• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Unmasking AIT
Post 2/n

Something of interest to me that doesn't appear to be discussed at all.

The (grammatical) gender for the word sun is argued to derive from the primary Sun deity. Regardless, in what can be called the "IE" languages of the "southern route", the gender for the sun in Sanskrit to Latin is male. In contrast, the gender of the sun in so-called "IE" languages that derived from the northern route, which traces via the steppes, is female, at least originally. The sun is consistently female in Nordic and Germanic languages -- including Gothic and English (which used to be a gendered language too) -- in all Celtic languages, in Baltic languages (Latvian and Lithuanian), and in all Slavic languages (where the sun was originally female and has since become neuter in some Slavic languages; perhaps because of Proto-Slavic having absorbed the Iranian-speaking Sarmatians?)

The difference can perhaps best be explained by the Finno-Ugric factor: in Finnish and Hungarian, the Sun is a female deity and the Moon is male. Finno-Ugric may have been the original identity, language and religion of the steppe populations and may explain why the gender of the solar deity and word were retained by apparently all European populations whose major IE language groups are derived from the steppe route. (But not those derived from the southern route.) Alternatively, Finno-Ugric formatively-influenced the generation of the IE languages and religions of the northern route, but was unable to have any effect on the homeland language of the Indian and Iranian migrants into steppe space. The difference between the gender of the sun among the northern and southern routes of "IE" dispersal appears to be more interesting than the "satem and kentum" divide.

Another point of interest is that the research into solar deities has apparently been deliberately discouraged, in tandem with problematic or even dubious "male" solar deities being forced upon European "IE"-speaking populations that actually only had a (primary) female solar deity. The following excerpt is from p.433 of "The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore" (2014), by Patricia Monaghan:

Quote:Sul's name suggests that she was a SUN goddess, for it is connected to words that mean both "sun" and "eye". Despite this pointed connection, some scholars continue to look for a male sun divinity in the area, even suggesting that all inscriptions to Sul contain a misspelling of the word for "pig". Sul would be connected with such figures as BRIGIT, who in Ireland was associated with holy WELLS (in that case, rarely thermal) that were said to have healing properties. Like Brigit, too, Sul was said to have been served by a college of priestesses who attended an eternal flame. Occasionally Sul appears in the plural (see SULEVIAE); the same name is occasionally given to Brigit.


Today, "solar mythology" is disdained, and as a result antiquated attitudes about mythology have remained unexamined for more than a century.

Primary among these attitudes is the presupposition that the sun is invariably a masculine symbol. In fact, dozens of cultures from Japan to South America, from the Arctic to Arabia, have seen the sun as feminine. Yet examination of solar mythology generally halted while the assumption was still made that the Celts saw the sun as a male figure--as a god. Many candidates are proposed as the "Celtic sun god," including LUGH and LANCELOT, yet there is no definitive statement in any Celtic-language text that shows a god being honored as the sun.

There is, however, significant evidence that the Celts saw the sun as a goddess. Indeed the name of one goddess, SUL, means "sun". In the Irish language the word for "sun" has been feminine in gender since the first recorded usage; this word, grian, is occasionally used for a minor goddess figure who may be connected with or the same as the more prominent heroine GRÁINNE. A few scholars are hesitantly examining this question, but the general prohibition against solar mythology means that it has not been substantively explained.


Quote:... one issue remains problematic: in all Slavic languages, the word for Sun, Sunce, is of neutral or feminine gender, never masculine. Also, in Baltic mythology, which is most akin to Slavic, Sun is a female deity, Saule, while the Moon is a male one. The same pattern can be observed in folklore of many Slavic nations, where the Sun is most often identified with mother or a bride, and Moon with father or husband, their children being the stars. Where exactly this leaves Dažbog as a possible male solar deity of Slavic pantheon remains questionable.


Quote:Among the heavenly bodies the primary object of Slavic veneration was the moon. The name of the moon is of masculine gender in Slavic languages (Russian mesyats; compare Latin mensis). The word for sun (Russian solntse), on the other hand, is a neuter diminutive that may derive from an ancient feminine form. In many Russian folk songs a verb having the sun as its subject is put in the feminine form, and the sun is almost always thought of as a bride or a maiden.

From "Nineteenth-Century Science: An Anthology" (2000), edited by A.S. Weber, p.268:

Quote:Moon2 is a very old word. It was mona in Anglo-Saxon, and was used there, not as a feminine, but as a masculine; for the moon was originally a masculine, and the sun a feminine, in all Teutonic languages; and it is only through the influence of classical models that in English moon has been changed into a feminine, and sun into a masculine. It was a most unlucky assertion which Mr. Harris made in his Hermes, that all nations ascribe to the sun a masculine, and to the moon a femnine gender.3 In the mythology of the Edda Mani, the moon, is the son, Sol, the sun, the daughter of Mundilfori. In Gothic, mena, the moon is masculine; sunno, the sun, feminine. In Anglo-Saxon, too, the moon, continues to be used as a masculine; sunne, the sun, as a feminine. In Swedish, mane, the moon, is masculine; sol, the sun, feminine. The Lithuanians also give the masculine gender to the moon, menu; the feminine gender to the sun, saule;...
Post 1/2

Copy and pasted from Priyadarshi 2014 unless otherwise indicated.

1. IE-ists keep peddling their forgeries even after their frauds have been retracted

Some more seedy details about the Dereivka horse fraud.


Quote:The Dereivka Horse of 4200 BCE

In 1991, David Anthony reported in the Antiquity a horse-and-dog burial from Dereivka (Ukraine) from a layer dated 4200-3700 BCE. This became widely accepted as the earliest domesticated horse, bringing the location of the Aryan home in the Ukrainian steppe at about 4,200 BCE. However, Levine (cited in Anthony 2009:214-215) in her detailed study of the horse-bones from the same layer of Dereivka and from another steppe site Botai (3700-3000 BCE, Kazakhstan) inferred that none of the horses found at these two places had actually been ever domesticated (cited ibid:205). Hausler (cited ibid:214-215) and many other specialists of ancient horse bones too never accepted the 4200 BCE date for the domestic horse in the steppe.


Then the skull bone of the horse was directly radiocarbon dated and found to be from 3000 BCE, which Anthony (1997) interpreted as contamination in the museum. However it was soon obvious that this radiocarbon report was wrong as the bone tested did not actually belong to the horse.

Thereafter another radiocarbon dating of the horse skull was done, giving the date 800-200 BCE (Scythian era). The conclusion emerged that the horse-burial had been dug deeper into the lower layers of the soil. David Anthony, author of the Dereivka story was left with no other choice, but to retract the claim, which he quickly did (Anthony:2000; 2009:215). He wrote, "New radiocarbon dates from Oxford and Kiev indicate that the Dereivka 'cult stallion' should be withdrawn from discussions of Eneolithic horse-keeping. The Dereivka horse died between about 700 and 200 BCE." (Anthony in Antiquity 2000).

This episode bulldozed the steppe-horse theory completely. Yet the Dereivka horse has been kept alive by many Eurocentric authors in the field. The belief in 4200 BCE steppe horse is perpetuated by the unscrupulous writings of prominent authorities like Trautmann (2005) who control and regulate the academic world. Trautmann republished in 2005 (and 2007:251-253) extracts from David Anthony's oldest article claiming the 4200 BC domestic horse of Dereivka (Ukraine). Trautmann did this and the Oxford University Press published it in spite of the fact that David Anthony had retracted from this older claim (of year 1991) in year 2000 (Antiquity). The hisotry writing has been brought down to the level of racist conspiracy.

And the score is that:

Mair, Anthony, Trautman, Oxford Uni Press are all caught lying for IEism.

2. pages 167-168

Quote:In spite of the several horse hoaxes raised about the steppe, the recent archaeological studies seriously challenge the long held views that steppe was the home of the true horse. The archaeological study done at Begash (Kazakhistan) confirmed in a recent study: "While pastoral herding of sheep and goats is evident from the Early Bronze Age, the horse appears only in small numbers before the end of the first millennium BC" (Frachetti and Benecke 2009: Abstract).

The paper adds the "horse use seems to commence gradually and is not highly associated with early and middle Bronze Age pastoralists." (ibid:1025). The authors find, the "percentage of horse remains at Begash remain below 6 per cent until approximately AD 50 (Phase 3b)", and "The domestic horse is documented at Begash by the start of the second millennium BC, but its impact on pastoralism is not clear."

In our view, such stray domestic horses as ones documented from second millennium Begash, were Bronze Age imports from the further south, i.e. Iran and northwest India. Challenging the whole hypothesis, Frachetti and Benecke note: "Thus the data from Begash draw into question the general view that Eurasian pastoralism diffused eastward as a result of mounted horsemen in the Bronze Age".

A study at Tentek-sor (northern Caspian, Kazakhstan) revealed that horse bones do not increase between 4000 BCE and 2000 BCE (Koryakova), and the samples did not contain any domestic sheep or cattle, even wild aurochs was only 5% (Frachetti 2012:7, Koryakova 2007). However, after 2000 BCE we get a very large number of domestic cattle (60 to 90%) in the steppe and Central Asia, indicating the arrival of pastoralism into this region only after 2000 BC (Koryakova:88, 65, 146-147). This indicates that probably all the horse bones from earlier than 2000 BC dates are of the wild horses. Koryakova (p.54) noted "but horse bones are extremely rare in the Kurgans", and "a larger group of specialists share the idea that classical steppe nomadism appeared in the first millennium BCE" (ibid:55).
Post 2/2

Already seen that the earliest date they could manage to assign to Sintashta spoked-wheel chariots (2026 BCE) is seriously dubious for multiple reasons: Anthony the repeat-forger, the usual trick he does with mixing up layers, he only dated the horse bones at the site not the chariot itself (while the artifacts at the burial site date from 400 years later) etc.

But it gets worse or funnier, depending on how much people have invested in the steppe theory.

Elias Pinheiro 2010, basing himself on the serial forger David Anthony's dating of the Sintashta chariot (or rather, the dating of the horse bones found there), was trying to argue for how all war chariots would have derived from the steppe. Yet the speculations on the grand military purpose of steppe chariots themselves cease when Pinheiro finally admits:

Quote:the role of the steppe chariots as anything more than a symbolic vehicle is still under discussion.

Then stop with the flights of fancy.

Meanwhile (from p.142 of Priyadarshi 2014):

Mackay 1943, after listing various chariots attested in SSVC (presumably miniatures),

Quote:He [Mackay 1943] noted, " ... the people of Harappa culture were well acquainted with the Sumerians, it is not surprising that both two-wheeled and four-wheeled vehicles were in use in both countries" (ibid:164).

India could have been the source of the chariot for Sumeria, because Mackay notes that the Indian chariots recovered were of more primitive types than the Sumerian ones (ibid). *

Mackay described one metal chariot in detail which he thought was a war-chariot. He wrote, "But the shield-like front of the chariot shown in Pl LVIII 9,13--obviously intended to protect the driver--do certainly suggest something in the nature of a vehicle used in warfare" (1943:164).


Regarding the chariot wheels, Marshall noted that the models of the ones found from Mohenjo-Daro almost exactly resembled the Sumerian ones (Marshall:554).* In fact it is surprising that the entire excavation reports have been dumped and fictional stories have been concocted to create an impression that the Harappa people did not have fast chariots.

* Yeah well, there's also the little detail about how the particular mtDNA haplogroup subclades of the aDNA found from early Bronze Age Mesopotamia incl. Sumer of this very period is Indian-specific (as in: not Iranian/Kurdish/Afghan/C-Asian/Steppe/Caucasus/European/Anatolian/Bedouin or other Arab. "Sorry".)

- Plus of course Kenoyer 2004 already covered the constant and local Indic development of wheeled carts in India's SSVC, so that these were even attested in miniatures by 3500 BCE.

- Kenoyer 2004 also went over what he thought was a relatively convincing occurrence of an SSVC spoked wheel miniature reported by BB Lal.
1. A new paper that says significant R1aZ93 diversification within India is itself already dated 4000-4500 years before present (note: haven't read the paper - no access - but the blurb makes no mention of R1aZ93 "entering" India for its first time in this very period, plus the implication of what they say is that Z93 has at least some longer presence in India than the age of the Indian-specific sublineages that result from Z93's diversification date). Meaning: some R1aZ93 itself already ought to have been in India before this period (if not it and its ancestral lineage being ancient and native: the blurb says nothing to discount that). The lower end of the date itself rules out Srubna and later Andronovo, which are 1800 BCE and later. And the range rules out Sintashta too 2100-1800 BCE. More importantly, all Sintashta and ALL the steppes are ruled out because the computational brain Patterson took one look at the steppe data (which had already been gathered in 2014, apparently) and ruled out steppe origins for Indics (and Armenians) altogether. And Patterson** would know better than anyone else what the data is saying.


Punctuated bursts in human male demography inferred from 1,244 worldwide Y-chromosome sequences

Submitted 08 November 2015

Accepted 01 April 2016

Published online 25 April 2016

Poznik GD1,2, Xue Y3, Mendez FL2, Willems TF4,5, Massaia A3, Wilson Sayres MA6,7, Ayub Q3, McCarthy SA3, Narechania A8, Kashin S9, Chen Y3, Banerjee R3, Rodriguez-Flores JL10, Cerezo M3, Shao H11, Gymrek M5,12, Malhotra A13, Louzada S3, Desalle R8, Ritchie GR3,14, Cerveira E13, Fitzgerald TW3, Garrison E3, Marcketta A15, Mittelman D16,17, Romanovitch M13, Zhang C13, Zheng-Bradley X14, Abecasis GR18, McCarroll SA19, Flicek P14, Underhill PA2, Coin L11, Zerbino DR14, Yang F3, Lee C13,20, Clarke L14, Auton A15, Erlich Y5,21,22, Handsaker RE9,19; 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, Bustamante CD2,23, Tyler-Smith C3.


We report the sequences of 1,244 human Y chromosomes randomly ascertained from 26 worldwide populations by the 1000 Genomes Project. We discovered more than 65,000 variants, including single-nucleotide variants, multiple-nucleotide variants, insertions and deletions, short tandem repeats, and copy number variants. Of these, copy number variants contribute the greatest predicted functional impact. We constructed a calibrated phylogenetic tree on the basis of binary single-nucleotide variants and projected the more complex variants onto it, estimating the number of mutations for each class. Our phylogeny shows bursts of extreme expansion in male numbers that have occurred independently among each of the five continental superpopulations examined, at times of known migrations and technological innovations.


In South Asia, we detected eight lineage expansions dating to ~4.0–7.3 kya and involving haplogroups H1-M52, L-M11, and R1a-Z93 (Supplementary Fig. 14b,d,e). The most striking were expansions within R1a-Z93, occurring 4.0–4.5 kya. This time predates by a few centuries the collapse of the Indus Valley Civilization, associated by some with the historical migration of Indo-European speakers from the Western Steppe into the Indian subcontinent 27. There is a notable parallel with events in Europe, and future aDNA evidence may prove to be as informative as it has been in Europe.

Consequently, euro steppist amateur geneticists, who were pushing really hard for Sintashta or even later Andronovo origins for R1aZ93 in India (maybe hoping to retain Srubna as a final possibility) have now fallen back to clutching at the steppe's Poltavka outlier - dated 2925-2536 calBCE - as their last ditch hope for deriving Indian Z93/Z94 from the steppes.

The Poltavka outlier was R1aZ94, itself a derivative of R1aZ93. Both Z93 and Z94 subclades of R1a were deliberately dated very late by some, with Z94 obviously later since it's derived from Z93. But the dates for both have had to be pushed back further repeatedly, such as because of the Poltavka outlier being Z94 and because Reich & co. are expected to come out with an R1a dated pre-3000 BCE from Yamna which he appears to have been hoarding (perhaps as his trump card), rumoured to be a Z94. (Though the very author on the Haak - and in time Mathieson - papers who had brought up this R1a, had mentioned a different clade of R1a as per his interview transcript. Amateur geneticists online however chose to re-interpret this as "probably" "actually meaning" Z94.) Don't know when Reich will play his card. But if the Yamna R1a individual evinces the EHG component, it too is ruled out from being a source for "Indo-Aryan" (and Z93). (And if he doesn't evince EHG, then there's something wrong with the Yamna = 50% EHG + 50% CHG model, and more such things, like how it points to that R1a individual being a migrant to the region and not native to the Yamna culture. "Q: What do you call a Yamnayan with no EHG?" "A: A migrant.")

Returning to the 2016 paper, however, it is admittedly not basing itself on Indian aDNA. But it's beyond certain that the authors would have read Haak et al 2015 and Mathieson et al 2015. Note the 2016 paper is submitted on 08 Nov 2015, after Mathieson 2015's final pre-print version and after Mathieson 2015's official online publication in Nature too (both late Oct 2015), which the authors of the 2016 paper would have read for sure. Clearly, they (the authors of the 2016 paper, Poznik et al) were not convinced by any steppe origins of R1aZ93 in Srubna or Andronovo. This is in line with Patterson having ruled out steppe origins of Indics altogether, and Jones et al 2015 following that lead. Besides, and more importantly, Mathieson et al 2015 were only to have analysed data already collected for the Haak paper. At that stage, before Haak et al 2015 was submitted in late 2014, even Maykop aDNA had been collected - as per the admission of Patterson himself**.

** Patterson - background in computation - is now computational biologist, and was in encryption before: working for British intelligence, before being fielded/handed to the US Department of Defence. And they've assigned him to - I mean: he's now volunteered himself for - DNA studies. The man works with big data. It's his thing. Whatever the real reason he's in DNA work now, his brain is factually a wandering computer. Patterson looked at his Haak et al data (analysed later by the Mathieson team for other features, and since they knew they couldn't even conclude Lactase Persistence originated in the steppes - another nonsense dead - they lamely ended with not an origin story but a story about selective forces instead). Again: early on, Patterson looked at the data that had been gathered and drew the most important conclusions, clearly long before anyone else knew what they were looking at.

And if he says, as he certainly did, that Indians (and Armenians) can't be derived from the Hunter Gatherer (presumably EHG) component - that makes up about half of the Yamna genome, and which EHG exists to some extent in *ALL* the steppe kulturs that followed - then that's just final. BTW, Jones et al 2015 - which was submitted after Mathieson 2015 (and more notably, Jones herself had worked on the Mathieson paper, so she'd know the data) - sticks with Patterson's conclusion and likewise foreshadowing their great hope that "Indo-Aryan" languages may perhaps be derivable from Maykop/Caucasus next, because they sure can't be made to derive from the steppes, no matter how much some want it. Oh and to repeat/clarify: Maykop kultur predates the steppes. So if they're hoping "Indo-Aryan" (and Armenian) will derive direct from the Caucasus (Maykop) next, that means steppes can't be "PIE urheimat" (nor speaking PIE...) and steppes can't be source of "Indo-Iranian".

Anyway, so if Patterson says steppes are a no-go, they're a no-go.

Quote:Modern DNA reveals ancient male population explosions linked to migration and technology


April 25, 2016


Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute


The largest ever study of global genetic variation in the human Y chromosome has uncovered the hidden history of men. Research reveals explosions in male population numbers in five continents, occurring at times between 55 thousand and four thousand years ago.

Analysing the Y chromosomes of modern men can tell us about the lives of our ancestors. The Y chromosome is only passed from father to son and so is wholly linked to male characteristics and behaviours. The team used the data to build a tree of these 1200 Y chromosomes; it shows how they are all related to one another. As expected, they all descend from a single man who lived approximately 190,000 years ago.

The most intriguing and novel finding was that some parts of the tree were more like a bush than a tree, with many branches originating at the same point.

Dr Yali Xue, lead author from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, explained: "This pattern tells us that there was an explosive increase in the number of men carrying a certain type of Y chromosome, within just a few generations. We only observed this phenomenon in males, and only in a few groups of men."

The earliest explosive increases of male numbers occurred 50,000-55,000 years ago, across Asia and Europe, and 15,000 years ago in the Americas. There were also later expansions in sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe, South Asia and East Asia, at times between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago. The team believes the earlier population increases resulted from the first peopling by modern humans of vast continents, where plenty of resources were available.

The later expansions are more enigmatic.

Dr Chris Tyler-Smith, from the Sanger Institute, added: "The best explanation is that they may have resulted from advances in technology that could be controlled by small groups of men. Wheeled transport, metal working and organised warfare are all candidate explanations that can now be investigated further."

(- Wheeled transport: as per archaeologist Kenoyer, SSVC had toys of wheeled vehicles dated 3500 BCE at the time Yamna was just beginning. And SSVC has wheel track imprints - i.e. SSVC didn't just have toys, they actually used wheeled vehicles.

- Metal working: seen in SSVC, Mehrgarh, to Tepe Hissar etc in Iran.

- Organised warfare: double-edged battle-axes etc were made in SSVC, and also sent from SSVC to Sumer. And Sumer aDNA from early Bronze Age to early Roman period turned out to be Indian-specific.

- See also point 2 below.)

All of the samples and data from the 1000 Genomes Project are freely available for use by other scientists and interested investigators.

2. Also, there's the Indian-specific mtDNA M52 found at an object from a grave at Novosvobodnaya associated with Maykop culture. (Is that object coincidentally the earliest bronze sword found so far and dated some 3 or 4 centuries before 3000 BCE, which was found in a grave at Novosvobodnaya? After all, this surely would be the very first Novosvobodnayan object of the Maykop-era culture that they'd inspect for DNA? And Maykop did "Terrace agriculture": "The longevity of the terraces (more than 5000 years) allows us to consider their builders unsurpassed engineers and craftsmen." <- Isn't that how the wheeled carts and irrigation of the SSVC is described? And bronze bridles. Wonder if Maykop had "Arabian"-like horses, i.e. Sivalensis-derived horses?)

Anyway, besides Indian-specific mtDNA M52 at Maykop, there's some other little details: found in Li et al 2015 on Tarim Mummies (at Xiaohe site).

While arguing for the one theory the Chinese authors were instructed in by Victor Mair - the theory of the tentatively "steppe IE" Europeans of Afanasevo as being the source of the early stratum at Tarim, with BMAC as source for the later strata (since Victor Mair was forced to concede that much in earlier papers) - the all-Chinese authors of this latest paper, free of Mair's eurocentrist influence, find sufficient evidence to argue for the 2nd theory/model too: of South/West Asians - credited to "BMAC" of Afghanistan - having been the source of Tarim Basin culture throughout (directly in the 1st phase and via BMAC input into the steppes/Andronovo during the 2nd phase) -


Analysis of ancient human mitochondrial DNA from the Xiaohe cemetery: insights into prehistoric population movements in the Tarim Basin, China

C.Li et al 2015

Quote:The second model, known as the “Bactrian oasis hypothesis”, also postulates a two-step settlement of the Tarim Basin in the Bronze Age, but maintains that the first settlers were farmers of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (or BMAC, also known as the Oxus civilization) (ca. 2200–1500 B.C.) west of Xinjiang in Uzbekistan (north Bactria), Afghanistan (south Bactria), and Turkmenistan [17], followed later by the Andronovo people from the northwest (Fig. 1) [5, 7]. This model emphasises the environmental similarities between the Xinjiang and Central Asian desert basins, and suggests that certain features, including the irrigation systems, wheat remains, woolen textiles, bones of sheep and goats, and traces of the medicinal plant Ephedra found in Xinjiang could be evidence of links with the Oxus civilization [5, 7, 16]

As for irrigation systems, that's what SSVC was excellent at. But of course SSVC is not credited except indirectly via BMAC.

And wheat was already one of the things the early layer at Mehrgarh (7000 BCE) was famous for. In contrast, steppes didn't have cereals/farming/agriculture until late. See Mallory on steppes versus cereals. And this is borne out by steppe aDNA: not until the R1a-heavy contingents bearing the "farmer" (so-called "Anatolian Neolithic") component appear on the steppes - seen in Potapovka to Sintashta-Andronovo and Srubna. And this component did not enter the steppes from Corded Ware in C-Europe - an option which was ruled out by Mathieson et al 2015, who suggested a "more eastern source" instead. Moroever, NO lactase persistence attested among Yamna - Mathieson discounts Allentoft's earlier inference of its presence among Yamna. Mathieson only detected LP allele in Srubna.

And Mallory also found no close connection between Afanasevo and Tarim. Only Mair imagines there to be one.

Excerpts still from C.Li et al 2015 (on Xiaohe, an early site of the Tarim Basin):

Quote:The cemetery was excavated between 2002 and 2005, and consisted of five strata with radiocarbon dates ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present (14C yBP) [19, 22].


In contrast, people bearing the south /west Asian components could have reached the Tarim Basin through the Pamirs, moving eastward along the south or north edges of the Tarim Basin. Recently one study showed that agricultural populations had contact with nearby mobile pastoralists at the beginning of the second millennium BC in Central Asia [58], indicating that genetic components of agriculturalists might also introgress into pastoralist populations. This was confirmed by the evidence that one Indian haplogroup was found in ancient Kazakhstan [37]. Therefore, people bearing the south/west Asian components could have first married into pastoralist populations, and reached North Xinjiang through the Kazakh steppe following the movement of pastoralist populations, then spread from north Xinjiang southward into the Tarim Basin across the Tianshan Mountains, and intermarried with the earlier inhabitants of the region, giving rise to the later, admixed Xiaohe community. Given that the south/west Asian components are relatively minor in the Xiaohe population, it is likely that nomadic herders from northern steppe had a greater impact on the eastern Tarim Basin than the Central Asian oasis farmers.

(Which sounds pretty much like they're arguing for early Indic influence on steppes - since "at the beginning of the second millennium BC in Central Asia" and travelling up the steppes. And note the authors are even arguing for genetic Indic influence: "marrying into pastoralist populations" and then "through the Kazakh steppe" spreading into Tarim.

The Chinese authors have only learnt about the steppist theory on Tarim and not learnt the steppist PIE theory let alone the steppe IA invasion theory, where Indians are only allowed to be invaded by steppes. No wonder I've not seen a single steppist quote the above paper. Also they say things likeSmile

The archaeological evidence for woolen textiles and the medicinal plant Ephedra* in the earliest Xiaohe layer and the Gumugou site indicate that the oasis culture (=BMAC, Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex in Afghanistan) had reached the Tarim Basin in the early Bronze Age. It is well known that Ephedra was used by oasis farmers, whereas it does not grow in the Russo-Kazakh steppe, nor is associated with the Afanasievo or Andronovo cultures [5, 7]. Furthermore, the wheat excavated from Xiaohe was hexaploid bread wheat, a cereal grain cultivated originally in the Near East [59]. Therefore, it is possible that the oasis route may have been significant in the peopling of Xinjiang in the early Bronze Age, at least northern or western Xinjiang. This was supported by the evidence that Indian haplogroup M25 was observed in one ancient individual from later Neolithic Ganqing region (data unpublished). The groups reaching the Tarim Basin through the oasis route may have interacted culturally with earlier populations from the steppe, with limited gene flow, resulting in a small genetic signal of the oasis agriculturalists in the Xiaohe community.

* some theorise that ephedra = soma

Of course the Chinese authors subconsciously reduce Indian-specific contribution in Tarim to an Afghan proxy (BMAC) alone, all because their instructor is the white supremacist Mair who has brainwashed them.

Meanwhile Hemphill's craniometric studies had overridden Mallory & Mair, by concluding that Tarim Basin mummies instead consisted of SSVC followed by BMAC.

The Indian-specific mtDNA found in Tarim - and since well before, in that overall region of China (since the late neolithic) - shows that long before BMAC even existed, Indians were travelling into that area.

So it should be seen as a continuity when Indian-specific mtDNA was found in layers 1-4 in Tarim (M5) at Xiaohe. Also at the same layers, mtDNA U7 was found at Tarim. U7 is Indian to Iranian in origin but distinct among them since 20,000 ybp, as per Metspalu 2004. U7 does occur in lower frequencies in Armenians in Caucasus. It also occurs quite rarely among Europeans: very low frequency among southern Europeans, Fins, Siberians, but not found among E Europeans/Balts as per Kivisild. Metspalu therefore describes U7 as virtually absent in Europe. It's not attested in steppe aDNA of Mathieson data set either.

Plus, none of the "European" mtDNA found at Xiaohe were European-specific, they're just *called* "west-Eurasian" which is often code for "Near East/West Asia" both of which include middle-east and Iran. Meanwhile, as per Mark Wade's mtDNA site, U2e - no longer considered Eurospecific - and W are of Indian origin (and India seems to have the basal U2e clade too, yet Li et al 2015 refer to old studies to conclude "While Xiaohe U2e haplotype has not been observed in living populations, the hg U2e is thought to have originated in Europe, from where it had been spread into central Siberia in the Bronze Age [39]." So modern Europe doesn't have U2e and I can't see - from the ancient DNA dataset collected so far - that it ever did. No wonder Mark Wade's mtDNA has simply adjusted U2e's origins to India.

And other than the M5, U7, U2e and W mentioned, all other so-called "West-Eurasian" hgs attested in Tarim have origins estimated to be in the Middle-east/Near East/"west-Asia". (And as per Reich, Samara before 6000 years ago didn't have mtDNA Hgs other than U4 and U5 - of upper palaeolithic age. So apparently, all other mtDNA were migrant to Samara on the steppes after that.)

And notably all these other "west-Eurasian" mtDNA found at Xiaohe - since the oldest layer - are present in Indians** else explained by Iranians. (Iranians even have some E Y-subclades, though Greek-like E in Iran could be from late Greek input?) Only if the authors documented exact subclades can the real issue be resolved of whether anything is Euro-specific or rather Indian/Iranian.

Until then, the simplest solution is to have Tarim be Asian (Siberian and E Asian and Indic and perhaps also Iranian). Which fits well with Hemphill's conclusions.

** Even the most basal "west-Eurasian" mtDNA at Tarim are present in India (U5a, and U2e which last, as mentioned, has recently been said to have its origins in India not Europe after all - and is common among southern Vanavasis and other Hindu communities). mtDNA T hasn't been attested in India as far as I'm aware. But in India, T1 and T2 with lots of structure under them are attested. So T itself may perhaps be present too, though rarer. And IIRC, I couldn't find T mtDNA in the 230 aDNA genomes of Mathieson's data set, only subclades.

Moreover, the M5 and U7 and the wheat farming (see Mallory on no farming in early steppes) and ephedra clinches the issue. The population that shows ALL the non-Siberian/non-E Asian mtDNA haplogroups attested in Xiaohe are Indian (and throw in Iranian too) populations. Europe can't explain them all by itself. But Indians together with Iranians can explain them all by itself.

The authors ought to have presented the specific subclades of each mtDNA Hg they found, which they didn't do. But that could have proven "European-specific" markers.

