Archaeology, Ethnology, and Anthropology of Eurasia, vol. 4 (32), 2007, pp. 143-157
SCYTHIANS OF THE NORTH PONTIC REGION: BETWEEN-GROUP CRANIAL VARIATION, AFFINITIES, AND ORIGINS
A.G. Kozintsev
(no abstract)
"First of all, the variation between the Scythian groups must be assessed in order to compare it with the total variation. The average distance between all the 22 Scythian groups is 6.30; that between the 17 steppe groups, 5.25; that between the five forest-steppe groups, 5.88; and that between the steppe and the forest-steppe groups, 8.04. As will be seen below, these values are not at all small by the general standard."
...
"Our results agree with the conclusions made by A.Yu. Alekseyev (1993), who speaks of two Scythian cultures, separated by a sharp gap: one archaic, distributed mostly in the forest-steppe and in the northern Caucasus, another classical, distributed in the steppe. It appears reasonable to assume that the two cultures were associated with tribes differing in origin, and that the term “Scythians” can be used with regard to the forest-steppe people only in a broad sense."
...
"Therefore, contrary to a widely held belief, which, until quite recently, was shared by all physical anthropologists, not a single biological fact (at least insofar as craniometry is concerned) suggests that the only, or at least the principal ancestors of the steppe Scythians were people of the Timber-grave culture. Now that this culture is represented by numerous populations from various parts of its distribution area, the above statement can be made with certainty not only with regard to the steppe Scythians in general, but also with regard to the vast majority of local steppe populations as well."
...
"The hypothesis formulated by Kovalev (see above) does not contradict the fact that gracilization began in the southern part of the Caucasoid distribution range. At the same time, this hypothesis agrees with the theory of two Indo-European homelands – the early one, Near Eastern, and the late one, European, situated in regions from the Balkans (Diakonov, 1982) to Central or even Northern Europe (Safronov, 1989; Klein, 1990 and in print), i.e., areas covered by the depigmentation process."
...
"Craniometrical findings indirectly support the theory that the forest-steppe Scythians were autochthonous. Both for this group as a whole and for its local populations, including the earliest one, from Medvin, the most distinct ties are those with people of the Timber-grave culture of the Ukraine, especially with the group from the ground burials of that culture. No less relevant are ties with the Belozerskaia group. The isolated position of certain forest-steppe Scythian groups, which reveal no ties with other populations, may point to a key role of microevolutionary (especially random) processes.
4. Parallels between the steppe Scythians and people of the Timber-grave culture evidently do not attest to the local origin of the former. They are less distinct than parallels with earlier Bronze Age populations (those associated with the Pit-grave and Catacomb cultures) and therefore point not so much to the local roots of the steppe Scythians as to the fact that their ancestors were Indo-Europeans (most likely Indo-Iranians), some groups of which migrated during the Bronze Age as far east as Eastern Central Asia. The return of their descendants to the North Pontic steppes in the Early Iron Age was apparently the key factor in the origin of the steppe Scythians (at least of the relatively late populations represented in our database)."
17 comments:
It was well known that Scythians were not homogeneous!!!
We did not wait for these "news" to find it out!!!
Scythians, Sarmatians, Massagetae, Sogdians, Alans, Ossetians, etc. were part of the original Saka people of central Asia which emerged from the Andronovo culture and the greater Krasnoyarsk Krai region.
They were Iranic peoples because the rivernames and the various placenames in these regions are Iranic.
BUT
Iranic was also the Sabatinovka culture which emerged from the Catacomb culture and the Novotitorovka one. The former came from the east and especially the Volga region and mingled with the latter which was the local Yamnaya remnant. Jan Lichardus has postulated that Catacomb culture created the basis for a latter "Satemization" of the Balkan-Danubian complex of peoples.
Sabatinovka elements moved to the Balkan-Danubian area and fully Satemized the I.E. with which they came into contact. This contact created the Noua culture which in its turn mingled with the Gava-Holihradi culture and created the Thracian tribes. Thracians, Phrygians and Armenians are Paleobalkan I.E. peoples which are "satem" while Greeks and Illyrians were (and Greeks still are) Paleobalkan I.E.peoples which are/were "Centum" and that's because Noua and Gava influences never reached them (that's also a point that Albanians ARE NOT the pure descendants of Illyrians, at least lingually, because Albanian is satem while Illyrian is not).
Anyway these Iranics of Catacomb and Sabatinovka cultures were not the same culturally with the Saka and their first wave , the Scythians. Albeit the fact that they had similarities with the Andronovo culture, they are genetically related to the Poltavka and Potapovka cultures.
They were the ancestors of the Cimmerians and the Pontic peoples which the Greeks latter met in their colonies (Sindi, Torretes, Psisi, Maiotes, etc.).
Thus the Scythians which came from central Asia it is reasonable to differ from the Scythians of Pontus and Europe because the latter mingled with different peoples when they moved in the area at the 7th or 6th century BC.
As far as the forest-steppe region now is concerned, that region was also Iranicized but was not part of the Sabatinovka or Catacomb culture as well.
This area was the land of the Bilochroudvika culture (sorry if i do not write it correctly but i could n't find the name in English so i translated what i read in Greek. It sounds exactly as i write it) which seems to be a very peculiar intact place from the Steppe peoples!
Even during the Dnieper Donets culture this area WAS NOT part of the neolithic sites of the area and reflected Mesolithic Tardenoisian tools and industry.
The Tardenoisians which moved to Ukraine were "Paleo-Mediterraneans" and were covering BOTH the Steppe and the forest steppe region.
Only at the end of the Mesolithic the Swiderian and Kunda Cro-magnons moved to the area and attacked the Tardenoisians driving them to almost total extinction if they were not for some pocket places (like part of the forest steppe zone). Graveyards in Voloskoye and Vasilievka show that the "Paleo-Meds" were brutally killed and many had arrows in their bodies typical of the invading Cro-magnons!!!
Thus the Mediterranid element of the "Scythian" forest steppe area IS NOT a proof of the Neolithic proto-farmers of the Balkans who moved to Pontus.
It's only a remnant of the Mesolithic Tardenoisians.
Our cunning Dienekes posted the term "Soutnern Caucasoids" in order to justify the presence of his...beloved Mediterranean Neolithics in Pontus.
HE DID NOT KNOW IF THIS ELEMENT FOUND THERE WAS PALEO-MEDITERRANEAN OR MODERN MEDITERRANEAN, THAT'S WHY HE DID NOT WRITE "MEDITERRANEANS" BUT "SOUTHERN CAUCASOIDS" and the term "IF craniomerty is correct" to cover his back!!!
