Dr. Stifter has published a first draft of this lecture at https://www.academia.edu/178731896/Linguistic_Contributions_to_a_Model_for_the_Celticisation_of_the_Western_Archipelago The slides are available at https://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/id/eprint/19925/

If the Sintashta is the is last culture ancestral to both Iranic and Indic speakers, who is the first culture ancestral to specifically Iranic speakers ?

Where and when did it live ?

I’ve heard that the Yamnaya were actually about 15% EEF. An older convention viewed the Yamnaya were half and half of EHG and the CHG. So now we can explain the Yamnaya using units of AHG, CHG, and EHG.

Remember, the AHG became the EEF or the Anatolian Farmers. So the Yamnaya were 15% AHG, 42.5% CHG, and 42.5% EHG.

If we used this approach, we can more easily calculate the gene components of the various European people. Also, it reduces the double counting of a gene. For example: when the Yamnaya migrated to the West, the people there were already heavily EEF (or AHG genetically), and then they were heavily amazed with a people who were also 15% AHG/EEF.

Ironically, the Europeans once again became much more H&G after the IE migrations to Western Europe. So they were once 100% WHG/EHG. Then they became 90% AHG and 10% WHG. Then they became a 40% mix of a people who were 15% AHG, 42.5% CHG, and 42.5% EHG and a 60% mix of a people who were 90% AHG and 10% WHG.

The book is open access. An alternate link is hosted at the Lituanistika site:

https://www.lituanistika.lt/content/115809

Acknowledgments — Preface — Abbreviations Chapter 1. Linguistic Prehistory of the Baltic area: 1.1. Introduction and issues of terminology; 1.2. Geolinguistic range of Baltia in prehistory; 1.3. Baltic languages and peoples in ancient sources; 1.4. Protobaltic and its linguistic fragmentation; 1.5. Global hypotheses — Chapter 2. The Main Features of Baltic Linguistic unity: 2.1. Phonological features; 2.2. Morphological features; 2.3. Syntactic features; 2.4. Lexicon; 2.5. Phraseology; 2.6. Onomastics — Chapter 3. The Linguistic context: 3.1. The Slavic and Germanic peribaltic context; 3.2. The Balto-Finnic and Volga peribaltic context; 3.3. The Ponto-Baltic region; 3.4. The remote context — Chapter 4. The Baltic speaking region between baltia pagana and baltia christiana: 4.1. The linguistic disintegration of East Baltic; 4.2. Socio-cultural data concerning Baltia ca. 1000; 4.3. From paganism to christianity — Chapter 5. “Minor” BaLtic Languages: 5.1. Extinct Baltic languages; 5.2. Curonian; 5.3. Yatvingian; 5.4. Galindian; 5.5. Selonian; 5.6. Semigallian — Chapter 6. The Old Prussian language: 6.1. Old Prussian; 6.2. The corpus of Old Prussian texts; 6.3. Grammatical information — Chapter 7. The Baltic Languages between Baltia catholica and Baltia reformata: 7.1. Multi-lingualism and integration; 7.2. The first Baltic texts; 7.3. Prelude to Baltic linguistics; 7.4. Grammatical data — Chapter 8. The national renaissance, Independence and sovietization in Baltic linguistics: 8.1. The process of national renaissance and the linguistic situation in the Baltic countries; 8.2. Changes in the Baltic languages; 8.3. The Baltic languages in the Soviet period —Chapter 9. The Baltic languages and the new independence. Baltia autochtona and Baltia emigrata: 9.1. Reaffirmation of linguistic identity; 9.2. Linguistic phases of Baltic emigration; 9.3. Issues of areal linguistics; 9.4. Concerning the future evolution of the Baltic languages — Chapter 10. Baltic texts: 10.1. Old Prussian texts; 10.2. Lithuanian texts; 10.3. Latvian texts — Appendix. Bibliographical notes: А1. Bibliography by linguistic topics; А2. Specialized Journals; А3. Language Aids; А4. Baltistics and Baltica (beyond the Baltic countries); А5. Baltistics in the world (beyond the Baltic Countries) — Bibliography.

I think what's more interesting here is the table of proto-Roman roots that derive from PIE.

Introduction: This dissertation aims to consider the origins of Hades as a god using the existing material in literature and archaeology, and applying comparative techniques to derive novel answers to questions about his formation within the Greek pantheon. With these different evidences, it will prove that Hades arose as a personification of his realm, and that his development was likely influenced by Poseidon, a similar and related god who ties into the broader network of chthonic male figures in Greek myth. Common Indo-European tropes and themes were applied to this character as it developed, allowing us to compare him with other figures for a more accurate understanding of his early role in Greek myth, before the earliest literature

This table comes from A. K. Akishev's Art and Mythology of the Sakas (Alma-Ata, 1984), Table X. It arranges the dynastic signs found on Kushan coins by king, and it remains the most reproduced single image of the Kushan tamga system. It is worth reading carefully, both for what it captures and for where the scholarship has moved past it.

