u/LemonAmbitious2915

Indian priestly traditions are deeply tied to the Magi, who were absorbed into the subcontinent multiple times, so this might be historically insightful.

"The transition from mythological to philosophical knowledge occurs in Greek thought when it encounters these Magi. In this regard, we shall see that Plato had a special relationship with the Magi, and the Magi in turn held Plato in high regard. However, Plato’s example is by no means an isolated case. We have other equally famous examples of Greek philosophers who we are told went to study in Persia before Plato, namely Pythagoras and Democritus."

"Diogenes Laertius, in the Prologue to his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, states that there are some who recognise that philosophy began with the barbarians and names the Persian Magi as being among them. He also informs us of two books, written by Aristotle, now lost. One in which he names the Magi as the first philosophers – On Philosophy, and one in which he deals specifically with magic – Magicus. For him, as for his contemporaries, magic was not sorcery, but the philosophy or wisdom of the Persian Magi. Astronomy, astrology, algebra, geometry, medicine and herbalism on one hand. But also their intimate knowledge of the divine."

On the Medean/Zoro Magi: "The distinguishing marks that set them apart from the other tribes were their dress, their vegetarian diet and their worship of atar - the aspect of the holy fire, the visible presence of Ahura Mazda. The practice of fire worship was the most obvious aspect noticed in their rituals, which is why they were often called πυρολάτρης (purolátrēs) in Greek, and in their native tongue atašparast - fire-worshippers or ātarvahšā - the fire kindlers. Although this refers to only one of the types of priestly designations of the followers of Ahura Mazda"

"Probably best known today from the New Testament narrative, the Magi were the main bearers of Zoroastrianism and its most important representatives. Their reputation was so widespread that even in Christianity, they are a source of legitimacy for the infant Christ. Enigmatic figures who often vacillate between the esteem of those who had knowledge of them and the mythologising of those who did not, the Magi were the ethnic and social priestly class of the Achaemenid Empire, like the Brahmins in Indian society or the tribe of the Levites in Jewish society. They were the ones in charge of performing the rituals and sacrifices in accordance with the tenets of their creed. At least from the reign of Darius I, which we know was a practising Zoroastrian, the Magi were the formal priesthood of the empire. They also comprised the most erudite social stratum of the Persians, serving as scribes, accountants in the empire's administration or advisors to the emperor or the satraps. They are addressed by the epithet of 'wise men', often from the East."

The author argues that ancient traditions describing Pythagoras' travels to the East should be taken seriously, and that similarities between Pythagoreanism and the Persian Magi, such as vegetarianism, ritual purity, secrecy, and concern for the soul, suggest meaningful intellectual influence rather than mere coincidence. Suggests similar influence on Democritus, Socrates and Plato.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379120574_Barbarians_No_More_Revisiting_the_Eastern_Contributions_to_Early_Greek_Philosophy

Indian priestly traditions are deeply tied to the Magi, who were absorbed into the subcontinent multiple times, so this might be historically insightful.

"The transition from mythological to philosophical knowledge occurs in Greek thought when it encounters these Magi. In this regard, we shall see that Plato had a special relationship with the Magi, and the Magi in turn held Plato in high regard. However, Plato’s example is by no means an isolated case. We have other equally famous examples of Greek philosophers who we are told went to study in Persia before Plato, namely Pythagoras and Democritus."

"Diogenes Laertius, in the Prologue to his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, states that there are some who recognise that philosophy began with the barbarians and names the Persian Magi as being among them. He also informs us of two books, written by Aristotle, now lost. One in which he names the Magi as the first philosophers – On Philosophy, and one in which he deals specifically with magic – Magicus. For him, as for his contemporaries, magic was not sorcery, but the philosophy or wisdom of the Persian Magi. Astronomy, astrology, algebra, geometry, medicine and herbalism on one hand. But also their intimate knowledge of the divine."

On the Medean/Zoro Magi: "The distinguishing marks that set them apart from the other tribes were their dress, their vegetarian diet and their worship of atar - the aspect of the holy fire, the visible presence of Ahura Mazda. The practice of fire worship was the most obvious aspect noticed in their rituals, which is why they were often called πυρολάτρης (purolátrēs) in Greek, and in their native tongue atašparast - fire-worshippers or ātarvahšā - the fire kindlers. Although this refers to only one of the types of priestly designations of the followers of Ahura Mazda"

"Probably best known today from the New Testament narrative, the Magi were the main bearers of Zoroastrianism and its most important representatives. Their reputation was so widespread that even in Christianity, they are a source of legitimacy for the infant Christ. Enigmatic figures who often vacillate between the esteem of those who had knowledge of them and the mythologising of those who did not, the Magi were the ethnic and social priestly class of the Achaemenid Empire, like the Brahmins in Indian society or the tribe of the Levites in Jewish society. They were the ones in charge of performing the rituals and sacrifices in accordance with the tenets of their creed. At least from the reign of Darius I, which we know was a practising Zoroastrian, the Magi were the formal priesthood of the empire. They also comprised the most erudite social stratum of the Persians, serving as scribes, accountants in the empire's administration or advisors to the emperor or the satraps. They are addressed by the epithet of 'wise men', often from the East."

"The transition from mythological to philosophical knowledge occurs in Greek thought when it encounters these Magi. In this regard, we shall see that Plato had a special relationship with the Magi, and the Magi in turn held Plato in high regard. However, Plato’s example is by no means an isolated case. We have other equally famous examples of Greek philosophers who we are told went to study in Persia before Plato, namely Pythagoras and Democritus."