Not typical of our scholastic and careful Dienekes don't you think people?
The line at which proto-farmers stopped in Eastern Europe was the area of the Bug-Dniester culture which latter transformed to the Tripolie culture.
THERE WERE NO NEOLITHIC MIGRATIONS TO THE STEPPE FROM THE BALKANS!!!
ONLY THE OPPOSITE.
EVEN FROM 4OOO BC CUCUTENI C SHOWS STEPPE ELEMENTS IN POTTERY, BURIAL CUSTOMS, RELIGION AND EVEN ANTHROPOLOGY!!!
Thus how the hell do you correlate the Mediterranid element with I.E. and especially with the Neolithic period?
For more about the Bilochroudvika culture, the Sabatinovka, Noua, etc. please read:
1)Sulimirski T. "Prehistoric Russia" (1970), London
2)Terenozhkin A.I. "Predskilfsky period na Dneprom pravoberezhe" (1976)
3)Hoddinott R.F. "The Thracians"
For the Catacomb, Poltavka, Potapovka and Andronovo cultures read:
The Encyclopedia of Indoeuropean Culture (1997)
For the Anthropology of southern Ukraine read:
1)Telegin D. Ya. and I. Potekhina "Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations of the Dnieper Basin" 1987
2)Zvelebil M. "Hunters in Transition" 1986
antigonos, if you want to continue posting here, you will no longer insult the host.
>> THERE WERE NO NEOLITHIC MIGRATIONS TO THE STEPPE FROM THE BALKANS!!!
Au contraire
>> Our cunning Dienekes posted the term "Soutnern Caucasoids" in order to justify the presence of his...beloved Mediterranean Neolithics in Pontus.
HE DID NOT KNOW IF THIS ELEMENT FOUND THERE WAS PALEO-MEDITERRANEAN OR MODERN MEDITERRANEAN, THAT'S WHY HE DID NOT WRITE "MEDITERRANEANS" BUT "SOUTHERN CAUCASOIDS" and the term "IF craniomerty is correct" to cover his back!!!
Not typical of our scholastic and careful Dienekes don't you think people
Do you understand the concept of a "quote"?
Mr. Diekenes,
Anthroscape was entertaining for me... I checked it daily and liked it, man. Any word on why it was shut down?
I TRULY respect your personal "Diekenes" web blog: it advances knowledge. I've had it on my favorites list for a long time. You're doing a good thing, wisely, too.
In short: COOL!
Can there be another Anthroscape?
Any news is appreciated.
Thanks, Diekenes,
Hill Yarborough
This "Au contraire" of yours does not justify your thesis!!!
The post says AGAIN that in Sredny Stog and Novodanilovka are found BOTH Proto-Europoids AND Southern Europeans (Mediterraneans).
It assumes that this element MIGHT be explained as an influx of Tripolie people!
Do you understand the difference between "might be" and "is"?
First of all Sredny Stog and Novodanilovka are not all the proto-I.E. sites!!!
Kemi Oba, Naltsik, Maikop, Lower Michailovka, Samara, Khvalynsk, Dereivka (which is Derievka really but Mallory wrote it wrong and it stayed that way), Agindel and other places are the Fatherland of I.E. too!!!
We can't judge only from a single place (Ingren) the entire proto-I.E. population's physical anthropology!!!
And even in Ingren the major part of the population is what Gimbutas called the proto-Europoid type C population typical of the Samara, Agindel and Seroglazkovo cultures.
From these cultures proto-I.E. invaded Ukraine and that is shown from physical anthropology, horse worship, social customs and even from the fauna they brought with them (an Asiatic type of sheep NOT EVIDENT before in Europe as Sandor Bokonyi has shown).
Read Kumar G.D., Van Day, Haudry, Zoffman, Maryana Khlobystina, Aida Petrenko and others who have written articles or diatribes about the anthropological synthesis of the Yamnaya culture (Proto-I.E.).
In concluding even IF these skeletons are Mediterranean and not "Paleo-Mediterranean" it doesn't mean that they descend from the Neolithic proto-farmers of the Balkans.
It is known that the animal husbandry methods and the pre-pottery Neolithic skills of the proto-I.E. of the Samara basin descend from the Southern Caspian sites like Sanidar, Karim Sahir and Moulino where similar Neolithic and pastoral patterns AND the specific sheep that proto-I.E. brought to Ukraine were found!!!
These cultures HAD MEDITERRANEANS as their population and it is possible that along the cultural elements, brides and thus blood were exchanged too!!!
Matyushin G. in his "Eneolit Yuzhnogo Urala" had proposed this.
Mallory in his works has said that Neolithic cultures were through out the Dnieper-Don area like the Sursko-Dnieper culture, the Dnieper-Donets culture etc.
BUT THESE CULTURES WERE INDIGENOUS AND CONTINUED THEIR MESOLITHIC TRADITION AND BLOOD (AS Y-DNA STUDIES INDICATE).
When some Tripolie elements entered the Pontus area at about 3500 BC they were too late to..."spread" their "I.E." culture there SINCE I.E. WERE ALREADY THERE SINCE 4500 BC!!!
Thus evidence of Mediterraneans (if they are not "Paleo-Meds" after all) DOESN'T mean that they come from the proto-farmers of the Balkans, since they might descend actually from the Moulino, Sanidar and other places and if they indeed come from Tripolie they are very late in playing the role which Renfrew wants them to play!!!
The by far biggest part of the proto-Indoeuropean folk is a proto-Europoid type similar to Gravettians and generally to Upper Paleolithic Europeans and not to Mediterraneans.
You said:
"antigonos, if you want to continue posting here, you will no longer insult the host".
HOW DID I INSULT YOU?
Please explain!!!
If i am not wrong it is you for the last two months THAT YOU KEEP INSULTING ME!!!
Since our debate about the hereditary or not perception of what is beauty, you keep attacking ALL my comments!
When i said in a comment that scientists should be careful when they do DNA samplings in Europe because the vast immigration phenomenon and the very easy way to get the citizenship of a country might jeopardize the research (cause foreigners might be sampled as ethnic representatives of the country since they have the citizenship, while they're aliens and that will give wrong results) you in an immediate way characterize my comment as nonsense!!!
Another example is when i recently said that SO FAR Mycenaeans prove to be U.P. European Hg carriers and you mocked me by saying "Antigonos, genetics is not your strong point, and Google is not substitute for it"
WHO IS INSULTING AND IRONIC I AM WANDERING!!!
