is questionable, the Mushki have been identified as the eastern extension of the Phrygians.  The Phrygian language itself is not Indo-Iranian, and thus hence is not "Aryan", but rather shows affinities to Greek. 
 
Quote Starting from the 7th century BC the Hurrian kingdom of Urartu suffered many attacks from the Assyrians and other allied tribes. The origin of the Armenians is also traced by this wave and they were able to take over Urartu completely.
 
Armenian is not Indo-Iranian, hence it is also not "Aryan", but like Phrygian, shows affinities with Greek. 
 
Quote The Medes were expanding into Iran and new entities were forming by absorbing segments of the original Iranian population.
 
I can at least agree with this.

Quote In this earliest sense Aryan is not an ethnicity but an 'upper class' that dominated the different Iranic tribes. 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "ethnicity".  What I'm talking about is an ethno-linguistic group that identified itself as "Arya".  An "upper class" can certainly be a core-tribe of non-local origin.

Quote Andronovo and BMAC were at a closer proximity to India, yet the earliest Indo-Iranian was found in Southwest Asia then to Iran proper.
 
The inscriptional evidence shows an Indic influence on a Middle Eastern language (i.e. Hurrian), but that's it.  It was an influence, nothing more, nothing less.  There are no inscriptions of a fully Indo-Iranian nature in the Middle East until Behistun (c. 520 BC).  Now, let's use logic here.  The evidence shows, not just an Indo-Iranian influence, but a distinctively proto-Indic influence.  Those Indic loan-words are more archaic than the Sanskrit of the RigVeda.  Since there is no evidence of Indo-Iranian coming from Anatolia, that only suggests that those who brought Indic to the Middle East came from the east where they split off from those who were making their way through Iran into India.  An analysis of the most ancient place-names in eastern Iran show a distinctively Indic etymology (not Iranian!!!).  The proto-Indic speakers were there before the proto-Iranians.  One branch went west into the Middle East to form the "elite" of the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni.
 
Quote If you want to base all your conclusions by religious text then you must also believe humans came from "Eden".
 
I do not, however, even "Eden" has a core truth to it.  The Sumerians fought over places called "edens".  One of those wars fought between two powerful kingdoms lasted nearly 100 years!!!.  I only use the religious text to flesh out what is probable, not as an absolute truth.  My core evidence is archaeological and linguistic.  See above.
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 02:39
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/journal/issues/v43n1/021004/021004.html
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Sinttashta_Qu.pdf

Quote Not a single artifact of Andronovo type has been identified in Iran or in northern India, but there is ample evidence for the presence of Bactrian Margiana materials on the Iranian Plateau and in Baluchistan (e.g., at Susa, Shahdad, Yahya, Khurab, Sibri, Miri Qalat, Deh Morasi Ghundai, Nousharo [for a review see Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovky 1992]). It is impossible, however, to trace the continuity of these materials into the 1st millennium and relate them to the known cultures of Iranian-speakersthe Medes or the Achaemenids (or their presumed Iron Age ancestors [see Ghirshman 1977, Young 1967]).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture

Quote Mallory admits the extraordinary difficulty of making a case for expansions from Andronovo to northern India, and that attempts to link the Indo-Aryans to such sites as the Beshkent and Vakhsh cultures "only gets the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans".


Quote The identification of Andronovo as Indo-Iranian has been challenged by scholars who point to the absence of the characteristic timber graves of the steppe south of the Oxus River. Sarianidi states that "direct archaeological data from Bactria and Margiana show without any shade of doubt that Andronovo tribes penetrated to a minimum extent into Bactria and Margianian oases".


http://books.google.com/books?id=fHYnGde4BS4C&pg=PA168 The Indo-Aryan Controversy

Quote there is not a single artifact of Andronovo type that has been identified in Iran or northern India


http://www.answers.com/topic/indic

Quote although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for their presence in the form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bernard Sergent. Genèse de l'Inde. 1997:161 ff.)


http://books.google.com/books?id=Y2jfHlinW4UC&pg=PA206 The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture

Quote Klejn points out that no actual trace of this Andronovo culture in the archeology either of these Indo-Aryan cultures in the Near East or India has come to light. He finds it too much late for an Indo-Aryan identification, since the Andronovo culture "took shape in the 16th or 17th century BC, whereas the Aryans already appeared in the Near East not later than the 15th to 16th century BC. More important, "these [latter] regions contain nothing reminiscent of Timber-Frame Andronovo materials".