"Diogenes Laertius, in the Prologue to his Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, states that there are some who recognise that philosophy began with the barbarians and names the Persian Magi as being among them. He also informs us of two books, written by Aristotle, now lost. One in which he names the Magi as the first philosophers – On Philosophy, and one in which he deals specifically with magic – Magicus. For him, as for his contemporaries, magic was not sorcery, but the philosophy or wisdom of the Persian Magi. Astronomy, astrology, algebra, geometry, medicine and herbalism on one hand. But also their intimate knowledge of the divine."

On the Medean/Zoro Magi: "The distinguishing marks that set them apart from the other tribes were their dress, their vegetarian diet and their worship of atar - the aspect of the holy fire, the visible presence of Ahura Mazda. The practice of fire worship was the most obvious aspect noticed in their rituals, which is why they were often called πυρολάτρης (purolátrēs) in Greek, and in their native tongue atašparast - fire-worshippers or ātarvahšā - the fire kindlers. Although this refers to only one of the types of priestly designations of the followers of Ahura Mazda"

"Probably best known today from the New Testament narrative, the Magi were the main bearers of Zoroastrianism and its most important representatives. Their reputation was so widespread that even in Christianity, they are a source of legitimacy for the infant Christ. Enigmatic figures who often vacillate between the esteem of those who had knowledge of them and the mythologising of those who did not, the Magi were the ethnic and social priestly class of the Achaemenid Empire, like the Brahmins in Indian society or the tribe of the Levites in Jewish society. They were the ones in charge of performing the rituals and sacrifices in accordance with the tenets of their creed. At least from the reign of Darius I, which we know was a practising Zoroastrian, the Magi were the formal priesthood of the empire. They also comprised the most erudite social stratum of the Persians, serving as scribes, accountants in the empire's administration or advisors to the emperor or the satraps. They are addressed by the epithet of 'wise men', often from the East."

The author argues that ancient traditions describing Pythagoras' travels to the East should be taken seriously, and that similarities between Pythagoreanism and the Persian Magi, such as vegetarianism, ritual purity, secrecy, and concern for the soul, suggest meaningful intellectual influence rather than mere coincidence. Suggests similar influence on Democritus, Socrates and Plato.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379120574_Barbarians_No_More_Revisiting_the_Eastern_Contributions_to_Early_Greek_Philosophy

Since it's Tocharian posting month ;) I was digging around substrates and contacts with Uralic, Iranic, Turkic, Chinese etc. Also sumbled upon this paper by Alexander Lubotsky where he proposed Tocharian loanwords in Old Chinese include honey, chariot (with four horses), wheel hub (nave), wheel spokes, wheel axle ends, carriage pole, leather/leather harness, metal yoke ring (part of a yoke), masonry, village/hamlet, wall/enclosure (later also garden or park), wall support post, and city wall/fortified wall. Of these, the author considers honey, chariot, wheel hub, carriage pole, leather, masonry, wall, and possibly village to be the strongest candidates for genuine Tocharian borrowings. Similarly, there have been some suggestions of Old Chinese loans in Tocharian too. This paper is very old, and newer data and methods are known now. I wonder if this has been linguistically countered or supported by follow-up studies.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28639986_Tocharian_loan_words_in_Old_Chinese_Chariots_chariot_gear_and_town_building?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I was able to find mainly two such studies. For a counter, they weigh more heavily on archaeology but also, to a lesser extent, internal derivational morphology explanations, which haven't been cited as much later (since 1999). Has anyone here looked more in this direction for more recent work on this? I found none online beyond this..

"The suggestion by Lubotsky (1998) of Tocharian origins of the chariot vocabulary in Old Chinese is consequently impeded by the same set of findings. The linguistic comparison is challenged by rather straightforward internal derivations in Old Chinese (Sagart, 1999: 204) and the evidence for a specialised industry in Afanasievo is wanting in comparison with the later diffusion of the horse and chariot tradition perfected in Sintashta and the subsequent Andronovo-driven spread of the complex across the steppes and into China (Librado et al., 2021; Shelach-Lavi, 2015; Rawson et al., 2020; Honeychurch et al., 2021; Shaughnessy, 1988)."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10432883/

https://starlingdb.org/Texts/Students/Sagart%2C%20Laurent/The%20Roots%20of%20Old%20Chinese%20%281999%29.pdf

Since it's Tocharian posting month ;) I was digging around substrates and contacts with Uralic, Iranic, Turkic, Chinese etc. Also sumbled upon this paper by Alexander Lubotsky where he proposed Tocharian loanwords in Old Chinese include honey, chariot (with four horses), wheel hub (nave), wheel spokes, wheel axle ends, carriage pole, leather/leather harness, metal yoke ring (part of a yoke), masonry, village/hamlet, wall/enclosure (later also garden or park), wall support post, and city wall/fortified wall. Of these, the author considers honey, chariot, wheel hub, carriage pole, leather, masonry, wall, and possibly village to be the strongest candidates for genuine Tocharian borrowings. Similarly, there have been some suggestions of Old Chinese loans in Tocharian too. This paper is very old, and newer data and methods are known now. I wonder if this has been linguistically countered or supported by follow-up studies.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/28639986_Tocharian_loan_words_in_Old_Chinese_Chariots_chariot_gear_and_town_building?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I was able to find mainly two such studies. For a counter, they weigh more heavily on archaeology but also, to a lesser extent, internal derivational morphology explanations, which haven't been cited as much later (since 1999). Has anyone here looked more in this direction for more recent work on this? I found none online beyond this..

"The suggestion by Lubotsky (1998) of Tocharian origins of the chariot vocabulary in Old Chinese is consequently impeded by the same set of findings. The linguistic comparison is challenged by rather straightforward internal derivations in Old Chinese (Sagart, 1999: 204) and the evidence for a specialised industry in Afanasievo is wanting in comparison with the later diffusion of the horse and chariot tradition perfected in Sintashta and the subsequent Andronovo-driven spread of the complex across the steppes and into China (Librado et al., 2021; Shelach-Lavi, 2015; Rawson et al., 2020; Honeychurch et al., 2021; Shaughnessy, 1988)."