Not only you were wrong in your accusation towards me because YOU DID NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID but you mocked me too!
And making conclusions doesn't have only to do with what you know but with how do you process it as well!!!
You have more knowledge than me in Genetics, but can you judge better than me?
Are you so sure?
By the way, Dienekes is History, Archeology, Politics, or even Anthropology your strong points?
I think not!!!
You want proof?
When you posted an article about the Minor Asian disaster and the Greek Genocide by the Turks, some Turkish bastards said to you that it was the Greek Army that started the bloodshed and the killings!!!
And you instead of answering with facts and historical documents of the TURKS THEMSELVES about their behavior towards us and others i.e. Armenians you answered like a 5 year old saying "the Greek Army and the Orthodox Clergy protected and cared about the muslim element"!!!
Is this your answer?
What should i have said then to you?
Look how did i answer!!!
Another example is when a guy said in a post "i am female" and i wrote TO HIM "what do you mean female?"
Like a lawyer you jumped in the middle of this ironically saying to me "a good dictionary is always handy, read below"!!!
I AM NOT 6 YEARS OLD FRIEND TO NOT KNOWING WHAT IS FEMALE OR NOT AND NOBODY ASKED YOU!!!
Additionally when i tried to say that Genetics are sometimes biased cause they try to make pleasant but not true results i used the case of Y-DNA I Hg and its identification with the Gravettian culture.
In the media and in Universities they use maps which show the entire Gravettian area as the host of Hg I when in many places in the map both female and male Negroids lived there long before Caucasoids move to their lands and thus how can we correlate a clearly "Europoid" Hg with populations that are Negroid and that did not mix with Europoids or even came from the same place (Anatolia)?
You answered me with the tone that a Pope speaks that" No Geneticist ever assumed that the Gravettian industry was entirely correlated with Hg I" and that i was making things out!!!
I DID NOT KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT EVERY SINGLE GENETICIST IN THE PLANET WRITES OR BELIEVES BUT IF YOU ONLY CARED TO READ SOME UNIVERSITY ARTICLES AND INTERNET SITES YOU WOULD HAVE WITNESSED THAT THEY HAVE MAPS SHOWING THE ENTIRE GRAVETTIAN AREA AS THE HOST OF HG I!!!
Here goes another example of your politeness!
In the post about the Mycenaean possible occupation of Minoan Crete i wrote about the various clues that show us that Mycenaeans were in Crete evident, and i used the linguistic substratum as one of those!!!
You answered in a very ironic and humiliating way that....according to my "theory" how do i explain the Arvanitika substratum in Peloponnese?
I THOUGHT THAT WE ALL HERE ARE EXPRESSING OUR OPINIONS AND THAT WE DO THIS TO SHARE KNOWLEDGE AND INFO!!!
I did not know that this was wrong!
If i am not wrong even you do the same, don't you?
You are exposing your opinion!
I used my knowledge on the subject AS YOU SAW and i proved you my point!!!
So where does this...."theory" issue goes to?
Perhaps if you want to accuse people of making theories why don't you look to yourself (e.g. the Afrasian/Paleoafrican concept of yours)?
Finally you said in your last post on the Y-DNA tree (the one in which we were arguing about the I Hg and the Gravettians) that my belief about the Neolithic farmers are imaginary and based on Gimbutas' ideas!!!
WELL MY FRIEND LIKING IT OR NOT THESE...."GIMBUTAS' IDEAS" ARE THE CORE FOR WHAT THE ENTIRE WORLD ACCEPTS ON THE INDOEUROPEAN ISSUE!!!
Are you superior to linguists, archeologists, anthropologists, etc. from around the World?
AFTER ALL WHO GAVE YOU THE RIGHT OF ACCUSING ME AS BELIEVING IN "IMAGINARY IDEAS"?
In concluding along your irony and mockery to me many times you twisted my comments and draw "conclusions" that suited you. Like when i said that Anatolian and Levantine Neolithic peoples are of the same stock and you said why should we suppose a common racial element to all Neolithic cultures in Europe just because they descend from Levantine cultures?
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!
I SAID THE LEVANTINE AND THE ANATOLIAN ONLY!!!
I could continue for hours but i think that i made my point!
If you want people to respect you, YOU FIRST HAVE TO RESPECT THEM TOO.
Especially if they are your guests!!!
It goes vice versa my friend!
Imagine if you come to my house as a guest and instead of talking to you descend, i started mocking and fooling you!
WHAT WILL YOU DO?
I post for THREE YEARS in this site.
My behavior was always excellent towards you, wasn't it?
What am i, some kind of lunatic to suddenly change my behavior?
Don't you think that you have to consider if you had done something that caused this?
Unless of course if you are flawless!!!
I have noticed that among the commentators that started with you since 2003 ONLY FIVE continue to post here!!!
All the rest are new to this site (no more than two to three years time) and that from the old ones some of them left for unknown reasons and the rest had argued with you and because you did not agree with them you made them leave in an immediate way (and in some cases mediate like when some Afrocentricists believed that a research you posted did not consider as Negroes populations from East Africa e.g. the Nilotids and that the author did this on purpose to prove a point of his. Because they did not accept your thesis YOU BANNED THEM!!!!!!!!)
So i am just wandering!
1)Do you want people to write their own opinions or not?
2)Do everybody eventually have to agree with you otherwise they are being attacked and mocked?
3)If you can attribute to a commentator a personal biased perspective in his/her thesis and that he/she lacks a neutral unbiased mood based on the facts of researches, can the commentators imply the same for you too or is it forbidden? Because when you say to someone that he makes things out and that he has imaginary ideas i.e. that he accepts wishful thinking why can't he suggest the same for you?
4)When you mock or look down to commentators do they have the right to do the same to you or just because it is your site ONLY you have the right to be ironic?
Finally friend you asked me if i want to continue posting in your site?
Is n't that obvious?
Who has more comments than me?
Whose comments are more prolix than mine?
Why do you ask things for which you already know the answer from private discussions that we had via e-mail?
THIS SITE IS MY BEST SITE BY FAR (ALONG WITH A POLITICAL ONE).
AND TRUST ME I SPEND MINIMUM 8 HOURS ON THE NET DAILY!!!
I VISIT A HELL OF A LOT OF SITES, FORUMS, GROUPS OF MANY DIFFERENT INTERESTS I.E. SPORTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE, POLITICS, PHILOSOPHY, MUSIC, ETC.
