Of course, the Scythians we definitively name are from around 600 BC, and the first "Indo-European" migration out of the homeland was around 4000 BC, maybe technically 5000 BC if it includes the invasion of the Vinca culture. This is a large gap of time, but there's no reason to believe that the tribe from 4000 BC was completely wiped out and replaced with a different tribe by 600 BC. Actually, the Scythians seem so prototypical of all Indo-European cultures that it seems most sensical to just start with the assumption that the Scythians of 600 BC had changed somewhat but were still fundamentally the root tribe of the Indo-Europeans, more or less.What is wrong about saying "Yamnaya" are just Scythian? It seems like the different naming obscures some fundamental understandings more than they help in keeping track of nuanced differences. For instance, the Egypt of 3500 BC and 500 BC is very very different. The different dynasties seem to be grouped by completely different races or tribes controlling the region, yet we always call it Egypt (or technically Kemet, but no one really does). Why not just always call Scythia what it is... Scythia. "Indo-European" is an overly academic obscuritive term.
>>18362059That's why we just call them Aryans, anon
>>18362063Who called them this? I thought only the nobles were called Aryans. Then again, maybe the name of a nation typically refers to the name for the nobles anyway.
>>18362064Scholars called Indo-Europeans Aryans until the end of WW2.Yamnaya is also a very useful archaeological term since it specifically refers to the pit grave culture of the steppe.I'm not really sure if I would call Scythians the "root tribe". They are quite different. They are very much a genetic replacement of earlier steppe people.Indo-Europeans also called themselves Aryans. That's why this Celtiberian dedication to the god Lugus "of the Aryans (collective plural)" exists.• Celtiberian inscription located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1alba_de_Villastar>To the mountaineer and..., to Lugus of the Aryan peoples/tribes, in rural procession we came. For the mountaineer and the equestrian, for Lugo, the chief of the community raised a roof/covering, (also) a roof for the thiasus
>>18362059No. Because its logic is based solely on geography and lifestyle (in this case, nomadic), i see that as reductionist.Because "Scythians" refers precisely to Iranian peoples of the Pontic steppe, and I don't believe they can represent Indo-Europeans as a whole, such as Italics, Celts, Germanic and Balto-Slavs.However, I agree that the term Indo-European is a disaster and actually has political implications. Today we know that the term "Aryan" (*h2er-yo-,) was used since Yamnaya at least as an ethnonym, and "Yamnaya" simply means "hole" or "tomb"...the best term would be to use "Aryans" because it was used by practically all branches (with perhaps the exception of the Slavs), so it's much better.But after the Second World War and with the advent of nationalist "pan-Iranism," this word has a negative connotation and is supposedly of Iranian priority
>>18362088>>18362087Eurocentric sameflag lolThese reconstructions have no value. If you show me a clay tablet from "Yamnaya" that referred to them as Aryans, or how Europeans did it, in addition to isolated Latin texts in France, it's an Iranian term and never had racial connotations. The Aryan councilors would have been Persians, Hindus (mainly the higher castes, the holders of the sacred Vedas), and Bmac peoples who probably spoke an archaic type of Aryan language
>>18362088Please shut up. I don't believe anyone today gives any credence to this pan-Iranian idea that aryan arose solely among Iranian-speaking peoples. To your dismay, it's as old as PIE and was used by various groups across different spaces and times. (For example, Hittite Arauanni and Scottish Gallic Airidh)I shared this article some time ago>>18362087 it's just the tip of the iceberg. You see these threads.Cognates have been found, including in Tocharian, And I'm not going to explain how linguistic reconstruction works and how, ironically, archaeologists have always used it to formulate their theories and hypotheses, but according to you it's "useless," isn't it? Shut up, you mule.
>>18362101"PiE" isn't a race or people just a language family >And I'm not going to explain how linguistic reconstruction works and how, ironically, archaeologists have always used it to formulate their theories and hypotheses, but according to you it's "useless," isn't it? Shut up, you muleYou still need prove to us how your "Yamnaya" called themselves aryans in the Bronze Age without any writing system good luck Tommy "aryan" Johnson
>>18362091araianom is a real attested word (with the sound change *ari̯ā- > araia-)It's just the genitive plural of an ā-stem. ā-stems are used to make collectives.Indo-Iranian *ari̯a- was used as an ethnonym. It was likewise used as an ethnonym in Europe, and this can hardly be a coincidence. The term is simply an Indo-European inheritance.
>>18362119You didn't answer my questions
>>18362140What is there left to respond to?You don't believe in reconstructions? There's no discussion to be had if you dismiss linguistics as a discipline.
>>18362147See>>18362104
>>18362165That post wasn't addressed to me but Proto-Indo-Europeans were a race that lived around the Pontic-Caspian steppe. That's what modern archaeogenetics shows us. If you go so far as to deny the existence of a Proto-Indo-European people, now called Western Steppe herders, what discussion is there to be had with you? Run along and go play.