http://csc.ac.ru/news/1998_2/2-11-1.pdf

Quote Catacomb and Pit-grave cultures have no genetic connection. Timber-grave and Andronovo cultures have no such connection with Catacomb culture too. Cultures of Scythian and Sarmatian world were not forming on the basis of the Late Bronze Age cultures placed from the Dnieper river to the Altai. (And the) so called “Andronovo culture” is an archaeological myth. There are no features of “Steppe cultures” in cultures of India and Iran.


http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/an/andronovo_culture.htm

Quote no Andronovian burial has been found south of the Oxus,(Fussman, G. in Fussman, G.; Kellens, J.; Francfort, H.-P.; Tremblay, X. (2005), p. 220; H.-P. Francfort, Fouilles de Shortugai)


Quote Other scholarslike Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998), Bosch-Gimpera (1973) and Sarianidi (1993); see Bryant 2001, chapter 10 have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitannis because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia


Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 03:13
I'm not saying that there are no difficulties in the archaeological record, and let's be honest, any archaeological evidence of a "western origin" meets with the same problem.  However, an eastern origin is more sound than a western one where the inscriptional evidence more than adequately excludes Indo-Iranian.  Anatolia was Luwian, Hittite, Hattian, and Hurrian; Syria-Palestine and Mesopotamia was Hurrian and Semitic; Western Iran was Hurrian, Kassite, and Elamite; and we know what Egypt was. 
 
As for some of what you've quoted:
 
Some BMAC bronzes do show people riding equids, and later chariots appeared among BMAC artefacts.  This suggests to me that some of that information you've gathered is old.
 
Please read The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony (2007) 
 
Quote Other scholarslike Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998), Bosch-Gimpera (1973) and Sarianidi (1993); see Bryant 2001, chapter 10 have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitannis because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia
 
Andronovo (c. 1900-1200 BC)
Earliest Andronovo presence in BMAC region (c. 1800 BC)
Earliest Mitanni ruler with Indo-Iranian name (c. 1550 BC)
 
So, what is the chronological problem?
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 03:38
The only difficulty comes from the ignorance of those who still believe the Indo-Iranian northern origin myths.

That "Oprah's Book Club" type book you cited is intended for a mainstream audience. It is not used as a primary source for serious researchers. You can find plenty of layman books on Amazon that 'proof' the world was created 4000 years ago or that dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil. It doesnt make it into a fact.

The secondary and primary citations I referenced are all direct research that shows there was no contribution from the steppes into India or Iran (if not please provide a recent study that confirms this, not 'suggestions'). The idea of a vague "Greater Iran"  that spans half of Eurasia used to explain away inconvinient inconsistencies is invalid. Since that assumption in never taken in serious research, as they look into physical evidence not nationalistic folklore.

The Mitanni are to the west of the Medes and next to Anatolia, how could Indo-Iranians appear in that region without showing signs of their movement from the east? Obviously, the only path Indo-Iranians took was from west to east.

Quote In the excavations of Sintashta, which was ancestral to Andronovo, the archaeologists found artefacts which parallel what we find in the oldest parts of the RigVeda


The movement of groups in the region predates the RigVeda by thousands of years, similar customs were spread through different parts of the continent prior to the existence of Sankrist or Indo-Iranian.

Quote As you may know, the terminology for parts of the war-chariot are consistent in all ancient Indo-Iranian languages


Sumerians word for chariot predates IE, and the words for chariot used in the northern steppes are all of Turkic origin.

Quote Later, however, there is evidence of penetration into the BMAC cultural zone, since we have a fully complete Sintashta-like culture within the BMAC area.  By about 1800 BC the Tazabagyab Culture (of Andronovo origin) had superceded BMAC.


Not a single cultural aspect from this region appears in Iran or India, see citations.

Quote Umm, no.  The Assyrian inscriptions distinguish the inhabitants of the region south of Lake Urmiya (earlier Zamua, later Mana) from the Medes.


The Amadai (Medes) were known to the Assyrian as tribal groups intruding into the Zagros, pushing the native Manneans from a western direction.

