Him and Reich are great. Both give off uncle vibes, just very different types of uncles. I'm glad both of them have written books that are easy for everyone to understand. They're the ones who got me into this stuff.
Actually, recent studies such as the Heggerty et al. 2023 paper in Science, the Southern Arc papers, and the Librado et al. 2024 paper in Nature all refute his Steppe theory.
@@rickhastings6063 Heggarty et al. 2023 intentionally ignored most of the actual linguistic evidence A more recent preprint by Lazaridis et al. traces the origin of Indo-Anatolian to the Caucasus-Lower Volga cline which was north of the Caucasus, meaning that the Reich lab has retracted their previous claims that Proto-Indo-Anatolian was spoken in Armenia or northern Iran Does Librado et al. 2024 really reject the Steppe hypothesis? Tbh they seem to be supporting it
@@rickhastings6063a nothing comment. Thus far no better evidence, as mentioned in this talk. Archaeological correlates referring to wheel technology which is known when it first appeared. Anatolian which broke off earlier and does not have the wheel/axle correlates proves its not the Anatolian farmer hypothesis.
Even now when horses are milked, usually there are 2 people involved and one holds a foal and then moves it away from the mare so she thinks the foal is feeding. One would definitely not do this with wild horses as they are skittish and dangerous. Hence the evidence of horse milk residue on pottery or teeth tartar is a pretty good smoking gun for evidence of horse husbandry.
4:40 this argument about wheels “could not have been invented before 3500 BCE and therefore…” is based on negative evidence. (Nobody saw him in the area on the murder night so he could not have been a murderer). This works if we know for sure ALL the evidence is accounted for (there is CCTV everywhere and the suspect could not have passed, without a doubt, without being captured on camera). The negative evidence in hard drive analogy works because many of us were present before 1970 and we know for sure there were no hard drives. But the same does not work with spotty by nature archeological evidence of material before 3500 BCE. Material decays, it may not be used in burials because it was too expensive, and many such reasons.
That is common practice in a lot of scientific fields. For example, most paleontologist will tell you that hominins did not exist in the late Cretaceous because we consistently do not find any fossil evidence of them.
I independently came to the same conclusion (and wrote my comments above) before looking at your comments here, which seem to say the same thing that I mentioned...Here was my comment: "How do you know for sure that wheels were invented after 3500 BC? He says "there's virtually no evidence of wheels before that." But ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT ALWAYS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE". You haven't dug up every Inch of the Earth yet; there could be burials that have yet been unearthed....A more educated and intellectually honest statement would be something like "Based on the evidence unearthed, it appears that the wheel was not invented later than 3500 BC, but it could have been invented even earlier, we just don't know for sure."...It's absolutely astounding how these scholars and PhDs so quickly jump to conclusions without acknowledging the limitations of their approaches."
@@rickhastings606322:22 the thing is you need a level of carpentry to make a wheel with an axle that fits and moves. This is only done when there are metal tools available to work the wood with precision. And 3500 bc is the end of the chalcolithic and the beginning of the bronze age, when good woodworking tools become available. One could say the absence of microwave ovens in 1700 does not prove there were no microwave ovens then, but in reality they appeared on the scene when the technology was available ie 1950s.
30:50 on the other hand and by the similar logic (correlation of spread and modern languages) Yamanaya burial places seem to have occupied the area where Altaic and Turkic languages are spoken and haven’t been spread to Western Europe, Anatolia, South of caucuses, Iberia (as Yamanaya branch of R1b is not found in large numbers there) so Yamanaya could be Altaic speakers, and Celtic and Bell Beaker cultures could have spread Indo European.
Turkic languages haven't been spread to Anatolia ? What about Turkish language ? Altaic languages in Europe - look Hungarian . They are not in Western Europe ? Simply because Europe was populated with the fierce Indo-European warriors which opposed the Turkic expansion towards the West - Mongolian/Tatar/Seljuk/Ottoman expansions ring a bell ? And the Eastern Europe people fought against them , while the Westerners fought against each other . What is your point ? Yamnaya - Altaic speakers ? Do you even know which are the Altaic languages ? Hungarian and Finnish , in Europe . What you don't understand from the video which says Corded Ware are 80% descending from Yamnaya . And Corded Ware was R1b in the West and R1a in the East . Bell Beaker is a Corded Ware extension . And Celts were Corded Ware .