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10432883/

https://starlingdb.org/Texts/Students/Sagart%2C%20Laurent/The%20Roots%20of%20Old%20Chinese%20%281999%29.pdf

I wonder if there are recommended tools in any language - R or python or others - which conveniently help visualise chronological expansion in hapologroup subclade branches maybe sourcing it from any of the online Y DNA databases?

The core method being: Loanwords may disappear through later lexical replacement, may never have belonged to the surviving textual register, or may have been lost because the relevant semantic domains vanished after migration. Moreover, in cases of substrate influence where one population shifts to another language, phonology and grammar are often affected more profoundly than vocabulary. Speakers learning a new language frequently transfer aspects of their original pronunciation and grammatical habits into the target language, producing lasting structural changes even when relatively few words are borrowed. The author has reconstructed a detailed sequence of Tocharian sound changes beginning with the Proto-Indo-European system and ending with Proto-Tocharian. Although many individual questions remain open, he argues that the overall chronology is sufficiently stable to support meaningful comparison with Samoyed (Unlike PIE, Proto-Uralic must be reconstructed from a smaller and generally later body of evidence, so relatively less deterministic). Importantly, he does not simply compare the final reconstructed Proto-Tocharian and Proto-Samoyed sound systems. Instead, he compares their intermediate historical stages, because only features that existed simultaneously could have influenced one another. This methodological shift distinguishes the dissertation from much earlier scholarship, which often compared languages synchronically rather than diachronically.

Mini-hypotheses tested:

1. Phonology: The revised chronological reconstruction showed that several earlier arguments for Uralic influence on Tocharian phonology were overstated or chronologically impossible. Nevertheless, a number of structural similarities remain after these weaker comparisons are discarded. These include simplification of the consonant system, certain patterns of palatalization, aspects of vowel restructuring, and general phonological organisation. None of these developments is unique enough to prove contact individually because each is typologically common. However, together they indicate that the phonological evolution of Proto-Tocharian proceeded in a direction remarkably compatible with the phonological profile of early Uralic. The author, therefore, concludes that phonology provides moderate but not decisive support for the contact hypothesis.
2. Accent system: The dissertation showed that the traditional assumption of an originally second-syllable Tocharian accent is not the only possible reconstruction. Several phonological processes, particularly epenthesis, syncope, and vowel contraction, can be explained more naturally if Proto-Tocharian originally possessed a different accentual organisation before developing the familiar Tocharian B stress system. This earlier system is compatible with a Uralic-style first-syllable accent, although the available evidence does not permit a definitive reconstruction. Consequently, accent neither proves nor disproves the substrate hypothesis, but it removes what had previously been considered one of the strongest objections to Uralic influence.
3. Nominal Morphology: The Tocharian secondary case system remains fundamentally Indo-European in origin, and nearly all of its individual endings can be explained through ordinary grammaticalization of inherited material rather than borrowing from Uralic. However, the overall architecture of the system, especially the extensive development of local cases, resembles Uralic much more closely than most other Indo-European branches. The author argues that this pattern is precisely what modern contact linguistics predicts under conditions of language shift: speakers reorganise inherited grammatical material according to familiar structural principles (when they become bilingual) without borrowing the foreign suffixes themselves. Thus, the evidence suggests structural convergence rather than morphological borrowing.
4. Verbal Morphology: The participial suffixes, verbal endings, and derivational morphology all remain demonstrably Indo-European, leaving no convincing evidence for direct borrowing of verbal morphemes from Uralic. Nevertheless, the grammatical functions of participles, certain aspects of object marking, and the organisation of the verbal system display typological similarities to Uralic that are unusual within Indo-European. Again, the author argues that these parallels are best understood not as borrowed endings but as inherited Indo-European structures whose usage was reorganised under prolonged bilingual influence. This distinction between borrowing forms and borrowing structural preferences becomes one of the dissertation's principal theoretical conclusions.
5. Lexical Borrowings: The lexical evidence receives a more cautious assessment. After applying strict phonological and chronological criteria, most previously proposed Tocharian-Samoyed loanwords prove unconvincing. Only a small number of lexical correspondences remain plausible. The author openly acknowledges that this constitutes relatively weak evidence compared with the structural similarities found elsewhere. However, he argues that this result is not unexpected under a substrate scenario. When one speech community shifts to another language, vocabulary is often replaced much more completely than pronunciation or grammatical habits. Therefore, the scarcity of loanwords does not contradict the contact hypothesis; rather, it fits the type of influence expected from language shift rather than ordinary borrowing.

In essence, Proto-Tocharian remained genetically and structurally Indo-European, but its historical development was influenced by prolonged contact with speakers of early Uralic, probably pre-Proto-Samoyed, who shifted into the language and transferred aspects of their native phonology, accentual habits, and grammatical organisation.

The dissertation ends with an acknowledgement of its limitations. Many reconstructions remain uncertain because both Tocharian and Samoyed are incompletely documented, and future discoveries may require revision of individual arguments. The author, therefore, does not present his hypothesis as definitively proven. Instead, he argues that the cumulative evidence makes a Uralic substrate in Proto-Tocharian the most economical explanation currently available for the combination of phonological, accentual, and grammatical peculiarities that distinguish Tocharian from the rest of the Indo-European family.