Quote Nothing suggests an Aryan origin from the direction of Anatolia.  Although the linguistic affiliation of the Kaska is questionable, the Mushki have been identified as the eastern extension of the Phrygians.  The Phrygian language itself is not Indo-Iranian, and thus hence is not "Aryan", but rather shows affinities to Greek.


Those languages have nothing to do with Greek directly, these are remnants of early tribes that spoke proto languages that centuries later developed into Armenian and Indo-Iranian.

Quote Armenian is not Indo-Iranian, hence it is also not "Aryan", but like Phrygian, shows affinities with Greek.


Armenian is the closest IE group to Indo-Iranian, althought it didnt branch out from it, they both developed simultaneously in the same region. And today still shows a deep level of interaction.
Quote The inscriptional evidence shows an Indic influence on a Middle Eastern language (i.e. Hurrian), but that's it.


There is zero influence of Indic or Indo-Iranian on Hurrian at any stage. Only some Indo-Iranian terms appeared in a few inscriptions, the same way English words can appear on Japanese user manuals but have absolutely no influence on the Japanese language itself. The dieties that appear are similar to those of the Anatolian pantheon. Zoroastrism developed after it the same manner Assyrian god Assur absorbed most of the pantheon and became the single supreme diety.

Quote Since there is no evidence of Indo-Iranian coming from Anatolia, that only suggests that those who brought Indic to the Middle East came from the east where they split off from those who were making their way through Iran into India.  An analysis of the most ancient place-names in eastern Iran show a distinctively Indic etymology (not Iranian!!!).  The proto-Indic speakers were there before the proto-Iranians. One branch went west into the Middle East to form the "elite" of the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni.


The earliest Indic texts have a significant Austric substratum. The reason place-names in eastern Iran might show Indic etymology is due to the fact that Iranian developed closer to the Mesopotamian civilizations, and other tribes that moved further east developed closer to the Indus Valley. There is no steppe contribution to India, neither Andronovo or BMAC.  

This map represents the spread of neolithic cultures from in Iran thousands of years before IE. You can look up each archeological site. It shows how any similarities found in these regions and beyond are well attested before 2000BC. You dont need "Aryans" to explain every cultural aspect for these regions.




Edited by CiegaSordomud - 01-Nov-2008 at 04:01
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 06:14
Quote The only difficulty comes from the ignorance of those who still believe the Indo-Iranian northern origin myths.

That "Oprah's Book Club" type book you cited is intended for a mainstream audience. It is not used as a primary source for serious researchers. You can find plenty of layman books on Amazon that 'proof' the world was created 4000 years ago or that dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil. It doesnt make it into a fact.
 
The author is a professor of anthropology at Hartwick College and has conducted extensive archaeological fieldwork in the Ukraine, Russia, and Kazakhstan.  He has also included an extensive bibliography of all his research, citing more than 600 sources, hence his conclusions are not just his own.  You claim that it is not used by serious researchers.  Please provide your proof?

Quote The secondary and primary citations I referenced are all direct research that shows there was no contribution from the steppes into India or Iran (if not please provide a recent study that confirms this, not 'suggestions').
 
For the Indic place-names in historic eastern Iran please refer to The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia:  Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity (1995)
 
For the Iranic languages of the ancient Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Bactrians, the sources are legion:  just do a Google Search. 
 
For the name of the ancient region including Bactria and Sogdiana, please refer to Strabo, Geography (Book XV.2)
 
For the name of the Bactrian language as "Aryan" please see here:
 
 
Quote The idea of a vague "Greater Iran"  that spans half of Eurasia used to explain away inconvinient inconsistencies is invalid. Since that assumption in never taken in serious research, as they look into physical evidence not nationalistic folklore.
 
I never said that "Greater Iran" spanned "half of Eurasia", and I think I was quite clear on that.  I'm merely using an extended Iran to cover what was known historically.  Please refer to the above.

Quote The Mitanni are to the west of the Medes and next to Anatolia, how could Indo-Iranians appear in that region without showing signs of their movement from the east? Obviously, the only path Indo-Iranians took was from west to east.
 
But you are still failing to notice that the loan-words of the Mitanni were specifically Indic.  If the topographic proof shows Indic presence in eastern Iran as well as northern India, then it is still more reasonable to assume an east to west migration.
How could Indo-Iranians appear in that region without showing signs of movement from the west when all the evidence shows the language in the east?
 