5:50 there is no guarantee that Indo European languages will absolutely preserve cognates for materials or things that Proto Indo European speakers knew. Sky is an example of word that lacks widespread cognates. Names of metals do not have cognate words north and south of caucuses, and the list goes on. So just because farming vocabulary has no or weak cognates does not necessarily make a strong argument. This is another argument based on negative inference and therefore not strong.
Words for wheel could have been diffused with the diffusion of the technology into an already differenciated language-family group. Like the adoption of derivatives of the word "mobile-telephone" into languages today which are already well differentiated. There is a serious methodological problem in assuming that the existence of common words about wheels date the (late)Proto-Indo-European language family. The evidence is adapted to the needs of what we want to demonstrate which is a dubious kind of method to say the least.
AFAIK, the more rigorous argument about the late PIE steppe homeland is based on not only wheel related vocabulary but the whole set of shared PIE roots and a model of the sound changes in the descendant languages. It is then highly unlikely that the word for "wheel" is a wanderwort. Of course, a more honest presentation would be to highlight that these things are fundamentally unknowable: that our concepts of language/identity/population might be so different from the Bronze Age that we cannot but tell stories about our past. But I think this ambiguity is precisely also the charm of this topic.
@@elias_toivanen shared PIE roots and sound changes are all well, the only problem is we do not know what the people on the steppe were speaking. Why should scientific thinking be cast away as we get into the steppe origins topic? Why do Anthony and these "researchers" get still invited into universitary institutions when their methods are not what scientists do? Of course it doesn't work if real methodology is applied, that's why to be able to continue the same line of thought now they had to introduce an "Early PIE" and a "Late PIE" which doesn't make any sense - if it is late, than it is by definition not PIE! Like French is a later form of Latin, but it isn't late proto-Latin, please!
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 Early PIE (alternatively known as Proto-Indo-Anatolian or Proto-Indo-Hittite) is the protolanguage of all Indo-European languages, while Late PIE is the protolanguage of all Nuclear Indo-European languages (the group that remained after Anatolian split)
I was sneering while I was watching the video with Mr Reich (from the same conference), and his routes for the IEL expansion, but someone else - Mr Anthony - pointed out the obvious, which was in my mind as well. The Black Sea, of course. Modern science and its deficit of imagination.
A new paper rejects Yamnaya people could have ride horses: Hosek, James, & Taylor, ( 20 September, 2024). "Tracing horseback riding and transport in the human skeleton" in: Science Advances. Only DOM2 horses and Sintashta culture can be considered the earliest, at the end of 3rd millennium BCE.
I used a harddrive in 1965 on an IBM 1410 computer. It was referred to as a RAMAC (Random Access Storage), but they were functionally equivalent to all later harddrives. Don't know where the lecturer got his misinformation.
@@Baptized_in_Fire. Which century have you travelled from? Women are not obliged to take their husband's name. Academics in particular often don't, because changing your name means your publications before the date of the change are not so easily associated with you.
@@NickG-x6t that's what hyphenation is for. Pretentious, but useful in modern context. Also, it's an Indo-European custom, so it's funny you're commenting this here. Lol.
"Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: yamnaya) is a Russian adjective that means 'related to pits (yama)', as these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers." The Yamnaya people didn't call themselves the Yamnaya culture. It was our name based on how they buried their dead. The similarity with Jamuna is coincidental, comes from a completely different word and roots, nothing to do with the Out of India hypothesis.
"Identity"? I hope these scientific findings are not abused to form any "identity". The German history of the 20est century tells us what can result of an identification with patriarchal cruelty 😢...
I was hooked until you said again, the mouthpiece argument, that no wheels (circles that go) were around before 3500 bc……..how stupid to say such a thing. Were they made of space age material that never decomposes? That is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said into my ears. And can’t finish the video now because of the stupid limiting prenotions before even presenting anything of value.
