r/IndoEuropean

In my previous posts, I argued that the Proto-Indo-Iranians were more closely associated with the Abashevo–Srubnaya–Alakul horizon. I also showed that these cultures were significantly influenced by Poltavka–Potapovka, raising the possibility that Pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian originated from Poltavka–Potapovka rather than from Fatyanovo.(https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/s/PRKSnrIDkD) (https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/s/WnuZQRQmnD)

If that is the case, then what language did the Fatyanovo people speak?

There are two main possibilities:

1. Like the other Corded Ware groups, they spoke an Indo-European language.
2. The more intriguing possibility is that they preserved a non-Indo-European R1a language. As many of you know, R1a was very likely not originally Proto-Indo-European, so some R1a populations may have retained their ancestral language.

How could this be possible?

Genetic evidence points to the Golubaya Krinitsa culture (Russia_Don_N_Mariupol.SG) as a potential candidate. This culture was predominantly R1a, and according to TheYTree site, it even included R1a-M198 and an R1a-M417 sample.

But is there any connection between Golubaya Krinitsa and Fatyanovo?

Interestingly, qpAdm models consistently show that Fatyanovo stands apart from other Corded Ware groups in terms of its Yamnaya and Golubaya Krinitsa ancestry. In addition, Fatyanovo appears to retain more material cultural traits associated with EHG-related traditions than other Corded Ware cultures.

This raises an interesting question:

Could the Fatyanovo culture have spoken a non-Indo-European R1a language?

What do you think

https://preview.redd.it/8pb752dbr7bh1.jpg?width=2880&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d970b675a9fed39d34decddbcc08f0497d2f23ec

I've heard some theories like, potentially more agglutinative features, lack of laryngeals, (if you believe in the caucasian substrate hypothesis) maybe ergative alignment and lack of a feminine marker. What other things can we infer about it? Id like to hear

After studying some Proto Indo European morphology and phonology, I realized how unique and strange the language is. It doesn't seem demonstrably similar to any other language family besides its own sub branches. And the family that is often discussed as maybe being related, (Uralic) can be easily explained by influence from late Indo european dialects rather than a genetic connection. And when PIE is lumped into Eurasiatic, its often the black sheep of the bunch. Its typology matches those of siberia albeit very loosely. (Not saying i believe in any of these fringe theories)

But one conclusion i dont see get explored is the possibility that maybe PIE's distant relatives were the paleo europeans whos' languages are lost to time. Explaining why PIE is, so weird. Maybe paleo laplandic / paleo lakelandic, or even the numerous substrate languages could be related. What do you think?

When did we know that a proto-Indo-Iranian people once lived in Southern Russia and Central Asia, and how did they know that?

There isn’t any literature from S. Russia in those days, and moreover, there was no genetic sequencing technology until 2003. But I saw that this knowledge was well-established in the early ‘80s, and they also knew that these aryans loved gambling and maybe kidnapping women for marriage.

How was this know so early?

Compared to a lot of other proto languages where the 1sg & 1pl and 2sg & 2pl are clearly related, why is it that inital 1sg *Hm- or *(H)é- is *w or why inital 2sg *t- is *y-? Is there anything in verb forms or other fossilized evidence that could explain why this distinction is made?

"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

Is there a prominent Iranian substrate influence on Turkic?

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

How did r1a become the most common haplogroup in corded ware, was it just founder effect?

Did this founder effect again make its descendant bell beaker and other cultures majority r1b?

Where did Indo-european languages stop being spread by pastoralists but by Indo-european farmers?

We find evidence of farming in bell beaker culture so were the indo-Europeans who migrated to Britain mostly sedentary?

I am familiar with the hypothesis, however I can't discover at what time did this changes occur.