THAT'S WHY WHEN I SAY THAT THIS SITE IS MY BEST, IT HAS TO COUNT FOR SOMETHING!!!
The question though is, do you want people who speak their opinion or you want people who agree with you eventually?
I am not willing to let you mock me and insult me without fighting back!!!
If you underestimate me and insult me you're going to hear it big time!!!
I am willing to make a new start and forget all our past grudges if you wish the same too.
After all we don't have to earn or loose anything from this "duel"!!!
If you decide to go back to our old behavioral pattern i will do the same.
BUT THESE CULTURES WERE INDIGENOUS AND CONTINUED THEIR MESOLITHIC TRADITION AND BLOOD (AS Y-DNA STUDIES INDICATE)
There are no Y-DNA studies on Neolithic individuals from the north Pontic region.
Like when i said that Anatolian and Levantine Neolithic peoples are of the same stock and you said why should we suppose a common racial element to all Neolithic cultures in Europe just because they descend from Levantine cultures?
BUT I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!
I SAID THE LEVANTINE AND THE ANATOLIAN ONLY!!!
Ron Pinhasi and Mark Pluciennik, "A Regional Biological Approach to the Spread of Farming in Europe", Current Anthropology Volume 45, Supplement, August–October 2004
"The Catal Hoyuk population resembles the Early Neolithic specimens from Greece rather than those from Cayonu. Many specimens from Early
Neolithic sites in south-eastern Europe cluster together. Anza, Jasa Tepe, Karanovo, and Kasanlak cluster with Volos 1 and B’Koybeleiki 1 and 2. Morphometrically, Catal Hoyuk specimens are much closer to the South-East European Neolithic examples than to those of other Anatolian/Levantine Early Neolithic groups."
When i recently said that SO FAR Mycenaeans prove to be U.P. European Hg carriers
The evidence does not allow us to draw that conclusion. 3 of the 4 individuals had mtDNA of ambiguous origin; U5a1 has a higher probability of being Paleolithic European. The evidence as a whole doesn't say much, and certainly not that "They were no Levantine immigrants or residents of the Middle East" as you erroneously claimed.
From all the above that i said, IS THIS WHAT YOU UNDERSTOOD?
THE ANSWER THAT YOU WRITE ABOVE?
If i say again that you have a major comprehension problem will i be accused of being disrespectful again?
Is that the meaning of my above comment?
THE MEANING IS THAT YOUR BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ME FOR UNKNOWN REASONS TO ME THE LAST TWO MONTHS IS INAPPROPRIATE!!!
TO BE MORE SPECIFIC IT IS IRONIC, UNDERESTIMATING AND MOCKING!!!
AND YOU KNOW TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME!!!
INSTEAD OF ANSWERING TO THE THINGS I SAID ABOUT YOUR BEHAVIOR YOU "ANALYZE" THE VALIDITY OR NOT OF MY SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTIONS?
Your second last comment was that i should respect you!!!
AND WHAT ABOUT YOU?
SHOULD YOU RESPECT ME?
YOU DID NOT ANSWER TO NONE OF MY COMPLAINTS ABOVE NEITHER TO THE FACT THAT WITH EVERY PERSON YOU DISAGREE WITH, YOU INSULT IT, DRIVING IT TO STOP READING YOUR SITE AND THAT ALMOST ALL OF YOUR VERY FIRST VIEWERS HAS ABANDONED YOU.
NONE STAYS FOR MORE THAT 2 TO 3 YEARS!!!
WHY?
NOW FOR YOUR ABOVE ARGUMENTS!
Forensic Anthropological examinations are very unstable due to diet reasons, illnesses, environmental conditions, etc.
Levantine and Anatolian Neolithic have a genetic relationship and that can be found in the customs, the social stratification, the religious aspects and the burial customs.
I NEVER SAID THAT ANATOLIAN AND LEVANTINE PEOPLES ARE TWINS!!!
Only that they are of the same stock. And that's true since they are both folks Mediterraneans, and they had common Haplogroups, like Y-DNA E3b1a and Y-DNA J1 Hgs.
As far as Pontus is concerned we know that R1a was sovereign there and that Wells and others correlate it with the Kurgan people. Cavalli Sforza also supports this theory.
There is also a very significant (NON NEAR EASTERN) percentage of I Hgs (Tardenoisian?) but no E3b1a and J Hgs to support a Balkan proto-farmers invasion to these lands.
Liking it or not, I.E. issues can't be solved WITHOUT TAKING UNDER ACCOUNT THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE!!!
AND THAT EVIDENCE SHOWS THE KURGAN CULTURE!!!
ALL we have from the proto-I.E. for sure is their proto-language.
FROM IT WE TRY TO FIND THEIR HABITAT, THEIR TRADITIONS, THEIR SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, ETC.
From language we move to archeology, anthropology, etc.
AND IF YOU SAY TO A LINGUIST THAT THE RENFREW THEORY IS VALID HE WILL LAUGH AT YOUR FACE!!!
Anatolia as the I.E. homeland?
Anatolia did not have Horses till 3000 BC!!!
The Balkans till 2000 BC!!!
Iranian was already present at 2000 BC long before Horses even existed in the Balkans!!!
How can you postulate an I.E. fatherland without horses?
Also please explain the common proto-Uralic and proto-I.E. lingual elements!!!
I.E. languages have a common vocabulary for silver, wheel, plough and many latter agricultural and metallurgic terms!
If I.E. had been separated since the beginning or middle of Neolithic how do you explain these common agricultural and metallurgic words to both Celts and Indo-Aryans for example, when we know that the discovery and spread of those innovations did not happen before the end of Neolithic or even the Chalcolithic era?
No linguist can accept proto-Celts or proto-Iranians at Zagros at 5000 BC!!!
ONLY RENFREW DOES!!!
If Anatolia and the Balkans were the I.E. fatherland WHY DOESN'T PROTO-I.E. LANGUAGE HAS WORDS FOR DONKEY, OLIVE, OIL, DOLPHINS, GRAPES, ETC?
ON THE CONTRARY PROTO-I.E. HAS WORDS FOR THE BEAVER, THE BIRCH, THE SALMON, and many tree names that ARE NOT TYPICAL of the Mediterranean and the Near East AND THAT THEIR MEANING HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM WHAT IT MEANT IN PROTO-I.E. TO REFLECT OTHER TREES (like the beech).
Do you know what the Greek word Doru (=Δόρυ) means?
It means a wooden stick at which in its top there is a spear bestowed upon.