A previous study featuring Mair claimed all male Tarim mummies were R1a1a for Y-DNA. A Chinese co-author later explained none of these were R1aZ93 and that this meant they were not Indian. However, no one has actually proven that Indians have no other R1a1a than Z93.

Meanwhile, we have the R1a1 paragroup (R1a1*):


Quote:R-SRY1532.2 (R1a1)

R1a1 is defined by SRY1532.2 or SRY10831.2), understood to always include SRY10831.2, M448, L122, M459, and M516.[11][14] This family of lineages is dominated by M17 and M198. In contrast, paragroup R-SRY1532.2* lacks either the M17 or M198 markers.

The R-SRY1532.2* paragroup is apparently less rare than R1*, but still relatively unusual, though it has been tested in more than one survey. Underhill[13] reported 1/51 in Norway, 3/305 in Sweden, 1/57 Greek Macedonians, 1/150 Iranians, 2/734 ethnic Armenians, and 1/141 Kabardians. While Sahoo[15] reported R-SRY1532.2* for 1/15 Himachal Pradesh Rajput samples.

R1aZ93 may merely have had a very successful diversification in India (imagine clans, a few bearing R1aZ93), while others were not so successful and some of these may have been ejected from the NW gateway via Afghanistan into Tarim etc.

Moral: Indian-specific mtDNA attested in aDNA all over "Eurasia" and Near East (Mesopotamia and ancient Syria) since before Bronze Age or at least since Bronze age. Indians are not the ones that need to prove ancient expansions.
Apparently the press has latched on to just one aspect - or being given just one aspect to latch on to (if the latter is true, then supposedly neutral western genetics papers and interviews subtly promote supremacism through storytelling/feeding supremacist fantasies about elitism).


Quote:Half of Western European men descended from one Bronze Age ‘king’

[img caption:] A bronze age burial South Uist, in the Outer Hebridean Western Isles

Mass graves were replaced by individual burials for the elite in the Bronze Age showing a shift in social structure Credit: PA

Sarah Knapton, Science Editor

25 April 2016 • 6:14pm

Half of Western European men are descended from one Bronze Age ‘king’ who sired a dynasty of elite nobles which spread throughout Europe, a new study has shown.

("King". Nice storytelling. Forgetting "droit du seigneur" fantasies attributed to royalty, it's probably just some dude with umpteen wives/concubines etc. I've been told that eurocentrist IEists have a fetish for associating R1b with royalty whenever they can. But unless they can *prove* it was a king, enough with the storytelling.)

The monarch, who lived around 4,000 years ago, is likely to have been one of the earliest chieftains to take power in the continent.

He was part of a new order which emerged in Europe following the Stone Age, sweeping away the previous egalitarian Neolithic period and replacing it with hierarchical societies which were ruled by a powerful elite.

It is likely his power stemmed from advances in technology such as metal working and wheeled transport which enabled organised warfare for the first time.

(We're not going to pretend that metallurgy let alone wheeled carts were invented in the steppes or even Caucasus' Maykop, right? See archaeologist Kenoyer for dates on wheeled carts in SSVC. Beats the lame date on the wheeled cart in Yamna. Even toy wheeled carts in SSVC - though tracks of real wheeled carts exist at SSVC - are contemporaneous with earliest wheeled carts at Maykop.)

Although it is not known who he was, or where he lived, scientists say he must have existed because of genetic variation in today’s European populations.

(So that genetic variation in the relevant parts of Europe is derived only since the last 4000 years.)

Dr Chris Tyler-Smith, from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, said: “One of the most novel and exciting things we have found in the study is the extraordinary explosion in numbers of males at specific times.

“In Europe there was huge population expansion in just a few generations. Genetics can’t tell us why it happened but we know that a tiny number of elite males were controlling reproduction and dominating the population.

“Half of the Western European population is descended from just one man. We can only speculate as to what happened. The best explanation is that they may have resulted from advances in technology that could be controlled by small groups of men.

(NO. Don't speculate.)

“Wheeled transport, metal working and organised warfare are all candidate explanations that can now be investigated further.”

(Again. NONE of which were invented in the steppes. Or even Maykop in the Caucasus. Maykop may have transmitted it into the steppes and the steppes in turn transmitted this to parts of Europe, but they were not unique to steppes or even Maykop. Not their innovations. "Sorry" IE supremacist fantasists.)

[img caption:] A graphic showing DNA

Studying the genomes of people across the world can show how populations have spread Credit: Alamy

The study analysed sequence differences between the Y chromosomes of more than 1200 men from 26 populations around the world using data generated by the 1000 Genomes Project.

The Y chromosome is only passed from father to son and so is wholly linked to male characteristics and behaviours. Mutations reveal which are related to each other and how far apart they are genetically so that researchers can build a family tree.

Dr Yali Xue, lead author from the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, explained: “This pattern tells us that there was an explosive increase in the number of men carrying a certain type of Y chromosome, within just a few generations.

“We only observed this phenomenon in males, and only in a few groups of men.”

The team used the data to build a tree of the 1200 Y chromosomes. It shows how they are all related to one another. As expected, they all descend from a single man who lived approximately 190,000 years ago.

The most intriguing and novel finding was that some parts of the tree were more like a bush than a tree, with many branches originating at the same point.

The earliest explosive increases of male numbers occurred 50,000–55,000 years ago, across Asia and Europe, and 15,000 years ago in the Americas.

There were also later expansions in sub-Saharan Africa, Western Europe, South Asia and East Asia, at times between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago. The team believes the earlier population increases resulted from the first peopling by modern humans of vast continents, where plenty of resources were available.

Dr David Poznik, from Stanford University, California, first author on the paper, said: “We identified more than 60,000 positions where one DNA letter was replaced by another in a man with modern descendants, and we discovered thousands of more complex DNA variants.

“These data constitute a rich and publicly available resource for further genealogical, historical and forensic studies.”

The research was published in the journal Nature Genetics.

I rather suspect they're talking about R1b. Assuming they are:

This means R1b diversity in W-Europe is recent (only since 4000 years before present).

R1b and R1a in steppes were clearly related to founder effects too from migrant clans bearing these.

Eurocentrists were undermining the low R1b presence in India/Nepal as indicating that it could not derive from there. But at least for the W-European case, we already know for a fact, that the 55% R1b and its diversity is 1. imported and 2. very very recent. In the subcontinent it can just represent one or a few clans.

Further, "S Asia" has both the R1b subclade seen in Europe (defined by M269) AND its sister M73.


Continent     Population     #No.     Total%     R-P25*     R-V88     R-M269     R-M73

Africa     Northern Africa     691     5.9%     0.0%     5.2%     0.7%     0.0%

Africa     Central Sahel Region     461     23.0%     0.0%     23.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Africa     Western Africa          123     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Africa     Eastern Africa          442     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Africa     Southern Africa     105     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Europe     Western Europeans     465     57.8%     0.0%     0.0%     57.8%     0.0%

Europe     North western Europeans 43     55.8%     0.0%     0.0%     55.8%     0.0%

Europe     Central Europeans     77     42.9%     0.0%     0.0%     42.9%     0.0%

Europe     North Eastern Europeans 74     1.4%     0.0%     0.0%     1.4%     0.0%

Europe     Russians          60     6.7%     0.0%     0.0%     6.7%     0.0%

Europe     Eastern Europeans     149     20.8%     0.0%     0.0%     20.8%     0.0%

Europe     South eastern Europeans 510     13.1%     0.0%     0.2%     12.9%     0.0%

Asia     Western Asians          328     5.8%     0.0%     0.3%     5.5%     0.0%

Asia     Southern Asians     288     4.8%     0.0%     0.0%     1.7%     3.1% <---<---

Asia     South eastern Asians     10     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Asia     North eastern Asians     30     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%     0.0%

Asia     Eastern Asians          156     0.6%     0.0%     0.0%     0.6%     0.0%

    TOTAL               5326

<EDIT (snipped): Originally, the table formatting was shifted, and had left in early comments about v88 by oversight. The rest of the post stands, as it was the correct discussion, on M269 - being based on the correctly formatted table:>

Having a look at the 2016 ISOGG phylogenetic tree for R1b at


- M269 mutation (R1b1a2) is parent of L23. Where L23 "R-L23 (R1b1a2a). Most common European R1b"

- And M269 is sister to M73 "R-M73 (R1b1a1). Found in Anatolia**, Caucasus, Urals, Hazara". Not found in ... Europe.

** Not found among aDNA in Anatolia in Mathieson's 26 Anatolian Neolithic individuals. So when they say "Found in Anatolia" they probably mean modern Turkey, and it's cheating how they gift it to Anatolia.

From the above table "Southern Asians" have low frequencies of both M269 AND M73. No one else in the table has R-M73.

From Mathieson's data set, can't find any M73 (R1b1a1) in their aDNA samples where the Y has been listed. Not Anatolia Neolithic, steppes or non-steppe Europe.

Among the aDNA in Mathieson's data set, there is however R1b1 in:

- Iberia (Basque territory, 5295-5066 calBCE) marked by M415, and

- Samara Eneolithic at Khvalynsk (steppes, 5200-4000 BCE) of a sample marked IGNORE and defined by SNP M415,

- another sample marked IGNORE (in Russia, 5650-5555 calBCE) defined only by SNP L278. [The latter 2 samples may be marked IGNORE if thought contaminated?]

While the wikipedia page on R1b implies that R1b1 is marked by "L278, M415, P25",

Some other instructive points at:


Quote:ISOGG now uses marker L278 to define R1b1.

Maglio, Michael R. (2014-08-14). "Biogeographical Evidence for the Iberian Origins of R1b-L278 via Haplotype Aggregation (2014)". Origins DNA. Retrieved 2014-11-12.

So in 2014, R1b1 was thought to be Iberian in origin...

Except that the ancient Iberian sample in Mathieson's data set was not defined by L278 only M415???

Anyway and whatever.

The high rate of just a particular subclade of R1b in Europeans (R1b1a2) - known to be a founder effect in Europe proper - may just be a founder effect in the steppes too.

Some R1b could have wandered up there into the Samara Eneolithic culture, and later a clan carrying the specific subclade could just have wandered up again.

After all, the Samara region only had mtDNA U4 and U5 IIRC as per Reich until 6000 years before present. Then all of a sudden it evinced many different haplogroups whose origins are estimated to lie in Near East, West Asia and Indian subcontinent (apparently W and U2e have origins in India, contrary to earlier Euro-specific claims for U2e and West Asian/Caucasus claims for W). So R1b and subclades could have wandered up too.

Also, just like "Southern Asians" show R1b-M73 (R1b1a1) which is apparently not found in Europeans,

Iranians (Grugni et al 2012 paper's table 1) have

- the paragroup R1b*,

- they have a very low amount of M73 among Persians of Khorasan,

- AND they have the paragroups M269* and L23* (note that M269, and L23 specifically, are carried by Europeans)

While some of the M269 and M269* and L23 and L23* in Iranians can be argued as having been introduced into Iran by the islamic slave trade of Europeans, M73 in Khorasan Persians is simply not European.

From the wikipedia page:

Quote:R1b (R-M343)

R1b* (that is R1b with no subsequent distinguishing SNP mutations) is extremely rare. The only population yet recorded with a definite significant proportion of R1b* are the Kurds of southeastern Kazakhstan with 13%.[4][17] However, more recently, a large study of Y-chromosome variation in Iran, revealed R1b* as high as 4.3% among Persian sub-populations.[18]

([18] is a reference to the familiar Grugni et al 2012 paper.)

Anyway, my point was, the low frequency of R1b subclades in "South Asians" does NOT imply founder effect there, nor does it indicate intrusiveness of R1b subclades there. Whereas of Europe we already know 1. it is intrusive (unless derived from Iberia, which it is not, since steppes have been implicated for the origin of the founder effect in Europe); 2. it is the product of a massive founder effect; 3. in Europe it is only M269 apparently (so too in all Mathieson's aDNA not counting the IGNOREd and Iberian samples which are more basal R1b).

The other question remains:

Why is Harvard still sitting on the Maykop aDNA samples, which Patterson said (back in Dec 2014) that they'd already gathered? I.e. they had collected the Maykop aDNA data at some point before the Haak paper came out. I think they work incrementally: only bringing out further data when they absolutely have to. So they're more interested in storytelling and observing how much it will take.


- Removed wrong text accidentally left in (based on interpreting the originally shifted table from before posting).

- fixed visibility of link not displaying
On this:

[quote name='Husky' date='27 April 2016 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1461770074' post='118480']

And Mallory also found no close connection between Afanasevo and Tarim. Only Mair imagines there to be one.


Their theorising is far more flimsy than the above indicates, BTW.

Transcript of Tarim-related part of J.P. Mallory talk:

Quote:[Map of Afanasievo trek - going E out of steppes into their 'locus of emanation' in south Siberia somewhere N of Jungghar Basin - captioned with:]

Afanasievo culture: the long trek (?3800-2400BC)

The steppe solution to the Tocharians coming into the Tarim Basin, at least the best one that I can imagine, has always been associated with the Afanasievo culture, that gets out very early -- possibly too early to work. Read - I think probably - the forthcoming issue of Current Anthropology. But it involves a long cultural trek from north of the Caspian Sea to the [Aral Sea? innersea?] and the High Altai and at the second stage - somehow - they move into the Tarim Basin.

The actual evidence within the Tarim Basin is flimsy thin.

Afanasievo cemeteries would be surrounded by round stone enclosures in the innersea and the Altai.

At Qäwrighul, one of the earliest of our cemeteries in the Tarim Basin, we have evidence for timber circles.

And that I'm afraid is about it.

[Image caption:] Qäwrighul

Stone enclosures > Timber circles

The fact that the Afanasievo culture, if you follow this, moves from north to south however, takes them to the Jungghar Basin. And there you can at least make contexts/contacts.

You can establish a credible archaeological link between the cemeteries of Afanasievo and Shamirshak (I'll use the Turkish since it's a lot easier than the Chinese here) where we do have similarities in ceramics, particularly the so-called ritual-footed vessels that are very characteristic of the steppe land and here we're finding in Xinjiang.

A bit more remotely, we might imagine that the baskets that we find in the steppe land regions in these earlier cemeteries are basically borrowing from earlier ceramic shapes.

Not sure if Mallory means to say "Aral Sea" but it sounds like he's saying "inner sea". My geography of the region is non-existent, and I couldn't locate it on the maps shown. Not sure what he was saying there, in other words.

NOTE the map at this point shows:

- that the site marked Qäwrighul - situated on the NE edge of the large circle encapsulating the Tarim Basin - is north of the site marked Xiaohe.

- the Jungghar Basin is north of Qäwrighul and north of ALL the Tarim Basin. I.e. Jungghar Basin lies in the centre of the line from N to S connecting Afanasievo with the Tarim Basin.

So while Mallory thinks there is some archaeological connection between Afanasievo and Jungghar Basin - in the centre of N to S line purporting to be the Afanasievo voyage - he finds nothing reliable in the material culture to connect them to Tarim Basin. Qäwrighul at the NE edge has "timber circles" which is a most tenuous connection - but we can leave out Xiaohe further south, or the rest of the Tarim Basin.

And can leave out his imagining the Qäwrighul baskets (no feet to the photo of the Qäwrighul basket, it's a regular basket) are connected to the (drawings) of ceramics with feet of the Afanasievo and Shamirshak of Jungghar Basin.

Quote:In contact with Jilin University, just to find out what the latest opinion is by someone who did their PhD on this subject, basically confirms: we've got good connections between the Afanasievo, the steppe cultures and the Jungghar basin, but beyond that it is really difficult to demonstrate any further southern movement.

[Slide contains:]

Quote:Shao Huiqiu, Jilin University PhD

* As for the connections between the cultures in Xinjiang and Afanasievo culture, based on the finding recently, there was a similar culture with Afanasievo in Aletai northwest of Xinjiang. But it belongs to a different culture named "Qie Mu'er Qie Ke" [=Chinese variant of place name that's "Shamirshak" in Turkic]. According to the research of Kovalev, this culture was also found in western Mongolia.

* In my opinion, the connection between these two cultures are very close. They probably have co-existed for a period of time. Because of the lack of materials of northwest Xinjiang it is difficult to carry out a further study on this point.

Except the above mentioned culture in Aletai, no cultures could be connected Afanasiev directly in other areas of Xinjiang, I think..

* Hope this information is helpful to your research.

* Best Regards.

* Shao Huiqiu

(Red colouring as in original.)

In conclusion:

1. Material culture of Tarim Basin is NOT related to Afanasievo. I'm not even going to count the admittedly tenuous (or rather: desperate) identification of Qäwrighul timber circles with Afanasievo stone enclosures around cemeteries. Let alone "imagining" similarities between the baskets at Qäwrighul and ceramics at Afanasievo said to have associations with those in Jungghar Basin.

2. Compared with: Material culture of Tarim Basin starting with earliest strata at Xiaohe (i.e. from 2000 BCE) is specifically related to the Indian subcontinent: (woolen textiles,) wheat farming, ephedra all of which do NOT come from steppe regions and cultures of Russia/Kazakhstan or Afanasievo culture. Ephedra is specific to... the subcontinent while wheat farming was already at Mehrgarh since about 7000 BCE, so we needn't look further than the subcontinent for that either.

(Woolen textiles, wheat, irrigation and) ephedra are undeniable material culture links between Tarim Basin and the subcontinent at 2000 BCE. Further, not only did the steppists and Afanasievans not have these, there's no evidence that they were into importing and using ephedra either. Meaning: if the Afanasievans magically went to the Tarim Basin after all, it wasn't *them* who imported and thus left the woolen textiles, wheat and ephedra behind since the Tarim's earliest archaeological strata.

The date of 2000 BCE (4000 ybp) is significant: because it rules out a lot of that "R1aZ93 in the steppes" whining by steppists. NOT Srubna, NOT later Andronovo. Because nothing before 2000 BCE will do. That's most of Sintashta too by the way. And IIRC nothing before any of those steppe kulturs was even claimed to be "proto-Indo-Iranian" about the steppes, by even the steppe PIE theory.

3. And again mtDNA at Xiaohe includes:

++ Indian-specific M5,

++ U7 which is NOT steppe, "not found" in modern E European (Kivisild 1999) and barely attested among Europeans ("virtually absent" in Europe as per Metspalu 2004). Also as per Metspalu 2004: U7's origins estimated to lie between Gujarat to Iran (and is distinct since "ancient times" between Indians and Iranians). Oh and not to forget that U7 occurs in high frequencies among Veddas.

++ further Hgs, which have Near East/West Asian origins and all of which are present in modern Indian, Iranian and various European populations.

Since the data presented by Li et al 2015 lacks specific resolution to nodes, Europeans (Afanasievo etc) need not be invoked, since we can stick to a minimum of just Indians and Afghans to explain all the mtDNA Hgs.

Yeah, I'm not surprised that the Li et al 2015 paper never even gets mentioned by AITists let alone the steppist kind.

And again, there's also Li et al's "unforgivable mistake" - from the POV of the steppist PIE theory of events* - of saying that BMAC (which has SSVC origins as per archaeologists) intermarried with the steppes and then went to Tarim. Li et al probably thought this compromise would make Mair happy. Instead, Mair is probably fuming.

The Chinese researchers were too honest and too open-minded. More proof that white supremacism is lost on them. (All of which is a compliment to the Chinese authors, by the way.)

* Of course, proponents of Plan A of the Anatolian PIE Theory (note: Renfrew abandoned Plan A for Plan B, wonder if he'll be kicking himself before the year is out) will feel this magically vindicates them. It vindicates only a S to N movement: i.e. all except the actual "Anatolian PIE urheimat" part of their theory. But the above is all certainly in direct and immediate agreement with a far more "extreme" theory of PIEism though. Guess which one that is.

Quote:2016 Apr 21. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22996. [Epub ahead of print]

New cases of trepanations from the 5th to 3rd millennia BC in Southern Russia in the context of previous research: Possible evidence for a ritually motivated tradition of cranial surgery?

Gresky J1, Batieva E2, Kitova A3, Kalmykov A4, Belinskiy A5, Reinhold S6, Berezina N7.

Author information



It is a big challenge to diagnose the motives behind trepanations in prehistoric crania. Surgical-therapeutic attempts may be apparent by the presence of fractures, however, ritual or nonmedical motives are rarely supported by visible evidence in the bones. This article presents data on the trepanations of several individuals from South Russia dating to the Eneolitic and Bronze Age that may indicate a ritual procedure. In these crania an operation was performed in the identical location, the midline, furthermore in one of the most dangerous places, on the obelion. No evidence for traumatic or other pathological reasons for performing the operations was observable.

Wait, the steppes weren't original in that either?


Archaeo-metallurgy of Indus civilisation, 20 Feb 2012

(The full article is worth a read)

Quote:A.R. Sankhyan and G.H Weber draw our attention to a multi-trephines skull from the Neolithic pit-dwellers of Burzahom in the Kashmir valley, probably suggestive of the practice of trepanation in prehistoric India, and push the archaeology of surgery into a hoary past.

Just saying - before steppists try to copyright/patent/trademark trepanation too next, as some "steppe IE" innovation. You know, the way they tried with wheeled carts (fail), chariots (fail), horse-riding and horse-domestication (fail), metallurgy (fail), "PIE" (fail, that's why Patterson says they need to look for "PIE" in Caucasus, because Yamna can't be "PIE" urheimat; steppes not even "Indo-Iranian" urheimat as per Patterson) etc.

But if there was any copying of this, the direction would be from Neolithic India to Eneolithic Russia.

(^Stating this pre-emptively. Since if it had been in the opposite direction, steppists would have made the claim, right?)
Late 2014 (after analysing the data behind the Haak & Mathieson 2015 papers) the Harvard team's computational brain Patterson said

"Patterson said that linguistic evidence has tracked the ancestral language, called “late proto-Indo-European” to about 3,500 years ago in the Caucasus, among a people who had wheeled vehicles at a time when they were just being put into use.

Genetic evidence ruled out one likely related group in the region, the Yamnaya, because their DNA showed the group had hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is inconsistent with the fact that two Indo-European groups, Armenians and Indians, don’t share it, Patterson said. That made Patterson look south, to the Maikop civilization, which likely had significant contact with the Yamnaya, as a plausible culture where Indo-European languages originated. Samples have been obtained from Maikop burial sites, but the DNA work to test that proposal is pending, Patterson said."

Now - and without additional published steppe aDNA and with no drastic/revelatory information from any additional modern Indian genomes they may have newly obtained - Harvard models ALL modern Indians with massive amounts of "steppe" admixture (decreasing cline from NW to SE).

The difference lies in the direction their storytelling has been forced to take.

ALL their papers and that of their (in)direct associates have always focused on Indians, Indians, Indians. As seen above, Indians (and Armenians and C Asians) were the reason that Patterson was willing to shift the PIE urheimat into the Caucasus in late 2014.

*Indians* were the reason CHG was scrapped as a source component in Yamna, and replaced with Iran Neolithic.

It would be something if half their focus was bent on the Iranians, but the Iranians are clearly not on their minds and certainly not on their lips.

1. Mathieson 2015 concluded Bronze Age steppe culture of the Yamnaya =~ 50% EHG + 50% modern Armenian-like. [EHG = "East European Hunter Gatherers". Itself not a source component.]

- Further, Mathieson's supplementary information preserves the initial conclusion they wanted to draw with regards to the novel features of the later steppe cultures: sudden switch to R1a dominance and farmer admixture not seen in previous steppe cultures (modelled in Mathieson 2015 as Anatolian Neolithic farmer admixture).

Mathieson 2015 wanted to support Allentoft 2015's earlier supposition that backmigration from the C-European IE Corded Ware Culture (CWC) was the source of the R1a etc that marked the differentiation of the later steppe cultures from the earlier ones. The entire paragraph (the rest more relevant to Indians) however did not make it into the final version, as in the final version, Mathieson 2015 were forced to withdraw their support for the Corded Ware backmigration, as the data did not support it. They ended up positing a more eastern source for the novel admixture. They defensively pointed to their single R1a sample in Poltavka (the R1aZ94 outlier) as proof that the earlier steppe cultures already had R1a and that this did not mean migrations of R1a individuals. The defensiveness was interesting, especially considering their earlier statements preserved as a relic in the Supplementary Information.

2. The Jones late 2015 paper (Jones was a co-author on Mathieson 2015) then appeared and took up the thread that Patterson had indicated. They sequenced 2 upper palaeolithic Caucasus Hunter Gatherer (CHG) Genomes and constructed the CHG component. They declared that between 25kya and 10kya, the Caucasus genomes had been in "apparent genetic isolation" and that after that - since 10kya/about the neolithic - the Caucasus started admixing with others. Jones 2015 said that since Indians show a lot of CHG (the so-called "Caucasus-Gedrosia" that has for decades been known to spike in the Indian subcontinent), that therefore Indians MUST be derived from the Caucasus and that future work should prove this.

3. Around May 2016, Harvard was repeatedly stated by people in the know to be working on an IE paper based on the Afghan and Indic ("SC+S Asian") aDNA and more steppe aDNA. This was going to be Harvard's next paper after the Fu 2016 paper. They were going to conclude Andronovo -> BMAC AIT -> India AIT.

4. Early June 2016, the Llorente 2016 abstract appeared. Jones was a co-author. Their work had sequenced a single (conveniently female) Iranian neolithic genome and found it to be quite "CHG like". Their abstract only revealed that they ruled out any direct Iranian Neolithic influence on Europeans. But one could have predicted that the paper would be more about the IE question - hence particularly about Indians (that's the central focus of all these papers) - than anything else.

5. Mid June 2016, at a student conference, a geneticist team from some British University came out with the Lopez mid 2016 abstract. They'd also sequenced an Iranian neolithic genome. And what the Lopez 2016 abstract revealed (p.23) - something Harvard never intended to bring up - forced Harvard to do a massive course-correction:

Quote:The genetic landscape of Iran and the legacy of Zoroastrianism: Comparing haplotype sharing patterns among ancient and modern-day samples using a mixture model.

Iran is considered a pivotal region in the Fertile Crescent, occupying a central space between Africa and Eurasia, and has thus been extensively studied to infer the development of the earliest human civilizations and farming settlements. From a historical and cultural perspective, this region is also of great interest as the cradle of Zoroastrianism. With reported roots dating back to the second millennium BC in Iran, Zoroastrianism is one of the oldest religions in the world and is now mainly concentrated in India, Iran, and Southern Pakistan. In this work we present novel genotype data from present-day Zoroastrians from Iran and India, along with a high coverage (10x) early Neolithic sample from Iran (7,455-7,082 BC), comparing these samples to publicly available genome-wide genotypes from >200 modern and ancient groups worldwide to elucidate patterns of shared ancestry. We apply a novel Bayesian mixture model to represent the DNA from modern and ancient groups or individuals as mixtures of that from other sampled groups or individuals, using a haplotype-based approach that is more powerful than commonly-used algorithms. Our mixture model identifies which sampled groups are most related to one another genetically, reflecting shared common ancestry relative to other groups due to e.g. admixture (i.e. intermixing of genetically distinct groups) or other historical processes. Interestingly, analysis of ancestry patterns revealed strong affinities of the Neolithic Iranian sample to modern-day Pakistani and Indian populations, and particularly to Iranian Zoroastrians, in stark contrast to Neolithic samples from Europe. We also identify, describe and date recent admixture events in modern-day Iranian groups that have altered their current genetic make-up relative to these ancient origins.

6. With the above info of significant Iran Neolithic affinity in modern Iranian Zoroastrians and in ethnic-Indians being out in the open, Harvard was forced into damage control mode.

Within a couple of days or so, Harvard came out with their pre-print of the Lazaridis 2016 paper, revealing they had been sitting on Iranian aDNA and had already analysed it in advance. And already knew that it was not an affinity with CHG in modern Indians - contrary to Harvard's earlier deliberately "gradually delivered" storytelling on the matter - but rather an affinity with ancient Iranian genomes.

Harvard's paper worked to quickly take control once more of the storytelling, by subsuming the Iranian-Neolithic component into the very early steppes so that Indians - who had significant affinity with it - could still be declared derived from the steppes.

And the paper focused a great deal on Indians indeed, not on Iranians (but note how Harvard's IE storytelling never focused on Iranians: the course corrections they've been forced to make have all been due to Indians alone; due to their need to claim Indian genomes for the steppes - perhaps before the inverse can be claimed? - alone).

Despite carefully laying the groundwork for the storytelling with CHG, Yamna was no longer declared to be 50% CHG and 50% EHG. Now Yamna was suddenly found to be 43% ancient Iranian + EHG. A change Harvard never intended to make to their Yamna model (though they clearly knew the Iranian data, even though they were supposed to be working on an Afghanistan and "S Asia" paper instead) except that the Lopez abstract forced Harvard's hand.

The Harvard paper did lots of formal statistics tests to insist that Reich's long-term plan of the carefully constructed "ANI" component and its late admixture with "ASI" to produce modern Indians could ONLY have been produced by admixture between steppes and Iran Neolithic.

That is, they insist that ANI has a steppe component, meaning they insist that ANI derived from the steppes and nowhere else.

(This is after Patterson had earlier denied that Indics could be derived from the steppes at all.)

7. The Llorente 2016 paper of point 4 above (featuring Jones and some authors on the Harvard Lazaridis 2016 paper) finally came out within days after Harvard's Lazaridis paper, showing clear traces of how Harvard had intended on spinning the tale had not the Lopez 2016 abstract derailed them from their original plan.

Llorente 2016 declared that Indians showed less affinity to the "CHG like" Iranian neolithic component than to the real CHG from the Caucasus. Their aim was to push through on Harvard's Plan A of forcing Indians to be derived with clear Caucasus input, and concluded that therefore Indians must be derived from the steppes. Because of the Lopez abstract - point 5 above - Harvard, using their MANY Iranian genomes to hand which they suddenly revealed, had been cornered into remodelling Yamna to rather have ancient Iranic than Caucasus (CHG) input, thus rendering Llorente 2016's no doubt equally-contrived "CHG in Indics" conclusions void.

Harvard shot down its OWN Plan A in order to resort to Plan B because Plan A was compromised. Yamna's modelling was tweaked ALL so that Indians - and Indians alone - could still be derived from the steppes.

Harvard's Lazaridis 2016 paper went one step further: they no longer kept up the facade that CHG was "apparently genetically isolated", as they now openly modelled CHG itself as a product of admixture, even involving input from a LATER component (Iran Neolithic input into Caucasus Upper Palaeolithic). That is, CHG was no longer a source component, but a product of other source components.

This too they would not have admitted had not the Lopez paper come out, as the apparent genetic isolation until the neolithic was meant to be a bottleneck necessitating Indian derivation with Caucasus inpt. Now the bottleneck's been unnaturally shifted to further Iranian input via the steppes: all ANI has been essentially equated to Indo-Aryans and Harvard's formal stats has once again made a move to pre-emptvely corner Indians thereby.