Quote
In the excavations of Sintashta, which was ancestral to Andronovo, the archaeologists found artefacts which parallel what we find in the oldest parts of the RigVeda


The movement of groups in the region predates the RigVeda by thousands of years, similar customs were spread through different parts of the continent prior to the existence of Sankrist or Indo-Iranian.
 
Sintashta dates from c. 2100-1800 BC.
RigVeda dates from c. 1500-1200 BC.
 
Not "thousands of years" but rather "hundreds".

Quote
As you may know, the terminology for parts of the war-chariot are consistent in all ancient Indo-Iranian languages


Sumerians word for chariot predates IE,
 
The Sumerians did not have "chariots".  They had "carts".  The "chariot" does not appear in Mesopotamia until after 2000 BC, (i.e. after southern Iraq became Akkadian-speaking).
 
Quote  and the words for chariot used in the northern steppes are all of Turkic origin.
 
We are not talking about today, we are talking about 4000 years ago.


Quote
Later, however, there is evidence of penetration into the BMAC cultural zone, since we have a fully complete Sintashta-like culture within the BMAC area.  By about 1800 BC the Tazabagyab Culture (of Andronovo origin) had superceded BMAC.


Not a single cultural aspect from this region appears in Iran or India, see citations.
Quote
 
Your citations are outdated.  See mine.

Umm, no.  The Assyrian inscriptions distinguish the inhabitants of the region south of Lake Urmiya (earlier Zamua, later Mana) from the Medes.


The Amadai (Medes) were known to the Assyrian as tribal groups intruding into the Zagros, pushing the native Manneans from a western direction.
 
The Mannaeans had a stable state until after the fall of Nineveh.  It was only then that the Medes took over the region south of Urmiya.

Quote
Nothing suggests an Aryan origin from the direction of Anatolia.  Although the linguistic affiliation of the Kaska is questionable, the Mushki have been identified as the eastern extension of the Phrygians.  The Phrygian language itself is not Indo-Iranian, and thus hence is not "Aryan", but rather shows affinities to Greek.


Those languages have nothing to do with Greek directly,
 
They nevertheless have affinities with Greek.  The Phrygian language itself shows even more affinities with what we know of paleo-Balkan languages, hence a Balkan connection.
Quote these are remnants of early tribes that spoke proto languages that centuries later developed into Armenian and Indo-Iranian.
Quote
 
Here's the problem.  The Hittite archives have records in all the major Anatolian languages of that time, such as Luwian, Palaic, Hattian, Hittite, and Hurrian.  There is no evidence for Indo-Iranian or Armenian, in the Bronze Age.  In the Iron Age, that is when we have evidence for Armenian, after it supercedes Urartian, a non-IE language.  When we do have evidence of Iranian in Anatolia, it is in the form of inscriptions from Persian times, obviously of Persian imperial context.  Hence, you offer no proof of Indo-Aryan origins in Anatolia.
Quote
Armenian is not Indo-Iranian, hence it is also not "Aryan", but like Phrygian, shows affinities with Greek.


Armenian is the closest IE group to Indo-Iranian, althought it didnt branch out from it, they both developed simultaneously in the same region. And today still shows a deep level of interaction.
 
The position of Armenian also makes it close to paleo-Balkan languages.  The reason for its "deep level" of interaction is because of it being heavily influenced historically by Iranic imperial influences, first from the Medes, then the Persians, then the Parthians, and lastly by the Sassanids. 

Quote
The inscriptional evidence shows an Indic influence on a Middle Eastern language (i.e. Hurrian), but that's it.


There is zero influence of Indic or Indo-Iranian on Hurrian at any stage. Only some Indo-Iranian terms appeared in a few inscriptions, the same way English words can appear on Japanese user manuals but have absolutely no influence on the Japanese language itself. The dieties that appear are similar to those of the Anatolian pantheon. Zoroastrism developed after it the same manner Assyrian god Assur absorbed most of the pantheon and became the single supreme diety.
 