Doru in proto-I.E. means the φλαμουριά tree. This tree it was so common to proto-I.E. people that it ended meaning "Tree" in general!!!
In Greek it took the meaning of the ash tree!!!
Why?
Because they are no φλαμουριές in Greece but very rarely.
Why if proto-I.E. were indigenous to Anatolia and Balkans named in general the word "tree" with a word of a specific tree NOT EVEN EXISTING IN THESE LANDS?
Finally you have to answer things that i already said to you before BUT YOU DID NOT ANSWER.
How do you situate the proto-I.E. homeland to an area FULL with other NON RELATED languages like Hurrian, Hattian, Kaskian, Minoan which simply has rivernames, mountain names, and generally toponyms CLEARLY NON I.E.?
And why a so moving folk like the proto-I.E. moved HUNDREDS OF MILES THROUGH OUT ASIA AND EUROPE, REACHING EVEN BRITAIN (YES, RENFREW SUPPORTS THAT!!!) IN THE NEOLITHIC, BUT IT TOOK THEM 3000 YEARS TO MOVE TO ARMENIA?
Not to mention the Ethos and the Moral of the proto-I.E. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ANATOLIAN AND BALKAN CULTURES. Where is the patriarchal stratification in the Neolitic proto-farmers?
Where is the Warlike society and the elements that we see in latter times to Indoeuroepans as we decode it from the proto-I.E. language (see Dumezil's Trifunctional thesis, Puhvel, Littleton etc.)?
Forensic Anthropological examinations are very unstable due to diet reasons, illnesses, environmental conditions, etc.
Levantine and Anatolian Neolithic have a genetic relationship and that can be found in the customs, the social stratification, the religious aspects and the burial customs.
I NEVER SAID THAT ANATOLIAN AND LEVANTINE PEOPLES ARE TWINS!!!
Only that they are of the same stock. And that's true since they are both folks Mediterraneans, and they had common Haplogroups, like Y-DNA E3b1a and Y-DNA J1 Hgs.
I see, so skeletal morphology is, according to you, malleable, and not indicative of genetic relationships, whereas "burial customs" and "religious customs" are.
The fact is that some Anatolian groups are closer to Greek groups and other European groups than they are to other Anatolian and Levantine groups. You may wish to lump them all as "Mediterraneans" and forget about it, but it's curious that someone who dismisses the multivariate craniometrical evidence would accept a different, cruder, type of craniometric evidence, namely that they were "Mediterraneans".
As far as Pontus is concerned we know that R1a was sovereign there and that Wells and others correlate it with the Kurgan people. Cavalli Sforza also supports this theory.
There is also a very significant (NON NEAR EASTERN) percentage of I Hgs (Tardenoisian?) but no E3b1a and J Hgs to support a Balkan proto-farmers invasion to these lands.
There are enough "Neolithic" haplogroups in Russia and the Ukraine, and they can not all be ascribed to historical movements, e.g., ancient Greek colonization of the Black Sea littoral, since they are found well inland.
And, actually, the "Neolithic" haplogroup J, and perhaps also G is found all the way to China and Mongolia, whereas haplogroup I is not.
Anatolia did not have Horses till 3000 BC!!!
Really?
The Balkans till 2000 BC!!!
Really?
If I.E. had been separated since the beginning or middle of Neolithic how do you explain these common agricultural and metallurgic words to both Celts and Indo-Aryans for example, when we know that the discovery and spread of those innovations did not happen before the end of Neolithic or even the Chalcolithic era?
Celts and Indo-Aryans did not split during the Neolithic. The _earliest_ split was between Anatolian and the rest of the family tree and happened in the Neolithic.
ON THE CONTRARY PROTO-I.E. HAS WORDS FOR THE BEAVER, THE BIRCH, THE SALMON, and many tree names that ARE NOT TYPICAL of the Mediterranean and the Near East AND THAT THEIR MEANING HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM WHAT IT MEANT IN PROTO-I.E. TO REFLECT OTHER TREES (like the beech).
PIE is a reconstructed language based on cognates in the daughter languages. Obviously, as PIE speakers moves to the north, they would encounter a different physical environment. As a result, they would stop using terms for e.g., olive trees, because there weren't any olive trees in the steppes or northern Europe or Central Asia.
Doru in proto-I.E. means the φλαμουριά tree.
How do you know what it meant in PIE? Because most of its cognates in IE languages mean that? But, that doesn't tell us what it meant _originally_.
How do you situate the proto-I.E. homeland to an area FULL with other NON RELATED languages like Hurrian, Hattian, Kaskian, Minoan which simply has rivernames, mountain names, and generally toponyms CLEARLY NON I.E.?
Easily. Since IE lived in the homeland longer than anywhere else, there was more time for other language groups to infiltrate there. And, as I mentioned above, it is irrelevant to speak about "Anatolia" in general, since Anatolian populations were not homogeneous.
>>I see, so skeletal morphology is, according to you, malleable, and not indicative of genetic relationships, whereas "burial customs" and "religious customs" are.>>
YES!!!
Burial customs are THE MOST steady proof for a population!
Even when a population changes his religion, general customs, or even language, its customs customs WILL AGAIN differ from the other peoples.
See for example Christians of the same Dogma how do they differ in their burial customs from nation to nation!
There are exceptions but are very minute. That's why this proof, the burial customs, are used as an almost absolute tool for changes in populations' synthesis.
Physical anthropology can be tricky and that's why it can't be used ALONE as an ethnographic evidence.
I THOUGHT A PERSON WHO HAS A SITE FOR ALMOST 6 YEARS DEALING WITH ANTHROPOLOGY WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT!!!
Unless of course if your thesis is that of anthropologists of the end of the 19th century where behind every change in cranial width or body height they were....discovering new folks and races!!!
>>There are enough "Neolithic" haplogroups in Russia and the Ukraine, and they can not all be ascribed to historical movements, e.g., ancient Greek colonization of the Black Sea littoral, since they are found well inland.>>
The Kingdom of Bosporus ALONE could verify your...enough evidence for the "Neolithic" Hgs.
Not to mention the other colonies!
And bare in mind that Pontus after Mithridatis mingled its cultures and populations and reached a stability ONLY with the coming of the Goths in the area.
Thus genes have traveled a lot.
Hgs found in the Balkans were continuing to flow in the area even in the Middle Ages because of the Byzantine Empire and its colonies there.
Your Anatolian horse...evidence is no evidence at all!!!
FIRST OF ALL BECAUSE A SIMPLE SITE IS NOT PROOF FOR THE ENTIRE ANATOLIA.