On that subject: before Harvard came out with the Lazaridis 2016 paper, Harvard had already analysed the aDNA from SC Asia and the Indian subcontinent (BMAC etc). A paper on "SC/S Asia" paper was the one they were carefully working on/setting up. Harvard already knows what's in that area therefore. That means their supposedly "predictive" formal stats in their hurriedly brought out Lazaridis paper - predicting/constraining that ANI *must* be from the steppes as it "definitely" has admixture with the so-called "steppe" component - was not a prediction as they pretended it was, but was to pre-emptively close off other interpretations of the upcoming aDNA from "SC/S Asia" and to pre-emptively subsume any pre-existing "ANI" as steppe.

And they can do it now, because (I suspect/predict) Harvard was forced to make another concession. This time not because of the Lopez abstract but because of the aDNA data from SC/S Asia: the large number of formal stats tests in the Lazaridis 2016 paper modelled ANI in Indians as having definite steppe admixture. Not just any steppe admixture, however. But very early steppe admixture: from the eneolithic else early Bronze Age. That is, they've deliberately stepped back from pretending IE invasions in the late Bronze Age/Iron Age but have been forced to retreat to a position of earlier "Yamna" or pre-Yamna steppe input.

And the ONLY reason they'd do that is because they found something in the SC/S Asian data that required them to concede that much ground. And hence they pretend in advance that their formal stats predicts this and will declare "just as we modelled" in their next paper. This last is a prediction, but Harvard is quite unreliable and has a massive agenda regarding Hindus and Hinduism. The IE question is a major trump card for them on this subject. And you know they're obsessed with Indians because every bloody IE-related aDNA paper they come out with has to invoke Indians in some way or other; and any paper on modern Indian DNA they come with has to drag in IE one way or another.

The real question to ask is: Would Harvard lie? Well, they've always lied where Hindus are concerned and where IEism is concerned (remember the serial forger David Anthony?). And the current series of events also blatantly shows Harvard shuffling things about all so that they/Europeans still come out on top and Indians are still made steppe-derived (and they make no bones about this last meaning Euro-derived, btw).

Some other interesting things:

- despite R1aZ93 having been bandied about as the "Indo-Iranian" marker, Iranians don't have much of it. And they don't have anywhere as much so-called "steppe" affinity as Indians do. (E.g. noticeably the endogamous Zoroastrians.)

So if Indians and Iranians derive from the steppes, it's interesting that one group should show more affinity, and particularly the less "W-Eurasian"/"European"-like population: Indians. (It leaves open something else: that one of these populations rather than both more formatively affected the steppes at some stage. Though in the later/Iron Age stages it was almost entirely Iranian influence on the steppes and thence Europe, e.g. through the undeniably Iran-originated Sarmatians.)

- like CHG, EHG (which makes up about half the input to Yamna) is not a source component either, but is formed from admixture. This was known, but what was hidden away is its constituent parts. Harvard's recent Lazaridis 2016 paper (Supplementary Info) reveals several interesting details.

First, the uninteresting bit: EHG (East European Hunter Gatherers) =~ 25% WHG (West-European Hunter Gatherers who actually have a N Eastern origin, though Fu 2016 avoided stressing this) + 75% ANE (Ancient North Eurasian). ANE is a component constructed from the aDNA of the Mal'ta-1 individual from Siberian by the Raghavan (2013?) paper. ["ANE" is frequently said to be very high in Indics. It seems it was the WHG part that was ruled out in Indics by the likes of Patterson, rather than all the constituent components of EHG.]

Again: EHG =~ 25% WHG + 75% ANE. (1)

The same pre-print to the Lazaridis 2016 paper (specifically the Supplementary Information, p.146) also shows EHG = WHG + something on the Onge->Han cline. (2)

The "some [ghost] population on the Onge->Han cline" was dubbed ANE, BTW. And this is also clear from equations (1) and (2).

So: EHG = WHG + something on the Onge->Han cline = 25% WHG + 75% something on the Onge->Han cline. [By substituting (1) into (2)]

Now the use of Onge is interesting as Onge (an Andamanese community) are used as proxy for the constructed "ASI" component. Something on the Onge->Han cline either essentially has whatever % of "ASI" ancestry. But it's not negligible since 75% of EHG = ANE, i.e. something on the Onge->Han cline.

On a related topic, amateur modellers keep finding that Iran Neolithic already showed signs of ASI too.

So Yamna = 43% ancient Iranic + 57% EHG had ASI from both ends.

That's why EHG and Iran Neolithic are projected as source components: to hide away their own derived nature and make it look like "ANI" can only be produced by admixture involving "ASI" outside the subcontinent. Which is quite interesting as it seems rather a necessitated tack for Harvard.

Haak Feb 2015 pre-print stated the following about Yamna

Quote:This pattern is also seen in ADMIXTURE analysis (Fig. 2b, SI6), which implies that the Yamnaya have ancestry from populations related to the Caucasus and South Asia that is largely absent in 38 Early or Middle Neolithic farmers but present in all 25 Late Neolithic or Bronze Age individuals. This ancestry appears in Central Europe for the first time in our series with the Corded Ware around 2,500 BCE (SI6, Fig. 2b, Extended Data Fig. 1).

Admixture of ancient populations by modern ones is of course unlikely, but it indicates something.

The Caucasus portion has been replaced with an ancient Iranian component. So then it is what in the Mathieson paper is described as the "EHG" part that takes the place (masks?) the "S Asian" affinity described above. [I mean, the earlier Maykop culture of the Caucasus influenced Yamna - perhaps even genetically, data yet to be revealed. And Maykop is admitted to be closer to PIE than Yamna: Yamna was not PIE. And Indian-specific mtDNA M52 was already found in Maykop culture.**]

Others have now started substituting ANI as the "South Asian" input to Yamna. Yet we know that Yamna is ~50% EHG, and EHG itself has 75% ANE i.e. 75% of admixture into EHG comes from the ASI->Han cline.

All in all, that means Yamna already had both ANI + ASI. In combination. Isn't it strange that the two components may exist only in unison in Yamna? But that in India they must be produced by post steppist invasion admixture of suddenly "distinct" ANI with suddenly distinct ASI?

** Another interesting thing is the Y-Hg L-M27 near the Araxes river in the Caucasus in the Chalcolithic leading up to the Kura-Araxes culture, which culture had already arrived in the region in 4200 BCE but rose to prominence around 3700 BCE - both periods fall in the time bracket of the L-M27 samples found at the Araxes River area, BTW). The Lazaridis 2016 paper wanted to dismiss the 3 samples of L-M27 found in this region as a founder effect, despite the range of time separating them (whereas the R1b or R1a in the steppes are of course a steppe "signature" Hg). Oh, and L-M27 is the most common Indic L1a. Even Lazaridis 2016 indirectly admits - among their bad apologetics for the very Indic L-M27's presence in south Caucasus - that L-M27 itself is not found in modern Armenians:

Quote:Armenia_ChL (Chalcolithic Armenia) All three males from this population belong to Y-chromosome haplogroup L1a-M27/P329. The M27 mutation is common in South Asian haplogroup L Y-chromosomes1,2, but was absent in a survey of Y-chromosomes from Anatolia3. Haplogroup L occurs at a very low ~2% frequency in present-day Armenians4. Our results indicate that it was present in Chalcolithic Armenia, but the fact that all three Chalcolithic Armenians belonged to it should not be necessarily interpreted as evidence that it was common there, as our samples are from a single location (Areni-1 cave) and may represent a local founder population.

The common modern Armenian subclade of L1a is descended from an "uncle" (in terms of tree structure) of L-M27, not L-M27 itself. Indians however have L-M27. It was declared an exclusive marker of Indian "Dravidian speakers".

Some IEists imagine a Caucasus homeland for IEism/their IE oryan ancestors, while looking down their noses on L-M27 as "native Indoo".

Yet the M52 mtDNA in pre-Yamna Maykop is native Indoo and Y haplogroup L-M27 - as per their own elitism - is Indoo too. And *these 2 haplogroups* - not R1a or R1b - were found in the north and south Caucasus respectively, in times before Yamna/steppe "IE" cultures. For all I know, R1a and R1b may have been present in the Caucasus too (doubly so if these turn out to not really be steppe markers after all). Admittedly, an R1b was found in the later (Kura-Araxes proper) period in Armenia around 2700 BCE, but this R1b instance has been quickly hijacked by steppists as being a migrant from the steppes, since no R1b was found in earlier Caucasus aDNA. [Hijacking this R1b for steppism was also necessary because the Kura-Araxes culture has sometimes been claimed as IE and even as an ancient IE culture. Again, interesting to see alleged "steppe marker" R1b co-existing with "Dravidian marker" L-M27 in the Araxes area in a temporal continuum and possibly cultural continuum with the "IE" Kura Araxes culture. Whoever was NOT in the Caucasus as per recovered aDNA so far are R1a-bearers. "Sorry" to those "R1a=IE marker" supremacists dreaming of a PIE homeland in the Caucasus. R1b is not even allowed to be native to the Caucasus by hardcore steppists. Anyway, R1a-supremacist IEists who imagine a Caucasus PIE homeland will have to share that too with the bearers of the "Dravidian marker" L-M27.]

Just to make it clear: L-M27 far older than 4200 BCE. There's no evidence at all that it originated in the Caucasus or even Iran or is remotely W-Eurasian in origin. (It's presence in Germany and Italy can be explained as another leftover from the Sarmatians, as Iran also has L-M27.) Every invasionist has only ever insisted that L-M27 is Indian and specifically "Dravidian". Now of course they'll try something different and dismiss it or project it as "W Eurasian" *because* it was found a measly 6200 years ago of its much longer existence in the Caucasus. (As it is, Lazaridis 2016 noticeably carefully avoided focusing on its rather damning presence in a crucial region to PIEism altogether.) But the L-M27 in Chalcolithic Armenia is a migrant to the Caucasus and has become associated with cultures migrant to that region. In any case, it's not a steppe marker. IEists can't even try that route as L-M27 does not occur among the steppes.

Funny how just in the "PIE" heartland of the Caucasus - from the Araxes river region to Maykop in N Caucasus - distinctly Indian haplogroups were found. And both in the PIE period and before Yamna/any "IE" steppe cultures.

Summary/point of this post:

Since Harvard already knows the "SC/S Asian" data, I predict that Harvard's formal stats regarding Indians in their Lazaridis 2016 paper (wherein they concluded ANI was a product of admixture between early steppes and ancient Iranic genomes) is only in order to lay the groundwork for claiming SC Asia or even "S Asia" was "already steppe" since the early Bronze Age (that is, Harvard will typically move the goalpost as it has always done). E.g. they may claim that BMAC was "already steppe" throughout. So BMAC will be stolen as a European product. Then, having made it European in "origin"/claimed it for themselves, they may even declare BMAC as Proto-Indo-Iranian urheimat and start admitting this was the "eastern source" of novel input into the later R1a(Z93) heavy steppe cultures like Sintashta/Srubna. (They may even admit the BMAC/SSVC region in general was the origin and source for Z93 lineages.)

Harvard has worked very hard on their little aDNA pet project especially to cement the IE steppism story. So they've moved away from R1a as the steppe marker to using "steppe" components for comparison.

So you know beforehand that if SSVC data already shows "ANI", the scheming anti-Hindu cabal that makes up Harvard - and their Indian parrots, who apparently can't think for themselves but will regurgitate [badly] Harvard's genetics dept (forgetting its aims are No Different than its "Hinduism studies" and "Indology" depts) - will conclude that any ANI in SSVC "proves steppe input into SSVC". That way the SSVC will be stolen as a European product too. (Already Plan A of the Anatolie PIE theory claimed SSVC was European/W-Eurasian as a product of IE migrants from Anatolia. Similarly, Sarianidi's preference for the Near East PIE theory claimed BMAC was a product of IEism.)

But steppism - the steppe PIE theory - Never before claimed BMAC let alone SSVC was theirs, only that BMAC and then SSVC were invaded by IEs. So Harvard will resort to more Europeanising storytelling to aggrandise their steppist narratives if SC/S Asian data already shows ANI. THAT is the direct consequence from the formal stats modelling ANI in Indians as an inevitable steppe product.

Finally, if my prediction is true - and I do not base it on aDNA but on Harvard's pattern of storytelling and appropriation (notice how they come to Indian data last, while they kept foreshadowing AIT throughout all their papers and affiliated papers, by having laid the groundwork via aDNA papers on the steppes through to Iran just for this*) -

again: if my prediction of what Harvard is going to conclude regarding "SC/S Asian" data is true, then it further proves that Harvard schemed the entire thing regarding India in advance and that there was no honest research at all, but that they're entirely working according to agenda. Since I predicted their conclusions not based on aDNA but on their clear pattern of scheming. (Then again, their whole u-turn on CHG showed their fraud already too.)

* Their focus on Indians in their IE related aDNA papers is quite telling in its own right.

HindOOs need to be forewarned, need to check the data for themselves, keep track of the IEist storytelling, and watch all IEists (not just the European kind), evaluating the latter's pronouncements in the context of said IEists' ideologies/pet projects/personal fantasies.


Some interesting features of the Iranian Neolithic genome found by Llorente 2016: dark hair, dark eyes, had at least one allele for SLC24A5 (the skin lightening variant that Indians have, and which was fixed in Yamna while they were busy gaining SLC45A2 from Levant Neolithic. BTW: if Iranian neolithic genomes already possessed SLC24A5 and if Indian must have "derived" it from outside rather than it being Indian and going from India -> Iran, then Indians could have got it from Iran directly rather than from the steppes. Obviously.)

One geneticist who is notorious for seeing "white people everywhere" found the Iranian Chalcolithic samples (which were around 5000 BCE and earlier) to be "Caucasoid", often with fair hair and blue eyes. I'm not saying he's right (even if someone had 2 copies of SLC24A5 doesn't make them necessarily fair: many very dark Indians have 2 copies), but if he is right, it's kind of ironic when 2000 BCE Poles were dark and the earliest steppe "IE" culture - Yamna, which started 3500 BCE - despite being millennia later than the Iran Chalcolithic samples were far darker and less European looking than Iranian Chalcolithic (though Iranian Chalcolithic are modelled as a source population to Yamnaya)...

The same guy also found red hair, skin lightening variants + lack of freckling, light eyes in Levant Neolithic and Armenian Chalcolithic samples.

Ironic if it turns out that there's nothing "European" about the "European" phenotype.

Correction: R1b in Caucasus not ~3700 BCE but closer to ~2700 BCE.


Yet another thing of note.

The 4 components that Harvard has settled on to model all "source" components that make of "West-Eurasians" are WHG, EHG, Levant Neolithic and Iran Neolithic. That is, Anatolian Neolithic - just like CHG - are no longer considered source components but are now modelled as an admixture of >=2 of these 4 components. Still, EHG is not a source component either. Neither does Iran Neolithic appear to be. (E.g. this too is argued to show indication of "already containing ASI".)

Anyway, the Lazaridis paper's putatively Iran-Mesolithic sample from the Hotu Caves consisted of both the Iran Neolithic component and some EHG (Lazaridis 2016, Fig 4b) - i.e. something EHG or EHG like was already in the southern region back in the Mesolithic. Who knows how widespread these "source components" were in Asia. (And since EHG already is made up of 25% WHG, the Iran 'Mesolithic' sample already had WHG too...)

Yamna is modelled as EHG + 43% (of a population related to) Iran-Chalcolithic. Iran Chalcolithic has been modelled as composed of Iran Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, a bit more of EHG than the single 'Mesolithic' Iranian sample had, and a wee bit of WHG. WHG is from the region too: it is "Near Eastern" or at least entered Europe via the Near East whatever its non-European origin (and Harvard's Fu 2016 paper was forced to leave the possibility of a Near Eastern entry point into Europe in, however other papers had already argued this on the basis of mtDNA etc).

Of the 4 source components Harvard has selected, there's nothing peculiarly steppe about EHG despite its name: it consists of the Near Eastern WHG and something on the Onge=ASI -> Han cline; while WHG, Iran Neolithic and Levant Neolithic are not steppe at all in origin and lie in a more horizontal line to Bharatam (the way 4th millennium BCE and later Sumer lies in horizontal line to Bharatam). And who knows what the origin of Iran Neolithic or the extent of ANE was.
In the past couple of weeks had run analysis through all the Iranian aDNA samples from Lazaridis* looking for SNPs of interest.

(* And Armenian too, but not in the list below, will put up that table later as I have to recheck for SLC24A5.)

Have now added in results of the 4 neolithic + 1 iron Age Iranian aDNA samples from the Broushaki et al 2016 paper that came out very recently as well.)


(Note: none of the Iran N samples derived for either of the LCT related SNPs. Which has an interesting implication)

As stated, the above table now also contains the data on the new Iranian neolithic samples that Broushaki et al 2016 provided in their Suppl Materials tables S9, S29 and S30.

To note:

* Iranian Neolithic sample WC1 from 7,455-7,082 calBCE indeed carried an allele for blue eyes (i.e. derived) AND was an entire match (for all alleles read) to the modern "European" blue eye haplotype, making Iran_N ancestors/a possible source population of the "European" blue eye ht. Earliest population to have this so far, IIRC/as far as I'm aware.

* (I just checked the Israeli sample I0867 7300-6350 BCE and it seems to be an ancestor (possible source population) for this haplotype too but fewer alleles read. And though I only glanced at the results, this ancient sample from Levant Neolithic may not have had blue eyes either, but not sure if carrier. Will mention when producing next table on Armenians.)

* The WC1 Iran_N sample also carried the derived allele for rs2228479, said to be associated with red/blond hair and poor tanning, high presence in one Asian population.

* Moreover, one of the Iran neolithic samples is a carrier for red hair: AH4 dated 8,205-7,755 calBCE carried the derived allele for rs11547464.

So nothing about the "European" phenotype is European. "Their" features were entirely derived from elsewhere. Just not so heavily selected elsewhere.

Moreover, another direct implication from the excellent Broushaki et al 2016 paper:

And *any* of these mutations that Indians may have - though they've not been selected for, clearly - we would have due to affinity with Iran_N and nothing to do with Europeans (i.e. nothing to do with ethnic Europeans invading or migrating).

Of course, we were already told some years back that the mutation for blue eyes arose in the "Near East" some 10kya ago. Well, so far the data seems to indicate that it arose in Iran Neolithic. As the derived allele (i.e. allele for blue eyes at rs12913832) was carried by Iran Neolithic individual at least one millennium before IIRC the earliest carriers of blue-eyes among either WHG or SHG. (E.g. La Brana is only from 7kya, i.e. 5000 BCE.) Besides, WHG - so-called "Western European" Hunter Gatherers - were from the "Near East" too and nothing European, merely a source for input into modern Europeans. And more memorably: SHG, Hunter Gatherers found in Scandinavia, carried the EDAR mutation (straight hair in E Asians) - this is IIRC as per the Mathieson 2015 paper. So SHG may have been like modern light-eyed Mongolians but darker. And did SHG contribute much at all to modern Europeans? They're not part of the 4 source components of "W-Eurasians" identified in the Lazaridis 2016 paper, unless SHG were now subsumed under WHG (but then, why do they have a separate designation as SHG). Whatever, modern Europeans don't seem to have inherited the EDAR mutation (in any case it didn't get selected). Whereas E Asians did. Has there been any report on what extent SHG may have affinities to modern E Asians?

(BTW: Supplementary materials p.23-p.24 of Broushaki et al 2016 are particularly good BTW, so too their peddling Iran Neolithic genomes as more likely indication of as Indo-Iranian urheimat or at least ethnic locus of dispersal than Yamna steppes. Note that Iran Neolithic genomes had no direct impact on the steppes, so that makes it all the more entertaining.

The Sarmatians of the Iron Age being almost exclusively Iran-derived Iranians - and not steppe derived, i.e. they travelled up into the steppes from Iran as seen by their Y haplogroups and generally uniparental markers - makes it further entertaining how profoundly influential they were on European culture, modern European "IE" *language*, and religion in all the key places of Europe. From Slavs to Germanic people to Celts. HUGE impact. The very Iranian Sarmatians practically invented everything that passes for modern European culture. Everything.

Unlike Scythians, Sarmatians can't be stolen as "European" by ethnicity: they were Iranians from Iran/Iran (non-steppe) territories.

Their impact on the royal houses of Europe is another thing. Up to Scandinavian Viking burials. Sarmatians were NOT ethnically European. They were ethnically Iranian. Of course, they greatly influenced the ethnogenesis of modern Europeans in the regions described. And their impact in Roman/N African territories was not nothing either.)


Similar table for aDNA from Armenia + the sole Levant Neolithic sample from Israel (in 1st sample column):


The 2nd L1a-M27 individual matches for all alleles available with the common European blue eye haplotype, besides being an actual carrier of the blue eye mutation at rs12913832 of HERC2.

The Levant Neolithic matches most positions of the same haplotype. No data at key locus rs12913832, but still, it may have been the ancestral haplotype for the most common blue eye haplotype seen in modern Europeans. C.f. similar to the Llorente paper high coverage Iran Neolithic sample: matches most positions for the haplotype, except one and is not a carrier of the actual mutation (despite the Llorente paper imputing the mutation, they too admitted it wasn't actually observed). So I think that Iranian Neolithic sample carried some ancestral haplotype to what eventually became the common one seen in modern Europeans (and possibly the common ht in many other blue-eyed but non-European populations). Anyway, it's not European.

- As per someone else, fair hair mutations present in non-Europeans (Chalcolithic Iranians and others IIRC) before Europeans acquired it. Can't remember what mutation(s) this was. IIRC it was supposed to be the earliest occurrence in these non-European populations.

- In any case, I note that an Iran Neolithic sample carried a mutation that lightened the phenotype (including hair), which mutation is seen mostly in *southern* Europeans (think Italians) but is much less common in N Europeans (think Germanic/Celtic and Slavic speaking Europeans). This may be the earliest occurrence.

- Red hair mutations present in Levant Neolithic (as per others) and, as per the Broushaki paper, one derived allele is present in an Iranian neolithic sample (only a carrier, but still). <- Also before any Europeans had it as far as I'm aware. So red hair not European either. [Note/remember: Neanderthals carried a different mutation for red hair, so that has nothing to do with this.]

- And we already knew blue eyes were "Near Eastern" from that other paper from a few years back. It just turns out that before WHG acquired it from their Near Eastern point of entry into Europe (wherever/whatever part of the "Near East" WHG were originally from), Iran Neolithic already had it.

So where did the Kalash get it from? Where do you think they got it from. All the way from Europeans - who didn't turn fair until relatively recently - or from their own region since the Neolithic ? The Kalash seem to have always been a small population and largely isolated, so recessive alleles can easily homogenise and get fixed in them. No surprises there.

Surprising, however, is how recently Europeans turned fair. (Considering their whining and grandstanding about it ever since they turned it into the defining part of their identity. So by their own definition - sorry, too late to rewrite it - there were no Europeans until people in Europe turned fair. That must make them the youngest population on the planet.)

Anyway, Europe turning fair recently must be like the lactose tolerance mutation suddenly became near-pervasive in Europeans (still don't know when that happened), whereas about 4.5 millennia back the mutation was really, really rare in Europe apparently. Likewise, not 4 millennia back, Europeans were still dark (dark - like fair - is a relative term, but let's just say that they were dark enough that the KKK types would have lynched their own ancestors). Then suddenly, since just 4 millennia back give or take, Europeans started turning fair and most of it got fixed. Because of selection apparently. [And then they spent about half that time, almost 2 millennia now, persecuting "dark" people and pretending "whiteness"="European" and having collective amnesia about their own origins and imagining people with light features anywhere else in the world "must be" derived from them, who are in reality themselves the derived population and have been fair for probably a shorter time than those other populations.]

But apparently it's argued that lactase persistence wasn't really selected for in Europe after all (at least the numbers came out too low to indicate selection, and this surprised some people). Wonder if Europe's population size was just so small - it was certainly much smaller before they swallowed the "New World" - or Europe just so malleable for other reasons, that features that originated in or dispersed from Iran and the Levant in the neolithic and were not selected for heavily in those regions got fixed in Europe=the periphery. Probably with founder effects as happened with the R1b and R1a. (European R1b way over 50% in some places apparently.)

Wonder when lactase persistence became so common in N Europe: was it in the middle ages? There were famines and disease from want then, so maybe it gave an added advantage to Europeans possessed of the mutation at that time. (No one's studied such recent aDNA with a focus on the mutation for lactose tolerance to my limited knowledge.)

Anyway, the point of this post was that the main and sole feature of European identity (i.e. "whiteness" which includes "caucasoid" features) is not European and originated in populations NOT directly ancestral to them. So they can stop trying to claim the Kennewick man, the Kalash, the Chachapoyans, etc etc as being "Euro-derived". It's Europeans' features that are derived. Whereas all these other people's supposedly "European" like phenotypes were developed at a time before Europeans got their current phenotype. Of course whiteness obssessed Europeans will still like to imagine "their" "white" ancestors going about invading and colonising pre-Columbian Peru etc, but then the world is filled with jihadis and oryanists and other such monotheists. It's the world we live in. For some unreason the rest of us have to live on the same planet with these people. Nothing for it but to avoid where possible.

(Aside: About the EDAR found in SHG, wonder if Saami show especial affinity to the SHG?)

The useful parts of this post are the 2 links in blue. And of course the name-dropping of the Broushaki 2016 paper. The authors are not propping up the Anatolian PIE theory, but it seems to me that - peripherally - they proffer some Near Eastern PIE theory (as far I can tell). Further, the fact that they claimed that IIRC the "Anatolian Chalcolithic" Kumtepe sample showed greatest affinity to Iran Neolithic (over Anatolia Neolithic) seems to me that they themselves rule out Anatolia as PIE urheimat. I.e. they have Anatolia Neolithic persistence replaced by Iranian input, although they mentioned homogenising it didn't seem two-way (Iron Age Iranian's relation to Kumtepe doesn't count when Kumtepe itself merely carries on the Iranian Neolithic thread). And in their main article the authors IIRC claimed that the Iranian Neolithic genome and its regional affinity (to Iran's Zoroastrians all the way to the Indian subcontinent) seems to them to better represent the "Indo-Iranian" source of dispersal. Where exactly they place the PIE Urheimat not sure, but that doesn't seem to be the main point of this paper of theirs (I'm sure they have a pet theory on this though and that it will come out eventually).

Further, their longer discussion in the Supplementary Materials seems to undercut the possible "steppe admixture" they offer in the main article for the Iron Age Iranian (R1b) sample. Although it was verging on tentative even in the main text, it was almost undermined in the SM. That part was a very entertaining read. (And even in the main article they actually ended up saying there was little support for a steppe IE dispersal point into the southern regions. In other words, they made any claims to steppe admixture lose value.)

Even so late in the day, nothing is fixed and everything is still up in the air. Apparently Harvard doesn't have a monopoly on the storytelling. (And Balanovsky wasn't even part of this paper. Wonder what he's leaning towards now, though.)

Strange, how instead of clearing up the historical picture, the aDNA is only muddying it up, especially as it comes in in bits and pieces, from here and there. From one cave or spot, or from one region wracked by founder effects (notably the steppes), and then it is all taken as *the* *sole* representative signature of the entire region/nation/population since time immemorial. Large regions that were centres of numerous and/or influential populations need thorough sampling. And *all* the data must be collected before people can start drawing conclusions. It's tiring to see all the continuously updated storytelling, continuously patching up embarrassing assumptions carried on from the previous papers. Why not get all the data from everywhere together first, and then see what it says or whether it's only raises more questions and answers none of the original ones.

But that would be too much to expect from Harvard types. Hellenthal's team seems to have done better. (After all, I'm still guessing what PIE urheimat theory they're pushing. Maybe they're trying to revive Sarianidi's once celebrated theory? I.e. Near Eastern Chalcolithic PIE Urheimat. Probably. Must be. Anatolia Neolithic seems to have failed.)

Quote:Beginnings of Indian Astronomy with Reference to a Parallel Development in China

Asko Parpola

Above: Kot Diji phase steatite button seal from Harappa


Hypotheses of a Mesopotamian origin for the Vedic and Chinese star calendars are unfounded. The Yangshao culture burials discovered at Puyang in 1987 suggest that the beginnings of Chinese astronomy go back to the late fourth millennium. The instructive similarities between the Chinese and Indian luni-solar calendrical astronomy and cosmology therefore with great likelihood result from convergent parallel development and not from diffusion.

(Sort of the striking similarities between Taoism and Vedic religion - e.g. Sankhyam (the original=theistic kind) in both - being independent yet very alike at surface level. Details differ, as always.)


In what follows, I propose that the first Indian stellar calendar, perhaps restricted to the quadrant stars, was created by Early Harappans around 3000 BCE, and that the heliacal rise of Aldebaran at vernal equinox marked the new year. The grid-pattern town of Rahman Dheri was oriented to the cardinal directions, defined by observing the place of the sunrise at the horizon throughout the year, and by geometrical means, as evidenced by the motif of intersecting circles. Early Harappan seals and painted pottery suggest that the sun and the centre of the four directions symbolized royal power.

Note: The early steatite seal above plays an illustrative role in the author's thesis.

So even Parpola admits no Mesopotamian origins for Vedic (let alone Chinese) lunar-solar calendars, astronomy and cosmology.

That the Chinese and Vedic systems were convergent evolution is easy enough to conclude, since the Chinese show their working (how they derived their systems) and it's vastly different.

But Chinese heathenism (Taoism) always provides independent proof of other heathenism (particularly of heathen conclusions in Vedic religio; and so Hindoo heathenism in its turn therefore provides independent proof of Taoism).
Turns out the would-be proto-ghazis (other people's chosen ancestors) were druggies too. Dope.

And of course, David Anthony is back spinning fabulous hypothetical tales: just because ancient Hindus (and presumably ancient Iranians) used Soma, he has to invent the existence of a "proto-Soma" culture among his choice for the supposed "PIE" speaking population. Since he can't just make a substance up that doesn't exist (since there's no text to corroborate the mcguffin), he equates cannabis to that proto-soma.

Just like he was peddling his horse-eating fetish - "because his Yamnaya ancestors did it" - he will next be peddling his weed smoking habits to all and sundry too.

I really hope all IEists fall for it and indulge in it. I had heard that it was great for antagonising reproduction (still the case as at 2013), and I'd be the last to complain if all IEists went totally extinct.


Quote:Daily news

7 July 2016

Founders of Western civilisation were prehistoric dope dealers


Central Eurasia’s Yamnaya people – thought to be one of the three key tribes that founded European civilisation ­– dispersed eastwards at this time and are thought to have spread cannabis, and possibly its psychoactive use, throughout Eurasia.