Link: https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/4250485

Some notes from the paper, for context-->

1. Proto-Uralic now dated to 2000-2500 BCE - "The split of Proto-Uralic used to be estimated around 4000 BCE, but recent scholarship has shifted the date closer to 2500 BCE (Kallio 2006; Grünthal et al. 2022; J. Häkkinen 2023)." Proto-Tocharian is dated to 1000-500 BCE. So, this paper implicitly implies a contact time somewhere between 2500-1000 BCE, from my understanding.
2. "Chronologically, there are some uncertainties, however. If Proto-Uralic is dated around 2500 BCE, that means that there was no differentiated pre-Proto-Samoyed at time that the early Tocharians moved east with the Afanasievo Culture around 3100 BCE. Even if the early Tocharians only moved into the Dzungar basin around 2800, Tocharian-Samoyed contact specifically might have been impossible at such an early date"
3. "However, these time estimates may be subject to change. If Samoyed is more conclusively shown on the basis of phonological and morphological arguments to be the first branch of Uralic to have split off, as per the traditional phylogeny, the dating of Proto-Uralic may shift farther back in time again to accommodate a period of shared Finno-Ugric innovations"

The core method being: Loanwords may disappear through later lexical replacement, may never have belonged to the surviving textual register, or may have been lost because the relevant semantic domains vanished after migration. Moreover, in cases of substrate influence where one population shifts to another language, phonology and grammar are often affected more profoundly than vocabulary. Speakers learning a new language frequently transfer aspects of their original pronunciation and grammatical habits into the target language, producing lasting structural changes even when relatively few words are borrowed. The author has reconstructed a detailed sequence of Tocharian sound changes beginning with the Proto-Indo-European system and ending with Proto-Tocharian. Although many individual questions remain open, he argues that the overall chronology is sufficiently stable to support meaningful comparison with Samoyed (Unlike PIE, Proto-Uralic must be reconstructed from a smaller and generally later body of evidence, so relatively less deterministic). Importantly, he does not simply compare the final reconstructed Proto-Tocharian and Proto-Samoyed sound systems. Instead, he compares their intermediate historical stages, because only features that existed simultaneously could have influenced one another. This methodological shift distinguishes the dissertation from much earlier scholarship, which often compared languages synchronically rather than diachronically.

Mini-hypotheses tested:

1. Phonology: The revised chronological reconstruction showed that several earlier arguments for Uralic influence on Tocharian phonology were overstated or chronologically impossible. Nevertheless, a number of structural similarities remain after these weaker comparisons are discarded. These include simplification of the consonant system, certain patterns of palatalization, aspects of vowel restructuring, and general phonological organisation. None of these developments is unique enough to prove contact individually because each is typologically common. However, together they indicate that the phonological evolution of Proto-Tocharian proceeded in a direction remarkably compatible with the phonological profile of early Uralic. The author, therefore, concludes that phonology provides moderate but not decisive support for the contact hypothesis.
2. Accent system: The dissertation showed that the traditional assumption of an originally second-syllable Tocharian accent is not the only possible reconstruction. Several phonological processes, particularly epenthesis, syncope, and vowel contraction, can be explained more naturally if Proto-Tocharian originally possessed a different accentual organisation before developing the familiar Tocharian B stress system. This earlier system is compatible with a Uralic-style first-syllable accent, although the available evidence does not permit a definitive reconstruction. Consequently, accent neither proves nor disproves the substrate hypothesis, but it removes what had previously been considered one of the strongest objections to Uralic influence.
3. Nominal Morphology: The Tocharian secondary case system remains fundamentally Indo-European in origin, and nearly all of its individual endings can be explained through ordinary grammaticalization of inherited material rather than borrowing from Uralic. However, the overall architecture of the system, especially the extensive development of local cases, resembles Uralic much more closely than most other Indo-European branches. The author argues that this pattern is precisely what modern contact linguistics predicts under conditions of language shift: speakers reorganise inherited grammatical material according to familiar structural principles (when they become bilingual) without borrowing the foreign suffixes themselves. Thus, the evidence suggests structural convergence rather than morphological borrowing.
4. Verbal Morphology: The participial suffixes, verbal endings, and derivational morphology all remain demonstrably Indo-European, leaving no convincing evidence for direct borrowing of verbal morphemes from Uralic. Nevertheless, the grammatical functions of participles, certain aspects of object marking, and the organisation of the verbal system display typological similarities to Uralic that are unusual within Indo-European. Again, the author argues that these parallels are best understood not as borrowed endings but as inherited Indo-European structures whose usage was reorganised under prolonged bilingual influence. This distinction between borrowing forms and borrowing structural preferences becomes one of the dissertation's principal theoretical conclusions.
5. Lexical Borrowings: The lexical evidence receives a more cautious assessment. After applying strict phonological and chronological criteria, most previously proposed Tocharian-Samoyed loanwords prove unconvincing. Only a small number of lexical correspondences remain plausible. The author openly acknowledges that this constitutes relatively weak evidence compared with the structural similarities found elsewhere. However, he argues that this result is not unexpected under a substrate scenario. When one speech community shifts to another language, vocabulary is often replaced much more completely than pronunciation or grammatical habits. Therefore, the scarcity of loanwords does not contradict the contact hypothesis; rather, it fits the type of influence expected from language shift rather than ordinary borrowing.

In essence, Proto-Tocharian remained genetically and structurally Indo-European, but its historical development was influenced by prolonged contact with speakers of early Uralic, probably pre-Proto-Samoyed, who shifted into the language and transferred aspects of their native phonology, accentual habits, and grammatical organisation.

The dissertation ends with an acknowledgement of its limitations. Many reconstructions remain uncertain because both Tocharian and Samoyed are incompletely documented, and future discoveries may require revision of individual arguments. The author, therefore, does not present his hypothesis as definitively proven. Instead, he argues that the cumulative evidence makes a Uralic substrate in Proto-Tocharian the most economical explanation currently available for the combination of phonological, accentual, and grammatical peculiarities that distinguish Tocharian from the rest of the Indo-European family.