Well I am hearing a dial down of great horse theory. Amazing how American knowing recent horse history of west can milk yamnaya cowboys capturing huge Eurasian land mass.
It's interesting how they are now stating that the Steppe is a "late Proto-Indo European homeland"...Before they would say that the Steppe is the PIE homeland...But when you state LPIE, you're seemingly admitting that this region was not the origin of the original PIE, but rather a secondary mixing area, etc.
It was the area from where late Proto-Indo-European languages spread. Another lecture speaks about what he showed at the end; where the Indo-Europeans came from before the late Proto-Indo-European languages spread (Kaukasus/Lower Volga River).
Early PIE was also in the steppe, for example recent genetic data point to the CLV cline as the origin on Early PIE and this cline was located north of the Caucasus
@@Nastya_07 Kalehoyuk is within the Hattian speaking area. So a movement from a population on the so called CLV cline could have brought Hattian. Other that that the more southern populations on this cline are.. very 'southern'. Some more similar to 'farmers' than any other group. What they did is pathetic.
@@apo.7898 The authors did note that not all of the CLV cline might have spoken Early PIE, but it's clear that PIE was in CLV, just by the evidence from the related Dnipro cline
Recent papers have pointed to a much older date of the origin of Indo-European languages (like 8,000 BC, etc.)...Thus, this corroborates the fact that the logic of this presenter with respect to the wheel and the date of Indo-European language origin is flawed.
The proposed older date is definitely not consensus and this date has been criticized due to IE vocabulary which includes technology which post-dates 8000 BC
@@Nastya_07 That method of analyzing IE vocabulary is problematic...For instance, a word may be attributed to an object but have another meaning, and that word could have had other uses for utility much earlier. Anthony states that the IE languages could not be older than a certain date (I think 4000 BC or so) since all the languages had a word for wheel and it is believed that the wheel was invented in 4000 BC. However, the word for wheel (for instance chakra) may have been used to describe a rotation much earlier, and at a certain time was then used for the actual wheel much later. These are just some examples of how problematic the phylogenetic approach can be for addressing the IE origin question. So I would take those dates of technology with a bucket of salt.
@@rickhastings6063 The "you can't know the meaning of a reconstructed word" argument isn't accepted by the majority of linguists and Heggarty also has a long history of desperately trying to explain away all the archaeo-linguistic evidence supporting the Steppe hypothesis since he has for decades been advocating for Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis Heggarty's Bayesian model and arguments for dating languages based on similarity can be dismissed as there's no reliable way to date languages from the number of shared words because there can be other factors involved Anthony focused on Late PIE (after Anatolian split) and his argument is indeed valid for it, but Early PIE (before Anatolian split) can also be traced back to the Steppe based on other evidence Heggarty's southern route for Indo-Iranian expansion is impossible, Proto-Indo-Iranian had contacts with Balto-Slavic and Uralic, and these contacts clearly push Proto-Indo-Iranian northwards All the branches that Heggarty et al. claimed were not from the Steppe can indeed be traced back to it, Indo-Iranian can be traced back to the Sintashta-Abashevo cultures (I gave some evidence for this above, and this is mentioned as the northern route in Heggarty et al.), Albanian and Greek can be tied with the Yamnaya/Catacomb expansion to the Balkans, Armenian can be tied to the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture (which was links to the Steppe) and Anatolian could be linked to early (Pre-Yamnaya) Indo-European cultures that expanded to the Balkans (such as the Cernavodă and Ezero cultures), and then moved towards Anatolia
The Kurgan hypothesis is nonsense. Ask yourself why is it that Vedic Sanskrit is the closest to the proto-Indo European language?...The truth is obvious, and the writing is on the wall; proto-Indo European language is just proto-proto-Vedic Sanskrit. It originated in Northern India. There were waves of migrations from Northern India upward. One set of migrations saw the people of Northern India migrate up to the steppe, possibly mixing in with the Steppe people and forming the "Kurgan" Yamnaya culture; these people would eventually overtake Europe all the way to West Europe with their R1b, and also migrated to southern China (hence Tocharian, R1b)...Meanwhile, in Northern India, that proto Indo-European language (which was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into proto-Indo Iranian, there were migrations into Iran. In Northern India, that proto-indo Iranian (which was just proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into Vedic Sanskrit. Later, there were migrations (probably with the drying up of the Saraswati River in Northern India) of people up to Eastern Europe (hence R1a distribution and similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit). There were also separate migrations from Northern India into Anatolia (hence Hittite).....Thus, in summary, the proto-Indo European language was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit and it originated in Northern India. The distribution of Indo-European languages are the result of waves of migration from Northern India. It's as simple as that...This explains R1a and R1b distribution, the Tocharian language, the Satem vs. Centum differences, the reasons why there are similarities between Hittite and Sanskrit and Lithuanian and Sanskrit, etc....Remember, migrations are unidirectional, never really bilateral; thus it's much more likely that those migrations occurred from a certain region as opposed to symmetrical migrations from the Steppe in a westward and eastward direction (with a gap of 1,000 years as purported by the Kurgan hypothesis).... It's time that Euro-centric scholars disband their racist lens and apply common sense to this problem; with a newfound clarity of thought, they will reach the aforementioned conclusion.