However, there are reasons to believe that its mind-bending properties were a factor. Some researchers have suggested that burned cannabis seeds found at archaeological sites hint that the Yamnaya carried the idea of smoking cannabis with them as they spread across Eurasia.

David Anthony at Hartwick College in Oneonta, New York, who studies the Yamnaya, says the population may have used cannabis for its psychoactive properties on certain special occasions. “The expansion of cannabis use as a drug does seem to be linked to movements out of the steppe,” he says. “Cannabis might have been reserved for special feasts or rituals.”

(Isn't it past time that David Anthony were officially crowned the absolute king of Mere Speculation? I haven't heard him resist a single lie to evolve his IEist fantasies further - most of which no serious researcher apparently takes seriously, especially experts in the actual field. [E.g. the Sintashtan chariot claims.] It seems only amateur IEists actually approve of Anthony and his delusional written monologues. Good way of detecting amateurs who are merely obsessed with IEism and don't have any actual knowledge in the subject to distinguish documented, supported facts from blatant self-indulgent fantasy, I suppose.)

What’s more, Barney Warf at the University of Kansas in Lawrence says that we know from early Greek historians that post-Bronze Age nomadic pastoralists of the steppe who came after the Yamnaya – the Scythians – regularly used cannabis as a drug.

“People talk about Herodotus’s accounts of hanging out in the Crimean peninsula smoking weed with the Scythians,” he says.

Warf says the new work is fascinating, and should encourage more researchers to explore the history and prehistory of cannabis. “I think there’s a largely untold story of cannabis in Europe from the Bronze Age up until the Renaissance,” he says.

Delusional IEist falsehood alert:

Quote:Weed as a cash crop

The researchers suggest that different groups of people across the Eurasian landmass independently began using the plant at this time – perhaps for its psychoactive properties or as a source of food or medicine, or even to make textiles from its fibres.

However, Tarasov and Long’s database suggests it was only in western Eurasia that cannabis was then used regularly by humans down the millennia. Early records of its use in East Asia are fairly scattered, says Long.

This pattern seems to have changed about 5000 years ago, at the start of the Bronze Age, when cannabis use in East Asia apparently intensified.

Tarasov and Long think this timing is significant. By then, nomadic pastoralists on the Eurasian steppe had mastered horse riding, allowing them to cover vast distances and begin forging transcontinental trade networks following the same routes that would become the famous Silk Road several millennia later.

This earlier “Bronze Road” allowed all sorts of commodities to spread between west and east, potentially including cannabis.

(Wait, did they just pretend the IEists invented the Silk Road? Not even Mallory - one of the original peddlers of "IE" Afanasievo in the Tarim - still argues for evidence of Afanasievo in the Tarim.

But the steppist morons riding horses 5000 years ago - or anywhere before about 3000 years ago - is an oft-repeated blatant lie, that those IEists most prone to compulsive lying keep up. <- Note, that's a way to identify compulsive liars.

As even the white supremacist steppist IEist Kuzmina admitted - and echoed by anatolian PIEist Renfrew - there's absolutely NO evidence of any steppist let alone "IE" steppists riding horses before the late 2nd millennium BCE. I.e. just before 1000 BCE = just before 3000YBP.

Quote: Archaeologist Renfrew (2000:44; quoted by Drews) wrote, “The mounted warrior nomad horseman does not make his appearance until the end of the second millennium”. Another prominent archaeologist who has been persistently researching the subject for long Kuzmina (2000:122, quoted by Drews:132) wrote “warrior-horsemen appear in the steppe not in the fourth millennium BC but at the end of the second millennium BC”.

And contrary to debile/amateur IEists trying to hold up Anthony's Mere Speculations, there has still been No evidence of steppists riding horses until just before 3000 years ago. Anyone who claims otherwise should be dismissed as peddlers of lies not even upheld by official spokespeople for PIEism.

In fact, many people are now slowly backing of from any intimate connection between horse-domestication and the invention of even wagons and IEism. [Although we know neither wheels nor wagons were invented by IE speakers. Not unless Sumeria and SSVC since before 3500 BCE were centres of IE.] It's a pity there's no death sentence for compulsive liars. If there was, I suspect fewer people would be ready to indulge in it and David Anthony would have remained the no-name hack he should have been in a better world.)

Speaking of substances that stupid people indulge in (of course I approve, as the practice weeds out such stupidity itself):


Quote:Alcohol is a direct cause of seven ​​forms of cancer, finds study

Analysis implicates alcohol in development of breast, liver and other types of cancer and says even moderate consumption is a risk

Friday 22 July 2016 00.15 BST


Quote:Alcohol causes 7 types of cancer, including breast, mouth and bowel cancers.

IIRC, the news I came across specifically said it had been shown to cause *at least* 7 types of cancers. The rest still to be investigated.

Can't wait to hear how the Yamna invented this too. Hope Anthony comes up with some grand (i.e. idiotic) story that he tries to sell about this too. Good for all senile ... I mean IEists. They should then all be encouraged to binge too. Will work wonders in conjuction with smoking pot to channel their proto-ghazi (stoner) ancestors from the steppes, or so I understand.


Quote:This pattern seems to have changed about 5000 years ago, at the start of the Bronze Age, when cannabis use in East Asia apparently intensified.

Tarasov and Long think this timing is significant. By then, nomadic pastoralists on the Eurasian steppe had mastered horse riding, allowing them to cover vast distances and begin forging transcontinental trade networks following the same routes that would become the famous Silk Road several millennia later.

This earlier “Bronze Road” allowed all sorts of commodities to spread between west and east, potentially including cannabis.

(There was no "Bronze Road" to do with "IE" steppe entities. Steppe entities *didn't* even ride horses until just before 1000 BCE, etc.)

Oh I see what they did there. They just pushed "IE" contacts with China to 3000 BCE / 5kya (previously they were trying this with the Tarim Basin, but that didn't go back before 2500 BCE and there is still no proven contact of Tarim with steppists anyway*). IEism will next start pillaging/claiming E Asian things other than cannabis usage at that 3000 BCE period.

* But there IS proven contact between Indians and possibly Iranians with the Tarim Basin: even white supremacist IEist steppist Victor Mair had to admit Tarim contacts with "Indo-Aryans". He only admitted it from 500 BCE onwards. Meanwhile Li & colleagues in much a later paper said Indians (mtDNA M5 which is NOT from the steppes but Indian specific) and Iranians (though mtDNA U7 is equally Indian) - whom the authors said had entered Tarim from BMAC - were present from the earliest strata in a key Tarim site (2000 BCE IIRC).
a. link

Quote:Below is the image of a Jiroft horseman bearing a short lance. This is of interest as the Jiroft civilization dates back to the early Bronze age period (approximately in the 3rd millenium BC).


[Image: lancer-jiroft2.jpg]

Jiroft is in Iran, BTW.

Clearly, the Jiroft warrior horseman is the source of the Iranian Zoroastrian to Sarmatian horse-riders. Not steppes.

Because the Jiroft warrior horseman image above is from before the steppes had horse riding. And from before the steppes were to have invaded even BMAC forget Iran. (In fact, BMAC itself is dated 2300-1800 BCE IIRC)


Quote:The team uncovered more than two square kilometers of remains from a city dating back to at least the late 3rd millennium BC. The data Madjidzadeh's team has gathered demonstrates that Jiroft's heyday was from 2500 B.C. to 2200 B.C [2].

The image is clearly of a horse rider. And it has reins (probably also a bit going through horse's mouth, but definitely some kind of bridle is visible).


Quote:Bit (horse)

A bit is a type of horse tack used in equestrian activities, usually made of metal or a synthetic material, and is placed in the mouth of a horse or other equid and assists a rider in communicating with the animal. It rests on the bars of the mouth in an interdental region where there are no teeth. It is held on a horse's head by means of a bridle and has reins attached for use by a rider.


Quote:A bridle is a piece of equipment used to direct a horse. As defined in the Oxford English Dictionary, the "bridle" includes both the headstall that holds a bit that goes in the mouth of a horse, and the reins that are attached to the bit.

So any minute now, David Anthony or his slew of IEist steppist amateurs (not that they know of the above) will either

1. try to pounce on the above as originating in the steppe and an early incursion*

2. will deny it's a horse and claim it's an ass or mule or something (anything) and deny the reins and that it's a horse rider

3. will try to get it dated to a later time

4. more desperate conniving tricks that IEists indulge in (all IEists - from whatever part of the globe they are - are factually worse than christians for stealing from others and lying)

* NOTE: Maykop originated in Iran, so steppists may NOT try to claim that Maykop was the source that led to the Iranians of Jiroft making the above imagery. (It would be the other way around. Oh and there's again the tiny fact that the ever Indian-specific mtDNA M52 was found in the Maykop culture of Novosvobodnaya. Maykop culture is dated 3700-3000 BCE IIRC and influenced Yamna. And Indians were already in Maykop. So no surprises if the Iranians were too when they've always gone up the Caucasus in their backyard.

But who *wasn't* in Maykop when Indian-specific mtDNA M52 was found there? Steppe kulturs. And if hereafter their "genetic signature" was found there - then they were present along with Indian-specific mtDNA of M52 - and then that's just damning for steppism and all IEism/AIT invasionism.)

So, the tally:

- people of Jiroft (heyday 2500-2200 BCE*) already knew of warriors riding horses: see the image of the Jiroft spearman riding the horse = pre-steppe Iranian warrior horseman.

- Meanwhile no one had seen riders on the steppes until the end of the 2nd millennium BCE = just before 1000 BCE. And repeat: even the IEist Renfrew and steppist white supremacist IEist Kuzmina - quoted by every IEist - admits it -

Quote:Archaeologist Renfrew (2000:44; quoted by Drews) wrote, “The mounted warrior nomad horseman does not make his appearance until the end of the second millennium”. Another prominent archaeologist who has been persistently researching the subject for long Kuzmina (2000:122, quoted by Drews:132) wrote “warrior-horsemen appear in the steppe not in the fourth millennium BC but at the end of the second millennium BC”.

[* For context, Jiroft's heyday of 2500-2200 BCE is before the allegedly Indo-Iranian steppe urheimat Sintashta - dated from 2100 BCE - even existed.]

So, who DIDN'T invent horse-riding? The allegedly "IE" speaking cultures on the steppes (no one knows what they spoke, right?)

[They didn't invent the wheel either, and they didn't domesticate the horse either, and they didn't invent the chariot either, and ... need one go on?]

Besides, it's too late for steppists to rewrite their IE theory to now have horse-riding steppists invade Iran so much earlier, just so they can make off with the above image of the warrior horseman in Jiroft.

Note that if the Jiroft sculpture is from between 2500 BCE-2200 BCE, then the real thing this image was inspired by (i.e. real horsemen with bridles and spears) was earlier still. How much earlier? Don't know. Either way, it's still not from the steppes, nor inspired by steppe "riders" seen in the distance from atop a mountain in Iran: steppe people weren't yet riding in 2500 BCE-2200 BCE, but about a millennium (or more) thereafter. Nor had steppist IEists claimed earlier invasions of Iran that could fall in the Jiroft period. "Sorry."

b. Quite a few of the Jiroft imagery are like (earlier) SSVC imagery, BTW.

But here's a one from Jiroft I noticed that reminded me of Zoroastrianism:


of 2 lions biting a bull (?) from Jiroft (again: 3rd millennium BCE, heyday 2500-2200 BCE)

Compare with the famous Zoroastrian image of (a single) lion biting a bull of some Zoroastrian dynasty (Achaemenid (?). Found in Persepolis 4th century BCE. Google for: bull lion iran.

E.g. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_and_Sun#/media/File:Nowruz_Zoroastrian.jpg

Quote:Bas-relief in Persepolis - a symbol of Zoroastrian Nowruz - in day of a spring equinox power of eternally fighting bull (personifying the Earth), and a lion (personifying the Sun), are equal

I say continuity. And none of the sorts of convolutions that David Anthony comes up with to prop up steppe origins for "Indo-Iranian" - e.g. "Vedic burial of Rishi Dadhyanch in the steppes" nonsense of his/steppists (since shown to be absolute lies that even Anthony has been forced to retract) - is necessary to posit continuity in Iran.

- Warrior horseman. Check.

- Lion(s) biting bull as some motif. Check.
Max Planck institute now retreats, leaving the steppe theory for dead, shifting to what Mallory had called the Plan A Anatolian PIE theory, which Renfrew himself had earlier been forced to reject.

Max Planck is thus following Balanovsky & co.'s 2016 paper which announced that Yamna did not cause a migration into Europe. (Recall that Balanovsky in his 2015 paper itself was pushing for Anatolian Neolithic Plan A theory, though that paper itself focused on Iran and modern DNA to explain past movements.)

(Also, an Indian invasionist paper of this year had - like Max Planck - opportunistically shifted to projecting an Anatolian Plan A PIE theory for AIT into India, after wanting to initially declare invasions from the steppes).

Max Planck has now retreated to declare a 2500 BCE invasion of Paki IVC by "IE" speaking entities (but a 1500 BCE invasion of India) from western Asia (looks like Anatolia still*). And a branch of IVC/BMAC going into the steppes (i.e looks like Andronovo horizon starting with Sintashta).

* Though where in Anatolian aDNA are the paternal genetic lineages - i.e. Y markers - that every IEist had originally been placing their bets on?

Reason for this major change by the Max Planck Institute, desperate to hold on to PIEism/AIT even if it means killing steppism/Kurgan theory?

I'm guessing here, but I'm sure I'm right:

The reason would be that they know that Indian aDNA has killed the steppe demons theory. (Note: Iranian aDNA couldn't kill any of it.**)

They won't wait for pre-Bronze Age/Neolithic Indian aDNA of course. Let alone from interior India. I say they've gleaned the bronze age Indian aDNA and it killed the steppe theory.

Interesting (predictable) that it seems like the Max Planck Institute has BMAC (or is it IVC) branching to seed Andronovo horizon (starts with Sintashta).

** Iranian aDNA did however kill the whole "light/blue eyes implies European intrusion into India" when the earliest demonstrably blue eye-carrying individual was from Neolithic Iran besides carrying the modern common Euro haplotype (checked and double-checked). The Boncuklu Anatolian set had a sample that was homozygous carrier (inbreeding! not necessarily the origin population) for the haplotype, but the crucial locus for the blue eye mutation in the sample was IIRC not to be read. So we don't know whether he carried the actual mutation. Either way, the mutation for light eyes did not enter India from "Europeans" let alone alleged Bronze age invasions.)

Removed threats. The threats themselves stand, of course - they don't need me to articulate them, as they stand on their own.
Post 1/2

1. As suspected when a certain changeover happened. It's the usual nexus involving themselves, making any results anything but reliable (although, Harvard's involvement already achieved that actually...):


Quote: Aryan Politics and our Security Concerns -- B S Harishankar [vijayvaani.com/AuthorProfile.aspx?pid=858]

Aryan Politics and our Security Concerns

by B S Harishankar on 11 Aug 2018 2 Comments

In an article, ‘How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate’, Tony Joseph, former editor of Business World, argued that the population of the Caspian, Central Asian and Indian regions share a common DNA (The Hindu, June 16, 2017). Endorsing the Aryan Migration Theory, Joseph contended that Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans (actually the British designated them as such), streamed into India sometime around 2,000 – 1,500 B.C. when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end. They brought with them the Sanskrit language and a distinctive set of cultural practices.

Joseph insisted that India is a multi-source civilisation, not a single-source one, and draws its cultural impulses, tradition and practices from a variety of lineages and migration histories. While the Left historians remained silent, the Left parties were exuberant. CPI (M) general secretary Sitaram Yechury gleefully tweeted: “the historical evidence of Aryan migration and the confluence that India is. Brilliant piece by @tjoseph0010”.

Then, once again eulogizing Tony Joseph’s article, Yechury observed: “akin to the proverbial last straw that broke the camel’s back, some recent findings based on scientific investigations on the genetic data suggest that there was, indeed, an Aryan migration into India around 3,500 to 4,000 years ago” (‘Battle against post-truth’, Frontline, June 21, 2017). Yechury argued that the latest scientific study suggests that Aryans came into India from somewhere near the Caspian Sea in Central Asia/Europe, which has shattered the fascist agenda in India.

Sitaram Yechury is one of the principal architects of the Muziris Heritage Project in Kerala whereby JNU historians and Euro-American scholars excavated Pattanam to ‘prove’ West Asian / Fertile Crescent contacts with India and search for the bones of Apostle Thomas. That the said Apostle never came to India at all is incidental.

Sunil Menon and Siddhartha Mishra, in a cover story titled, ‘We are all Harappans’ present the same theory of Aryan migration into India, and claim that the Harappan site of Rakhigarhi at Sarasvati Valley in Haryana has more affinity with Ancestral South Indian Tribal Population than with North Indians (Outlook, August 2, 2018). The story claims that Rakhigarhi samples have Iranian farmer ancestry, which can be claimed only by present day south Indians. It identifies the Fertile Crescent as one of the core areas of agriculture and domestication of animals. The authors assert that this shows the Harappans and Rig Vedics were two distinct lines, one replacing or subsuming the other and the Ancestral South Indian is everybody’s ancestor in South Asia.

Rakhigarhi sparked global controversy in 2014, when eminent South Asian archaeologists criticised the intervention of foreign lobbies and funding by an opulent NGO for this crucial archaeological site. The foreign funding at Rakhigarhi and current media propaganda call for a clearer understanding of the problem.

(Didn't know that. Bad move by Shinde and co. to have invited Harvard -- of all western institutions, the most actively anti-Indian and especially anti-Hindu -- to work with Indian aDNA.)

The Aryan migration theory currently picked up by Outlook, was repackaged in the early 1990s. Marxist historian Romila Thapar in an article in Journal of Asiatic Society of Bombay (1988-91) contended that, “if invasion is discarded then the mechanism of migration and occasional contacts come into sharper focus. These migrations appear to have been of pastoral cattle breeders who are prominent in the Avesta and Rigveda”. Interestingly, Thapar is one of the top patrons from JNU for KCHR’s Rs 200 crore Muziris Project that seeks to establish India’s Fertile Crescent links and the arrival of Apostle Thomas. Marxist historian Irfan Habib earlier vindicated the migration and Dravidian theories, in ‘The Rewriting of History’ (Outlook, February 13, 2002). Habib accused archaeologists and historians up in arms against Dravidian links to any great non-Aryan past: “presence of Dravidians in Indus Civilisation makes it so much more ours.”


Interesting how always every single major "communist" is always a christo-islamic, as seen in how they actively support christo-islamic causes, like Thapar and Sitaram Yechury supporting the "Apostle Thomas" related forgery excavation projects in India together with their Euro-American contacts.

So what could have been a great scientific enterprise to find out about ancient India has turned into a means for the usual nexus that's trying to Balkanise India to hijack and takeover for their own history writing. And they HAVE hijacked it.

2. Roy King, a christian with clear evangelical interests in "dalits" and contacts with "christian dalits" (including those working in "comparative religion" in India - alarm bells) and who help him frame all "dalit" concerns in IE discussions involving India, is included as researcher in various aDNA papers. Not in the Harvard aDNA papers, but rather he usually makes his way into middle-eastern papers (i.e. useful for his biblical "archaeology/history-writing" interests).

In informal genetics discussions regarding India, Roy King

- kept returning to how IVC must be "Elamo-Dravoodian" and that Elamo-Dravoodian is connected to Syria/the middle-east and the part that's unsaid: that consequently "Dravidians" like "Dalits" are involved in biblical history and therefore "ought to be" christian. The fringe ED theory is being resuscitated for just this. The same hints are there in the above article and in why Harvard via is pushing not just for AIT from the steppe at 1500 bce and later now, but for laying the groundwork for christians to insist that the conveniently single IVC sample represents "Elamo-Dravoodians" etc. REMEMBER: the culture of Susa was not named Susan or something but named "Elam" from Elamite, a 'population' mentioned in the bible. There's no evidence that the biblical scribes or the stories they wrote about had ever known or met Susans and hence no evidence that Susans is what the babble referred to with Elam. But by forcing the name Elam onto Susa, and by further connecting Elam with "Dravidian" as Elamo-Dravidian, they're next trying to force south Indians into biblical orbit, in order to brainwash them that their newly reconstructed "ancestral religion" would be related to the middle-east and ought to become christianity hereafter. That is the WHOLE goal.

- insisted that even if R1a M417 were ever to be found in IVC/early India (after Roy felt some concern about any possibility that it may be found), it should be disqualified as (exclusively) steppe/E-European and that this must then be regarded as a "(Elamo-)Dravoodian-IVC" marker where India is concerned from then on.

I.e. christo-Roy's agenda is the same as that of the entire church regarding India (hence Roy's great interest in working with "christian dalits" concerns and his great interest in guiding "christian dalits"' written works on religion in India/history-rewriting): christo-Roy's agenda is that no matter what the aDNA results may be, IVC must be presented/declared "Dravoodian" as this will allow resurrecting "Elamo-Dravoodian" so that Dravoodian can be tied to the middle-east and biblical "history" and more Indians can be brainwashed about AIT-Dravidian grievances and get converted to the "salvific" christianity. It's the means christianity has plotted out for its ends.

In fact, quite like Buddhism and Jainism, christianity is busy trying to project India as mostly non-oryan and that therefore most are "oppressees" a.o.t. the imaginary "oryan" "oppressors/invaders". Like Buddhism and Jainism (who at least are soon going to get as burnt as Hinduism for their nasty scheming against Hindu heathenism), christianism is all in this for a christianisation tactic.

I'm just noting all this. I didn't cause this mess. Unlike the Indian traitors I never encouraged it. And I can't fix it either. Whatever happens, happens. (And sadly, it will happen because of Indian stupidity in letting Harvard and its plants mess with our aDNA data. They even have that serial forger working for steppe-IEism, Anthony, on board as their consultant in all things IE/steppe archeology. No actual archaeologist even takes much of Anthony's pop-archaeology seriously: he never provides evidence.)

3. Anyway, bearing the agenda of the church's agenda and hence of the Roy Kings:


Quote:In other news the Harvard team has signed an MOU to gain access to samples from the South Indian neolithic, but beaureaucratic red tapism in the ASI still delaying access

Any Indian "Hindu" who cheered at this is an absolute moron.

(Of course, the usual idiot Indians at anthrogenica - like the IIEist "Hindu" who posted the above* - are cheering like this is a good thing and will result in actual science rather than that Harvard WILL use this for whatever conclusions suit their ends.)

* Of course the ever treacherous IIEist Hindus throw the experts at ASI under the bus by describing the "delay" (reticence rather, as seen in #1) as "bureacratic red tapism". But it's only natural that IIEist Hindus would welcome Harvard in this matter, even when they never welcomed their interference before: Harvard more than any other western institute is determined to establish AIT, whether that be via establishing the steppe as IE homeland or at least as intermediate source for "IE" in India (explained in #8).

4. m.economictimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/harappan-site-of-rakhigarhi-dna-study-finds-no-central-asian-trace-junks-aryan-invasion-theory/amp_articleshow/64565413.cms?__twitter_impression=true%20%E2%80%A6

Quote:Rai disclosed that 148 independent skeletal elements from Rakhigarhi were screened for the presence of DNA molecules at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad. Of the 148 skeletal remains, only two samples yielded any relevant DNA material.

Meanwhile, hectic last-minute efforts are on to get additional genetic details of the DNA material. One of the DNA samples recently faced contamination in a Seoul laboratory and efforts are on to segregate it. Samples were sent to laboratories in Seoul and Harvard for establishing accuracy. The contamination, Rai said, is unlikely to have any major bearing on the study’s primary findings.

The Copenhagen(?) team got 25 (out of IIRC41 or so samples) from southeast Asia. See the preprint.

See the Copenhagen's published paper's abstract for how Harvard (Lipson 2018 paper IIRC) working with their more backward destructive methods (IIRC capturing just for the genome loci that they're interested in) got 18 out of >100 samples from SE Asia.

Note that SE Asia is also tropical with monsoons. And many of those samples are of comparable or earlier ages than the 3000 BCE IVC.

Yet Harvard only managed just 1 or 2 out of 148 from IVC/India. Yeah, RIGHT.

If any self-professed Hindu who heretofore suspected Harvard and Witzels thinks this is all above board and that any magical AIT conclusions from the one (hand-selected?) surviving sample is in any way honest and representative, maybe they should retire from the Hindu label. I'm sure Harvard can find a place for them. As they did for Niraj Rai (and Vagheesh etc).

5. www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/we-are-all-harappans/300463

The outlook piece heralding AIT that many I/IEists have been particularly excited about.

- And if you actually read it, you'll see it is moreover deliberately (and moronically - but it knows most its audience is not up to speed/can't spot the mistakes) laying the groundwork for "elamo-dravoodian" as per church mandate. See Niraj/Vagheesh/outlook's idiocy in declaring that the Iran Neolithic=Iran Farmer component is absent in "North Indians" - these people should be fired. Proof that they don't know what they're on about (and Vagheesh should go back to publishing malaria papers and Niraj should take up his job at Harvard already) is in the Broushaki et al 2016 paper.

- Another important feature to note is that the article was already doing the rounds among Indian IEists and elsewhere as early as 4 Aug 2018.

Yet the date on the outlook article has been 13 Aug 2018 ever since it was published. Could be a Freudian slip. Or deliberate:

One person observed that maybe the news of AIT was meant by the triple-threat nexus to break as an "independence day" gift for "Pakistan and India"*. You know, the way the pope always plans to invade "visit" heathen and other non-christian countries marked for conversion on heathen/other non-monotheist sacred days. The way the pope stopped important traffic on S Korea's birthday celebrations for Buddha. Or how the pope IIRC invaded India and made his speech declaring that "The 3rd millennium was Asia's turn to be converted", thus waking his sleeper catholic christians in India to carry out his commandment (and the recently invented "papal infallibility" rule means catholics can't be disobedient).

* And I think it was the authors of this very outlook piece that IIRC tried moreover connect TSP with India, the way islamics and seculars always dream. As if the shared burden of being invaded by steppe oryans bringing in the alien Vedas/Hinduism, and the shared virtue of being partly derived from the oppressed "Elamo-Dravidian" IVC Harrappans means Hindu majority India has anything in common with the constant christo-islamic threat and out to find a "common ground" in future (against Hinduism, which is what this whole AIT/Elamo-Dravidian plug is about: it's NOT about science and the truth. I wonder if we'll EVER get the truth. Not when Harvard and its plants are involved. Speaking ofSmile
Post 2/2

6. Why Niraj Rai may be bad news: i.e. not accidentally so.

N Rai is a newly minted(?) (or planted, on the Indian side) geneticist in India working on Indian aDNA.

a. forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6848&start=4680

Quote:Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Postby Prem Kumar » 30 Apr 2018 23:35

Here's an interesting tidbit: Niraj Rai, who has done a U-turn and become an AIT supporter, was granted a visiting scholarship at Harvard Medical School (Reich lab)!!

Recall the incident where Witzel offered Talageri a scholarship at Harvard if the latter changed his views

Now this guy Niraj Rai leaks information about the absence of R1a in IVC aDNA to Open Magazine, before his paper is even sent for peer-review!

Read in full www.pgurus.com/early-steppe-vs-middle-to-late-steppe/

Excerpt from pgurus.com/early-steppe-vs-middle-to-late-steppe/

Quote: About a week ago, an Indian scientist who has recently (2016–17) been awarded a visiting fellowship at the Harvard Medical School (where the new age race-theorist Third Reich is a faculty), and with access to ancient Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) bone samples with the ancient DNA in them, has claimed the following in an interview with the Open Magazine before the data has been submitted, peer-reviewed and published, “While Rai and Shinde are tight-lipped about what the DNA samples extracted from the Indus Valley remains show, Rai does reveal that the R1a genetic marker is missing in the sample. This is a significant revelation. R1a is believed to have originated sometime between 22,000 and 25,000 years ago.”

Reuters paid some (christo?) communist in the anti-Hindu infestation centre that is JNU to claim to be "Hindu" for a change and produce a soundbyte to humiliate all Hindus, that christos like Tony Joseph can then repeat in the christo-controlled Indian media, and which plants like Niraj Rai can then retweet:

b. [color="#0000FF"]twitter.com/nirajrai3?lang=en[/color]

The twitter page of Niraj Rai. Not much there at all: not many tweets over the years.

BUT, here is Niraj Rai retweeting Christian and other anti-Hindus' tweets lampooning Hindus (retweeting no less than Tony Joseph who wrote the recent Chindu article promoting AIT):

Quote:Niraj Rai Retweeted

Hari Menon [twitter.com/runbikehurry/status/971066805660934144]

‏ @runbikehurry

Mar 6

Hari Menon Retweeted Tony Joseph

The edifying sight of a culturally rich society actively trying to flush itself down the stupidity shitpipe.

Quote:Tony Joseph

‏ @tjoseph0010

"One of the Sanskrit scholars, Santosh Kumar Shukla, a professor at JNU, told Reuters he believes India’s Hindu culture is millions of years old."

Modern humans, Homo Sapiens, emerged only about 300,000 years ago!


Just look and think for a minute HOW Niraj Rai chooses to interpret what was said and that he retweets it in a negative sense, specifically with deliberation to lampoon. Of course the Sanatana Dharma is literally eternal, as it started with the eternal Gods from whom the cosmos/multiverse derives. But all heathenisms are eternal in the same way and for the same reasons: Taoism, Shinto, GrecoRoman religio etc. Animals, plants and the entire natural world are considered heathen and of heathenism; so long before any hominids made it to the subcontinent or any part of the world, the culture of heathenism -- truth, R^ta -- all reigned, as seen also in the world of animals (from whom -- behavioural biologists inform us -- our notions of 'morality' derives. I.e. animals had the Dharma or whatever Taoists/Shintoists/GrecoRoman heathens call this since ur-times, innately, as it is a natural feature of the aatman or kamis of all creatures and things).

But that view is in this context distinct again from the natural heathen argument of the Hindoos for indigenism.

But Niraj Rai is not a Hindoo and not an Indian nationalist (as the definition of the latter should be made to include someone who has at least a natural sympathy for the native heathen, i.e. Hindoo, view and won't choose to misinterpret it in the worst possible way, but would choose to understand the heathen sense in which these things are perceived and ought to be represented). No, Rai only understands and agrees with Tony Joseph's "views": that of deliberate misrepresentation of how heathens view the heathen cosmos. And reuters, christo Tony and christo-endorser Rai consequently lampoon the Hindu heathen view. Reuters' whole aim is to present Hindus as equally deranged or more so than as christoislamics (i.e. believer

/faith based types). Tony and Rai's aim is to present Hindus alone as deranged, whereas of course Tony will swear by the truth and rationality of christianism. And Rai (whether merely secular traitor working for Harvard or a already crypto himself , who knows?) will probably never attack christo-islam, the way nearly all seculars in India are curiously sensitive to christo-islamic sentiments (which indicates their tendency for christoislam).