Link: https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/4250485

Some notes from the paper, for context-->

1. Proto-Uralic now dated to 2000-2500 BCE - "The split of Proto-Uralic used to be estimated around 4000 BCE, but recent scholarship has shifted the date closer to 2500 BCE (Kallio 2006; Grünthal et al. 2022; J. Häkkinen 2023)." Proto-Tocharian is dated to 1000-500 BCE. So, this paper implicitly implies a contact time somewhere between 2500-1000 BCE, from my understanding.
2. "Chronologically, there are some uncertainties, however. If Proto-Uralic is dated around 2500 BCE, that means that there was no differentiated pre-Proto-Samoyed at time that the early Tocharians moved east with the Afanasievo Culture around 3100 BCE. Even if the early Tocharians only moved into the Dzungar basin around 2800, Tocharian-Samoyed contact specifically might have been impossible at such an early date"
3. "However, these time estimates may be subject to change. If Samoyed is more conclusively shown on the basis of phonological and morphological arguments to be the first branch of Uralic to have split off, as per the traditional phylogeny, the dating of Proto-Uralic may shift farther back in time again to accommodate a period of shared Finno-Ugric innovations"

The storm deity slaying the serpent/monster is a pan-Eurasian lore. It has ancient attestations in both the Near East and among PIE with regional variants. These were inherited by children cultures later on even into medieval times. One particular version of this is the Indra slaying Ahi Vritra among the Vedics, and a similar, relatively watered-down version of Verethragna (which seems to have replaced Vedic Indra) destroying obstacles to cosmic/moral order and also Thraētaona slaying Aži Dahāka among the Avestans.

Recently, a new picture seems to be emerging, as per me, with regards to the early Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis mainly championed by Parpola for a while and to a lesser extent Whitzel as well. But also scaffolded by newer archaeological dating (Sotnikova - 2024) and spolight shifting to other archeological cultures in recent times. This picuture is of older Steppe groups admixing memetically (burial style at older fire complexes) and genetically with older Zagros/CHG/ANF groups in ancient Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan which seem to have genetic and material connection to the Near Eastern ones, leading to a partly new ethnogenesis.

The geography being something like this, in my own current understanding. All of these marked locations outside of India were essentially in oasis with dryness around them. Some of which were also fortified (puras). The ones in Bactria are right next to the Hindukush mountains. Margina and the early IE people were demarcated by the Amu Darya, imo.

https://preview.redd.it/iioxxhlqkf9h1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=95a2a244ea1a18ffd5dfc9c98ba974b3c25507b9

Given this wider context out of way, if one closely looks at the Indra vs 'Ah'i/'Az'i (human-like serpent) lore specifically in all it's nuances and details and compare it with the one particular ancient (~2200-2000 BCE) version of the Near Eastern (Sumerian/Mesopotamian) NIN.URTA vs Az'ag (serpentine monster who moves and roars "like a snake") one would see similarity which would be hard to ignore. Not just at the level of similar sounding names (not sure if they fit any cross language sound laws?) but also in some specificities of the respective lores. What struck me most is how similar the actual **water-mountain-fortress mechanics formula** is. In the Ahi Vṛtra lore, the waters are trapped behind a mountainous obstruction and Indra (destroyer of forts) smashes the barrier, releasing the rivers into the world. In Lugal-e, Azag isn't literally sitting on the waters like Vṛtra (battles lead to destuction of forts), but the result is almost the same, the mountain waters stop functioning properly, the river system is disrupted, fertility collapses, and the land begins to die. After Ninurta defeats Azag who builds a fortress, one of the first things he does is reorganize the mountains themselves, breaking and arranging them so that the waters can once again flow down into the rivers and irrigate the land. So in both lores the central formula goes beyond "hero kills serpent" to a serpentine monstrous force associated with mountains & forts has caused the life-giving waters to become obstructed, inaccessible, or nonfunctional, and the storm-warrior god restores the proper flow akin to cosmic order. Which leads to a soft conclusion that there is seems to be similar sounding names and heavy formuliac overlap.

Do I mean to imply that all of the Rig Vedic Indra is Near Eastern derived? I would say partly. To be honest, I am not sure about the timelines myself. Nin.urta/Ninĝirsu certainly seems to be a very old Near Eastern deity of great prestiege with overlapping functions but how old is this attested lore with him I can't be sure from my search online. It seems to be atleast older than 2000 BCE. There are also contemporary related Near Eastern Gods with similar names from the same cities/regions like Nindara (2300 BCE) etc (very similar to the term used in the Mittani seals but with sureshot IE gods like one of the Asvins) So, given all this context, Lubotsky's propostiion Indra being a BMAC are borrowed term doesn't seem very outrageous to me. Given that a direct IE storm god inhertiance should have ideally been Perkʷunos derived, which I believe got inherited as the Vedic thunder-rain god P*arjánya* associated with rain-cow. But beyond this formula of "hero-slaying-serpent" there are many functions ascribed to Indra that are sureshot from older Steppe tradtions. One being the releaser of Cows/cattle and Ushas from the enclosure/cave Vala. Much like that ascribed to Perun. Vala & Veles (this is my opion could be related - I am surprised this comparison isn't made much!). The Vala hidden cows and ushas/light infact hint at some cognates of cattle in the underworld/darkness/hidden the deity Vales (earlier incorrectly identified as being a serpent) is associated with. Correct me if I am wrong here in reconstructed Slavic mythology, wealth and cattle are often located in the chthonic realm associated with Veles. So, this Vedic lore could allude to that! Another important overlapping lore is seen in the Indra–Soma and Odin–Mead of Poetry stories. In both events, a chief god obtains a sacred drink that is hidden and guarded, the drink grants divine power and inspiration, and a divine eagle/hawk (Śyena/örn) is involved in carrying it away. The biggest difference is that Soma mainly gives Indra warrior strength to defeat Vritra, while Odin's mead gives wisdom and poetic inspiration. These functions ofcourse are best matched with Rudra in multiple ways in the earliest Vedic texts and even unto now. The common formula being the combination of "sacred drink + theft/retrieval + bird of prey + divine empowerment". This also errupts later as Prajapati associated Śyenaciti (falcon-shaped fire altar) in the YajurVedin related traditions.