Second because final verdict HAS NOT COME YET!!!
They are not sure HOW the horses were found there, because trade can also play a role since horses were and still are considered majestic and noble, and as the page says:
"Analysis is still at an early stage and results remain tentative".
Mistakes in chronology are common.
Should i remind you the horse in a tomb in Marathon where until very recently was considered to be of 1600 BC but now is found to be at about 1300 to 1100 BC (some say less)!
ONLY WHEN RESEARCH IS DONE YOU CAN HAVE A FINAL VERDICT.
Your link for the Balkans doesn't work.
Proto-I.E. had a very rich vocabulary about the horse. Cultures without having the horse as a major aspect CAN'T be proto-I.E.
Horse had a ceremonial, religious and even symbolic essence in proto-Indoeuropeans. Anatolian and Balkan cultures don't have this element.
>>Celts and Indo-Aryans did not split during the Neolithic. The _earliest_ split was between Anatolian and the rest of the family tree and happened in the Neolithic.>>
Oh, but Renfrew says this.
He puts Celts in Britain and Iranians in Zagros at 4 and 5 thousand BC!!!
>>PIE is a reconstructed language based on cognates in the daughter languages. Obviously, as PIE speakers moves to the north, they would encounter a different physical environment. As a result, they would stop using terms for e.g., olive trees, because there weren't any olive trees in the steppes or northern Europe or Central Asia.>>
Really now?
I could have understood Germans or Balts to do so, but why Italians or Greeks did the same?
THEY OBVIOUSLY LIVED IN AREAS WHERE THIS FLORA AND FAUNA EXISTED.
And as you can see from proto-I.E., WORDS NOT FAMILIAR WITH AN ENVIRONMENT CAN BE MAINTAINED (birch, salmon, taxos, etc.) from the ones who spoke them.
Although Italians do not have birches they maintained the meaning of the word and in its noun form it means the "whitish" color, just like the color of the birch is!!!
>>How do you know what it meant in PIE? Because most of its cognates in IE languages mean that? But, that doesn't tell us what it meant _originally_.>>
SORRY FRIEND BUT IT SEEMS THAT YOU CANCEL ENTIRE SCIENCES LIKE PALEO-LINGUISTICS, COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS, ARCHEOGLOTTOLOGY, ETC.
Yes, who knows?
We might cancel entire sciences for Lord Renfrew's theory to become real.
My dear friend, GENETICS, A SCIENCE THAT YOU HAVE DEDICATED YOUR LIFE TO IS A MILLION TIMES MORE FRAGILE AND UNSTABLE THAN LINGUISTICS.
GENETICS IS MORE LIKE ASTRONOMY AND COSMOLOGY!!!
IT CHANGES OPINIONS AND FACTS EVERY MONTH!!!
BUT WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT ITS FINDINGS YOU SPEAK LIKE IF IT IS SOMETHING STANDARD, SOMETHING REAL!!!
You say, thus, we know Homo Sapiens Sapiens humans were two different species in 200000 BC and they mixed again to make one species, are own.
And why?
Because Wells said it a month ago.
WELL, BE ONE HUNDRED PERCENT SURE, THAT WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO IT WILL AGAIN BE CHANGED AS IT IS SO COMMON IN GENETICS.
I HAVEN'T SEEN YOU THOUGH EVER REFUTING OR DON'T LAYING YOUR LONG ODDS IN THESE "FACTS"!!!
WHY DO YOU DO IT THEN IN THE LINGUISTIC SCIENCES AND ESPECIALLY IN THE I.E. PROTOLANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS REAL BY THE ENTIRE WORLD FOR THE LAST 200 YEARS?
I know the answer but if i write it you will say that i am insulting again!!!
P.S. Hattians and Kaskians were indigenous to Anatolia.
Hurrians in the northeastern part of the peninsula and the area of Caucasus.
In order to have a community with its own language or even worse its own linguistic family you got to have a specific area to secure them isolation and individual development.
In Minor Asia there is simply NO ROOM for proto-I.E. especially since we have linguistic evidence for NON I.E. languages THROUGH OUT ANATOLIA.
Additionally you did not explain THE COMMON PROTO-URALIC AND PROTO-I.E. GENETIC RELATIONSHIP!!!
If proto-Indoeuropeans emerged in Anatolia how did they share these features with proto-Uralics?
Linguistic evidence IS ALL we have from proto-I.E.!!!
From this we go to archeology, anthropology, etc.
Proto-I.E. in 7000 BC IS NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!
It simply can't explain the common words for many things that were invented in 3000 BC for example, when according to Renfrew Iranians were already to Zagros and Celts in Britain!!!!!!!!!
Burial customs are THE MOST steady proof for a population!
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/05/burial-customs-in-ancient-greek.html
"This paper reviews the evidence for 'indigenous' burial methods in Greek cemeteries, concentrating on multiple, contracted and acephalous burials. It argues that such evidence is limited and open to various interpretations and that while it is highly likely that Greek settlements did incorporate an indigenous population, the funerary record cannot be used as a reliable identifier of such groups."
The Kingdom of Bosporus ALONE could verify your...enough evidence for the "Neolithic" Hgs.
Not to mention the other colonies!
And bare in mind that Pontus after Mithridatis mingled its cultures and populations and reached a stability ONLY with the coming of the Goths in the area.
Thus genes have traveled a lot.
"Neolithic" haplogroups are found way to the north and east of the Black Sea for your theory to have any value.
In order to have a community with its own language or even worse its own linguistic family you got to have a specific area to secure them isolation and individual development.
In Minor Asia there is simply NO ROOM for proto-I.E. especially since we have linguistic evidence for NON I.E. languages THROUGH OUT ANATOLIA.
Ok, so according to you many different language families (of the Hatti, Kaska and Hurrians/Urartians) were indigenous and managed to develop despite being in close proximity to each other, but IE couldn't have.
Actually, there is no evidence of what languages were spoken in Anatolia 4,000 years before the written attestation of the first languages.
My dear friend, GENETICS, A SCIENCE THAT YOU HAVE DEDICATED YOUR LIFE TO IS A MILLION TIMES MORE FRAGILE AND UNSTABLE THAN LINGUISTICS.
Genetic inheritance is, of course, not 10^6 times more unstable than cultural inheritance.
Additionally you did not explain THE COMMON PROTO-URALIC AND PROTO-I.E. GENETIC RELATIONSHIP!!!
If proto-Indoeuropeans emerged in Anatolia how did they share these features with proto-Uralics?