And practically all Rai's other tweets are about some Georgian christo "martyr" queen from the Caucasus whose bones had been sent to India (oh good grief, why?) and the aDNA findings related to that (which Chaubey merely worked on with foreign teams).

And so Rai's twitter comments summarise the totally of his interests: aDNA of christo queen remains in India AND retweeting in agreement the Hindu-baiting of Reuters and christo Tony Joseph's lampooning of Hindus (making Niraj Rai into a Hindu-baiter too, since he understands and agrees with the enemy and doesn't have even sympathy with the heathens to understand what the heathens may mean).

Rai like Joseph or any christo-islamic/"seculars" and other monotheist communist in India doesn't say anything about the endless proliferation of demonstrable nonsense by christo-islamics:

- on genetics discussion sites, can see Indian crypto/christos regularly swear by the historicity of St Thomas and his arrival in India and Syrian christians' "early" presence in India (while they nearly in the same breath insist the AIT is true and predict Elamo-Dravoodian; it's part of the christian agenda for India, the way establishing an "Eelam" for easier-christianisation purposes is part of the christian agenda for Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka). No Indian or European lampoons these deranged christo-islamics and their myths. OF COURSE. Rather, more likely to see international news repeating that St Thomas/Syrian christians arrived in India, though usually christian news leaves it alone, the way Indians and Euros don't respond to such things when uttered in their presence.

- no one makes fun of islamics publically swearing by faith-based nonsense or for saying someone "reverted" to islam, rather than the fact that they converted to it. As if islam is an eternal religion in ANY sense: missionary religions by definition aren't, not to mention that islam is the most recent of all the existing largescale religions.

When islamics give a hint of their islamism=terrorism/intolerance in public places (including on genetics discussion forums), they're almost never called out for it, let alone lampooned. If that ever happens they'll accuse the accuser of the concocted "islamophobia".

- But when Hindus say something not remotely terrorist or not remotely demonstrably false* like "I think aDNA will show Vedic culture is native to Bharatam/Hindu indigenism", Hindus will be castigated by AIT-pushing alien supremacists as Hindutva/modi-sympathizers/BJP/Indian science labs are dishonest if they uncover anything else than AIT/hateful of minorities (even though none spoke of or gave thought to the monotheist minorities, which didn't even exist at the ancient times under consideration). [* As we don't HAVE aDNA from the right dates and contexts from Bharatam yet, let alone sufficient aDNA. It will only suffice for Indian "Hindu" IEists if a sample size of 1 "proves" something or other than can be argued for AIT.]

7. Vagheesh Narasimhan frequently reports to Witzel. Explains why Vagheesh has settled not just on a steppe AIT (a.o.t. even an AMT), but on a Witzellian timescale for it what's more. (But "Hindu" IIEists predictable do so too eventually, so why expect better from useful idiots/plants like Vagheesh. I briefly looked his narcissistic displays on twitter: he speaks of his current work as IIRC "efforts in Vedanta", he still declares for now -- contrary to Manasataramgini below, who's already moved to where Vagheesh will openly move hereafter -- that even if the oryans invaded, the Vedas and hence Vedic religion are native etc. Establishing AIT and getting Hindus to accept it just stage one. Can't dump the full load on Hindus in one swoop and except it to take after all. So it happens in stages. Can already see the success of loser IIEist "Hindus" declaring to their Euro betters that their Vedic ancestors were indeed E Europeans/from E Europe months/a year back, without even waiting for Indian aDNA. That's how eager these IIEists were.

A later stage is to "scientifically/linguistically" establish that parts and eventually all "early"/hand-selected parts of the Veda were composed by full steppists=Euros outside Bharatam, and some self-professed Hindus will roll over for that too, as others already have been doing. Another stage is Elamo-Dravidian and brainwashing southern Hindus and even Hindus from other parts of India into thinking they were "Dravoodians" and "oppressed by invading oryans". MBh certainly and perhaps even the Ramayanam will eventually be declared as European history taking place in the Euro backyard of the steppe - claims already made since some years back in Russian/E European circles, went past Hindus. By that time many IIEists "Hindus" will be the first to roll over. Eventually it will end up eating into many Hindus' perception, as the IIEists' gangrene will reach them and affect their perceptions of Hindoo heathenism and their history, whereas the aliens could never reach them. Of course, the label Hindu and even a horrendously mangled version of what heathen means will still be claimed by all, who will even be insistent about it applying to them despite their massive subversion. That's NOT what heathen means though. But you'd need to be an actual heathen instead of a vedic reconstructionist type/other subverted type of Indian to understand why.


Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2

Quote:Postby Nilesh Oak » 18 May 2018 07:09

Too late here in Amarika. Came back from ~10 day long trip. Met with Vagheesh and spent 3 hours with him. Will provide brief summary in next few days.

I had made a list of predictions (about things) before meeting with Vagheesh. All of the predictions came out correct. Some of them with R-square much higher than even I had expected.

More soon




Postby Nilesh Oak » 18 May 2018 19:46

A_Gupta wrote:

On Twitter, manastaramgini:

Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models the RV should have been composed in the Panjab no earlier than ~2000-1900 BCE - stretching things to the limit butm more like ~1700 BCE \pm 100 yrs. There are some serious problems with this which have been overlooked. Hence, we conclude that the core RV, meaning a certain archaic kernel of it was definitely composed outside India and probably much earlier even if the final redaction and compilation happened later in India. We see no other way out.

—— this is how “interpretation” works.

This is Vagheesh Narasimhan's interpretation, too.

Vagheesh is also forced to interpret writing of Ramayana and Mahabharata sometime after 1500-2000 BCE in India, based on folk knowledge/memory of Indian continent, but written in Sanskrit (which OF COURSE existed only after 2000 BCE).

When I brought up the nature of Sanskrit names of all character and places of these two epics - he did not realize what I was saying for a while - but then recovered and said the same thing would apply to the names! When I asked what he meant by that.....he was not sure how to solve the problem....so I went into his shoes and asked if he meant, "the writers of the epics began with non-Sanskrit names of actual historical incidents from folk knowledge/memory and converted them to 'Sanskrit' based names ---individuals (Dasharatha, Sahadeva, Krishna, Balarama, Kumhbakarna, Dashagriv, Sugriv and Agastya, etc.) /places (Hastinapur, INdraprastha, Kurukshetra,Ayodhya etc.) /rivers (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Iravati, Narmada, etc.) /mountains (Himavat, Mahendra, etc.)/ etc---- before transcribing......He said, "Yes".

Fun times ahead!

Last edited by Nilesh Oak on 18 May 2018 21:03, edited 2 times in total.


Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2


Postby Nilesh Oak » 18 May 2018 19:54

shiv wrote:

Anshuman Kumar ji, other than me and a few other mice no one has attacked linguistics yet so there has been no sustained attack on linguistics. And as far as my knowledge goes no one else has launched as much of a tirade against linguistics as I have done so please don't imagine things. That we must not be in silos is a banal truism but unless someone joins me in my love affair with linguistics my battle is going to be a lonely one. But I have cast the first or at least one of the earliest stones at that pseudoscience. It has to be done. Linguistics is one of the legs that western worldvoew stands on and it needs to be attacked to see how they will respond. And respond they will, given time.


When Vagheesh asked me who are other good Linguistics experts besides Talageri? He did not explicitly state it but wanted to know who were the names from the other camp?.. The first camp being likes of Witzel.

I responded, "Dr. Shiv Sastry" and also added that 99.99% of linguistics experts do not know what the word 'SCIENCE' means. And then said, Dr. Shiv is an ACE. [I did not know at the time of conversation that Vagheesh Narasimhan had blocked SS on Twitter]


Vagheesh Narasimhan meets Li. Witzel (not unlike Dr. XYZ, Li. Witzel is my invention) often. He was going to meet Li. Witzel in next few days and I told him to convey my regards and also to check with him if he (Witzel) had a chance to read my Mahabharata book I sent to him in 2011.

I gave Vagheesh, author-autographed books of mine (both of them) and he told me he is eager to read them.


Last edited by Nilesh Oak on 18 May 2018 20:58, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth: Part 2


Postby RoyG » 18 May 2018 21:39

Nilesh Oak wrote:

A_Gupta wrote:

On Twitter, manastaramgini:

Indo-Aryans: If we go by mainstream indological models the RV should have been composed in the Panjab no earlier than ~2000-1900 BCE - stretching things to the limit butm more like ~1700 BCE \pm 100 yrs. There are some serious problems with this which have been overlooked. Hence, we conclude that the core RV, meaning a certain archaic kernel of it was definitely composed outside India and probably much earlier even if the final redaction and compilation happened later in India. We see no other way out.

—— this is how “interpretation” works.

This is Vagheesh Narasimhan's interpretation, too.

Vagheesh is also forced to interpret writing of Ramayana and Mahabharata sometime after 1500-2000 BCE in India, based on folk knowledge/memory of Indian continent, but written in Sanskrit (which OF COURSE existed only after 2000 BCE).

When I brought up the nature of Sanskrit names of all character and places of these two epics - he did not realize what I was saying for a while - but then recovered and said the same thing would apply to the names! When I asked what he meant by that.....he was not sure how to solve the problem....so I went into his shoes and asked if he meant, "the writers of the epics began with non-Sanskrit names of actual historical incidents from folk knowledge/memory and converted them to 'Sanskrit' based names ---individuals (Dasharatha, Sahadeva, Krishna, Balarama, Kumhbakarna, Dashagriv, Sugriv and Agastya, etc.) /places (Hastinapur, INdraprastha, Kurukshetra,Ayodhya etc.) /rivers (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Iravati, Narmada, etc.) /mountains (Himavat, Mahendra, etc.)/ etc---- before transcribing......He said, "Yes".

Fun times ahead!

I don't agree with the notion that Niraj Rai did a "u-turn", despite Niraj Rai claiming to have been an "OIT" supporter. Doubt it. Probably a plant. Like Vagheesh Narasimhan from Harvard's end. Who DIDN'T expect that Harvard would put a token Indian as the first name on their SC/S Asia paper? I thought it would be the Indian regular on Harvard aDNA genetics papers, i.e. Swapan Mallick. But they found some newby with no track record in aDNA (who'd only published in health related genetics papers such as on malaria before now) for the job: Vagheesh. Vagheesh prances around twitter (like narcissists) like he's an expert on IE, e.g. speaking about how Afanasievo -> Tocharian when negative evidence has now been found linking the Afanasievo to the Tarim Basin. He even pretends it's settled that the steppe brought IE to India when there's NO evidence for what steppe populations spoke (were they ever really IE speakers, then why is there so very much steppe in Finno-Ugric populations, etc; and certain more important questions)?

Psychopaths (who are always technically narcissists too, but the reverse isn't necessarily true) don't care who they screw over, even their own families. So that explains the tendencies of these people to collude with Harvard on the Witzelian agenda.

A famous psychologist professor kept saying that research shows that psychopaths have been very successful CEOs and that's where one usually finds the ones not yet in prison. Maybe she should check Harvard or the Indians working with them at any rate.

In Niraj's case, his retweeting christo Tony Joseph's lampooning of Hindus is a tell tale sign of what Niraj Rai NEVER was: never a Hindu, never even an Indian nationalist.

(Tony Joseph is one of the many christos who've been activated in areas like the Indian media to get onto the church mandated agenda regarding the whole aDNA research in India and turn it into an AIT/Dravoodian for insinuating the latter into biblical contexts in the future. After all, pope JPII's command that it was Asia's turn to be converted to christendom in the 3rd millennium - a command issued from India IIRC - wasn't at sufficient speed yet.)

8. There were several aDNA papers by Harvard and its immediate associates that gradually laid its goals towards declaring AIT. You KNOW that that's what they were after, because in all such papers - which were about the aDNA of totally different geographic regions, quite removed from India -- they repeatedly spoke of how the results/conclusions may affect how IE lingo reached India.

That is, each time, a Harvardian paper on entirely non-Indian aDNA would have a section (or even conclusion) devoted to how future aDNA should be sampled to prove AIT/IE languages were brought to India.

See post 448

The more recent BMAC/Swat etc paper didn't have ancient Indian samples (or rather, only late/historic era ones for Swat: fits with aim of model all "W-Eurasian" in India as product of recent historical migrations.*) They used "nearby" samples to make "proxies" to "predict" what actual ancestry they would find in IVC. Magically that is what they have declared they found in the (hand-selected) single IVC sample out of 148 (147 magically didn't make it, though the success ratios are an order of magnitude better for SE Asia. As I said magic. It's all innocent, as is the AIT conclusions based on 1 sample, the deliberate early leaking so christians can start their psycho warfare and their balkanising project, the Witzellian date reducing the declared AIT to 1500-1100 as per Niraj Rai and Harvard's Vagheesh's "modelling" of what that 1 upcoming IVC sample and the Harvard proxy samples mean for 1500 bc India and onward. We know how right the ANI/ASI model turned out: oryanists had a field day then too using just models. The old ANI was all the "W-Eurasian" in India, and the old ASI was all that wasn't W-Eurasian in India and which was declared the sole natively Indian thing. Now the old ASI has simply been relabelled AASI. The new ASI = Iran Farmer + AASI. And new ANI is steppe on top of that).

* IIRC, the chronology is that Iran Neo was to have brought the "earliest" W-Eurasian to India. With their aim of saying that until then, India was "AASI" - absolutely 0 west Eurasian. This was what western supremacists had been "predicting" for a couple of years before Harvard "reached" the same conclusions with their gradual aDNA papers narrowing down on India).

The supremacist Euro notion behind it all is that AASI "can't conceivably" have come up with the Vedas or even civilisation and that W-Eurasian input was necessary for that: from Iran for IVC, from steppe for Vedas/Skt etc. The aim was to deny anything innately/long-term "W-Eurasian" to India. Notably, they knew they couldn't deny it to Iran, which is mostly "W-Eurasian".)

As others noted:

The Iran Neolithic Farmer component was first established to subsume that part of "W-Eurasian" in ANI.

So ANI parcelled out: each part taken by components deliberately established prior to getting to Indian data.

Meanwhile, early on, EHG was constructed to hide away its internal components*. So that EHG can then be used eat away at other modern populations and see how much "steppe" they take.

* WHG, and 75% "ANE" notably on the ONGE->Han cline; Onge used to be the proxy for old ASI/new AASI btw. So EHG as 75% ANE means EHG is 75% somewhere between Onge and Han. But magically, there is "NO ASI" in EHG. Remember that Yamna/early steppe = 50% EHG.

There's one loop hole that Harvard has not addressed ("I wonder why?") and which IIEists of course don't think of because they want the AIT to be established and have AIT blinders on. I'm sure Harvard will twig on it far sooner than IIEists, who can only follow anyway. And when Harvard twigs, I wonder what sleight of hand they'll use then.


The aim was always India (consciously for Harvard, whereas India is considered in a dismissive by the plain supremacists), since if they can't explain India with their steppe homeland theory then the whole steppe IE thing fails. And in fact, if they win everything else "IE" except Sanskritam and the Veda, then the supremacists still feel like they have nothing because they primarily coveted Skt/the Vedam to bolster their notion that their ancestors were "awesome" warriors straight out of B-fantasy 80s movies. (It's why so many of them dabble in the Veda and Vedic Reconstructionism rather than anything else. The old example: it's why Deutsche Welle - German broadcaster - has/had a Skt language channel of ethnic Germans, rather than a Gothic language channel. It's why Slavic supremacists need to claim Balto-Slavic is inseparable from Indo-Iranian and Greek - exceptional claims to similarities are emphatically rejected by actual experts in print, btw - since there's nothing demonstrably ancient about Balto-Slavic and on its own the Balto-Slavs are unable to appreciate Balto-Slavic: they're only willing/able to appreciate it if they can insinuate it with Indo-Iranian and Greek.)

Harvard was additionally out to get India/Hindudom: Harvard cabal is anti-Hindu besides anti-Indian. Part of US foreign policy to balkanise India. Plus Witzel particularly feels spite against Hindus, but he's a nasty bitter little man.

But for other/for European genetics institutes, it's just about IE and supremacism. Not more. They're not (or not all of them are) part of the usual nexus to balkanise India - taking an anti-Hindu/anti-Indian position is not institutional for them - making the Roy Kings on board of them rarer: these institutions don't field the Roy Kings, the Roy Kings insinuate themselves into them.

With Harvard and the triple-threat nexus involved, none of this will end well. And none of the discoveries will actually be honest. Of course, with them involved, we'll never know the truth either: they'll just create "established truth". And as often happens, enough Indians "Hindus" will roll over/accept it in time to make it sink into the roots of the tree and poison all else.
1. Related to above post: I took a look at Niraj Rai and, instead of pushing AIT, he seems to be more inclined towards OIT (at present) or perhaps agnostic. Or again, he's just hired to pretend until the reveal: pretends OIT to OIT-supporters to not alienate them early and will push AIT overtly when he's told it's time.

2. More (anticipated) reasons appear as to why the alien demons want/need to claim Samskritam: don't know about the sacred Latin and Greek, but none of the remaining European languages, certainly not Slavic despite some E-European supremacists wanting to laughably make proto-Slavic into PIE, have the following effect. (Why do you ya think they tested mantras in Samskritam and not say Church Slavonic hymn memorisation?)

Also the same E-European supremacists are desperate to claim Vedic and Greek religions as their own/derived from their concocted Proto-Slavic religion which they've magically reconstructed based entirely on Greek and especially Vedic religion, 'cause - let's face it - they have nothing ancient of their own and desperately need Greek and Vedic religions (and hence need Slavic to be peculiarly associated with both Samskritam and Greek language) in order to claim grandness and parity for themselves. Although they throw about "Indo-Iranian", they do mostly refer to Samskritam directly and always to the Vedas, and not Iranian anythings. Even as an afterthought, come to think of it.

[quote name='Husky' date='28 October 2020 - 11:10 PM' timestamp='1603906343' post='119378']



A Neuroscientist Explores the "Sanskrit Effect"

MRI scans show that memorizing ancient mantras increases the size of brain regions associated with cognitive function

By James Hartzell on January 2, 2018

A Neuroscientist Explores the "Sanskrit Effect"

[annoyingly they've put a Buddhist mandala image, rather than a Hindu one, when Samskritam is originally and exclusively Hindu=Vedic.

As is typical of inculturating missionary religions, Buddhism like Jainism didn't approve first and kicked at the devabhaaSha, and then eventually tried to steal it. Just like christianity.

No, it's NOT equally or in any part or remotely Buddhist/Jain/whatever. As with other matters, they just inculturated on it, i.e. theft from Vedic religio.]

A hundred dhoti-clad young men sat cross-legged on the floor in facing rows, chatting amongst themselves. At a sign from their teacher the hall went quiet. Then they began the recitation. Without pause or error, entirely from memory, one side of the room intoned one line of the text, then the other side of the room answered with the next line. Bass and baritone voices filled the hall with sonorous prosody, every word distinctly heard, their right arms moving together to mark pitch and accent. The effect was hypnotic, ancient sound reverberating through the room, saturating brain and body. After 20 minutes they halted, in unison. It was just a demonstration. The full recitation of one of India´s most ancient Sanskrit texts, the Shukla Yajurveda, takes six hours.

I spent many years studying and translating Sanskrit, and became fascinated by its apparent impact on mind and memory. In India's ancient learning methods textual memorization is standard: traditional scholars, or pandits, master many different types of Sanskrit poetry and prose texts; and the tradition holds that exactly memorizing and reciting the ancient words and phrases, known as mantras, enhances both memory and thinking.

I had also noticed that the more Sanskrit I studied and translated, the better my verbal memory seemed to become. Fellow students and teachers often remarked on my ability to exactly repeat lecturers’ own sentences when asking them questions in class. Other translators of Sanskrit told me of similar cognitive shifts. So I was curious: was there actually a language-specific “Sanskrit effect” as claimed by the tradition?

When I entered the cognitive neuroscience doctoral program at the University of Trento (Italy) in 2011, I had the opportunity to start investigating this question. India's Vedic Sanskrit pandits train for years to orally memorize and exactly recite 3,000-year old oral texts ranging from 40,000 to over 100,000 words. We wanted to find out how such intense verbal memory training affects the physical structure of their brains. Through the India-Trento Partnership for Advanced Research (ITPAR), we recruited professional Vedic pandits from several government-sponsored schools in the Delhi region; then we used structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at India’s National Brain Research Center to scan the brains of pandits and controls matched for age, gender, handedness, eye-dominance and multilingualism.

What we discovered from the structural MRI scanning was remarkable. Numerous regions in the brains of the pandits were dramatically larger than those of controls, with over 10 percent more grey matter across both cerebral hemispheres, and substantial increases in cortical thickness. Although the exact cellular underpinnings of gray matter and cortical thickness measures are still under investigation, increases in these metrics consistently correlate with enhanced cognitive function.

Most interestingly for verbal memory was that the pandits' right hippocampus—a region of the brain that plays a vital role in both short and long-term memory—had more gray matter than controls across nearly 75 percent of this subcortical structure. Our brains have two hippocampi, one on the left and one on the right, and without them we cannot record any new information. Many memory functions are shared by the two hippocampi. The right is, however, more specialized for patterns, whether sound, spatial or visual, so the large gray matter increases we found in the pandits’ right hippocampus made sense: accurate recitation requires highly precise sound pattern encoding and reproduction. The pandits also showed substantially thickening of right temporal cortex regions that are associated with speech prosody and voice identity.

Our study was a first foray into imaging the brains of professionally trained Sanskrit pandits in India. Although this initial research, focused on intergroup comparison of brain structure, could not directly address the Sanskrit effect question (that requires detailed functional studies with cross-language memorization comparisons, for which we are currently seeking funding), we found something specific about intensive verbal memory training. Does the pandits’ substantial increase in the gray matter of critical verbal memory organs mean they are less prone to devastating memory pathologies such as Alzheimer's? We don't know yet, though anecdotal reports from India's Ayurvedic doctors suggest this may be the case. If so, this raises the possibility that verbal memory “exercising‘ or training might help elderly people at risk of mild cognitive impairment retard or, even more radically, prevent its onset.

If so, the training might need to be exact. One day I was filming four senior pandit teachers demonstrating the different recitation speeds. Partway into one session all four suddenly stopped. “What’s wrong?‘ I asked. “One of us made a slight error," came the response. "I don’t mind," I said. "Yes, but we do," and they restarted the entire recitation from the beginning.

Author's note: Senior personnel responsible for this project were not involved in the conception or writing of the blog text; it was not presented to them for approval; any opinions or conclusions expressed in the blog are Dr. Hartzell's alone.

This post was written by a graduate of the online course Share Your Science: Blogging for Magazines, Newspapers and More, offered by Scientific American and the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook University, with sponsorship from the Kavli Foundation.

James Hartzell is a postdoctoral researcher at the Basque Center on Cognition, Brain and Language, in Spain; a Guest Researcher at the Center for Mind/Brain Sciences at University of Trento, in Italy, and a Consultant for the Center for Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, in New York.


Post 1/2

On things Indian IEist (IIEist) Hindus don't write about, because they don't know about it, because they didn't/are incapable of looking into it (having massive blinders on from having bought into steppe IEism hook, line and sinker). Because you'd have to be a heathen to look into the veracity of the IEist claims that uproot/subvert heathenism.

[size="6"]No chariots in Sintashta[/size]

say the experts in ancient chariotry and wheeled vehicles, Littauer and Crouwel

It's yet more evidence of Anthony's serial forgery. And more evidence of how it stood long exposed - for almost as long as his forgery - yet his forgeries are still peddled as fact by IEist fans/beliebers, Indian and alien alike.


Quote:ak2014b says:

9th August 2018 at 15:25

I’m not up to date on the chariot evidence at Sintashta. I read the news originally reported around the mid 1990s of David Anthony’s finds of what were possibly chariots.

News reports mentioned that the assigned dates were contested. There were no actual chariot remains, only the stains made by wheels and some superstructure. Archaeologists dated the grave goods at the site to 1600 BC. Anthony had the horse bones at the site dated, which were found to be from a little before 2000 BC. Anthony went with the date of the horse bones for the chariots a.o.t. using the date of grave goods. (discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500) Anthony’s interviews of the time mentioned he felt that this meant chariots may have been invented in the steppes. But it was not fully resolved for others. For instance, if the grave goods actually belonged with the buried vehicle (other archaeologists did write that the ostensible chariots of Sintashta were purely grave goods and never put to actual use), and if the horses were from an earlier layer, as turned out to be the case in some other key finds by Anthony, then this once more puts question marks over the geographic origins for true chariots and over the earliest dates for their appearance in the steppe.

At the time, it was moreover not unanimous that the wheel imprints necessarily belonged to chariots. Like the argument presented at nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html, ‘Mary Littauer, an independent archeologist and co-author of “Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East” (Brill, 1979), was not ready to concede the point. “It’s still debatable,” she said. “A spoked wheel is not necessarily a chariot, only a light cart on the way to becoming chariots.”‘

I am likely to have missed a lot of the subsequent developments in the state of the evidence since the mid 1990s, and have tried to find them but have not had any success. Does anyone here know if there’s been further evidence from Sintashta since then that has been able to resolve these uncertainties and which have at last clearly established that the Sintashta structures are in fact of a chariot, a true chariot moreover, and with indisputable dates now provided? (Evidence as clear, tangible and date-able as what we have for various carts to chariots of the Middle-East, for instance.)

Alberto, do you further know of any photos of the imprints of the wheels that show off the spokes of the Sintashta chariots? I’ve seen drawings and reconstructions, and some foggy photos, but have long wanted to see some photos showing the spokes clearly.


ak2014b says:

9th August 2018 at 15:31

> Yes I’m sure we will find out soon where horse domestication first occurred – it might be surprising for most but few people

Besides the western steppe, Iberia and Alberto’s additional suggestion of Anatolia, is there a case to be made for Armenia or the southern Caucasus for horse domestication? Anthony mentioned that the same indicators implying possible horse domestication (possible bit wear) that were found in Botai was found earlier in Armenia by other archaeologists.


Robert says:

9th August 2018 at 21:17

@ Ak2014b

Yes I recall the shifting dates. I’ll try look st it further. As you mention, it wouldn’t be the first time a date has been incorrect, and sometimes “facts” are just echoed from writer to writer.

About horse domestication, I’m not privy to the results (& wouldn’t say so if I did). But I’m sure they’ll make sense in the big picture of pastoralist development.


ak2014b says:

10th August 2018 at 13:38

Thanks! Anything you find could go a long way to answering my questions.

> About horse domestication, I’m not privy to the results (& wouldn’t say so if I did). But I’m sure they’ll make sense in the big picture of pastoralist development.

Yes, I understand. I look forward to any publications that deal with this. Hopefully it won’t be long. Fortunately, FrankN’s 2nd guest post has a more definite date of around next week, so there’s other interesting revelations to look forward to in the immediate future.

If you get a chance, Rob, could you look at my questions for you at adnaera.com/2018/07/29/some-interesting-fresh-adna-from-central-europe/#comment-159? It’s understandable if you’re unable to respond with answers if in doing so you might have to reveal something that you’re not free to disclose.


Alberto says:

10th August 2018 at 14:27


When Nick Patterson wrote at Eurogenes that the only reason why they didn’t publish any sample from India was because they just didn’t have them, and not for any political agendas, he was telling the truth. You’ve already read reports about the difficulty to get DNA from those Rakhigarhi samples, with apparently only one being really usable after years of trying (and that’s the only reason for the delay).

So I think that a boutade during a heated debate echoing some rumours that were circulating should be taken just as that. There’s no successfully sequenced Neolithic DNA from India so far (thought it might be on the way).

Regarding the Sintashta questions, I think that there has not been further data corroborating it in an unambiguous way (though I might have missed it), but with the evidence available it does seem reasonable to accept it as the most likely scenario for now. In any case, it doesn’t have much historical relevance, since like wagons and solid wheels more than a thousand years before, they spread faster than the people who invented them. By the time Sintashta/Andronovo people might have started to go south, the people from the south already had better chariots, so that was not an advantage for the non-existent conquering that some people fantasize about.


ak2014b says:

10th August 2018 at 21:39


If you’re also unable to find definitive evidence, then I’m no longer convinced now about chariots of any kind in Sintashta. Archaeologists, including Anthony himself, have had over 3 decades now to find more conclusive evidence. The fact that that it hasn’t been found, and that in the meantime what he originally described as his “gut feeling” about Sintashta originating chariots has merely morphed (without the backing of additional support since) into blogs and fora repeating his feeling as a certainty, may indicate that no more work is being done or that there may be no further evidence to back up the claim.

Unambiguous chariots and true chariots have been found elsewhere. Until the archaeological finds at Sintashta, the Middle-East was for this reason considered to have been the origin of the chariot and for various developmental stages of it, including of the true chariot as per my understanding. For instance, the earlier mentioned 1994 news report at nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html says about the Sintashta finds that “The discovery could also lead to some revision in the history of the wheel, the quintessential invention, and shake the confidence of scholars in their assumption that the chariot, like so many other cultural and mechanical innovations, had its origin among the more advanced urban societies of the ancient Middle East.”

However, if there’s still the reasonable possibility that the chariots in Sintashta are not so early after all (or actually chariots at all), then the previous dates for earliest instances of chariots being in the Middle East ought to take precedence again, as that region had what were unambiguously chariots based on clearly date-able evidence. The Middle Eastern chariot evidence dates to 200 years past the higher end date that Anthony settled on for the finds at Sintashta (discovermagazine.com/1995/apr/chariotracersoft500 again), and this is what finally gave Sintashta the edge in the quest for determining where the vehicle originated. But with that as a question mark, the Middle Eastern dates, despite being 200 years later, at least offer certain evidence of definite chariots at that definite time.

The Middle East further demonstrates, starting at far earlier times, development stages from early wagons to get to chariots. And we know with certainty that they were used as chariots. In contrast, Sintashta is a culture that started around its presumed fully developed true chariot’s assigned date of around 2000 bc. Sintashta chariots, or carts as they may have been, have further not been shown to have been put to any actual use at all, only as grave goods. (Notwithstanding arguments by Anthony or anyone else to make a case for their use.)

There are also follow-on effects and assumptions that become open-ended again. For instance, a main reason for Sintashta as the source of Indo-Iranian was that it had true chariots. If it possibly didn’t have true or other chariots after all, then that weakens the dependent argument that it must have been Indo-Iranian. For example, there are other steppe MLBA cultures rich in R1aZ93 up for consideration as Indo-Iranian homeland again. Though if they didn’t have chariots either, and if chariots have to remain closely tied to Indo-Iranian, then maybe this is a larger problem? Perhaps this is even connected to your pointing out the surprising paucity of R1a in the aDNA from Swat in South or South Central Asia in a recent paper, and its late presence there. I’m not comfortable with ruling anything out about this yet. I merely wish to observe that if Sintashta has not provided definite evidence of early chariots, then the runner up for earliest should become the primary contender once more. Anything less further does an injustice to Middle Eastern history.