So, my point here being that the the ethnogeneisis of the early Indo-Iranians seems much more nuanced and complex than most would think and could infact could be amalgamation of many different priestly traditions (you see this in some form in Bhirgu Atharvans (a BMAC term again) closer to Varuna & fire ritualism vs Angirasas closer to Indra & war centred themes too in the Rig Veda)

PS: These topics are academic & mind bogglingly complex but there would be many pagans in these forums I am sure. If I have misrepresented your traditions (or my own ;)) here kindly do let me know, I'll make ammends in this post immediately.

References:

1. https://x.com/alcybroades/status/2051300394761154662

Book 6 of the Ṛgveda, the Bharadvāja Family Book, offers a glimpse into the close partnership between the Bharadvāja priests and the early Bharata kings, especially Divodāsa. The hymns celebrate victories won with the favour of Indra and repeatedly invoke the acquisition of vāja: prizes, booty, cattle, horses, and wealth gained through warfare and tribal competition. These successes enriched the Bharatas and strengthened their position among the Vedic tribes. The importance of the Bharadvājas extended beyond the time of Divodāsa. Their priestly tradition helped preserve and legitimise the power of the Bharata lineage, laying the ideological foundations for future generations. The descendants of these early Bharatas later emerged as the dominant force in the Daśarājña Yuddha (Battle of Ten Kings) under Rajan Sudas. Their victory transformed the Bharatas from one tribe among many into the leading political power of the region. This process eventually culminated in the rise of the Kuru polity, often regarded as the earliest state-level formation in Indian history. Thus, Book 6 preserves not only memories of victories and the winning of vāja, but also the traditions that helped make the Bharatas the nucleus of the first Indian state.

A question I have is, Bharadvāja comes from "bhara(d)" and "vaja(m)" i.e carriers/bearers/bringers of abundance, which comes from war. While Bharata also comes from "bhara" which means carriers/bearers/bringers. Could it be the case, as per sound laws & other attestations, that the name came to this priestly clan for bringing abundance to the Bharatas via rite i.e originally Bharat-vāja , not just being general bearers of abundance?

The storm deity slaying the serpent/monster is a pan-Eurasian lore. It has ancient attestations in both the Near East and among PIE with regional variants. These were inherited by children cultures later on even into medieval times. One particular version of this is the Indra slaying Ahi Vritra among the Vedics, and a similar, relatively watered-down version of Verethragna (which seems to have replaced Vedic Indra) destroying obstacles to cosmic/moral order and also Thraētaona slaying Aži Dahāka among the Avestans.

Recently, a new picture seems to be emerging, as per me, with regards to the early Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis mainly championed by Parpola for a while and to a lesser extent Whitzel as well. But also scaffolded by newer archaeological dating (Sotnikova - 2024) and spolight shifting to other archeological cultures in recent times. This picuture is of older Steppe groups admixing memetically (burials style at older fire complexes) and genetically with older Zagros/CHG/ANF groups in ancient Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan which seem to have genetic and material connection to the Near Eastern ones leading to a partly new ethnogenesis.

The geography being something like this, in my own current understanding. All of these marked locations outside of India are were essentially in oasis with dryness around them. Some of which were also fortified (puras). The ones in Bactria are right next to the Hindukush mountains. Margina and the early IE people were demarcated by the Amu Darya, imo.

https://preview.redd.it/2j6ay5awhe9h1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=82142a0fb042c328118f0737b6ffa051cc3a4d4e

Given this wider context out of way, if one closely looks at the Indra vs 'Ah'i/'Az'i (human-like serpent) lore specifically in all it's nuances and details and compare it with the one particular ancient (~2200-2000 BCE) version of the Near Eastern (Sumerian/Mesopotamian) NIN.URTA vs 'Az'ag (serpentine monster who moves and roars "like a snake") one would see similarity which would be hard to ignore. Not just at the level of similar sounding names (not sure if they fit any cross language sound laws?) but also in some specificities of the respective lores. What struck me most is how similar the actual water-mountain-fortress mechanics formula is. In the Ahi Vṛtra lore, the waters are trapped behind a mountainous obstruction and Indra (destroyer of forts) smashes the barrier, releasing the rivers into the world. In Lugal-e, Azag isn't literally sitting on the waters like Vṛtra (battles lead to destuction of forts), but the result is almost the same, the mountain waters stop functioning properly, the river system is disrupted, fertility collapses, and the land begins to die. After Ninurta defeats Azag who builds a fortress, one of the first things he does is reorganize the mountains themselves, breaking and arranging them so that the waters can once again flow down into the rivers and irrigate the land. So in both lores the central formula goes beyond "hero kills serpent" to a serpentine monstrous force associated with mountains & forts has caused the life-giving waters to become obstructed, inaccessible, or nonfunctional, and the storm-warrior god restores the proper flow akin to cosmic order. Which leads to a soft conclusion that there is seems to be similar sounding names and heavy formuliac overlap.