The linguistic evidence is highly subjective and constantly debated. Other linguists find parallels between PIE and Kartvelian.
>>"Neolithic" haplogroups are found way to the north and east of the Black Sea for your theory to have any value.>>
How do you know which root did the bearers of the various Hgs you mention of the Hellenic kingdoms and latter of the Byzantine colonies followed till today?
The differences in burial customs even among a common tradition and culture DO reflect ethnic differences.
YES, the Italiote Greeks and more certain the "Sicilian" Greeks DID absorb an amount of indigenous Elymian and Sicanian element in their cities.
Historical records, names from tombs and archaeological research has proven that.
There is a very good magazine in Greek called "Stratiotiki Istoria" by the "Periskopio" Publishing corp.
(http://www.periscopio.gr)
that the last year has presented some articles by Grigoropoulos, Deligiannis and others dealing with the cities of the Western Greeks.
They published articles about Taras, Kume, Sybaris and Croto, Gela, Acragas and there has been shown by Italian archeologists that the lands at which Gela, Acragas and latter Selinountas were stretched absorbed an amount of indigenous populations. Statuettes, inscriptions, armors and burial customs were proof of that.
As i said burial customs are the most steady proof for ethnic elements.
But as i said in my last comment "there are exceptions but they are minute".
One example that burial customs did not prove to be helpful was in the Pueblo Amerindians case but not in that of the Western Greek states.
>>Ok, so according to you many different language families (of the Hatti, Kaska and Hurrians/Urartians) were indigenous and managed to develop despite being in close proximity to each other, but IE couldn't have.>>
Now Dienekes if i mock you the way you did to me before will i be insulting to you?
If i say to you now that "Dienekes, Linguistics is not your strong point, and Google is no substitute for it" will it be inappropriate?
Kaskians and Hattians WERE NOT belonging to different language families but they were part of the Southern Caucasian Family (Kartvelian). Hurrians belonged to the Northern Caucasian Family and some of the scientists situate them with the Northwestern tongues (Pontic) and other with the Northeastern ones (Caspian).
NEVERTHELESS they are ALL CAUCASIAN TONGUES AND BELONG TO THE SAME LINGUAL GROUP.
Proto-I.E. DIFFERS RADICALLY FROM CAUCASIAN LANGUAGES AND IF IT WAS INDIGENOUS TO ANATOLIA TI SHOULD HAVE BEEN SIMILAR TO THOSE TONGUES.
>>Genetic inheritance is, of course, not 10^6 times more unstable than cultural inheritance..>>
I did not say that!!!
I said that Genetics, THE SCIENCE AND ITS METHODS THAT RESEARCHERS FOLLOW, is a million times more fragile and unstable than Linguistics!!!
Proof?
The rate of change in its given facts and the rate of autocancellation of Genetic studies.
Every month or two they "discover" new migration patterns according to their SNPs AND STRs, and every year or two they change the affinities and identities of the various Hgs!
Such things in Linguistics are not evident!!!
Only in Astrophysics, Astronomy, Nuclear physics, etc. you can find such rates of autocancellation and fanatic belief of their scientists THAT THIS TIME THEY HAD IT CORRECT!!!
That this time for example the Bozonian-Higgs particle behaves this way and not the opposite, etc.
>>The linguistic evidence is highly subjective and constantly debated. Other linguists find parallels between PIE and Kartvelian.>>
And Geneticists are not subjective?
Anthropologists are they not?
Historians?
Which science is not subjective?
The relationship of the Kartvelian and the I.E. is that of PERHAPS a very distant genetic past.
That is that some postulate that the long ancestor of I.E. and of the Caucasian along with that of other tongues as well, share PERHAPS a common ancestor.
Proto-I.E. and proto-Uralic share a very common way of creating some grammar forms, the formation of some verbs, numbers similarities, archaic vocabulary similarities and some even suggest an Indo-Uralic protolanguage.
If Anatolia was the homeland of proto-I.E. this affinity between proto-I.E. and proto-Uralic is not explained.
Dienekes i did n't write Caucasian language family, i wrote Caucasian lingual group.
Caucasian languages are relatives and mainstream linguists support that.
Their differences that divided them in two or three different clades are similar to the reasons that divided Indo-Aryan from Dardic for example or Nuristani from proto-Iranian.
All Caucasian tongues show similar genetic patterns that differentiate them radically by other language families.
If proto-I.E. rose in Anatolia would n't have the same characteristics with these tongues, more or less?
Indoeuropeans have cultural characteristics that Anatolian or Balkan Neolithics didn't.
For instance they appreciated "Right" as good, prosperous and benevolent, while "Left" as bad, evil and malevolent.
The Kurgan burials are situated towards the south with the head always looking to the East, i.e. the head was looking right.
ALL I.E. nations consider even today the same thing.
In Greece for example don't we say "σου εύχομαι να σου πάνε όλα δεξιά", English "I wish everything goes right for you"?
We have also the words in Greek "επιδέξιος", "δεξιοτέχνης", (=epidexios, dexiotekhnis) meaning the agile, and worthy fellow. The word “δεξιότητες” (=dexiotites) also means the talents, the abilities of a person!!!
In English for example they have the word "dexterity" which means the same! These words all have the subject "Dexia" (=Right).
Also English say "that's right" or "you're right", or the “right way is the best way” meaning the correct, the proper thing.
In Greek we have the word "ζερβοκουτάλας" meaning the man who is left-handed and thus clumsy, λοξός.
In English don't they have the word "Sinister" for evil?
Italians also "Sinistro"?
Left means bad.
Do Anatolians have reflections of burial or ceremonial patterns that show this issue?
I think not.
WELL Proto-Indoeuropeans do.
In the Yamnaya culture and its burial places animal bones were buried along with people symbolizing their social cast (i.e. horse for warriors or lords, ram for priests or judges, goats or sheep for farmers, workers, etc.).
In these burials the head and the hooves of the animal were offered.
They were to show the status of the dead.
It was not allowed to put the left hooves of the animal but always the right!!!
Left was a bad sign and bad luck.
Children playing with joints of animals had the right joints and not the left.
Generally in the Kurgan tradition Left is bad.
Proto-I.E. were warlike and patriarchal. Anatolian and Balkan societies were not.
They were, some say matriarchal, some say equalitarian, but it is commonly accepted that they were not patriarchal.
Kurgans were patriarchal and the suttee (or sati) ceremony shows this behavior.
When the leading man of the clan was dead, his wife in order not to be dishonored was killed with him.