It’s therefore frustrating that so many have been made to labour under the assumption (as I had) that Sintashta originated the true chariot or had chariots at all, if this indeed remains ultimately an assumption up to the present. I think those who continue to conclude so ought to be corrected from now on, so that it doesn’t continue to proliferate and so they can avoid mistakenly building further assumptions or arguments on shaky foundations. As a consequence, I’m no longer as closed to Anatolia or the Caucasus or FrankN’s suggestion of NW Iran as valid alternatives for the PIE or LPIE homelands, now that several lines of evidence for a steppe homeland that I once thought were certain have proven less so.


Alberto says:

11th August 2018 at 08:10


Yes, you have a point there. As Robert also mentioned above, it’s quite normal to see that someone’s hypothesis turns into an accepted fact without much scrutiny. It is frequent in books to read things like that Afanasievo introduced metal working to China (or horses, or wheeled vehicles) for which the evidence is completely absent (basically the same that can be said about linking Afanasievo to Tocharian language). Many things about the steppe were based in very old non-C14 dated reports that had never been seen or verified by western scholars and that were in dire need of revision.

Besides, I also agree that David Anthony has been quite vocal using strong arguments to support as facts things that are just hypotheses. The kind of arguing that can be seen in the paper linked in the post about the importance of wheeled vehicles for the chronology of PIE (though I find the general argument acceptable, his arguing is far too radical in his assumptions about “impossibilities” and our ability to infer with any certainty things about languages spoken over 5000 years ago for which we have no direct evidence (or even close to them). A more nuanced argumentation would be welcome, but then it would not be so effective in turning it into an accepted “fact”.

So yes, these things do need some further debate, and experts should be more critical when examining certain hypotheses instead of just accepting them as proven facts based on some big words.

On a related note, I forgot to mention the recent news about a chariot unearthed recently in India (but again, these are early news that will need some time to be verified, understood and put in the right context):


Robert says:

11th August 2018 at 10:40

One can always refer to the sober analysis Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky


ak2014b says:

11th August 2018 at 18:19

Thanks and thanks.

The page (156) that Rob has pointed out notably contains “The Sintashta chariots are by no means the earliest ones known. There are several sealing impressions depicting a chariot and driver in a Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III glyptic, c 2500 BC (Littauer and Crouwel 1979; Green 1993: 60).”

Mary Littauer, the first author cited, is the same archaeologist who was interviewed and found the chariot nature of Anthony’s Sintashta finds to be debatable. That would make the 2500 BC Middle East vehicle mentioned in Littauer and Crouwel 1979 an indisputable chariot, considering how exacting Littauer is about the definition.

Such a very early Middle Eastern chariot deserves to become better known, with credit rightfully restored.

> On a related note, I forgot to mention the recent news about a chariot unearthed recently in India

I was made aware that South Asia possessed wagons and carts (and possible chariots, from miniature figurine forms) mainly from a link at anthrogenica to a paper by Kenoyer, on the kind of ancient wheeled vehicles developed in South Asia.

IVC’s copper-based metallurgy is roughly contemporaneous with Iranian settlements, starting around 6000 or 5000 bc. The wheels used in the IVC vehicles were solid, not spoked, which matches up with the report, “The wheels were found solid in nature, without any spokes, Dr Manjul says.” Furthermore, Iran attests to chariots with crossbar wheels by 2350 bc. So for South Asia to have had copper chariots in the reported period of 2000-1800 bc isn’t entirely unexpected.

However, for Indian chariots to be relevant to any discussion of Indo-Iranian, it’s expected they be true chariots: harnessed to horses, having spoked wheels and matching those other particulars defined in your quotation from Anthony. Sintashta was presented as fitting the bill, though now it seems it’s not guaranteed to fit the basics.

Kenoyer did bring up mention of spoked wheels in regards to the IVC, as well as new accounts of IVC spoked wheel data that he hadn’t personally verified, but he noted that the topic itself was controversial for being considered associated with IE (and therefore considered mutually exclusive with IVC). I’ve not kept abreast of further developments surrounding this, however.

And in looking for further information, there’s still no actual knowledge about the kind of draft animals involved in the India chariot finds, though the researchers don’t rule out horses (xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/07/c_137237324.htm)

‘On animals used to draw the chariots, Manjul said, “It could be a bull or a horse, but having said that the preliminary understanding points to the horse.”‘

And since the wheels were further described as solid and therefore without spokes, they’re not true chariots. Despite that, these new finds in India are very interesting in their own right, including the buried royalty with their copper weapons. This shows the native cultures encompassed warriors among its population, and that South Asian metallurgy had also been used for warfare. The other interesting feature is that these Indian chariots, currently estimated at 2000-1800 bc, are in copper. In contrast, Sintashta’s ones are from either 2000 or otherwise 1600 bc and were to have been made of wood as explanation for the absence of any actual chariot remains and only imprints surviving. This contrast seems to confirm what you said, that Steppe MLBA could not have invaded to find a helpless population at all, but one armed with metal chariots besides weapons.

Hopefully we’ll get to see some interesting aDNA from the presumed royal remains associated with the buried chariots.

ak2014b says:

11th August 2018 at 19:16

There’s mention of a new paper “Horses may have been ridden in battle as early as the Bronze Age (Chechushkov et al. 2018)” at eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/08/horses-may-have-been-ridden-in-battle.html

An excerpt states “We investigated changes in function over time through the use of experimental replicas used in bridling horses. This experimental work supports the hypothesis that these objects served to bridle harnessed (shield-like) or ridden (plate-formed and rod-shaped) horses. Moreover, comparison of use wear on the ancient artifacts with the replicas provides insight into how long the artifacts were used before they were deposited in the funeral contexts or discarded. These observations support that the Sintashta chariots dating back to ca. 2100 BC were ridden and suggest the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 BC) as the earliest possible date for horseback riding in warfare.”

It’s an example of research also descending into ‘building further assumptions on shaky foundations’ of my earlier complaint.

The date and very nature of the Sintashta vehicles as chariots are contested. Selectively reiterating Anthony’s date for the chariots has made Sintashta into a myth that’s built up, rather than uncovering the historical reality of Sintashta as far as this can be uncovered. Experiments using replicas to argue that Sintashta vehicles were put to use do not amount to actual evidence, when archaeology has not been able to actually show that they were ever more than merely grave goods, such as by the attestation of wheel tracks.

For contrast, on a genetics forum, there were people demanding evidence that the early attestation of toy wagons and carts in the form of miniatures in South Asia translated to real life use. Evidence was demanded citing that Aztecs too had toys with wheels and that it didn’t follow that these were put to use. The expectation was therefore that wheeled vehicles remained as toys in South Asia as well. In response, Kenoyer’s paper was cited for mentioning the wheel track marks of a wagon, and finally laid that to rest. However, similar to assumptions about Afanasievo, for Sintashta too, no one asks for archaeological evidence like track marks. Experiments with replicas seem to suffice to settle the matter. Using methods to merely infer conclusions about the past may not have been acceptable for wheeled vehicles in South Asia had there been no wheel tracks.

It has turned out that the Middle East has very early chariots compared to Sintashta (2500 bc vs 2000/1600 bc), but there’s this general disinterest to consider anything non steppe as a source of innovation for things the steppe is “competing” with. The resulting discussions seem to take place in isolation from the rest of world history, as if the rest doesn’t exist. It’s detrimental enough for non-experts to indulge in this, but it becomes worse when the behaviour extends to the realm of research.

Another example of this is the general sounding claim in the new Chechushkov et al 2018 paper that their replica based experimental results “suggest the end of the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1500–1200 BC) as the earliest possible date for horseback riding in warfare.” Yet at kavehfarrokh.com/iranica/militaria/military-history-and-armies-of-scythians-sarmatians-and-achaemenids/image-of-a-jiroft-horseman-with-short-lance/ is tangible evidence, in the form of a photo of a sculpture depicting a rider bearing a lance, sitting astride a bridled horse. (It actually looks like he has a helmet of sorts on, further suggesting the context of warfare.) The sculpture is from the Jiroft culture, in Iran. When I search for “Jiroft”, google comes back with “Jiroft culture‎: ‎c. 3100 – c. 2200”. This is far better evidence of early horseback riding in warfare than experiments with replicas. It’s also far earlier than Chechushkov et al 2018’s timeframe of 1500-1200 bc, yet the evidence from Jiroft is presumably ignored or perhaps deemed insufficient. The result is that the world at large remains ignorant of actual world history. If the same figurine had been found in a steppe culture, especially at that early date, the treatment would be totally different.

Kuz’mina and several other specialists have repeatedly stressed that archaeological data has so far not been able to provide evidence for mounted warriors in the steppe until the end of the 2nd millennium bc. The recourse to results from experimental replicas to now argue otherwise, feels like an attempt to bypass the lack of archaeological support. I’m not sure why researchers so invested in the subject don’t just accept it or continue to look for more actual evidence in the steppe. None of it however explains why earlier evidence from other places continues to be ignored.


Alberto says:

12th August 2018 at 09:22


A problem that I mentioned in the post is the terminology used. Is it a requirement for a chariot to have spoked wheels instead of solid ones? Is it a requirement that it’s pulled by true horses and not some other equids? And is it necessary that the driver is standing and not sitting? And should they use bits and cheekpieces or are those unnecessary?

What apparently was invented by the Sintashta people was the spoked wheel and the use of true horses with bits and cheekpieces.

The “sealing impressions depicting a chariot and driver in a Mesopotamian Early Dynastic III glyptic, c 2500 BC” might not qualify. For example, in “Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1978-79” by J.N. Postgate (page 104) there are some descriptions mentioning “Head of horse (?) – ridge for mane, ears and pierced nostrils“. Also: “Figure seated in two-wheeled chariot drawn by equid(s), which trample on a recumbent enemy. Behind chariot, jar or outsize dagger and a skirted figure.”

Regarding the importance of spoked wheels for Indo Iranians, this should be understood as a symbolic thing, and not literally as wheels made with spokes and used in real vehicles. The symbolism described in the Rigveda regarding the wheel (chakra) with specific number of spokes depending on what it symbolises is well represented during the Chalcolithic in amulets or even terracotta wheels (for vehicles) that is unclear if they were made with spokes (unlikely, since they’re made solid in terracotta) or just decorated with spokes for its symbolic meaning. This kind of symbolism is important and mostly ignored when interpreting the Rigveda as a proof of a steppe origin of the Aryans.

A good article and discussion can be found at indologist Giacomo Benedetti’s blog here:



ak2014b says:

12th August 2018 at 18:03

Thank you, I’ll have a read. I did not mean to sound dismissive of the India finds. I accept it can be some kind of chariot, but meant to point out that it fails to meet the specifications for true chariots because of the type of wheels.

> What apparently was invented by the Sintashta people was the spoked wheel and the use of true horses with bits and cheekpieces.

Yet even so, the problems pointed out earlier would remain. If the horse bones were of 2000 bc and the grave goods at the burial site were from 1600 bc, and if the ostensible chariot still could be from either period, then if the vehicle was in fact from 1600 bc, they can’t demonstrate its connection to the horses. Anthony would have had to conclude the vehicle was of the same era as the horses in order to make his argument that this was the place true chariots first originated, thereby dislodging the true chariots found 200 years later in the Middle East from primary consideration.

All others are expected to be rigorous with their evidence, those making a case for the steppe ought to be held to the same standards. Until there is certainty regarding the dates, the Sintashta vehicles if true chariots cannot be mentioned as the earliest without constant qualification.

Moreover, Littauer’s argument (above) was that the evidence from Sintashta was not sufficient to conclude it was necessarily a chariot generally. That would consequently rule out that there was sufficient evidence to satisfy the more restrictive requirements for the true chariot.

But Littauer and Crouwel gave more complete consideration to Anthony and others’ claims when they later returned to the very subject matter of true chariots in a paper responding to Anthony’s early date for the Sintashta finds as war chariots. It’s a paper which incidentally reproduces the kind of photos from Sintashta that I was earlier searching for.

In The origin of the true chariot (Littauer & Crouwel 1996) [cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/origin-of-the-true-chariot/727D882D2F2E1BBC19AE1F9FA02A35AB] the two authors take the reconstructions of the Sintashta chariots and Anthony’s date in stride (2000 bc-1800 bc as it turns out, a.o.t. 2000 bc), as also working by Anthony’s arguments that horses would have been ridden early in the steppes. They clearly express reservations about the reconstructions, but by taking these seriously the authors point out the Sintashta vehicle is flawed mechanically. When they take only the actual archaeological remains into consideration, the authors find the Sintashta two wheeled vehicles could not have served for warfare or racing purposes. (The 2 purposes Indo-Europeans are to have used them [color="#800080"][chariots][/color] for.)

They still come to the conclusion that both the chariot and true chariot’s origins were in the Middle East rather, further pointing out that the continuous development and refinement of wheeled vehicles from 4 to 2 wheels to chariots and true chariots is demonstrable there. In contrast, “no early tradition of fast transport by two-wheeler existed on the steppe”, referring also to Izbitser’s work (1993) on the earlier steppe Pit-Grave culture’s 4 wheeled vehicles, of which they remark “What also seems to emerge from Dr Izbitser’s work is that many of the four-wheeled vehicles buried with seated passengers would have been more suitable for processions and for burial rites than for workaday use. These must have been ceremonial, status-conferring vehicles.”

The authors find the lighter spoked wheel of the chariot too was to have logically been developed in the Near East (so despite Anthony’s earlier date): “Does it not seem more likely that the horse’s introduction to draught in the Near East stimulated the local wheelwrights to invent a lighter wheel for the already long-existing two-wheelers than that people without a history of two-wheeled vehicles and with an already superior personal conveyance – the mounted horse – should find reason suddenly to invent such a vehicle in its entirety?” For comparison, in the Near East evidence “The scenarios are one of improvement and development out of an established and very useful artefact”. Littauer and Crouwel state with reason “We should like to suggest that it was the prestige value of the Near Eastern two-wheelers that inspired imitations on the steppes”.


ak2014b says:

12th August 2018 at 18:15

The final section of Littauer & Crouwel 1996 is as instructive as the whole paper, which deserves as wide an audience as Anthony’s “The Horse” has obtained,

“A Near Eastern and a steppe origin has been previously argued by the authors (Littauer & Crouwel l979: 68-71) and by Piggott (1983: 1034) respectively. Piggott later adopted a more cautious view (1992: 48-9; cf. also Moorey 1986). The idea of the war chariot originating on the steppes has recently been revived, chiefly on the basis of the calibrated radiocarbon dates from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero (Anthony & Vinogradov 1995: 4041).

‘ Proto-chariots’

Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves. At Sintashta, the wheel tracks and their position relative to the walls of the tomb chamber limited the dimensions of the naves, hence the stability of the vehicle. Ancient naves were symmetrical, the part outside the spokes of equal length to that inside. Allowing enough room for the end of the axle arm and linch pin on the outer side of the nave and for a short spacer on the inner side of the nave end to keep it from rubbing on the body of the vehicle, we are left with no more than 20 cm for the entire length of the nave. The shortest ancient nave of which we know on a two-wheeler is 34 cm in length, and the great majority are 40-45 cm (Littauer & Crouwel 1985: 76, 91). The long naves of ancient two-wheelers were required by the material used: wooden naves revolving on wooden axles cannot fit tightly, as recent metal ones do. The short, hence loosely fitting nave will have a tendency to wobble, and it was in order to reduce this that the nave was lengthened. A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself. The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing.“

And in the introductory section, the authors already summarised the above conclusions with “these dimensions would render the vehicle impractical at speed and limit its manoeuvrability. These cannot yet be true chariots.“

Littauer and Crouwel have extensive familiarity with the mechanics of wheeled vehicles. Anthony and various others may have more general knowledge of it, but this has led to unsustainable conclusions.

I think these practical, evidence-based conclusions also override the experimentally derived ones from Chechushkov et al 2018. Maybe one of the reasons the Sintashta vehicles did not develop beyond grave goods is because they weren’t very usable.

There’s no support in the above extract for the views popularly expressed in various quarters about Sintashta being “warrior badasses” on account of their two-wheeled vehicles. If they’d have invested as much time in reading the research on it as they have in promulgating mistaken views about it, they would have discovered the Sintashta vehicle may have proved a liability rather than an advantage in warfare.

The chariot from 2500 bc that Rob’s linked page cited from Littauer was referred to in general terms as a chariot. My understanding has been that the true chariots in the Middle East were to be from around 200 years after the upper limit of Anthony’s date for the Sintashta vehicles.

I recommend the full Littauer & Crouwel 1996 paper. Its introduction additionally may be referring to the earliest Near/Middle East war or true chariot, when it mentions this contrastively against the ones that had been claimed as true and war chariots in Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero.

It definitely mentions very early spoked wheels in Mesopotamia that become older than the Sintashta one if the latter’s spoked wheel imprints are from 1600 bc instead of 2000 bc. However, without needing confirmation for Sintashta’s early date, Littauer and Crouwel provided reasoned arguments why the Near/Middle East is nevertheless the more likely source for the invention of spoked wheels.


ak2014b says:

13th August 2018 at 14:03

> I can’t really have a final take on where did true chariots originate without carefully re-examining all the data (and even then I might still have no certainty about it), but my take is that it’s not a fundamental thing regarding historical events.

I agree there’s no actual final answer to the question of origination with what data we have presently. But the value of the steppe evidence has been over presented.

My comments about chariots and spoked wheels are not to make any case about their relevance to IE or human history, but rather concern the documentation of history. There’s too little actual evidence from Sintashta to justifiably compete with the clear and well-dated evidence we have from the Near East for both innovations. Even so, the steppe is still accredited both popularly and in many research works up to the present for originating spoked wheels as well as true chariots. It is a great assumption that rests on too many uncertainties. (And there is simply no need for it when there are better alternatives for consideration.)

A certainty we do have is that the steppe had spoked wheels, somewhere between 2000-1800 bc else 1600 bc. Using Anthony’s dates from the horse bones, which are the earliest that may be assigned to the vehicles, this being still 2000-1800 bc as per the cited paper, the interval makes it contemporaneous with the evidence of vehicles with 2 spoked wheels from Anatolia and Mesopotamia that were harnessed to equids. The paper by Littauer and Crouwel contains an image from Anatolia from the early 2nd millennium bc, showing a figure carrying a weapon standing on a vehicle with 2 spoked wheels. (The harnessed draft animals further look to be horses not asses in my interpretation.)

Consider again this statement from Littauer & Crouwel 1996,

“Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves.”

Therefore the totality of the evidence from the steppes is comprised of imprints from the lower part of the vehicles: the [lower parts of the] wheels, axle and the wheel hubs (naves). The rest of the steppe vehicles have been entirely reconstructed by researchers: as chariots, even though the same and actual evidence lends itself equally to their reconstructions as carts, as Littauer pointed out earlier.

Littauer & Crouwel 1996 found the reconstructed portions questionable, “The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions”. Nevertheless, the paper’s authors allowed for both the reconstructions and the earliest dates (those of the horse bones assigned to the vehicle) in order to come to the conclusion that, despite this, the two wheeled steppe vehicles were still not true or war chariots. The authors made these allowances for the sake of argument. There is no real reason to continue making them when considering the earliest indisputable evidence available for both spoked wheels and chariots.

Clear cut evidence may conceivably turn up in the future, possibly from the steppe, that dislodges the Middle East from its present position as attesting to the currently oldest instance(s) and being the tentative origin for the true chariot and spoked wheels. Until such a time though, I believe the ancient Near East and not the steppe ought to be recognised as holding this position, whether the innovations themselves be important in any sense or not.

I’m sorry to have consumed so much of your time with this, the point was a more general one and may not have stood out given the context of aDNA and IE.


ak2014b says:

13th August 2018 at 14:23

I remember a couple of remaining questions I had. It concerns the following extract from nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html

“Chariot technology, Dr. Muhly noted, seems to have left an imprint on Indo-European languages and could help solve the enduring puzzle of where they originated. All of the technical terms connected with wheels, spokes, chariots and horses are represented in the early Indo-European vocabulary, the common root of nearly all modern European languages as well as those of Iran and India.

In which case, Dr. Muhly said, chariotry may well have developed before the original Indo-European speakers scattered. And if chariotry came first in the steppes east of the Urals, that could be the long-sought homeland of Indo-European languages. Indeed, fast spoke-wheeled vehicles could have been used to begin the spread of their language not only to India but to Europe.

[That's obviously a big fat lie: only 4 wheeled ceremonial-only vehicles on the steppe, until 2 wheeled carts appeared out of nowhere during the later steppe kultur of Sintashta of 2100-1800 BCE. No sign of local development of 2 wheeled vehicles, so rather than innovation, obviously imported.

No evidence for chariots in Sintashta, only for non-working 2 wheeled carts that would break on impact: "A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself." (Littauer and Crouwel again)

So even late steppe isn't origin of chariots, let alone early steppe. If chariotry was shared across all PIE as Muhly fibs above, then the steppe still can't ever be made into PIE homeland. Tragic, but it's the corollary.

But what the fact that Sintashta didn't have chariots means for Hindu heathens is that: so not Indo-Iranian by IEists own rules. Of course, IIEists will still believe, because you know, beliebers.]

Firstly, is it true that vocabulary related to chariots is shared in Indo-European? The discussions on eurogenes led me to believe that chariots were originally associated with Indo-Iranian.

Second, the current situation is that there are yet no definite chariots in the steppes, since the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero may as likely be carts. What seems to me more pertinent is there was no tradition of two wheeled vehicles in the steppes until these finds, going by the extracts from Littauer & Crouwer 1996 further above. (It was one of the reasons Littauer and Crouwer argued that two-wheeled vehicles on the steppes were inspired by those in the Near East, thereby also explaining their sudden appearance on the steppe.)

As chariots are two-wheeled vehicles, do the first and second points not conflict? If, as Izbitser’s work based on the evidence of wheeled vehicles in the steppe is to have argued, the steppe were inhabited by “people without a history of two-wheeled vehicles” (Littauer & Crouwer 1996) until the Sintashta era finds marked a distinct change, how may the chariot terminology be part of “the early Indo-European vocabulary, the common root of nearly all modern European languages as well as those of Iran and India”?

If not the immediate conclusion that the steppes as a consequence cannot be the homeland (or that chariot is not part of the PIE or LPIE vocabulary), maybe the argument has to become that chariots were borrowed early on into PIE, to explain the absence of the development of two-wheeled on the steppe? However, won’t the same long-term absence of two-wheeled vehicles in the steppes condense the timeline for PIE in a steppe homeland?


Alberto says:

13th August 2018 at 16:58


As far as I know, it’s the words related to wheeled vehicles in general and not to chariots in particular (except for the word for horse itself) that is considered part of PIE (or better to say, late PIE, since Anatolian languages don’t share this vocabulary). The article from Anthony and Ringe linked in the post have a more detailed discussion about the terms and their appearance in each daughter language.


Let's review what's known:

0. The last known Sintashta chariot evidence and reconstructions were from the mid 1990s, courtesy Anthony. Nothing newer on this matter of "chariots" known from Sintashta/alleged IE or Indo-Iranian steppe kultur. All subsequent papers on chariots in the steppe MLBA kultur have been inferences and arguing/pleading around this earlier evidence from Anthony.

1. Anthony forged evidence: made elaborate drawings reconstructing Sintashta "chariots" (AKA forging evidence)

But Anthony was clearly a failure in chariotry: his reconstructions were unconvincing to the real chariot experts Littauer & Crouwel.

=More proof of how it's a forgery: he couldn't even make up believable stuff. (Moral: If you're going to indulge in the idiot passtime of such extensive forgery/compulsive lying like Anthony, be convincing unlike Anthony.)

2. The ONLY actual (i.e. archaeological) EVIDENCE sum total was imprints/stains of lower parts of wheels in Sintashta, and imprints of axle and (naves) wheel hubs besides in Krivoe Ozero. So partial spoked wheels. (Look how I don't even mention that wheeled vehicles of a later time pushed partially into earlier archaeological layers could account for such imprints. Even though many of Anthony's forgeries are centered on finding the most convenient dates of mixed up layers.)

"Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)

Note: imprints/stains means not dateable. How convenient for Anthony/AKA more indication of forgery.

3. Dating of the Sintashta 2 wheelers is "2000-1800 BCE" - the dating must still be horse bones though, as the evidence of the 2-wheelers are all imprints onlee:

"The recent calibrated radiocarbon dating to c. 2000-1800 BC of light, horse-drawn vehicles from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero, in northern Kazakhstan just east of the Urals, has revived the claim that the chariot originated in the steppe area rather than somewhere in the Near East" (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)

4. Based on BOTH Anthony's absurd (unbelievable) reconstructions AND just the evidence, Littauer & Crouwel damned the Sintashta vehicles as carts, NOT chariots. See below in red.

5. Useless, idiotic carts too: Sintashta people were evidently incompetent as the 2 wheeled non-chariots they made would get damaged when these bumped into a tree. Pathetic. But IIEists insist on crowning these as their ancestors. Good for them. But is the pride warranted?

"At Sintashta, the wheel tracks and their position relative to the walls of the tomb chamber limited the dimensions of the naves, hence the stability of the vehicle. ... no more than 20 cm for the entire length of the nave. The shortest ancient nave of which we know on a two-wheeler is 34 cm in length, and the great majority are 40-45 cm (Littauer & Crouwel 1985: 76, 91). ... The short, hence loosely fitting nave will have a tendency to wobble, and it was in order to reduce this that the nave was lengthened. A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)

In short: 20 cm nave on Sintashta cart = can't be a chariot/would make a useless a chariot

(And note that ALL the finds of these Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero era steppe 2 wheelers were of/added up to failures as chariots)

"The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing." (Littauer & Crouwel, 1996)

Several things to note in the above statement:

- Anthony's forgery aka reconstruction is everything "above the axle level". I.e. he concocted most of the Sintashtan chariot. His reconstructions "raised many doubts and questions" in the experts in ancient vehicles and chariotry, Littauer and Crouwel. But next, the experts dismissed all the reconstructed stuff which they found so dubious since it had "No Evidence" any way, to then look at just the evidence (remember, the actual steppe 2 wheeler cart evidence consists of very little and nothing tangible: imprints/stains of lower parts of wheels in Sintashta, plus also axles and naves in Krivoe Ozero). Only for our chariot experts to then conclude, just from what's available in terms of evidence, that they can already definitely tell that any such vehicle could NEVER have been useful for war or for racing. I.e. useless for anything Indo-European. And not a true chariot besides. Epic fail.

And remember also: In the construction of Indo-European as epic greatness :ra-ra:, chariots are for war and racing (recall the Iliad for example), which is why Littauer and Crouwel's conclusion that the SINTASHTAN VEHICLE was NOT A TRUE CHARIOT, and moreover was NOTABLY USELESS FOR WAR AND RACING is such an especial Burn. No wonder these facts are not more popular, as it's an embarrassment now after having been a badge of pride for Euro and IIEst supremacists: chariots in Sintashta was the main argument for the whole "Sintashta is Indo-Iranian" argument remaining ever since the "Vedic steppe burial/Dadha~nc" was revealed to be another Anthony forgery/hoax.* Very few European IEists bring that Vedic burial forgery up now. Hindu heathens need to loudly and widely propogate the facts about this matter of No Chariots In Sintashta too, so that IEists are likewise too embarrassed to bring up the fiction of "Sintashtan chariots" again. If Sintashtans didn't even have chariots what use are they to Indo-Iranianism and Indo-Europeanism?

I suppose they can cling to horse burials in the steppe as being the defining Indo-European marker next. Steppe kultur didn't invent chariots. It copied them. Sintashta can't be Indo-Iranian, 'cause it didn't have chariots :boohoo:. Sintashta useless to Indo-Europeanism because chariots among Greeks, Romans to Celts can't be derived from steppe kulturs (carts as grave goods can, but is that really meaningful or something to be proud of? Well IIEists will be proud of any desert in the steppe and spit at anything in Bharatam, but European IEists may not be happy.)

* I mean horse burials may be a thing in the steppe, but it doesn't prove anything "Indo-Iranian". Chariots are attested in Vedic religion and among Iranians too. And in contrast, horses were translated as being sacrificed into the fire in the Vedic rite I posted hereabouts some years back (on the last page of this thread or so).

Sintashta's only meaningful claim to fame among Europeans was chariotry and the argument was that, therefore, they were Indo-Iranians and that therefore steppe MLBA would have brought chariots to India and Iran. But it's known they didn't bring chariots to India and Iran: 'cause they never even had chariots themselves, at the crucial time. (Any later, and other "non-IE" civilisations already had evidence for true chariots, so again: still a fail for claims of steppe kultur as IEism and for being superior on account of innovating chariot tech and even a fail for steppe having early practical/capable chariot tech even if copied from their non-steppe betters.)

So what's actually Indo-Iranian about Sintashta then?

- Maybe they'll huddle behind horses next. Even if (34-ribbed or any) horses in ancient India were to be from the steppe, they could simply be imported without importing steppe kultur, or the horses could be brought back by ancient indigenous Hindu visitors venturing out into the steppe and domesticating them the way our kind domesticated elephants and zebu and many of our other animoos. No one needs derivation/ancestry from the Sintashta horse burial kultur for this.

- No, it ain't Z93 or any steppe genetic component that's "Indo-Iranian". Genes ain't culture. Think of this as an equation. We're not trying to solve for culture. We know the culture (Vedic religio-civilisation including Samskritam). We're trying to solve for genetics = unknown variable.

If Sintashta falls through as Indo-Iranian homeland, steppe falls through as PIE/late PIE homeland.

The Steppe IEist argument was that chariots were key to Indo-Iranians, hence Anthony's Sintashtan "chariots" hoax was a key line of proof that Sintashta was Indo-Iranian (the other was Anthony's "Vedic steppe burial" hoax), and Z93/any steppe ancestry to cement that. But there turned out to be no "Vedic burial" in the steppes (which was another Antony forgery) and now no chariots in Sintashta. So Z93/any steppe genetic component in India could be proto-proto-Ghazis - say - that brought nothing of value into India, a la their descendants, other than maybe some evolutionary fitness advantage and hence it still exists in the gene pool, rather than being purged over time like the Neanderthal genetic contribution to human populations. That is, there's now no connection between chariots (= Vedic and Iranian) and Z93 from steppe MLBA (which we know did NOT have chariots, whatever other vehicles those 2 partial wheels implied).