Do I mean to imply that all of the Rig Vedic Indra is Near Eastern derived? I would say partly. To be honest, I am not sure about the timelines myself. Nin.urta/Ninĝirsu certainly seems to be a very old Near Eastern deity of great prestiege with overlapping functions but how old is this attested lore with him I can't be sure from my search online. It seems to be atleast older than 2000 BCE. There are also contemporary related Near Eastern Gods with similar names from the same cities/regions like Nindara (2300 BCE) etc (very similar to the term used in the Mittani seals but with sureshot IE gods like one of the Asvins) So, given all this context, Lubotsky's propostiion Indra being a BMAC are borrowed term doesn't seem very outrageous to me. Given that a direct IE storm god inhertiance should have ideally been Perkʷunos derived, which I believe got inherited as the Vedic thunder-rain god Parjánya associated with rain-cow. But beyond this formula of "hero-slaying-serpent" there are many functions ascribed to Indra that are sureshot from older Steppe tradtions. One being the releaser of Cows/cattle and Ushas from the enclosure/cave Vala. Much like that ascribed to Perun. Vala & Veles (this is my opion could be related - I am surprised this comparison isn't made much!). The Vala hidden cows and ushas/light infact hint at some cognates of cattle in the underworld/darkness/hidden the deity Vales (earlier incorrectly identified as being a serpent) is associated with. Correct me if I am wrong here in reconstructed Slavic mythology, wealth and cattle are often located in the chthonic realm associated with Veles. So, this Vedic lore could allude to that! Another important overlapping lore is seen in the Indra–Soma and Odin–Mead of Poetry stories. In both events, a chief god obtains a sacred drink that is hidden and guarded, the drink grants divine power and inspiration, and a divine eagle/hawk (Śyena/örn) is involved in carrying it away. The biggest difference is that Soma mainly gives Indra warrior strength to defeat Vritra, while Odin's mead gives wisdom and poetic inspiration. These functions ofcourse are best matched with Rudra in multiple ways in the earliest Vedic texts and even unto now. The common formula being the combination of "sacred drink + theft/retrieval + bird of prey + divine empowerment". This also errupts later as Prajapati associated Śyenaciti (falcon-shaped fire altar) in the YajurVedin related traditions.

So, my point here being that the the ethnogeneisis of the early Indo-Iranians seems much more nuanced and complex than most would think and could infact could be amalgamation of many different priestly traditions (you see this in some form in Bhirgu Atharvans (a BMAC term again) closer to Varuna & fire ritualism vs Angirasas closer to Indra & war centred themes too in the Rig Veda)

PS: These topics are academic & mind bogglingly complex but there would be many pagans in these forums I am sure. If I have misrepresented your traditions (or my own ;)) here kindly do let me know, I'll make ammends in this post immediately.

References:

1. https://x.com/alcybroades/status/2051300394761154662

The storm deity slaying the serpent/monster is a pan-Eurasian lore. It has ancient attestations in both the Near East and among PIE with regional variants. These were inherited by children cultures later on even into medieval times. One particular version of this is the Indra slaying Ahi Vritra among the Vedics, and a similar, relatively watered-down version of Verethragna (which seems to have replaced Vedic Indra) destroying obstacles to cosmic/moral order and also Thraētaona slaying Aži Dahāka among the Avestans.

Recently, a new picture seems to be emerging, as per me, with regards to the early Indo-Iranian ethnogenesis mainly championed by Parpola for a while and to a lesser extent Whitzel as well. But also scaffolded by newer archaeological dating (Sotnikova - 2024) and spolight shifting to other archeological cultures in recent times. This picuture is of older Steppe groups admixing memetically (burial style at older fire complexes) and genetically with older Zagros/CHG/ANF groups in ancient Turkmenistan/Uzbekistan/Tajikistan which seem to have genetic and material connection to the Near Eastern ones, leading to a partly new ethnogenesis.

The geography being something like this, in my own current understanding. All of these marked locations outside of India were essentially in oasis with dryness around them. Some of which were also fortified (puras). The ones in Bactria are right next to the Hindukush mountains. Margina and the early IE people were demarcated by the Amu Darya, imo.

https://preview.redd.it/z9oijxujge9h1.png?width=840&format=png&auto=webp&s=7ca193065ef5869cd9330db1cc8da5e6ff437ae5

Given this wider context out of way, if one closely looks at the Indra vs 'Ah'i/'Az'i (human-like serpent) lore specifically in all it's nuances and details and compare it with the one particular ancient (~2200-2000 BCE) version of the Near Eastern (Sumerian/Mesopotamian) NIN.URTA vs 'Az'ag (serpentine monster who moves and roars "like a snake") one would see similarity which would be hard to ignore. Not just at the level of similar sounding names (not sure if they fit any cross language sound laws?) but also in some specificities of the respective lores. What struck me most is how similar the actual water-mountain-fortress mechanics formula is. In the Ahi Vṛtra lore, the waters are trapped behind a mountainous obstruction and Indra (destroyer of forts) smashes the barrier, releasing the rivers into the world. In Lugal-e, Azag isn't literally sitting on the waters like Vṛtra (battles lead to destuction of forts), but the result is almost the same, the mountain waters stop functioning properly, the river system is disrupted, fertility collapses, and the land begins to die. After Ninurta defeats Azag who builds a fortress, one of the first things he does is reorganize the mountains themselves, breaking and arranging them so that the waters can once again flow down into the rivers and irrigate the land. So in both lores the central formula goes beyond "hero kills serpent" to a serpentine monstrous force associated with mountains & forts has caused the life-giving waters to become obstructed, inaccessible, or nonfunctional, and the storm-warrior god restores the proper flow akin to cosmic order. Which leads to a soft conclusion that there is seems to be similar sounding names and heavy formuliac overlap.