When basic things such as horse terminology, numbers, names of deities, supercede native terminology, that is an influence

[quote]
Since there is no evidence of Indo-Iranian coming from Anatolia, that only suggests that those who brought Indic to the Middle East came from the east where they split off from those who were making their way through Iran into India.  An analysis of the most ancient place-names in eastern Iran show a distinctively Indic etymology (not Iranian!!!).  The proto-Indic speakers were there before the proto-Iranians. One branch went west into the Middle East to form the "elite" of the Hurrian-speaking Mitanni.


The earliest Indic texts have a significant Austric substratum.
 
If you are talking about the earliest Vedic texts, then, agreed, but so what? I've already mentioned that the Indic of the Mitanni shows more archaic characteristics than Vedic Sanskrit.  What is not in evidence is the "Austric substratum"
 
[quote]The reason place-names in eastern Iran might show Indic etymology is due to the fact that Iranian developed closer to the Mesopotamian civilizations, and other tribes that moved further east developed closer to the Indus Valley. There is no steppe contribution to India, neither Andronovo or BMAC.  
 
You are forgetting about Eastern Iranian (i.e. the Avestan, Bactrian, Sogdian, and Chorasmian) languages.  These developed independantly of Western Iranian (i.e. Persian and Kurdish).  It is, in fact, in those eastern Iranic languages that we know of the earlier Indic forms.  No "push from the west" was warranted.  Instead we have a "push from the north" by Eastern Iranians. 
 
In the end, the earliest attested languages in the region from the region south of the Aral Sea into "Iran proper" were Iranic languages.   The culture of those peoples, such as the Chorasmians, Sogdians, and Bactrians, can be traced to Andronovian origins.  Feel free to object with proof.
 
You keep mentioning the Andronovo terminus, but without showing any archaeological case for a western origin.  You need to balance this, otherwise, it will only be viewed as a bias, and not as objectivity.
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 06:24
Quote This map represents the spread of neolithic cultures from in Iran thousands of years before IE. You can look up each archeological site. It shows how any similarities found in these regions and beyond are well attested before 2000BC. You dont need "Aryans" to explain every cultural aspect for these regions.
 
I fail to see the relevance of this map.  This has nothing to do with the discussion of Indo-Iranian (Aryan) origins.  It is obvious that we are talking about a much later period than this map accounts for.  Since I'm at a loss to understand what it is that you are getting at, can you please explain.
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 11:53
Quote When basic things such as horse terminology, numbers, names of deities, supercede native terminology, that is an influence
I agree, and not these are not the only ones. For instance in a Hurro-Hittite bilingual inscription it was found a Hurrian word for fire "tari" which has no acceptable Caucasian etymology, so it was related to Avestan "atar" (sacred fire). Also it may be that a part of Hurro-Urartian terminology for horse and charioteering is borrowed from IE languages.
 
 
 


Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Nov-2008 at 12:26
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 12:50

Quote

Nothing suggests an Aryan origin from the direction of Anatolia.  Although the linguistic affiliation of the Kaska is questionable, the Mushki have been identified as the eastern extension of the Phrygians.  The Phrygian language itself is not Indo-Iranian, and thus hence is not "Aryan", but rather shows affinities to Greek.


Quote
Those languages have nothing to do with Greek directly,

Quote
They nevertheless have affinities with Greek.  The Phrygian language itself shows even more affinities with what we know of paleo-Balkan languages, hence a Balkan connection.

Phrygian is arguably closer to Greek than to any other known IE language. Other close languages are Armenian and Indo-Iranian languages and some paleo-Balkan languages (based on as much as we know).

Examples:
- the vocalization of initial laryngeals: Greek "aner" = "man", Phrygian "anar", Greek "onoma" = "name", Phrygian "onoma"
- the nouns resemble the Greek ones (u-stems, i-stems, a-stems)
- like in Greek the finite past-tense forms are prefixed with "e" ("edaes" = "he put")
- participles are created with "-meno-" ("tetikmenos", I'm not sure about the meaning, could be something like "accursed")

It should be noted that we already had a discussion about Phrygian and some of our Greek speaking forum members could understand those Phyrgian texts with relative ease, and even when they didn't, the language looked familiar to them.



Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Nov-2008 at 12:55
Back to Top
Jams View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 06-Sep-2006
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 352
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Jams Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 12:54
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

And imagine the IE language was just some kind of lingua franca, then no men is needed to have moved. Then you can throw all your genetic evidence into a wastepaper-basket.
 