Again, no chariots in Sintashta means we then don't know what any steppe (MLBA or other) component brought to Bharatam in terms of language/culture. But it wasn't Indo-Iranian if Sintashta had no chariots.* So who knows what Sintashtans spoke? The above comments and referenced paper show that the ancient Middle-East had true chariots. We know India had something we call chariots, true chariot or not, there was local continued development of two and four wheeled vehicles. But Sintashta only shows evidence of carts at most, not of chariots of any kind. So make sure to use the correct terminology: the evidence of the Sintashtan 2 wheelers is so little there's nothing there to conclude that the vehicle was anything more than a CART. Moreover, whatever it is, it is certainly NOT a chariot. So don't say true chariot, don't say any kind of chariot at all, but always say cart where Sintashta and allegedly IE steppe kultur is concerned and demand that every bloody IEist say "Sintashtan Cart" onlee too, else they're consciously colluding in Anthony's forgery, i.e. compulsive liars too and that means you can dismiss them in toto. <- Oh look cancel kultur. Isn't that what Euro IEists and non-Hindu Indian IEists are into: whenever they say that as a Hindoo indigenist you're a Hindu nationalist=fundamentalist for being Hindu, therefore nothing you say is admissable? Well, if they still stick to the "Sintashtan Chariot" hoax after you've let Littauer & Crouwel 1996 correct them, they factually deserve to be dismissed in toto forever.

We don't know what Sintashtans or their predicted R1aZ93 ancestors in Europe proper spoke. By the time we're really and truly certain of what many of their paternally derived descendants spoke, these spoke Hungarian, and Turkic with Central Asian Turkic ancestors, found all the way in Swat (R1aZ93 and derivatives found in medieval Ghaznavids/Ghazis who originated in the steppes and ended up in Swat, but also in aDNA of Khazars, and also in Avar aDNA, aDNA of both Huns and later medieval Hungarian elites. This is from 4 papers.) <- Another reason for my reference to steppes/Sintashtans as proto-Ghazis, since I already figured long ago they were ancestral to Turkics whether they were also ancestral to any other population group as a whole or not. Some time after that it was indeed shown that all Turkic groups have Scythian - at least E Scythian - hence Sintashtan/steppe MLBA ancestry. The transition from IE "Iranic" to (Proto-)Turkic is an interesting black box that IEists are not interested in looking into in detail.

IEists only want to discuss how Steppists, whose language family we don't actually know but which are argued to be IE, are to have morphed into Indo-Iranian speakers on one hand (some of whom were then to have brought these lingos to "South Asia"/Indian subcontinent and West Asia/Iran), others turned into Mittanis who everyone insists had never even been to India yet magically had the exclusively Indian peacock (which IIRC don't even occur in Pakistan's geography) as a key motif all the same (that's why it's called Magic), while those remaining in central Asia morphed into Scythians said to speak in Iranic tongues (whose eastern branch at least mystically morphed into non-IE Turkics by the time we know what they spoke; and whose western realms deep into E-Europe disappeared yet Slavic speakers are found there today and no trace of "Scythian". That's another black box/taboo subject among western IEists. In this context: not just northern Slavs appearing in what was Scythian space. In the 6th century BCE, "Thracian" Getae - which someone who didn't get the memo noted history also referred to as "Slavs" - who Brittanica says were "subjected to Scythian influence". That's around the Balkan area.)

On the subject of taboo: there is immediate denial from certain European IEists that known Scythian samples have West Asian and BMAC ancestry, even though dedicated steppist IEists commenters from islamised Central Asia showed that this is indubitably the case before themselves obediently dismissing the BMAC ancestry in Scythians as irrelevant and swearing continued fealty to steppe IEism. (Even though before the Scythians we don't know what was spoken in the steppe kulturs: we're told over and over again they spoke IE, but be honest: we don't know that, as it's what people are still trying to find out. And even though by the time the Sintashtans have morphed into "Iranic" speaking Scythians, these guys (i.e. the Scythian samples) now have allegedly consistent presence of BMAC ancestry though at various levels. I had already been taking note when non-Indian people were casually commenting how all Scythians had W Asian input, but reading that the BMAC input was a constant was interesting.

The BMAC in Scythians is excessively vehemently and angrily denied by most European IEists (protested way too much, as the phrase goes) despite going in the face of numerical evidence provided by a Hindu Indian non-IEist as well as independently by otherwise dismissive [islamic] Central Asian steppist IEists. One European steppist was quickly silenced by his compatriots when he insisted that the BMAC/West Asian constant was long noticed and already commented on and surely needn't be dismissed as he felt it had no bearing on IEism. His compatriots perhaps knew better as they were keen to deny even the undeniable.

And the pre-emptive European denial was to be expected because, since BMAC+Iranic in steppe Scythians went together with the Scythians found (constant), it could then be quite readily argued that BMAC introduced Iranic into Scythian, since who knows what was spoken on the steppe before (i.e. before Scythians/before the constant of BMAC input) or BMAC. Whether this constant was BMAC or W Asian (Iran), both would have attracted equal ire from the European IEists, of course, for the same reason: as it really undoes all their carefully positioned claims of PIEism coming from Europe/having anything to do with Europe, "because Z93".

Whatever, the steppe MLBA certainly didn't bring chariots, which were claimed to be the mainstay of allegedly "Indo-Iranian" Sintashta, meaning it's all an epic fail for steppe IEism right there. David Anthony needs to quickly forge some more evidence for proper actual chariots in the steppes this time, all (I)IEists are praying he won't get caught for his forgery yet again as he did with the forged alleged "horse domestication" evidence in Dereivka, the forgery of the alleged "Vedic burial/Dadhya~nc" evidence in steppe kultur" and the failed forgery of chariots in Sintashta.

Perhaps the question is not: why does the paucity of evidence of PIE in the steppes keep failing Anthony? But rather: why does Anthony keep failing even at forging evidence of steppe as PIE homeland?

* And contrary to Harvard's appointed token Indian/native voice V. Norasimon's wish to connect Sintashta failed carts to Sanauli finds to claim this for steppes/Europe, the 2000-1800 BCE Sintashta non-chariot carts with spoked wheels [all hypothesized as wooden, because no remains] did NOT give rise to the contemporaneous i.e. 2000-1800 BCE (reported in some news as 2300 BCE and even 2500 BCE) copper-rich Sanauli solid disk wheeled vehicles. IEists like Norasimon shouldn't be trying to derive the 2000-1800 BCE Sanauli chariot or whatever vehicle it is from the 2000-1800 BCE Sintashtan cart, unless he means to undermine IE logic of spoked wheels being central and defining, and declare that invading Oryans who were specifically claimed by steppism to have brought spoked wheels with them, suddenly went regressive in India by returning to the predecessor wheel type of solid wheels which were long well-known outside the steppe? (Where then is IEists' evidence for that reversal?) Steppe kultur suddenly leapt from 4-wheelers to 2-wheelers showing no actual intermediate development - hinting at import of the vehicle rather than local innovation, as essentially remarked by Littauer & Crouwel 1996. And it's possible steppes show no wheel development from solid, to crossbar - as is attested in ancient Iran (IIRC ~2350 BCE) since before Sintashta (2100-1800 BCE) - to spoked wheels either. Quick David Anthony, forge such evidence!

IEists probably realised with jealousy that they have absolutely nothing in the steppes like the Sanauli vehicle remains and in their greedy jealousy, have created designs to claim these using the pathetic and paltry partial (spoked) wheel imprints of Sintashta. And these are the kinds of entities that IIEists choose to parrot (what will they sell off next?). Sanauli chariots don't belong to Europeans, Indian steppists, their ancestors real or imagined. Sorry. Whatever else, Sanauli chariots are indigenous. Neither Norasimon/Harvard nor others can lay claim to Sanauli for the steppe, certainly not using their ridiculous "evidence" from Sintashta. They may prove it first, which they can't when the evidence has even disproven chariots in Sintashta. The material remains=evidence of the Sanauli vehicles are copious (had such been found in Sintashta, Anthony wouldn't have to forge most of the steppe MLBA vehicle). The evidence for the Sintastha 2-wheelers were laughable - imprints of lower part of wheels - and there is immediate disconnect between the two cultures: the immediate and sole conclusions at this point of all should be that they're unrelated and that Sanauli chariots are specifically not derivable from the 2 wheelers of Sintashta or whenever the steppe 2 wheeler imprints actually dated from (possibly just the 1600 BCE of the grave goods).

Indian IEists cannot be expected to have sense on this point, though - I expect them to try and sell the heritage from Sanauli to Europe so they can bask in the finds as part of their claimed steppe ancestry - but Hindoo heathens should take care to quickly correct Norasimon types and all other IEists who are now bent on aggrandising the European narrative (via steppism) by claiming the indigenous vehicles found in Sanauli. Don't be bogged down by treacherous Indian losers sold to the west (whether they're in a love-hate relationship with the west or not, as Hindu IIEists are), but fight this point with data. Despite the paucity of the Sintashtan 2 wheeled vehicular remains, it is sufficient to beat this nonsense down, as Littauer & Crouwel did on this limited evidence alone to prove its non-chariot nature.

You know, if you're a self-declared [i]Hindu[
Reinstating much of

Part 2/2

[size="6"]No Chariots in Sintashta[/size]

say the experts in ancient chariotry and wheeled vehicles, Littauer and Crouwel (in 1996)

(just mere wheel imprints magicked into "chariots")

AKA: More evidence of Anthony's serial forgery (in 1994, 1995)

Summary plus more related to the previous post.

Hindu-baiter and steppe AIT peddler Francesco Brighenti had invoked Littauer and Crouwel as the authorities for the defininition of (true) chariots:

This is an authoritative definition of the English term ‘chariot’ given by M.A. Littauer and J.H. Crouwel, two leading specialists in ancient vehicles:

“Chariot – A light, fast, two-wheeled, usually horse-drawn, vehicle with spoked wheels; used for warfare, hunting, racing and ceremonial purposes. Its crew usually stood.”

(He took that definition "Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness", 2002)

Littauer and Crouwel's expertise is indeed in chariots and other vehicles of the ancient world. But the Hindu-baiter pretending to be an academic was ignorant about or conveniently left out how the authors damned the evidence from Sintashta (and Krivoe Ozero too) as non-chariots.

Surveying all the arguments, extensive reconstructions and the far less actual evidence provided for the Sintashtan/steppe vehicles by Anthony's work, Littauer & Crouwel, 1996 state the following about these early steppe vehicles ("The origin of the true chariot", M.A. LITTAUER & J.H. CROUWEL, 1996, https: // doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00084192, at the time of writing this still available at https: // sci-hub.st/ ).

Quote:(0) “Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves.”

So this is all the actual evidence we have. The rest was only ever fanciful reconstruction by Anthony, which Littauer & Crouwel did not find particularly convincing, as seen in the following.

Quote:(1) "The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing."

Useless in warfare and racing: i.e. the very two purposes Indo-Europeans like the Greeks were to have used chariots for.

Quote:(2) "these dimensions would render the vehicle impractical at speed and limit its manoeuvrability. These cannot yet be true chariots."

Quote:(3) until Sintashta, "no early tradition of fast transport by two-wheeler existed on the steppe", summarising Izbitser’s work (1993).

Only of 4 wheelers.

Quote:(4) “We should like to suggest that it was the prestige value of the Near Eastern two-wheelers that inspired imitations on the steppes”.

So that's how two wheeled carts suddenly appeared on the steppe: by failed plagiarism of Near Eastern vehicles, not by imitation. Failed plagiarism, because, unlike in the Near East, the 2 wheeled steppe carts found don't seem to have been useful for anything beyond grave goods, reminiscent of how the earlier steppe cultures' 4 wheelers found were "more suitable for processions and for burial rites than for workaday use".

So there we have it. The evidence we have is positive that these were not chariots in Sintashta. And this is why the Sintashta vehicles can not be described as anything more than carts, as Littauer had done before:

Even in 1994, before her 1996 paper with Crouwel, Littauer had already remarked that the Sintashta finds may just turn out to be carts and not chariots (nytimes.com/1994/02/22/science/remaking-the-wheel-evolution-of-the-chariot.html ), which their 1996 paper then upheld based on their evaluation of the accumulated evidence and reconstructions presented by Anthony & Vinogradov's 1995 paper.

And unless and until Anthony or anyone hereafter discover additional evidence endorsing actual chariots in Sintashta, instead of merely retreading Anthony's earlier submissions as seems to always be the case and which were already dismissed by Littauer and Crouwel as not being chariots, the above conclusions remain in place. And no one should continue to speak of "Sintashta chariots", nor how its drivers thundered about in their vehicles shown to be next to useless in warfare, invading other parts of the globe.

Take note of how Littauer & Crouwel 1996 makes it clear that the fanciful elaborations in Anthony's reconstructions have no actual evidence to back them up and how they found these reconstructions to be questionable besides. Anthony and his own co-author were not experts in ancient chariots, unlike Littauer and Crouwel, and consequently they must have made blunders in their eager reconstructions. Littauer and Crouwel were diplomatic about this, but also generous in giving the reconstructions their full consideration as well, before then denying the Sintashtan vehicles were chariots, based on the reconstructed additions too. But most importantly, the authors make it very clear the actual evidence however limited is still sufficient to conclude that whatever else they may have been, the Sintashta carts cannot have been chariots in the true and - as Francesco Brighenti would troll Sanauli finds with - the only sense.

The 2000 BCE-1800 BCE vehicles of the 2100 BCE-1800 BCE Sintashta culture being carts and expressly not chariots, these and prior steppe cultures didn't give rise to chariots.

So if no chariots, then exactly what is left that makes Sintashta Indo-Iranian?

And, since Sintashta has turned out to be a culture that expressly has no chariots, can they still be *made* to be Indo-Iranian?

Remember: They said that:

harappa.com/content/cult-object (about Soma filters in SSVC)

Quote:We do not have the horse in the Indus Civilization. [1]

There is no evidence for the wheeled chariot. [2]

There is no evidence for the spoked wheels. [3]

And denied that this meant that Vedic religion's antecedents could be identified with Bharatam.


[1] njsaryablog.blogspot.com/2017/07/aryan-migration-from-academics-to-politics.html

Quote:true horse bones were recovered from several Harappan sites belonging to the mature Harappan levels which were securely dated between 2700 BC to the 2000 BC and which had nothing to do with the so called migrations of some fictitious Aryan tribes. Every evidence of horse that was unearthed from a Harappan site dated before 2000 BC was doubted and the competency of the scholars who identified them were also questioned. A significant incident can be cited in this connection. In a 1974 article 5, A.K. Sharma, an expert in faunal studies, identified the remains of true domesticated horse from the mature Harappan level of Surkotada, a prominent Harappan site of Gujarat. But Sharma’s claim lacked widespread acceptance as migrationist scholars stamped the specimens as onager or wild ass. After some 20 years, a renowned archaeologist and horse specialist of Hungarian origin, Sandor Bökönyi, came to India and confirmed Sharma’s identification after examining the said specimens.6

The aggrieved Sharma then reacted: “This was the saddest day for me as the thought flashed in my mind that my findings had to wait two decades for recognition, until a man from another continent came, examined the material and declared that ‘Sharma was right’. When will we imbibe intellectual courage not to look across borders for approval? The historians are still worse, they feel it is an attempt on the part of the ‘rightists’ to prove that the Aryans did not come to India from outside her boundaries.”7
(More on p.15 of Michel Danino's academia.edu/39599444/Fabricating_Evidence_in_Support_of_the_Aryan_Invasion_Migration_Theory from 2018)

Compare how they deny this actual evidence for pre-AIT presence of horses in SSVC with how the Goebbelsian Steppe Hoaxes propagated by IEist serial forger David Anthony are celebrated and perpetuated everywhere by IEists.

[2] harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Kenoyer2004_Wheeled%20Vehicles%20of%20the%20Indus%20Valley%20Civilizatio.pdf

Quote:"Perhaps the most convincing example of a spoked wheel comes from the site of Rahkigarhi, presumably from the Harappan levels (Figure 8:2) though the excavation report has not yet been published. In this example there are eleven radiating spokes that would have provided considerable support to a light outer rim." [p.11, referring to Figure 8:2 on p29 of PDF]

[3] SSVC or a different culture, further inland in ancient Bharatam there were solid but patterned wheeled chariots : the circa 2500-1800 BCE Sanauli chariots were definitely wheeled:

- external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fi.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F30%2F72%2F59%2F307259d6193a100d8af1691e1d1f2c8e.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

- archaeologynewsnetwork.blogspot.com/2018/06/chariot-from-bronze-age-found-during.html

Can note again how, unlike the massive reconstructions that were necessary for Anthony to transform the actual evidence of Sintashta into chariots, the Indian archaeological evidence is massive. Not elaborate drawings to reinvent mere stains and imprints of axles and naves and lower parts of wheels as in Sintashta into full-blown chariots, but actual and large physical vehicle remains in Sanauli in Bharatam's Uttar Pradesh, the likes of which the European Indo-Europeanists could only wish had been found at that time in their own backyard.

* The estimated date range of the Sanauli chariots is between 2500 to 1800 ("Web Title:4500 years old chariot and crown from pre iron age found during excavation in baghpat of uttar pradesh" at www.livehindustan.com/uttar-pradesh/bagpat/story-4500-years-old-chariot-and-crown-from-pre-iron-age-found-during-excavation-in-baghpat-of-uttar-pradesh-1997024.html), with news usually reporting 2000 BCE (e.g. WION, www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlvl4h3OsFk). Note again that even the Sanauli vehicles' most conservative 2000-1800 BCE dating is still contemporaneous with the date reported by Littauer & Crouwel for Sintashta.

IEists can go hang themselves: they keep FORGING "evidence" and perpetrating steppe hoaxes, e.g. the "Vedic steppe burial/Dadhya~nc burial in steppe" hoax, the "domesticated horse in Dereivka" hoax, "chariots in Sintashta" hoax, and more, (while their Indian sepoys, the IIEists, keep repeating these hoaxes to sell to the new converts they're missionising)

And they keep denying ACTUAL evidence from Bharatam.

Hardcore steppists have now retreated to hide behind steppe horses as evidence and invented a "horse worshipping" religion (a what?) as the key connecting factor. But just as they keep saying that not just Indian mouse, but even Indian peacock, Indian cow, Indian dog with Indian/Iranian wolf (but note: Iranian wolf doesn't howl, but dogs do) presence or admixture in Europe or among Mittani are not evidence of ancient Indians having brought it there, Indians can certainly argue that any steppe horses (should such things have even existed as indigenous to the steppes, other than Przewalski which are irrelevant to IEism) are not evidence of any Sintashta-Andronovo or other steppe kulturs having brought them to ancient India. [Zebu were admixed into ancient Italian cows to produce the Chianina celebrated in ancient Roman times in Latium and Etruria -> www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57880-4, European dogs have admixture from Indian-like-dog-with-Indian/Iranian-wolf admixture, and had reached Europe by 4700 ybp -> www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/068189v3.full, etc. Mittani used peacock imagery in a major way.]


[size="5"]The origin of the true chariot[/size]


(LINK: sci-hub.st/https :// doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00084192)

Some extracts, for those who only have attention span sufficient for tweet-threads and expect others to do all the looking up, reading and excerpting for you:

Quote:"Early spoked wheels in the steppes

The spoked wheel, together with horse draught and the bitted bridle, are usually considered the essentials of the war, hunting and (later) racing chariot, but it can be shown that these features alone are not enough. 1 The recent calibrated radiocarbon dating to c. 2000-1800 BC of light, horse-drawn vehicles from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero, in northern Kazakhstan just east of the Urals, has revived the claim that the chariot originated in the steppe area rather than somewhere in the Near East (Gening et al. 1992; Kuzmina 1994: 163-457; Anthony 1995: 561-2; Anthony & Vinogradov 1985). The burials from which the northern datings come contain the remains of horses and the bone cheekpieces of soft-mouthed bits, of the vehicles there are in most cases only the impressions of their two, spoked wheels as placed standing in the graves (FIGURE 1). The earliest southern documentation is provided by cylinder-seal impressions from the time of Karum II at Kültepe, central Anatolia, usually dated to the early 2nd millennium BC (FIGURE a), and by a terracotta plaque from Uruk in southern Mesopotamia, possibly of slightly later date (Littauer & Crouwell979: figures 28-30; Garelli & Collon 1975: no. 46). The latter show equid-drawn vehicles with two spoked wheels. We do not know what superstructure the Ural vehicles had. The soil impressions of the wheels, placed vertically in especially made slots in the bottom of the burial chamber, when combined with the dimensions of the chamber, give two basic measurements: the wheel-track or gauge (the distance between the wheels, 120 cm) and the maximum length of the nave (20 cm). As explained later, these dimensions would render the vehicle impractical at speed and limit its manoeuvrability. These cannot yet be true chariots. The Anatolian seal impressions and Uruk plaque show small passenger vehicles with light railings.

1 The chariot may be defined as a light, fast, usually horse-drawn vehicle with two spoked wheels; its crew usually stood."

"The earliest southern documentation is provided by cylinder-seal impressions from the time of Karum II at Kültepe, central Anatolia, usually dated to the early 2nd millennium BC (FIGURE a), and by a terracotta plaque from Uruk in southern Mesopotamia, possibly of slightly later date (Littauer & Crouwell979: figures 28-30; Garelli & Collon 1975: no. 46). The latter show equid-drawn vehicles with two spoked wheels."

"The issues: progress vs invention

The steppes also had burials with wheeled vehicles, in the Pit-Grave culture of the late 4th and 3rd millennia BC - ox-drawn wagons with four disc wheels. A re-examination of all the pertinent documents and material forms the basis of a recent doctoral dissertation for the Institute of Archaeology of St Petersburg by Yelena Izbitser (1993). Several new facts have emerged. Wherever the superstructure can be deduced, it has turned out to be rather light, and for a seated passenger. But these vehicles would not have been fast, and their range even more limited than that of two-wheelers. A sec ond conclusion is more significant. Hitherto, when an irregular number of wheels (beyond four) have been found in a few graves, it has suggested the presence also of two-wheelers. Dr Izbitser’s examination has shown that these wheels belonged to other four-wheelers. If she is correct in her readings, it means that no early tradition of fast transport by two-wheeler existed on the steppe.

What also seems to emerge from Dr Izbitser’s work is that many of the four-wheeled vehicles buried with seated passengers would have been more suitable for processions and for burial rites than for workaday use. These must have been ceremonial, status-conferring vehicles.

In the Near East, however, by the later 3rd millennium BC, fast, single-person, equid-drawn two-wheelers had been in use for many centuries. The domestic horse is depicted there by the 23rd-21st centuries BC, to judge particularly from the terracotta figurine of a stallion recently found at Tell es-Sweyhat in Syria (Holland 1993-4: 283, figure 111). This animal’s muzzle was pierced in an area that could only be for a bit (not a nose-ring) and he was associated with models of wheeled vehicles. When the horse was ridden, it was still with the ‘donkey’ seat, and horse-back riding continued to be considered unsuitable for the Blite (Moorey 1970; Littauer & Crouwel1979: 45-6,65-8; Owen 1991).

But an animal faster, stronger and handsomer than the native donkey soon found his appropriate role - in draught with that traditionally prestigious conveyance - the wheeled vehicle. Does it not seem more likely that the horse’s introduction to draught in the Near East stimulated the local wheelwrights to invent a lighter wheel for the already long-existing two-wheelers than that people without a history of two-wheeled vehicles and with an already superior personal conveyance - the mounted horse - should find reason suddenly to invent such a vehicle in its entirety?"

"We should like to suggest that it was the prestige value of the Near Eastern two-wheelers that inspired imitations on the steppes".

"The chariot, moreover, was costly to make and to maintain, and draught teams had to be especially trained and to be matched in height and stride (Piggott 1992: 42-8)."

‘ Proto-chariots’

Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber (FIGURE 1); Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle and naves. At Sintashta, the wheel tracks and their position relative to the walls of the tomb chamber limited the dimensions of the naves, hence the stability of the vehicle. Ancient naves were symmetrical, the part outside the spokes of equal length to that inside. Allowing enough room for the end of the axle arm and linch pin on the outer side of the nave and for a short spacer on the inner side of the nave end to keep it from rubbing on the body of the vehicle, we are left with no more than 20 cm for the entire length of the nave. The shortest ancient nave of which we know on a two-wheeler is 34 cm in length, and the great majority are 40-45 cm (Littauer & Crouwell985: 76, 91). The long naves of ancient two-wheelers were required by the material used: wooden naves revolving on wooden axles cannot fit tightly, as recent metal ones do. The short, hence loosely fitting nave will have a tendency to wobble, and it was in order to reduce this that the nave was lengthened. A wobbling nave will soon damage all elements of the wheel and put all parts of the vehicle under stress. If the vehicle should hit a boulder or a tree stump, the wheel rim would lose its verticality and, so close to the side of the body, could damage that as well as itself. The present reconstructions of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something for which there is no evidence (FIGURE 4). It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing."
Post 3

^ Previous 2 posts on the topic: "SINTASHTA CARTS expressly NOT CHARIOTS: Littauer & Crouwel 1996 disproved Anthony 1995 fraud. No new evidence. How chariotless Sintashta=Indo-Iranian?"

This post is NOT for Indian IEists, especially not the steppist subset. They may re-read Anthony and the like and be content.


(1) Some other relevant stuffs that naturally bypassed IIEists (Anthony type books are at their level - it's called confirmation bias). But the next are on a matter that all heathens of the subcontinent (i.e. HindOOs) should read up on and should pursue as points for further enquiry to better understand the viability for steppism in particular, but also IEism in general.

Margalit Finkelberg's works on Anatolian and Greek (I surmised that her field includes the history of the Aegean, as well as Ancient Greek, and the "Anatolian branch of IE languages")

She argues that the pre-Greeks were Indo-Europeans: IIRC, that Minoans were Indo-European and spoke Anatolian. This has very real genetic implications and doesn't bode well for steppism based on the data we have (Harvard itself and its eager parrots have assured us that Minoans were practically absent of steppe), though I'm sure that steppists will try something or other to twist it all into deriving from the steppe some day, and that the usual forgers will fudge the existing data somehow, or failing that - a more usual recourse - to suppress in toto such works as Finkelberg's where possible and dismiss where needed, with arguments like "we know that India has lots of steppe input, therefore AIT, which means therefore steppe IE, which means therefore Minoan is not IE and therefore Finkelberg's research disqualified" circular reasoning. Except steppe IE let alone PIE does not actually logically follow in that sequence, but they'll repeatedly state this illogical sequence in the hope that it will stick and become perceived truth.

- M. Finkelberg paper, "The Language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian?", 2001 or 2000

Just scroll down to read: academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian

Short yet decisive paper, like the best of them. Wherein Finkelberg quite conclusively demonstrates that Minoan (written in Linear A) is.... [b]an Anatolian language, i.e. Indo-European.[/b]

Hindoos must not allow others to talk past or over or around this: Let the author's arguments be disproven before anyone continues to claim otherwise or attempts to move past the point.

- Book Margalit Finkelberg, "Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Aegean Prehistory and Greek Heroic Tradition" (2005), Cambridge University Press

Download as PDF (2006): dinitrandu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Greeks-and-Pre-greeks.pdf

Info: cambridge.org/core/books/greeks-and-pregreeks/095AFB854C7EE4C0A6F32C06EBCA8F03

- M. Finkelberg, "Anatolian Languages and Indo-European Migrations to Greece" (1997), The Classical World


Steppists just ignore Finkelberg's arguments and people will then assume that this means Finkelberg's disproven. But types like Anthony and his Sanskrit translator Doniger and Witzels are not at the same level, let's face it. First, Finkelberg is an actual researcher and academic, not a fraud and forger like Anthony and Doniger (Mair and countless other repeat offenders of steppist fame).

Also, Finkelberg has come up with how to solve Linear A identification, not merely exercising linguistics like Witzels nor doing Witzel's airy-fairy stuff like the hocus-pocus of reconstructing the religions or cultures or whatever of Laurasia and Gondwana (IIRC Elst reviewed Witzel's foray into that new-ageism).

The following explains why Finkelberg's findings on Minoan being a clearly Anatolian language based on the evidence are very relevant to the steppist theory (i.e. the steppe PIE homeland theory) and actually even the steppe-origin AIT:


Quote: ak2014b says:

12th January 2019 at 17:14

...the informative Jonathan Sherman Morris paper “Wheels, Languages and Bullshit (Or How Not To Do Linguistic Archaeology)” (2018) ingentaconnect.com/content/plg/phil/2018/00000019/00000001/art00003# that Alberto helpfully pointed out. I’ve quickly skimmed the first third of that paper and several points immediately stood out, one of which was the following paragraph on p. 73,

“Georgiev nevertheless describes an Anatolian substrate in Greek toponyms detectable in the -ss- and -nd- suffixes South of Mount Pindos, but not North of it (Georgiev, 1960, pp. 285–297). If the Anatolians really did migrate down the Balkans from North to South, the last thing one would expect to find is an east-west linguistic frontier of this kind.

This migration ostensibly makes the Anatolians latecomers to Anatolia, who fell under the influence of indigenous Hattic and Hurrian speak-ers, but the same JIES 2001 volume contains an illuminating contribution by Margalit Finkelberg (2001), who makes a persuasive case that Linear A, attested in Crete and Mycenae, is an Anatolian language. In other words, the case for a long-standing presence of Anatolian in Western Anatolia and the Aegean (where there is no evidence for Hattic or Hurrian) looks like a strong one. Her paper is not mentioned either by Anthony or by Lewis and Pereltsvaig, even though it is hard to imagine that they were unaware of it, since it is in the same volume as the Darden paper.

[Like I said, steppists - even the professional full-time steppists, not just the bloggers - are notorious for ignoring, suppressing else dismissing off-hand any arguments inconvenient to steppism. Anthony went with the first - i.e. ignoring - as he and his Harvard connections now repeatedly do with Littauer & Crouwel's expose of Anthony's non-chariots in Sintashta.]

In other words, there is good evidence for a long-standing presence of Anatolian in Western Anatolia and an expansion to the West, but none for a migration from the Pontic Steppes down the Balkans.“

[color="#800080"][Note the entire block italicised above is an excerpt from Sherman's "Wheels, Language and Bullshit", which despite the title is actually a scholarly sendup of that unscholarly fraud Anthony, whose work "Horse, wheel (spiel)" deserves no better review/critique title. Personally, rather than "Bullshit", I think Sherman should go with "Horse Manure", but first he may have wanted actual proof that the horses ancestral to modern horses are actually endemic and exclusively so to the steppes, something that's been repeatedly claimed but not actually shown, and not merely introduced there, say. After all, so many other steppist "truths" claimed for the steppe have turned out to be hot air and essentially forgeries. Maybe Sherman is like me and now disbelieves any claims that promote steppe PIE until verified, rather than assuming they're true until disproven.][/color]

There’s actually two or three points of interest in this very extract, but I refer particularly to how Linear A is concluded to have been an Anatolian language by Finkelberg.