Kurgan (i mean the tumuli) also have men and kids but not women (very, very rarely were they found and these females were warriors too).
Now if Kurgans were not patriarchal, then i don't know who was!!!
Near East became patriarchal (although of a different type of patriarchy) ONLY after the influence of Sumerians (the Legend of Etana).
Halafians, Hassunians, Harifians, Anatolians, and before them Natufians, Kebarians don't show this patriarchy.
Proto-Indoeuropeans had a stratified society based on War and Pride (*Menos nerom). They had a tripartite society and their burials show this. Latter separated Indoeuropean National tradition has kept this tripartite society at least at its beginning.
Mycenaeans, Celts, Germans, Indo-Aryans, Iranians and the other I.E. peoples have this character.
In Greece for example we had in Dorians the three castes again, i.e. Ylleis, Dymanes, Pamfyloi.
Ionians and Aeoleans had three castes too. Only in latter times Atheneans abandoned this system but generally the other Greek cities and tribes followed it (including the Macedonians with a very genuine Hellenic castes' system). In latter years Hellenic cities added a forth caste which was the caste of the conquered ones (like Iranians and Indo-Aryans did also).
Did Anatolian and Balkan Neolithics reflect such traditions?
HELL NO!!!
Additionally, Indoeuropeans were nomadic and pastoral.
Balkan and Anatolian Neolithic was not.
They were sedentary peoples and agricultural.
They had animals but mostly cows and pigs (especially the Tripolie culture).
Proto-Indoeuropeans had ovicaprids and of course horses.
In latter phases in Kemi Oba for example pigs were found but in very few quantities and generally pigs were not typical of the Kurgan culture. This animal is not emigrational at all and that's why nomadic cultures don't use it.
With the coming of the Kurgans to the Balkan-Danubian area, THERE WAS A DRAMATIC CHANGE in economy, society, way of living and even in the sedentism of peoples and now the entire area follows cultural patterns existing in the Pontic-Caspian area of the Yamnaya culture.
Pottery, decoration and even the lack of the extreme supernatural and mysticoreligious elements previously seen in the land were now changed.
The pottery is that of the Steppe and only in latter times it borrows some patterns of the Balkan Neolithic.
Sites were destroyed, weapons and nomadism is prevalent. Indigenous cultures flee to every possible refuge area, i.e. mountains, isolated islands, caves and in any possible direction EXCEPT from the East.
And all this situation started before 4000 BC.
From the rapture between the Tiszapolgar and the Bondrogerestur cultures, Cucuteni III and Ezerovo-Foltesti, early signs of the Kurgans are evident in the Balkan Neolithic.
In religion (Solar and Fire worship and artifacts replace female human figurines and snakelike decoration), Goat Horns are considered as a symbol of protection (does it ring a bell about the religion of Pan and the Satyroi, Selinoi, etc. which until now haunt our dreams and folklore stories, i.e. στοιχειά και ξωτικά), in pottery (vessels and vases of clay and pounded shells along with mortared lime which were surely more crude and inferior to the Balkan ones), the anthropological evidence from Romania, Hungary, etc., the evidence of horses and reins, weapons typical of the Steppe are becoming more and more profound.
In the centuries to come with the 3500 BC and after the Yamnaya influence is like a storm. Games and toys typical of Yamnaya (joints, dices), scepters from stone in the shape of Horseheads are evident (Suvorovo, Riehevo, Cernavoda, etc. etc.) and the burials even have the religious patterns that we see in the beginning of almost all I.E. peoples, e.g. Hero stelae with thunders and hammers, Twin headed horsemen (Dioskouri, Nasatyas, etc.).
Kurgan culture spreads from Hungary and Austria to Troy and its influence is supreme. It conquers and vanishes local peoples and cultures, borrows the best elements found in pottery, economy, etc. and transforms it in something totally individual!!!
So as you see the Kurgan culture is by no mere chance the worldwide accepted Fatherland of the proto-I.E.
The association of right with good and left with bad is not specific to IE, it is a consequence of the fact that most humans are right-handed.
>>The association of right with good and left with bad is not specific to IE, it is a consequence of the fact that most humans are right-handed.>>
But is not shown in their archeology or culture.
In the proto-I.E. society it played a fundamental role and it was extremely evident in its culture.
Besides, "Bad" and "Good" had a very different meaning in proto-I.E. than in Semites or Hamites for examble.
I.E. "bad" is the inappropriate, the degenerated, the misplaced!!!
"Good" is the appropriate, the suitable, the well placed.
Proto-I.E. did not have the meaning of an "a priori good" or "a priori bad" like Semites or others.
Zeus could be bad or could be harmful too!!!
Varuna (=Νυχτερινός Ουρανός) could be both good and bad.
There is no such thing as darkness, hatred, war on the bad side and piece, light and love on the good side.
Good and Bad was in condition always and "a posteriori".
You can love the Gods when they favor your kin but you can as well fight them when they go against your interests (Iliad).
They did not have like the Jews for example murder is bad - love is good, stealing is bad - sharing is good, passion is bad - serenity is good, etc.
It was always depending on who does something, why does he do it, when does he do it and how does he do it.
Antigonos, the article reveals more than you give it credit. Not only does it reveal that 'Scythians' were heterogeneous, but it proposes specific origins. The historical Scythians, who came into being from c. 500 BC, are seen by the euthors to show most resemblance to populations frm eastern-central Asia, rather than fores-steppe dwelers or less eastern Saromatians. Nevertheless, the background similarity underlies an Indo-European commonality. In essence, the spread of Scythians from central Asia to Ukrainian steppes is a back-migration to the 'homeland'. In contrast, the forest steppe dwellers trace a long continuity to their location since the Bronze Age.
Sword, knife was the weapon that defined bronze and iron age. Before Bronze and Iron were invented, there was no way to make long, thin, flexible blades, which could be used as weapons. The invention of Bronze and later Iron changed all this and we suddenly see emergence of warrior caste, military elite, which will eventually rule the world from Atlantic to Pacific.
Scythians, who were also known as Saka, Scotti, Sclaveni, worshipped iron swords. Their male ancestor, who is said to have been no other than Ares, was always depicted wearing one. If we know that the Scythians were the true people (sons) of the sword (wielding warriors), is it possible that Scythians were named after their ancestral weapon, the iron sword, knife, blade named "sec"? And did the iron sword wielding male ancestors of Scythians come from Europe, more precisely the Balkans?
http://oldeuropeanculture.blogspot.com/2014/03/people-of-the-blade.html
Post a Comment