Vedic Sanskrit is very, very different from Proto-Indo-European. Theres at least a thousand year development separating the two. Also, archaeogenetics leave no doubt that Indo-European speakers were INTRUSIVE INTO Northern india from the Pontic Caspian Steppe. Also, there is a complete lack of Dravidian borrowings in proto Indo European. There ARE however Uralic borrowings into PIE. Your strange accusation of "racism" toward the conclusion that PIE arose in the pontic Caspian steppe shows a weird inferiority complex, or a projection of your OWN anti European racism onto what is merely the most logical conclusion. Strange.
Horses were not native for India animals. But they were native for Ukrainian Northern cost of Black Sea. There was and is the most abundant climate steppe zone in the world. The farther to East the less rains from Atlantic ocean, the driest climate, the more difficult environment to survive. So, that is very logical about Kurgan theory. Where are the most Kurgans there is homeland of Indo-Europeans. Around 10000 Kurgans are known in the Ukrainian Steppe north cost of Black Sea. The number is much bigger than all Kurgans in the rest of the World. India is no doubt the Motherland of Dravidian civilization.
@@new_svitolad They had horses in India for a very long time. Horses evolved in North American grasslands, from there, they spread west across Asia into Europe and south to the Middle East and Northern Africa. So India indeed had horses. You definitely don't know any history, or history of India.
He’s a great presenter. I’ve been following anything related to the latest paper - thanks for uploading and sharing.
Him and Reich are great. Both give off uncle vibes, just very different types of uncles. I'm glad both of them have written books that are easy for everyone to understand. They're the ones who got me into this stuff.
Fantastic, easy to follow, and very clarifying. Profoundly insightful. Thank you.
Can you guys explain what he meant by the eastern Mediterranean part? Is he saying that maybe the Yamnaya came from there?
I read his 'The Horse Wheel and Language' book back in 2015. Let me tell you, he is on point since the genetics now validate him completely.
Actually, recent studies such as the Heggerty et al. 2023 paper in Science, the Southern Arc papers, and the Librado et al. 2024 paper in Nature all refute his Steppe theory.
@@rickhastings6063 Heggarty et al. 2023 intentionally ignored most of the actual linguistic evidence
A more recent preprint by Lazaridis et al. traces the origin of Indo-Anatolian to the Caucasus-Lower Volga cline which was north of the Caucasus, meaning that the Reich lab has retracted their previous claims that Proto-Indo-Anatolian was spoken in Armenia or northern Iran
Does Librado et al. 2024 really reject the Steppe hypothesis? Tbh they seem to be supporting it
Loved Anthony's book.
It's a cute story. But it's wrong. Hence the now down-playing of the role of horses.
@@rickhastings6063a nothing comment. Thus far no better evidence, as mentioned in this talk. Archaeological correlates referring to wheel technology which is known when it first appeared. Anatolian which broke off earlier and does not have the wheel/axle correlates proves its not the Anatolian farmer hypothesis.