That's pretty much how I see it. Much of the Euro population didn't move one bit (unless we go further back)
Infonor homepage: http://infonor.dk/ RAIPON homepage: http://www.raipon.org/
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 40
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 17:44
Originally posted by Chilbudios Chilbudios wrote:

I agree, and not these are not the only ones. For instance in a Hurro-Hittite bilingual inscription it was found a Hurrian word for fire "tari" which has no acceptable Caucasian etymology, so it was related to Avestan "atar" (sacred fire). Also it may be that a part of Hurro-Urartian terminology for horse and charioteering is borrowed from IE languages.


Im glad you see Indo-Iranians originating from a near Anatolian homeland.

Quote You are forgetting about Eastern Iranian (i.e. the Avestan, Bactrian, Sogdian, and Chorasmian) languages.


That argument falls completely apart because its of much later date. Do you have any evidence of Indo-Iranian in those regions before the time of Alexander the Great?

I know the myth believers already have "Aryans" in four different places appearing out of nowhere, the Pontic region, the northeastern steppes, BMAC, and Western Iran. You should call them quantum Aryans.

Also Avestan is not an actual "Eastern" Iranian language, its only "suggested" concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avestan_language
Quote Avestan is usually classified as Eastern Iranian. However, because the separation of Eastern and Western Iranian is poorly understood, and because there is no attestation of an Iranian language contemporary to Avestan, as well as because of the defective tradition of the Avestan texts, the validity, or even applicability, of this classification is uncertain.


Quote And imagine the IE language was just some kind of lingua franca, then no men is needed to have moved. Then you can throw all your genetic evidence into a wastepaper-basket.


How are they going to dominate militarily or economically by not moving? All language transfer was based on those two principles.


Edited by CiegaSordomud - 01-Nov-2008 at 17:53
Back to Top
Chilbudios View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 11-May-2006
Status: Offline
Points: 1900
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Chilbudios Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 18:06
Originally posted by CiegaSordomud CiegaSordomud wrote:

Im glad you see Indo-Iranians originating from a near Anatolian homeland.
Don't rejoice for nothing, it's actually just a tiny bit from the same classical Eurasian steppes origin, like Sharrukin was arguing. I supported his position and I agree with him, all the evidences suggest the Indo-Iranian speakers came from the east to meet the Hurro-Urartian ones, not viceversa as you kept claiming.

Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Nov-2008 at 18:06
Back to Top
Sharrukin View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1134
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sharrukin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-Nov-2008 at 19:07
Quote That argument falls completely apart because its of much later date. Do you have any evidence of Indo-Iranian in those regions before the time of Alexander the Great?
 
We already have the names of the Iranian tribes, as attested by both Greek and Persian sources dating back to the 6th and 5th centuries BC.  Add to this, the Assyrians had penetrated into eastern Iran at least once in the 7th century BC, entering Parthia (Assyrian, Partukka, itself of Iranian etymology, meaning "borderland") and dealing with its ruler, Zanasana (Old Iranian, Zanakhsana).  Add to this, the fact that Avestan (regardless of its classification within Iranian) is more archaic than Old Persian (hence, in existence prior to the oldest Persian inscriptions).  Add to this, the fact that the world described by the Avesta (written in Avestan) was in "eastern Iran" where virtually all the names of persons have an Iranian etymology, and mention the same places and peoples as we know them in classical Greek and Old Persian sources (example, Avestan Sughda, Old Persian Suguda, classical Greek Sogdia, Sogdiana, then we come to, at the earliest, 1000 BC, for the earliest portions of the Avesta. 

Quote I know the myth believers already have "Aryans" in four different places appearing out of nowhere, the Pontic region, the northeastern steppes, BMAC, and Western Iran. You should call them quantum Aryans.
 
Only you would say that they appeared "out of nowhere".
Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 50
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Nov-2008 at 04:24
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Alot of this discussion seems to suffer from a fundamental flaw: the migrations of languages are being assumed as the same thing as the migrations of people. In fact, this is not the case: languages can migrate without much movement of population, and likewise, populations can migrate and abandon their original language for a new one at their destination.
That's exactly the problem. And it seems to be quite impossible to say what was going on.
 
Now, here's a band-wagon I can leap onto.  Big%20smile
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.