The Wikipedia entry for Linear A, “Linear A was the primary script used in palace and religious writings of the Minoan civilization.”

Anthrogenica and the rest of the genetics blogosphere have recently been insistent that Linear A is absolutely not Indo-European (and by consequence, neither the Minoans), but if Linear A turns out to have been of an Anatolian language and therefore Indo-European, then does it not have far reaching implications?

I have now been able to read the cited Margalit Finkelberg paper, The Language of Linear A: Greek, Semitic, or Anatolian? R. Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and Indo-European Language Family. Papers presented at a Colloquium Hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18-19, 2000. Journal of Indo-European Studies. Monograph Series 38 (Washington 2001).


Finkelberg’s arguments are indeed very effective and convincing.

The author has made this excellent paper available for reading. I will therefore just go over her conclusions from her findings.

For Linear A, she systematically rules out not only Greek, Semitic and Hurrian, but also Hattic and Sumerian. She then proceeds to make positive identification with Anatolian languages in specific, to be able to conclude,

“It can therefore be inferred with a considerable degree of certainty that the language of Linear A is an Anatolian language.” (page 95)

And after Finkelberg narrows it down even further, she is even able to reasonably surmise

“There is thus a high degree of correspondence between the phonological and morphological system of Minoan and that of Lycian. In view of this, there seems reason to conclude that the language of Linear A is either the direct ancestor of Lycian or a closely related idiom.” (page 98)

My request is for Finkelberg’s findings to be discussed by Kristiina, with her linguistic expertise, and by Frank, Rob and of course Alberto with their knowledge in archaeology and/or from their study.

If Minoan civilisation spoke a language of the Anatolian language family, and was therefore Indo-European, it opens up interesting questions related to aDNA too, which I hope will be addressed. For instance, how does Linear A as Anatolian/IE inform the results from the still limited number of Bronze Age samples from Greece? I think the Lazaridis et al 2017 paper found that Mycenaeans and Minoans significantly shared one component, and this had been argued away in the genetics blogosphere as being the non Indo-European portion of their heritage, whereas much was made of the relatively minor steppe portion that was to be exclusive to the Mycenaeans.

However, if the Minoans’ Linear A script points to an Anatolian language (and not any of the many non Indo-European languages and language families that were in the vicinity), then does that not rather make that part of the genetic heritage that is shared by both Minoans and Mycenaeans actually gain in relevance where Indo-European is concerned?

ak2014b says:

13th January 2019 at 18:04

A popular assumption current is that only aDNA from Anatolia that shows steppe would be truly representative of Indo-European ancestry. And with it the argument has been that it is an absolute given that Minoans’ Linear A is not IE and therefore Minoans are not IE, that therefore any Anatolian heritage shared with Minoans dismisses such Anatolian heritage from IE. This is why I was surprised with Finkelberg 2001, and how we don’t in fact know that Minoans/Linear A are not IE, and that they may in fact be IE, Anatolian in specific.


[color="#800080"][Actually, Finkelberg shows rather conclusively that Linear A and therefore Minoans are IE, specifically Anatolian.][/color]

Marko says:

14th January 2019 at 23:49

Regarding Mehmet’s comments, this is an interesting quote from Finkelberg’s Greeks and Pre-Greeks:

“Moreover, as Onofrio Carruba has shown in a recent article, Luwian is the

only substratum language that can be traced west of a line drawn from the

Bosporus in the north to the Gulf of Alexandretta in the south, that is,

over the entire territory of Asia Minor.12 In view of these facts, it is hard

to avoid the conclusion that the orthodoxy of the non-Indo-European

pre-Hellenic substratum has lost its raison d’eˆtre.”

(Bear in mind that Luwian is an Anatolian language, i.e. an IE language. Meaning the pre-Hellenic substratum in Greek is noticeably or significantly or largely IE.

So say experts on Ancient Greek and Anatolian language/culture/history. (In contrast, Anthony's expertise is to defer to *Doniger* of all people for "Sanskrit" translations. And even Witzel made fun of Doniger's "expertise" in this.)

Yet arguments by actual experts like Finkelberg only get ignored by steppists, in the hopes that then they won't get heard by the populace.

So heathen Hindoos, make sure you hear it. And then when the IIEists blather - as they do - that you should read Anthony, you know exactly how "well-read" they are, and how much they can actually think for themselves, or find and look up serious published works.)

With the ancient DNA from Asia Minor accumulating, another author worth looking at might be Petra Goedegebuure. She actually bothered to learn Hattian, and her findings seem to upend long-held notions about indigenous Hattians in Anatolia: according to her there is a Luwian-like substrate in Hattian, suggesting that before the Hittites usurped Hattian power the latter subdued an Indo-European Anatolian people. This leads me to question whether it is possible that the increase in the CHG component observed in Chalcolithic Anatolia might be the signal of Hattian invaders rather than that of the Indo-Europeans as Reich and colleagues seem to believe.

(2) Again: To Hindoos, i.e. Hindu heathens, read the above and ignore IIEists prancing about promoting the low-brow works by Anthony and such.

On another matter, but relevant to steppe AIT, here follows a pre-print from as recently as November 2020 arguing that the steppes were the source of Finno-Ugric (FU) and that IE was not originally native to the steppes.

The authors even use the earlier aDNA results from the Damgaard paper to rule out the steppes' relevance to (IE in) India, and consequently to PIE, and that is actually part of their argument for why the steppes may then have been the origins of FU rather than IE instead.

[Note that this pre-print came out months after the July 2020 pre-print that found the usual Z93/subbranches in Fatyanovo that were already known to be common in steppe kulturs. Non-steppist IIEists, who hold to IE migrating into India from Caucasus/Iran/BMAC, still point out that the L657 subbranch of Z93 - a common R1a Hg in India - remains to be found on the steppes. I ceased to be convinced of the relevance of Z93 and R1a in general some years back when I thought through possible repercussions of Sintashta > Scythian > Proto-Turkic > Turkic, besides realising that it wasn't answering actual questions and only led to bad cases of circular reasoning.]


Quote:More rule than exception: Parallel evidence of ancient migrations in grammars and genomes of Finno-Ugric speakers

Patrícia Santos, Gloria Gonzalez-Fortes, Emiliano Trucchi, Andrea Ceolin, Guido Cordoni, Cristina Guardiano, Giuseppe Longobardi, Guido Barbujani

doi: https: // doi.org/10.1101/2020.11.02.364521

This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?].

AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics

Preview PDF


To reconstruct aspects of human demographic history, linguistics and genetics complement each other, reciprocally suggesting testable hypotheses on population relationships and interactions. Relying on a linguistic comparative method exclusively based on syntactic data, here we focus on the complex relation of genes and languages among Finno-Ugric (FU) speakers, in comparison to their Indo-European (IE) and Altaic (AL) neighbors. Syntactic analysis supports three distinct clusters corresponding to these three Eurasian families; yet, the outliers of the FU group show linguistic convergence with their geographical neighbors. By analyzing genome-wide data in both ancient and contemporary populations, we uncovered remarkably matching patterns, with north-western FU speakers linguistically and genetically closer in parallel degrees to their IE-speaking neighbors, and eastern FU speakers to AL-speakers. Therefore, our study indicates plausible secondary convergence in the syntax of languages of different families, providing evidence that such interference effects were accompanied, and possibly caused, by recognizable processes at the population level. In particular, based on the comparison of modern and ancient genomes, our analysis identified the Pontic-Caspian steppes as the possible origin of the demographic processes that led to the expansion of the FU into Europe.


As for Indo-European, despite a long tradition of studies, it is still debated whether early IE languages came into Europe from the Pontic-Caspian steppes (and spread west in the Bronze Age [24,25]) or from Anatolia (and spread with the dispersal of early Neolithic farmers [14,26]). Thus, we compared the syntax and the genomes of several AL-FU- and IE-speaking populations with the available genome-wide data, both contemporary and ancient, in the area of interest [27]. Of particular interest was one Bronze-Age population from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, the Yamnaya, the likely source of the Bronze-Age migration leading to a Westwards diffusion of DNA of Central Asian origin and, according to some authors, of IE languages in Europe [28–30]. By contrast, a recent analysis of Asian genomes suggested that the spread of IE languages in South Asia and Anatolia may have little, if anything, to do, with migration from the Pontic-Caspian steppes [31]. An analogous uncertainty surrounds the homeland of early Uralic-speakers, whether in the river Volga basin [25] or further East, in Siberia [32].


The genomic similarity between the Yamnaya and the first FU speakers of Europe may be difficult to reconcile with the view that the Yamnaya were also the first who introduced IE languages in Europe, as suggested by studies of genomic, not linguistic, data [28,29]. One possibility, supported by a study of Iberia [61], is that the arrival in Europe of the Steppe genomic component did not necessarily entail the same linguistic changes in all areas. In the absence of adequate data to formally test this hypothesis, we still may speculate that the small, but non-negligible, ancestry component associated with the Anatolian Neolithic [31] among the Yamnaya may reflect previous Northward gene flow from the Near East into the Pontic steppes. If so, it would be possible to reconcile genetic evidence for the Neolithic demic diffusion from the Near East, linguistic evidence on a Near East centre of IE diffusion [14,26,31,58,62], and data suggesting a role of Yamnaya people in spreading both IE [28,29,63], and FU (this study) languages, by imagining the existence of some linguistic diversity within the Yamnaya-like populations and concluding that IE languages have entered Europe in two moments and by two routes. The first one would correspond to the main Neolithic expansion, Northwest into Southern and then Central Europe, but also North, towards the Pontic Steppes. The linguistic impact of this migration would have not been the same for all people in the Pontic steppes; some would retain their original FU languages, some would acquire an IE language. The former would then mostly move towards the Baltic and Finnish area, whereas the latter would correspond to the IE-speaking populations dispersing in Europe in the Bronze Age [29,64], giving rise to the Bell Beaker and Corded Ware cultures.


31. de Barros Damgaard, P., Martiniano, R., Kamm, J., Moreno-Mayar, J.V., Kroonen, G., Peyrot, M., Barjamovic, G., Rasmussen, S., Zacho, C., Baimukhanov, N., et al. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 2018, 360, doi:10.1126/science.aar7711.

The authors above are kind enough to somehow come up with a convoluted theory that allows a non-IE steppe to be adopted into IE, the steppes thus becoming IEised earlier than whatever date or literary tradition for which is there evidence for any actual "IE" language in NE/NW Europe. But since they think the aDNA results from the Indian subcontinent are a significant argument to ruling out steppe as IE homeland, it is because they think steppe AIT isn't supported based on the subcontinent's aDNA results (and Anatolia).

That means even if they're arguing for a Near Eastern PIE homeland again, it is closer to Renfrew's first model (who argued that IE entered directly from some Near Eastern origin - specifically an Anatolian origin in Renfrew's argument - to India; not his second model of IE from Anatolia to steppe and from steppe to India.) Indians have little enough BMAC, such that that didn't help many people's theories about the BMAC as a source or stepping stone for IE into India. And Indians don't have much Anatolian, so some other Near Eastern source may now be meant than the Anatolia of Colin Renfrew's model. Perhaps their preferred urheimat has moved to Sarianidi's model, but the claimed paucity or even lack of BMAC ancestry in Indians is still an impediment to that too.

What's most relevant to Hindoos in this pre-print reviewing the extant aDNA data as at Nov 2020, is that the authors are predicating their argument significantly on finding that the steppe is not the source of IE in the Indian subcontinent. Read between the lines: the authors don't find the aDNA results thus far convincing for the case of steppe AIT for India. Meaning: Hindoos should not roll over to/be intimidated by IIEists who project steppe AIT as convincing and practically settled. It ain't. I still think Littauer in combination Finkelberg as the more convincing in having overturned the steppe's relevance to IE in general (which very probably didn't speak IE until possibly the Scythians, IMO):

[color="#0000FF"]- Finkelberg has shown[/color] from Linear-A analysis that the very non-steppe Minoans spoke Anatolian IE, and that Greek overlays an IE pre-Greek substratum. The Mycenaeans, despite their relatively minor bit of steppe (setting off the steppists' jubilation), were largely genetically similar to Minoans otherwise. So the large similarity of non-steppe ancestry between the two can rather be argued as a genetic IE similarity, or at any rate rules out the steppe's relevance to Greek and Anatolian. Minoan genetics itself as non-steppe was made into a closed case/argued as settled by none other than hardcore steppists: they can't open the book they slammed shut. So again: since Minoans spoke IE after all, as did Mycenaeans, and since it is the steppe that is minor in Mycenaeans and non-existent in Anatolian speaking Minoans, then it follows that their non-steppe shared genetic heritage (a.o.t. Mycenaeans' differentiating steppe acquisition) ought to become relevant for identifying authentically IE genetic ancestry.

[color="#0000FF"]- Next, from the chariot experts Littauer & Crouwel (1996), we know[/color] the evidence of the two wheeled imprints from Sintashta is sufficient to be most positive and insistent that Sintashta never had chariots. All evidence of actual chariots on the steppe are from much later, and well after other populations (non-steppe) long had the true chariot. For years steppists had parroted that the key if not clinching evidence for steppe AIT was the since falsified "Vedic dadhyanch muni horse-head burial in the steppe", which was exposed by other archaeologists and fell through. Steppists then shifted to arguing that Sintashta was homeland of the true chariot, and it was steppists who then argued that the true chariot was intimately tied to Indo-Iranian (I-Ir). But turns out Sintashta had no chariots of any kind - in fact Sintashtans were so incompetent they only managed to create 2 wheelers that would pathetically shatter on impact. By their own idiocy in predicating true chariots to I-Ir ethnogenesis/homeland, steppists' choice of Sintashta turned into a miserable failure and ruled itself out. More fool them. What this means is that the moment Sintashta became incapable of chariots, wherever the R1a/Z93 in India may be from became actually and utterly irrelevant for Vedic religion, Samskritam and therefore the topic of IEism in India, whether it invaded in droves at the right time and place for steppe AIT or trickled in at the wrong times and only made a splash as late as the Shakas to notably the Turkics (dark age Ghazis invaders who ended buried in the NW of the subcontinent carried Z93 > Z94 and lots of Sintashta derived steppe, and notably had large Identical-By-Descent segments in common with Khans of Afganistan and Pakistan, as shown by Pathans who did the analysis. So this explains some chunk - at minimum - of their steppe ancestry already.) So wherever steppe (and any R1a derived from there) in India came from - whether it's dollops or trickles doesn't matter - this got divorced from the question of whether Vedic religio and lingo is indigenous. But whatever the case, they certainly ain't from Sintashta as per steppists' own bad gamble on Anthony's terrible skills in forging evidence for steppism (since Sintashta's two-wheelers were specifically not chariots, the last underpinning for I-Ir culture). Sintashtans did not know of what steppists themselves insisted was the mainstay of I-Ir kultur: they didn't invent chariots, they didn't even possess it.

And so Littauer & Crouwel killed Sintashta and its derivatives as I-Ir homeland. No one before this kultur on the steppes, let alone their genetic ancestors in Europe, had the chariot (we know this, as Sintashta was proclaimed the first to have chariots, though it turned out they never had it). So since no part of early steppe kulturs had chariots, none of them were the I-Ir homeland. Again, by steppists' own logic.

To be able to reliably bank on aDNA results, need samples from early cultures *known* to be IE speaking. This aint't the steppes or even early NW/NE Europe (let's be honest, no one knows what they/their Corded Ware Culture derived forbears spoke, language there was documented much later; and the high steppe derived non-IE Basques preclude the steppist assumptions). aDNA from the steppes only leads to bad circular reasoning and was a red herring - besides a mine of dishonesty and forgeries to wade through.

Again, you need aDNA from Greeks, Romans, Hindus (all sadly cremating groups, Mittani too I think; but great store is set by the gold masked burials said to be Greek elites). Hittite results are argued this way and that as suits the steppist or other IIEist theories; so too are most ancient Anatolian results. They can argue away Iranians in the same way, but at least they exposed bodies of the dead. On the other hand, the volatile islamic Middle-East blows evidence up, so that may not prove helpful. "Indian" Buddhists bury, but more readily admixed since early times with foreigners especially from steppe-affected C Asia. Even steppist Europeans who insisted that Buddhist burials in Swat would be the flaming gun of "oryan steppe" AIT evidence, became quiet when the results remained ambiguous (or even not really in their favour).

The Minoans, however, whom Finkelberg showed to be IE Anatolian speakers, ended up unmistakable as far as the steppe question is concerned: unmistakably non-steppe. Steppists mistook this absence of steppe in Minoans to be in their favour, since Minoans and the language of Linear A was popularised as being non-IE and steppists banked on this being a truism, but only by suppressing wide reading of Finkelberg and the like can this facade be maintained. (Q: wonder if, to make steppism stick, Harvard will reinvent Minoans as having had steppe ancestry "after all" were they ever to read and understand the implications in Finkelberg? Because Harvard was never a paragon of honesty: it's not just picked Anthony - of all steppist choices - as the main 'archeologist' guiding their aDNA analyses and conclusions, but Harvard has had many of its own agenda driven IEist cheats throughout, not just Witzel, so it's not just a case of 'bad taste in good faith' in appointing Anthony. I rather think that it's better for Harvard aDNA studies to continue to pretend that Finkelberg etc don't exist. Like all IEist steppists, Harvard too should continue sticking to low-brow Anthony & ilk.)

HindOOs don't need to prove the status quo, just retain it until proven otherwise. But never assume the counter-position. By definition of heathen and religio being tradition, assume the received position/status quo (i.e. indigeneity of our heathen identity). You can then go the route of least effort: investigate the countless hydra heads of AIT/IEist theories to poke holes into them. By a process of elimination, you'll be left with the truth, which so far is still the status quo BTW (or at least this hasn't been disproven, so you're not dislodged from holding to indigeneity, contrary to IIEists' blaring.)

And contrary to antagonists' claims: Hindoos don't need to invent their own theory for PIEism (urheimat etc). It's not our homework to prove PIEism - any aspect of it. Proving that/urheimat is *IEists'* homework. If you can successfully keep maintaining the status quo of the indigeneity of Vedic religio hence lingo (i.e. ancestry of identity, not your genetic ancestry, as we also have "recent" E Asian etc), you can eventually declare that you don't know how "IE" languages appeared elsewhere, notably in regions like NW/NE Europe that don't have evidence of early presence of IE (also tell them it's not your homework to make their case - of IE being equally indigenous to them - for them). For all you know "IE" languages spread like the flu or covid-19: the populations who speak "IE" today or even in the bronze age or before or between may have caught onto it due to various circumstances and reasons, not necessarily genetic. (Maybe due to temporary common tongue formations that were IE.) Then say all you know is there's still been no evidence against indigeneity of Hindoo (Vedic) identity in Bharatam. And that is ALL you need to prove.

Then keep poking holes for the fun of it, or out of spite, or because there are so many holes that it is unavoidable.

There's a lot more holes to poke into steppism, but never lay out all your cards. Just lay out the public ones first and then place the others as and when needed. Again the rule of minimum effort: do the minimum that it takes to pull the rug from under the opposition's position (or break the key pillar upholding their edifice). Make other Hindoos understand just that. And if they are the kind that can and will think for themselves (compared to the countless blind followers among IIEists - what an embarrassment of posturing wannabes they are), teach such independent-thinking Hindoo heathens the same minimum-effort method of researching the feet upholding the opposition's theories and seeing whether they actually hold or not, and if not, to knock them down.

In common with missionary religions, AIT is a replacement for heathenism, it is not compatible with heathenism, no matter any claims otherwise. It will destroy heathenism. So don't do nothing. Don't expect others to do something. Do it yourself. (At least do it for yourself, even if you have given up trying to correct others or "fix" the unending yet multiplying problems plaguing India.) It ain't hard. There are more lethal holes in steppism, for instance, than you can count. Don't know yet about the Near Eastern IE theories, as steppism is the immediate obstruction in popular understanding and I only do the minimum at each stage. Also neolithic level Near Eastern theories appear less prone to supremacism, so besides not being an immediate threat they're apparently also less of a dangerous subversion. There is nothing less heathen than a supremacist. Always remember: the best men (I say men, but you know I mean women and all life forms) don't even know they're the best, the thought certainly never crosses their mind. (Possibly a key ingredient.) They just are what they are. But you don't need to be the best. This ain't a competition. You won't live to win it anyway. Your job (besides sticking to your principles so you can die with them intact) is to pass on heathenism untainted and unsubverted to the next generation and make them insubvertible. If you fail in that, you shouldn't have had children and have actually disadvantaged heathenism/heathens instead by adding to the armies of unheathens. Don't just tick of "get married, have kids" on your life list like all too many Indians do. If you choose to have kids, put in the effort to raise them heathen and immunise them against all subversions and replacements. You can't protect them from all forms of violence (chrislamania/communitwits), but if you can teach yourself to arm your mind against all subversions (i.e. to remain a heathen), you can perhaps pass the insight on how to do the same to your kids.

This post was on:

* Finkelberg proved conclusively (still uncontested/incontestible IIRC) that the language of the script of the Minoans, Linear A, was an Anatolian (i.e. Indo-European) language

* Minoans have no steppe. Meaning IE and PIE urheimat was not steppe originally

* Mycenaeans were largely Minoan genetically, with some very minor and varied steppe admixture. Minoans speaking "IE" + Mycenaeans speaking Greek ("IE") implies - by the same logic and logic level that steppists have used throughout, but with greater force - that IE was not steppe and that steppe possibly irrelevant for IE (i.e. possibly even for Greek; Greeks could just have derived from an IE population that chanced upon otherwise irrelevant steppe ancestry).

* Greeks and Pre-Greeks: Finkelberg shows IE nature of substratum. Overlaid on Anatolians

* Plus a Nov 2020 pre-print (appeared after the Z94 rich Fatyanovo paper from Jul 2020, though that apparently still hasn't even found L657 subbranch in the steppes after so many samples): Nov 2020 pre-print by Mediterranean sounding authors reviews aDNA data so far, arguing that Indian (and Anatolian) aDNA results have actually ruled out steppe kulturs' relevance to IE or at least to the PIE or late-PIE urheimat (but note: also ruled out AIT, as per the reference to Indian aDNA results in drawing this very conclusion). They argue that steppe was possibly Finno-Ugric instead, allowing the possibility that steppes may perhaps have been IE-ised eventually (though even then, the implication in the pre-print remains that the data were not found to support AIT/does not explain "IE" lingo in India)


This post is NOT for Indian steppists or actually any Indian IEists (IIEists).
Related to 3 and 2 posts up.

Post 4

1. IEists' lying never ceases: more examples of the unfathomable depths of universal IEist moronism, whether Indian IEist or foreign

Anthony's preposterous drawings that invented entire chariots out of very little evidence, has advanced to the next level in Joe 6-pack IEist, whether alien or Indian. But their even lower brain capacity doesn't excuse their penchant for adding their own lies on top of existing lies.

Exhibit a:


captions a well-known photo of the centuries-later Shang (Chinese) dynasty horse-chariot burial as "Photo of Chariot and Horses excavated from the site of Sintashta" instead :puke:

BTW, there are several steppists on the web that used the same photo and referred to it as Sintashta. Don't know who started that one, but not a brain among them: either no one knew it was a photo from a Shang burial, or they're all very consciously lying.

Again, as I said it's a well-known photo of a Shang chariot burial:

- www.pinterest.com/pin/575757133586025672/

"When the Shang died they were buried in an underground area. Kings were also buried with their horses in the same burial."

- lindsayshangdynasty.blogspot.com/2013/04/shang-picture-collage.html

- and counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.com/2009/03/working-stiff-in-art-china.html

What this shows is that IEists (IIEists inclusive) appear to be uniformly ignorant that there is nothing more than MERE IMPRINTS of portion of wheels in Sintashta from which Anthony invented the entire "chariot" charade. Joe 6 pack IEists don't know that this is all the evidence. That is why they are fooled into assuming pics of actual REMAINS of chariots (from China in the above examples) could actually be that of Sintashta.

Exhibit b:

Here's an idiot Indian IEist - but aren't they all - who probably doesn't even know (unless he's knowingly propagating further lies, in which case he's only more of an idiot to think non-steppists will believe him) that he's copied a photo from the famous news report of Zhou (Chinese, 1000-700 BCE) horse-chariot burial findings, and has labelled it as "sintashta-chariot" instead too:


Here's proof of the news where the famous photo was stolen from:


So now IIEists are also turning into compulsive liars else idiots who believe Chinese chariot burials of a different era are Sintashtan ones. See, nothing good comes from imbibing steppism. It addles any brains one may have had. Can only hope they've all been permanently dissuaded from reproducing.

Moral: At this rate, all IEists, steppists at any rate, may just be assumed to be liars until proven innocent.

BTW, note what evidence for horse-chariot burials (with overlaid spoke relief in the Zhou case) the Chinese have, late as it is in comparison to the true chariot's actual invention (which we know was outside the steppe). Note how Sintashta does not have such mass evidence. Remind yourself on what flimsy grounds "chariots" were claimed for Sintashta: imprints of lower parts of wheels. Is it any wonder steppists latched onto labelling Chinese chariot burial pictures as Sintashtan ones? It's implicit admission that there's nothing remotely convincing in Sintashta.

2. 2006 study confirms: radiocarbon dates of Sintashta's non-chariots were of 2000-1800 BCE, and all of them still the old finds already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 who found these carts to be anything but chariots

"The emergence of Bronze Age chariots in eastern Europe", Kuznetsov, 2006

Quote:The author presents new radiocarbon dates for chariot burials found in the region between Europe and the Urals, showing them to belong to the twentieth-eighteenth centuries BCE.

This appears to be the latest study on the Sintashta fake "chariots":

- confirms how there have still been no new finds since before Littauer & Crouwel 1996, who already reviewed the early 90s data by likes of Gening to Anthony & Vinograd, whose fake "chariot" burials are revisited here.

- this also reconfirms that, again, there's STILL nothing more than wheel imprints for the Sintashta 2-wheelers (and axle/nave in Krivoe Ozero).

- provides carbon dates for various materials in the graves, nothing from any chariots, reconfirming there were no physical remains of the 2 wheelers to carbon date

- dating range for the carbon dated materials is 2000 BCE - 1800 BCE, reconfirming the date range already mentioned in Littauer & Crouwel 1996

- yet still has the gall to refer to the vehicles as "chariots" when these were disproven to be chariots. In reality Sintashta's 2 wheelers were shown to be and remain useless carts that would have been useless at speed, shattering on impact. Nevertheless, Kuznetsov 2006 not only calls them chariots but uses the 2000-1800 BCE dates for these mere CARTS as argument that Sintashta had "chariots" before Near East.

In short, 10 years after Littauer & Crouwel 1996 there's still been no new finds of the Sintashta 2 wheelers - the existing ones were already reviewed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - so by 2006 the evidence in Sintashta remains that of demonstrably non-chariots.

3. As a contrastive example, the cylinder seal of Teppe Hissar IIIb depicts a crossbar-wheeled chariot already at a date "not later than 2350 BCE":

"The Earliest Near Eastern Spoked Wheels and their Chronology", P.R.S. Moorey, 1969.

Note particularly how, in arguing that the Iranian chariot's wheel is crossbar onlee and not spoked, Moorey notably does not demote the date: insisting it is no later than 2350 BCE, denying claims to later times argued by previous authors (some of whom were moreover claiming it was spoked).


Quote:In 1951, when Childe published his well-known paper on "The First Waggons and Carts--from the Tigris to the Severn' he cited a cylinder seal carved with a chariot scene, from Tepe Hissar in eastern Iran, as one of the earliest representations of a spoked wheel.1


Though the cutting of the seal is crude and stylized it may be shown, by comparing the form of this wheel with contemporary excavated wheels from Iran and by uniting this scene with other glyptic of the same type, that the wheel is almost certainly not spoked and that the cylinder seal need not be later than c. 2350 B.C.


(A little later in the article he goes on to describe the wheel as essentially a crossbar wheel, which is also the description of it by others to this day. Note: in case you don't know, crossbar wheels are said to be the precursor to the spoked wheel.

The above and following excerpted paras confirm a longstanding presence/local development of cross-bar wheels in the Near East, i.e. all 3rd millennia BCE.)

Childe examined in detail the evidence for wheel forms in Mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium BC when they were not only commonly shown on baked clay or metal model chariots, on cylinder seals, mosaic panels and monuments, but actual chariots or wagons were placed in graves at Ur and Kish in Iraq and at Susa in Iran. Indeed it is some well preserved wheels from Susa which provide a vital clue to the actual form of the wheel rendered on the Hissar cylinder seal.

All this argument above by Moorey was only to claim that the Tepe Hissar IIIb seal must therefore likewise be depicting a crossbar wheel and not a spoked one as others of the period in the Near East. But the above shows that non-IE Susa (Iran) and non-IE Mesopotamia in 3rd mill BCE had not only matching crossbar wheels in use, but chariots/wagons as part of graves. Note 3rd mill BCE is too early for Sintashta, which is almost just around start of 2nd mill BCE, and for which the claim was first "chariots" on steppe and which (from Izbitsen) showed the first instance of 2 wheeled vehicles on the steppe. What this means is that 2350 BCE for crossbar wheeled chariots in Iran (and matching connections in likewise non-IE Mesopotamia - where Indian-specific aDNA was detected in long continuation - and Susa in Iran) showed that crossbar wheels - for chariots, whether true or not is irrelevant to this particular point - was in use before steppe kulturs. So Steppe MLBA did not invent true chariots or crossbar wheeled chariots either (not to mention the solid disk wheeled kind): the development of that was already done and demonstrated in the Near East, whereas 2 wheelers only suddenly appeared on the steppe from Sintashta onwards.


- So Sintashta did not only not invent spoked wheel chariots (true chariots) - as their spoked 2-wheelers were at best carts (even for that you'd have to imagine the entire vehicle past the wheel imprints) but certainly not chariots - Sintashta didn't invent chariots of any type: e.g. the precursors of spoked wheel chariots (i.e. solid wheeled and then crossbar wheeled chariots), which the Near East had centuries before Sintashta even existed. (It was of course never claimed that Sintashta invented the solid wheeled or crossbar wheeled chariots, as these things existed outside the steppe before Sintashta ever existed, but still, it's always worth mentioning how they had no chariots of any kind.)

- And no steppe kultur had 2 wheelers (hence also precluding any attempts at chariots) before Sintashta. Confirmed also by archaeologist Izbitsen's work - discussed by Littauer & Crouwel 1996 - which found that the steppe had no tradition of 2 wheelers (i.e. steppe kulturs showed no sign of 2 wheeler development) until Sintashta culture (c.2100-1800 BCE) which magically appeared with its falsified chariots which turn out to have been specifically NOT chariots and therefore just carts at best.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)