@@rickhastings6063What did he get wrong about horses? It's not like he claimed yamna were mounted warriors or chariot riders
Excellent
The “milking a wild horse” joke never gets old
Explain
@@JameBlack You need domesticated animals to milk them, you cant milk a wild animal; only kill it for the meat.
What about ‘trying to milk a bull’ ? Milking data from where it will never milk or be milkable .😂
Even now when horses are milked, usually there are 2 people involved and one holds a foal and then moves it away from the mare so she thinks the foal is feeding. One would definitely not do this with wild horses as they are skittish and dangerous. Hence the evidence of horse milk residue on pottery or teeth tartar is a pretty good smoking gun for evidence of horse husbandry.
Great talk
excellent.
4:40 this argument about wheels “could not have been invented before 3500 BCE and therefore…” is based on negative evidence. (Nobody saw him in the area on the murder night so he could not have been a murderer). This works if we know for sure ALL the evidence is accounted for (there is CCTV everywhere and the suspect could not have passed, without a doubt, without being captured on camera). The negative evidence in hard drive analogy works because many of us were present before 1970 and we know for sure there were no hard drives. But the same does not work with spotty by nature archeological evidence of material before 3500 BCE. Material decays, it may not be used in burials because it was too expensive, and many such reasons.
That is common practice in a lot of scientific fields. For example, most paleontologist will tell you that hominins did not exist in the late Cretaceous because we consistently do not find any fossil evidence of them.
Brilliant point. You are spot on.
I independently came to the same conclusion (and wrote my comments above) before looking at your comments here, which seem to say the same thing that I mentioned...Here was my comment: "How do you know for sure that wheels were invented after 3500 BC? He says "there's virtually no evidence of wheels before that." But ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT ALWAYS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE". You haven't dug up every Inch of the Earth yet; there could be burials that have yet been unearthed....A more educated and intellectually honest statement would be something like "Based on the evidence unearthed, it appears that the wheel was not invented later than 3500 BC, but it could have been invented even earlier, we just don't know for sure."...It's absolutely astounding how these scholars and PhDs so quickly jump to conclusions without acknowledging the limitations of their approaches."
@@rickhastings606322:22 the thing is you need a level of carpentry to make a wheel with an axle that fits and moves. This is only done when there are metal tools available to work the wood with precision. And 3500 bc is the end of the chalcolithic and the beginning of the bronze age, when good woodworking tools become available.
One could say the absence of microwave ovens in 1700 does not prove there were no microwave ovens then, but in reality they appeared on the scene when the technology was available ie 1950s.
@@rickhastings6063 We don't have evidence that languages existed before 3500BC either. :P
Does this make sense for people without reaser h funds ?
Without appointment orders appropriate to universities?
Where's Brown's presentation ??????
30:50 on the other hand and by the similar logic (correlation of spread and modern languages) Yamanaya burial places seem to have occupied the area where Altaic and Turkic languages are spoken and haven’t been spread to Western Europe, Anatolia, South of caucuses, Iberia (as Yamanaya branch of R1b is not found in large numbers there) so Yamanaya could be Altaic speakers, and Celtic and Bell Beaker cultures could have spread Indo European.
Turkic languages haven't been spread to Anatolia ? What about Turkish language ? Altaic languages in Europe - look Hungarian . They are not in Western Europe ? Simply because Europe was populated with the fierce Indo-European warriors which opposed the Turkic expansion towards the West - Mongolian/Tatar/Seljuk/Ottoman expansions ring a bell ? And the Eastern Europe people fought against them , while the Westerners fought against each other .
What is your point ? Yamnaya - Altaic speakers ? Do you even know which are the Altaic languages ? Hungarian and Finnish , in Europe .
What you don't understand from the video which says Corded Ware are 80% descending from Yamnaya . And Corded Ware was R1b in the West and R1a in the East . Bell Beaker is a Corded Ware extension . And Celts were Corded Ware .
It is not about where the languages ARE spoken but about WHERE they where spoken originally.
How did they find water on the plains?