A tamga is a property mark of the kind used by nomadic clans across the Eurasian steppe from the Scythian period onward. It was branded on horses, impressed into bricks and pottery, cut into rock, and, once nomadic dynasties began minting, placed on coins as a mark of the issuing house. The Kushans inherited the practice from their Yuezhi origins in the Gansu corridor and the Ili valley, and they carried it into Bactria and then across the Hindu Kush into Gandhara and the Punjab. Sergey Yatsenko, whose comparative work on Sarmatian, Chorasmian and Kushan signs is the standard reference, has shown that the Kushan version follows a two-part grammar. The upper element is a pronged fork shared by the whole dynasty, a clan sign. The lower element is a personal device that changes with each ruler. Reading a Kushan tamga therefore means reading two things at once: membership of the ruling clan, and the identity of the king.

The table shows that grammar developing. In the first row the fork has three prongs and sits on a ring or a hooked stem. From the second row onward the fork has four prongs, and the variation moves entirely into the base. Wima Kadphises places the fork over splayed legs that resemble pincers. Kanishka keeps the pincer legs and adds curled or flowering terminals. Huvishka's signs, the largest group in the table, set the fork over stick-figure legs in a dozen variants, one leg straight and one bent, or crossed, or with feet; these variants track mints and production phases rather than any change of ruler, since the main Bactrian mint and the subsidiary mints in Gandhara and Kashmir each cut their own dies. Vasudeva I retains the stick legs and adds a crossbar. Vasudeva II reduces the base to a single lozenge-shaped pendant. The fork never changes; the base always does. That is precisely what a clan-plus-individual system predicts.

The table's weakness is its king list. Akishev published in 1984, nine years before the discovery of the Rabatak inscription in 1993, which settled the early Kushan succession. Rabatak confirmed that a king named Wima Takto reigned between Kujula Kadphises and Wima Kadphises, and that the large anonymous coinage bearing only the titles Soter Megas, "great saviour," belongs to him. Akishev's two "Kadfiz" rows therefore compress three reigns into two. The ring-based three-pronged signs in his first row are the Soter Megas type, and so most likely Wima Takto's rather than Kujula's. Kujula's own earliest tamga, as Yatsenko notes, is close to that of the Indo-Parthian king Gondophares whose territory he took over, which is what one expects of a ruler legitimising himself in a region with an existing coinage. The Kushan tamga as a distinct dynastic sign crystallises under Wima Takto and Wima Kadphises, not under the founder.

The last row is a further caution. "Bakarna" corresponds to no name in the thirteen-king sequence now accepted (Kujula, Wima Takto, Wima Kadphises, Kanishka I, Huvishka, Vasudeva I, Kanishka II, Vasishka, Kanishka III, Vasudeva II, Mahi, Shaka, Kipunadha). It is probably a misread legend, or an issue of one of the later kings whose names were only recovered from the vertical Brahmi inscriptions on their gold after Göbl's work of the same year. The single trident-headed sign in the Kanishka row also looks less like a royal tamga than the trident of the god Wesho on the reverse, and should be checked against the source coin before it is used.

What makes the table useful today, despite these problems, is practical. Kushan copper circulated for centuries and is often found worn beyond legibility. The tamga survives wear better than the legend, because it is cut deep and sits in the field. For a site like Sanghol in the Punjab, where the excavators report coins of Soter Megas, Wima Kadphises and Kanishka around the stupa, or Ropar, where a hoard of some 660 coppers is described only as "Kushan and tribal Kushan," the tamga is frequently the only way to assign a coin to a reign. The modern catalogue to use for that is Jongeward and Cribb's Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins (American Numismatic Society, 2015), which supersedes both Göbl and Akishev on attribution. The Akishev table is best treated as a visual index to be read against it.

One final point, because it comes up whenever tamgas are discussed. A shared tamga indicates a shared political claim, membership of a clan or a dynastic house. It does not indicate shared biological descent. The Kushanshah governors who ruled Bactria for the Sasanians after about 230 CE went on reproducing Vasudeva I's tamga for decades, and Yatsenko has traced identical signs across groups in Sarmatia and Chorasmia that no one supposes were kin. Tamgas are evidence for how power was signalled, and they are good evidence for that. They are not a substitute for genetics, and the two lines of argument should be kept apart.

Sources: Akishev 1984; Yatsenko, Znaki-tamgi iranoyazychnykh narodov (2001); Cribb, "The early Kushan kings: new evidence for chronology" (1996); Bracey, "Kushan Dynasty iv. Coinage," Encyclopaedia Iranica (2016); Jongeward and Cribb 2015.

I'm watching a documentary on YouTube about the Yamnaya, and here's an illustration that they're showing of their genetic origins. This documentary is found here.