Do I mean to imply that all of the Rig Vedic Indra is Near Eastern derived? I would say partly. To be honest, I am not sure about the timelines myself. Nin.urta/Ninĝirsu certainly seems to be a very old Near Eastern deity of great prestiege with overlapping functions but how old is this attested lore with him I can't be sure from my search online. It seems to be atleast older than 2000 BCE. There are also contemporary related Near Eastern Gods with similar names from the same cities/regions like Nindara (2300 BCE) etc (very similar to the term used in the Mittani seals but with sureshot IE gods like one of the Asvins) So, given all this context, Lubotsky's propostiion Indra being a BMAC are borrowed term doesn't seem very outrageous to me. Given that a direct IE storm god inhertiance should have ideally been Perkʷunos derived, which I believe got inherited as the Vedic thunder-rain god Parjánya associated with rain-cow. But beyond this formula of "hero-slaying-serpent" there are many functions ascribed to Indra that are sureshot from older Steppe tradtions. One being the releaser of Cows/cattle and Ushas from the enclosure/cave Vala. Much like that ascribed to Perun. Vala & Veles (this is my opion could be related - I am surprised this comparison isn't made much!). The Vala hidden cows and ushas/light infact hint at some cognates of cattle in the underworld/darkness/hidden the deity Vales (earlier incorrectly identified as being a serpent) is associated with. Correct me if I am wrong here in reconstructed Slavic mythology, wealth and cattle are often located in the chthonic realm associated with Veles. So, this Vedic lore could allude to that! Another important overlapping lore is seen in the Indra–Soma and Odin–Mead of Poetry stories. In both events, a chief god obtains a sacred drink that is hidden and guarded, the drink grants divine power and inspiration, and a divine eagle/hawk (Śyena/örn) is involved in carrying it away. The biggest difference is that Soma mainly gives Indra warrior strength to defeat Vritra, while Odin's mead gives wisdom and poetic inspiration. These functions ofcourse are best matched with Rudra in multiple ways in the earliest Vedic texts and even unto now. The common formula being the combination of "sacred drink + theft/retrieval + bird of prey + divine empowerment". This also errupts later as Prajapati associated Śyenaciti (falcon-shaped fire altar) in the YajurVedin related traditions.

So, my point here being that the the ethnogeneisis of the early Indo-Iranians seems much more nuanced and complex than most would think and could infact could be amalgamation of many different priestly traditions (you see this in some form in Bhirgu Atharvans (a BMAC term again) closer to Varuna & fire ritualism vs Angirasas closer to Indra & war centred themes too in the Rig Veda)

PS: These topics are academic & mind bogglingly complex but there would be many pagans in these forums I am sure. If I have misrepresented your traditions (or my own ;)) here kindly do let me know, I'll make ammends in this post immediately.

It is highly likely that the sex-mirrored burials (male facing right, female facing left) you consistently see all across the massive Cordedware culture horizon, including derived cultures across Central Asia, likely came from the escatological rituals of European Neolithic farmer cultures (~4800 BCE) in the Balkans, where pre-Yamnaya steppe-like populations started mixing with them as early as 4000 BCE (as per some admixture datings)

"Similarly, at Tizsapolgár-Basatanya, Hungary, burial position became increasingly gendered, with men's heads facing to the right and women's to the left"

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/becoming-gendered-in-european-prehistory-was-neolithic-gender-fundamentally-different/061B7788A1633D9EF10918BA4FB15A5A

"Specifically, according to the analysis of available data in both archaeology and biological anthropology, females tend to be positioned on the left side, while males are positioned on the right in the Neolithic of the Great Hungarian Plain"

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12907785/

I believe this changed a lot of the ritualism of the older steppe_EMBA groups, which had great downstream ritual consequences beyond escatology. Maybe it made them more "settled" patriarchal, looking at the "demarcated" grave goods in CWC. My current understanding is that these aren't seen in Steppe archaeological cultures (like Yamnaya, Catacomb, Lola) that didn't admix with Balkan Neolithic farmer cultures in some narrow time-window around ~4500 BCE.

Side Note: In Steppe-derived South Central Asian cultures of Bishkent/Vakhsh, these fit neatly with the square/masculine/ritual vs circle/feminine/householder altar dichotomy (seen mapped together in kurgan burials), which was already likely present in Southern cultures, including IVC (seen in Lothal). This likely continues as the Āhavanīya, Gārhapatya (& Dakṣināgni) in Vedic India.

__Fun-fact__: This is also seen in early Greek (Proto-Greek - Lerna and Mycenae - 2200-1500 BCE) in the Middle Helladic culture “The left side is preferred for the females, the right side for the males. This rule also applies to children.” Perhaps these were elite burials.

https://www.academia.edu/18266344/Gender_and_Regional_Differences_in_Middle_Helladic_Burial_Customs_in_A_Philippa_Touchais_et_al_eds_Mesohelladika_La_Gr%C3%A8ce_continentale_au_Bronze_Moyen_BCH_Suppl_52_Athens_2010_?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1393592/

__Additionally__: Seen in proto-Zoroastrian monumental sites as well

https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/1uciv4z/comment/ot9ip6n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

The inference is that this ritual/eschatological understanding from Balkan farmers seems to have had a profound impact across Eurasia.

There is a lesser-known kurgan-catacomb culture (not carbon-dated yet, apparently) near the Bukhara oasis of Uzbekistan, close to Lake Zaman-baba. It has apparently been dated a little early (near 3rd Millennium BCE), and it characteristically doesn't seem like BMAC. The burial style is apparently like CWC - with right males and left females facing East. There isn't a lot about it online. Not much, even via LLM sources. Has anyone heard/read about it?

There is a lesser-known kurgan-catacomb culture (not carbon-dated yet, apparently) near the Bukhara oasis of Uzbekistan, close to Lake Zaman-baba. It has apparently been dated a little early (near 3rd Millennium BCE), and it characteristically doesn't seem like BMAC. The burial style is apparently like CWC - with right males and left females facing East. There isn't a lot about it online. Not much, even via LLM sources. Has anyone heard/read about it?