Shallow lakes existed throughout
Well, they say the rain in Spain stays mainly on the plain. If it's true in Spain, it may be true elsewhere.
5:50 there is no guarantee that Indo European languages will absolutely preserve cognates for materials or things that Proto Indo European speakers knew. Sky is an example of word that lacks widespread cognates. Names of metals do not have cognate words north and south of caucuses, and the list goes on. So just because farming vocabulary has no or weak cognates does not necessarily make a strong argument. This is another argument based on negative inference and therefore not strong.
Words for wheel could have been diffused with the diffusion of the technology into an already differenciated language-family group. Like the adoption of derivatives of the word "mobile-telephone" into languages today which are already well differentiated. There is a serious methodological problem in assuming that the existence of common words about wheels date the (late)Proto-Indo-European language family. The evidence is adapted to the needs of what we want to demonstrate which is a dubious kind of method to say the least.
AFAIK, the more rigorous argument about the late PIE steppe homeland is based on not only wheel related vocabulary but the whole set of shared PIE roots and a model of the sound changes in the descendant languages. It is then highly unlikely that the word for "wheel" is a wanderwort. Of course, a more honest presentation would be to highlight that these things are fundamentally unknowable: that our concepts of language/identity/population might be so different from the Bronze Age that we cannot but tell stories about our past. But I think this ambiguity is precisely also the charm of this topic.
@@elias_toivanen shared PIE roots and sound changes are all well, the only problem is we do not know what the people on the steppe were speaking. Why should scientific thinking be cast away as we get into the steppe origins topic? Why do Anthony and these "researchers" get still invited into universitary institutions when their methods are not what scientists do? Of course it doesn't work if real methodology is applied, that's why to be able to continue the same line of thought now they had to introduce an "Early PIE" and a "Late PIE" which doesn't make any sense - if it is late, than it is by definition not PIE! Like French is a later form of Latin, but it isn't late proto-Latin, please!
@@petrapetrakoliou8979 Early PIE (alternatively known as Proto-Indo-Anatolian or Proto-Indo-Hittite) is the protolanguage of all Indo-European languages, while Late PIE is the protolanguage of all Nuclear Indo-European languages (the group that remained after Anatolian split)
Oldest wheel was found in Slovenija, south of Ljubljana.
Gus Kroonen mentioned 💪🏻💪🏻💪🏻⚡️⚡️
I CAN NOT wait for The Dogs Of War book!
Any update on when that will be released?
I was sneering while I was watching the video with Mr Reich (from the same conference), and his routes for the IEL expansion, but someone else - Mr Anthony - pointed out the obvious, which was in my mind as well. The Black Sea, of course. Modern science and its deficit of imagination.
It’s amazing. Reich went his entire speech (another 20 minute video) without mentioned the words “Europe” or “Black Sea” once
A new paper rejects Yamnaya people could have ride horses: Hosek, James, & Taylor, ( 20 September, 2024). "Tracing horseback riding and transport in the human skeleton" in: Science Advances. Only DOM2 horses and Sintashta culture can be considered the earliest, at the end of 3rd millennium BCE.
I used a harddrive in 1965 on an IBM 1410 computer. It was referred to as a RAMAC (Random Access Storage), but they were functionally equivalent to all later harddrives. Don't know where the lecturer got his misinformation.
Was it called a hard drive?
What kind of name is Dorcas? 😂
An old-fashioned one. And that's his wife you're laughing at.
@@thatotherted3555shouldn't that make her Dorcas Anthony? It says Brown.
@@Baptized_in_Fire. Which century have you travelled from? Women are not obliged to take their husband's name. Academics in particular often don't, because changing your name means your publications before the date of the change are not so easily associated with you.
@@NickG-x6t that's what hyphenation is for. Pretentious, but useful in modern context. Also, it's an Indo-European custom, so it's funny you're commenting this here. Lol.
@NickG-x6t how did you know I am a time traveler? Lol
Herodotus lived before 400 bc.
When Yamnaya has two very close co-relation with JAMMU and JAMUNA, there should be an explanation.