Modern day South Indians are actually South Asian H&Gs mixed with Zagros Mountain Farmers. So this is mind-blowing to me, but the Yamnaya are suggested to be basically Indian people that were extremely bottlenecked. I find this hard to believe. I don't see how a people who evolved in the jungles of India could have the same environmental pressures of someone who lived in Western Siberia in an extremely cold place.

Indo-European + Paleo Lakelandic / Laplandic?

I've seen many proposals for a proto indo european sister / cousin language. Uralic is one of the most notable ones. And some similarities with the Caucasian languages have been noted. (pre pie ergative system, laryngeals)

But I've never seen anyone consider a possible linguistic connection between the old european western hunter gatherers, and the indo european language. PIE speakers have western hunter gatherer admixture, and the finno ugric substrates may be remnants from the original western hunter gatherer languages.

If this is true it's probably impossible to even prove anyway, but it could explain why PIE was so isolated being so unique in its morphology and not sharing many similarities between other languages of eurasia. And I doubt the extinct paleo anatolian languages of anatolia were related to pie, because proto indo european in its earliest stage likely had no agricultural terms until much later. And anatolia likely would have had agriculture during the time period when proto indo european would have been spoken if the anatolian early homeland was true.

Which is why I believe pre pie, or mother tongue pie had to have been spoken far north of the Caspian sea, where agriculture hadn't spread yet. Making it possible that the western hunter gatherer / eastern hunter gatherer ghost languages could be distantly related.

I looked at the Ancient Greek lexemes of the text, checked their grammatical forms, then checked their PIE roots and made nouns/verbs from those roots, putting them in the correct forms (I feel, there are some mistakes here and there). I had to replace some of the lexicon that is essentially Hellenic, which means, their original PIE etymology shifted. For example, Ancient Greek πόντος (pontos), 'sea', decended from PIE \póntoh₁s, 'path', so I changed it to PIE *\móri. The word *muse, A.G. μοῦσα I reverse engineered as \mohn̥tih₂,* from the root \moh-* (“endeavour, will, temper”), following the interpretation of J. Pokorny.

Just as a fun thought experiment what would the likely Proto-Indo-European forms of planet names be? I think Venus is from *Wénh₁os from what I found but what about Mercury, Mars and Saturn for example?

The EEF were a Stone Age people and their technical acumen allowed them to farm. They had the technical expertise to farm and they migrated and thrived in places with Loess soil.

The PIE people became 15% EEF but weren’t settled. They had some domesticated animals. They also had access to bronze and were experts here.

So it seems that the Yamnaya people were 85% HGs and they didn’t get wiped out by the EEF. They intermarried with the EEF without fully embracing EEF ways of life and seemed more advanced than the EEF without fully embracing their bronze.

So it seems that for some reason the EEF weren’t as successful in the Yamnaya homeland. Why is this? That language also has LOESS SOIL.

What conditions did the Yamnaya need to spread their culture?

Abstract - This paper re-examines Pāṇini’s rules (A 3.2.112–114) on the sigmatic future used for past actions. While some scholars attribute this usage to Middle Indo-Aryan influence, citing in particular the use of the future for a habitual past in Niya Prakrit, this study argues that Pāṇini primarily describes Late Vedic occurrences of the future in íti-clauses within past contexts; indeed, these contexts correspond to the so-called conditional, the future in the past (lṚṄ in Pāṇini), in indirect speech. The paper also considers later Middle Indo-Aryan developments, showing how the future could express modality, habituality, and its use as the so-called futurum historicum.

I love the way this song sounds, the way the beat and rhythm mimic the hoof beat of a horse galloping at full stride, it just speaks to something deep within my ancient soul that must be familiar to the PIE DNA within me

But I don’t want to just take this song wholesale, as its very clearly a Turkic/Mongolic song, and it just doesn’t feel right for me to take this song and say it applies to me as about as white as they come

So I was curious if it would be possible, through s complicated chain of translations and reverse evolution, work the lyrics out of Tuvan into Proto-Indo-European or some closely related immediate daughter language so I can feel the sense of cultural pride without having that pride be attached to a culture to which I don’t belong

If this can’t be done, I would be curious if anyone has recommendations for songs in PIE that don’t follow the weird and ahistorical trend of the very shamanistic and dark spiritual stuff I’ve seen a lot of songs in PIE try to go for

I understand that wanting an entire two or three minute song replicated in the style of a culture long dead and gone, that we have probably no record of their musical traditions, is…putting it lightly, an intergalactic level of long shot

But it would make a very lonely and usually depressed autistic boy from the midwestern United States very happy

Who knows, having a song like that to sing to myself when I’m feeling sad or lonely might even keep me kicking around another day or two longer than I’d ever normally be willing to put up with

And I don’t mean…going that far, but moreso just sleeping in for an entire day, thus “skipping it” and potentially setting me up for multiple days in a row of just doing nothing but ignoring the world around me

Thank you for your time, patience, acceptance, understanding and support