"Its name derives from its characteristic burial tradition: Я́мная (romanization: yamnaya) is a Russian adjective that means 'related to pits (yama)', as these people used to bury their dead in tumuli (kurgans) containing simple pit chambers."
The Yamnaya people didn't call themselves the Yamnaya culture. It was our name based on how they buried their dead. The similarity with Jamuna is coincidental, comes from a completely different word and roots, nothing to do with the Out of India hypothesis.
Why should anyone be “uncomfortable with their Indo-European identity”?
I *think* he means that some people are uncomfortable linking PIE (the language group) with a people (the Yamnaya).
@@chrishoward140 that’s a fair point although slightly ambiguous.
"Identity"? I hope these scientific findings are not abused to form any "identity". The German history of the 20est century tells us what can result of an identification with patriarchal cruelty 😢...
@@johannaschacht8051 Ah yes, the PATRIARCHY!!! You know how men can be, especially those white guys!
I was hooked until you said again, the mouthpiece argument, that no wheels (circles that go) were around before 3500 bc……..how stupid to say such a thing. Were they made of space age material that never decomposes? That is one of the stupidest things anyone has ever said into my ears. And can’t finish the video now because of the stupid limiting prenotions before even presenting anything of value.
Exactly.
Well I am hearing a dial down of great horse theory. Amazing how American knowing recent horse history of west can milk yamnaya cowboys capturing huge Eurasian land mass.
It's interesting how they are now stating that the Steppe is a "late Proto-Indo European homeland"...Before they would say that the Steppe is the PIE homeland...But when you state LPIE, you're seemingly admitting that this region was not the origin of the original PIE, but rather a secondary mixing area, etc.
It was the area from where late Proto-Indo-European languages spread. Another lecture speaks about what he showed at the end; where the Indo-Europeans came from before the late Proto-Indo-European languages spread (Kaukasus/Lower Volga River).
Early PIE was also in the steppe, for example recent genetic data point to the CLV cline as the origin on Early PIE and this cline was located north of the Caucasus
@@Nastya_07 Kalehoyuk is within the Hattian speaking area. So a movement from a population on the so called CLV cline could have brought Hattian. Other that that the more southern populations on this cline are.. very 'southern'. Some more similar to 'farmers' than any other group. What they did is pathetic.
@@apo.7898 The authors did note that not all of the CLV cline might have spoken Early PIE, but it's clear that PIE was in CLV, just by the evidence from the related Dnipro cline
@@Nastya_07 Hattian can be on the cline too, Kaskian, NW Caucasian, NE Caucasian etc.
Recent papers have pointed to a much older date of the origin of Indo-European languages (like 8,000 BC, etc.)...Thus, this corroborates the fact that the logic of this presenter with respect to the wheel and the date of Indo-European language origin is flawed.
The proposed older date is definitely not consensus and this date has been criticized due to IE vocabulary which includes technology which post-dates 8000 BC
@@Nastya_07 That method of analyzing IE vocabulary is problematic...For instance, a word may be attributed to an object but have another meaning, and that word could have had other uses for utility much earlier. Anthony states that the IE languages could not be older than a certain date (I think 4000 BC or so) since all the languages had a word for wheel and it is believed that the wheel was invented in 4000 BC. However, the word for wheel (for instance chakra) may have been used to describe a rotation much earlier, and at a certain time was then used for the actual wheel much later. These are just some examples of how problematic the phylogenetic approach can be for addressing the IE origin question. So I would take those dates of technology with a bucket of salt.
@@rickhastings6063 The "you can't know the meaning of a reconstructed word" argument isn't accepted by the majority of linguists and Heggarty also has a long history of desperately trying to explain away all the archaeo-linguistic evidence supporting the Steppe hypothesis since he has for decades been advocating for Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis
Heggarty's Bayesian model and arguments for dating languages based on similarity can be dismissed as there's no reliable way to date languages from the number of shared words because there can be other factors involved
Anthony focused on Late PIE (after Anatolian split) and his argument is indeed valid for it, but Early PIE (before Anatolian split) can also be traced back to the Steppe based on other evidence
Heggarty's southern route for Indo-Iranian expansion is impossible, Proto-Indo-Iranian had contacts with Balto-Slavic and Uralic, and these contacts clearly push Proto-Indo-Iranian northwards
All the branches that Heggarty et al. claimed were not from the Steppe can indeed be traced back to it, Indo-Iranian can be traced back to the Sintashta-Abashevo cultures (I gave some evidence for this above, and this is mentioned as the northern route in Heggarty et al.), Albanian and Greek can be tied with the Yamnaya/Catacomb expansion to the Balkans, Armenian can be tied to the Trialeti-Vanadzor culture (which was links to the Steppe) and Anatolian could be linked to early (Pre-Yamnaya) Indo-European cultures that expanded to the Balkans (such as the Cernavodă and Ezero cultures), and then moved towards Anatolia
The Kurgan hypothesis is nonsense. Ask yourself why is it that Vedic Sanskrit is the closest to the proto-Indo European language?...The truth is obvious, and the writing is on the wall; proto-Indo European language is just proto-proto-Vedic Sanskrit. It originated in Northern India. There were waves of migrations from Northern India upward. One set of migrations saw the people of Northern India migrate up to the steppe, possibly mixing in with the Steppe people and forming the "Kurgan" Yamnaya culture; these people would eventually overtake Europe all the way to West Europe with their R1b, and also migrated to southern China (hence Tocharian, R1b)...Meanwhile, in Northern India, that proto Indo-European language (which was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into proto-Indo Iranian, there were migrations into Iran. In Northern India, that proto-indo Iranian (which was just proto Vedic Sanskrit) developed into Vedic Sanskrit. Later, there were migrations (probably with the drying up of the Saraswati River in Northern India) of people up to Eastern Europe (hence R1a distribution and similarities between Lithuanian and Sanskrit). There were also separate migrations from Northern India into Anatolia (hence Hittite).....Thus, in summary, the proto-Indo European language was just proto-proto Vedic Sanskrit and it originated in Northern India. The distribution of Indo-European languages are the result of waves of migration from Northern India. It's as simple as that...This explains R1a and R1b distribution, the Tocharian language, the Satem vs. Centum differences, the reasons why there are similarities between Hittite and Sanskrit and Lithuanian and Sanskrit, etc....Remember, migrations are unidirectional, never really bilateral; thus it's much more likely that those migrations occurred from a certain region as opposed to symmetrical migrations from the Steppe in a westward and eastward direction (with a gap of 1,000 years as purported by the Kurgan hypothesis).... It's time that Euro-centric scholars disband their racist lens and apply common sense to this problem; with a newfound clarity of thought, they will reach the aforementioned conclusion.
Vedic Sanskrit is very, very different from Proto-Indo-European. Theres at least a thousand year development separating the two.
Also, archaeogenetics leave no doubt that Indo-European speakers were INTRUSIVE INTO Northern india from the Pontic Caspian Steppe.
Also, there is a complete lack of Dravidian borrowings in proto Indo European. There ARE however Uralic borrowings into PIE.
Your strange accusation of "racism" toward the conclusion that PIE arose in the pontic Caspian steppe shows a weird inferiority complex, or a projection of your OWN anti European racism onto what is merely the most logical conclusion.
Strange.
Kids, this is what your brain high on soma looks like
Horses were not native for India animals. But they were native for Ukrainian Northern cost of Black Sea. There was and is the most abundant climate steppe zone in the world. The farther to East the less rains from Atlantic ocean, the driest climate, the more difficult environment to survive. So, that is very logical about Kurgan theory. Where are the most Kurgans there is homeland of Indo-Europeans. Around 10000 Kurgans are known in the Ukrainian Steppe north cost of Black Sea. The number is much bigger than all Kurgans in the rest of the World. India is no doubt the Motherland of Dravidian civilization.
indeed yamna went to India. Not Indians came to stepps
@@new_svitolad They had horses in India for a very long time. Horses evolved in North American grasslands, from there, they spread west across Asia into Europe and south to the Middle East and Northern Africa. So India indeed had horses. You definitely don't know any history, or history of India.