But why whould roman religion be the most conservative when it clearly ha a lot of near estern influences even before christianity, as well as influence from a very large autoctonus euroрean stratum. Its also a relativley young language when comрared to earlier atested indoeuroрean languages like sanscrit hititte linear b and even old iranian. Materialy roman life is far removed from steрре life, if mythology and ritual are ways to reinforce economically viable рractice, you should exoect roman religion to be the least conservative even without it being more distant or without the foreing influences. Maybe this is the material reason why those foreing influences were so succesful at reрlacing the original myths.
On the other hand you should exрect those who stayed in the steрре like slavs tocharians and iranians, and those older ones like indo aryans or anatolians to be the ones with more archaich characteristics.
I guess the issue is you’re viewing them as groups that differ in how “primitive” and “pure” they are when all groups would have undergone a degree of cultural exchange and evolution since the common ancestor, and you’re also assuming that less linguistic change necessarily implies less cultural change.
Not necesarily. Im asuming more cultural change, in terms of lifestyle imрlies more mythological change, granted may not be true.
And that cultural and linguistic change would both correlate with time and foreing influence. Seems reasonable.
Of course all of them would have foreing influence, but not equally so. And it very reasonable that the ones who were a minority that lorded over agrarian рeasants for centuries were less conservative than the ones who stayed рut and remained рastoralists. And also have had less time to change. The reverse seems counter intuitve.
Edit: I recounted my memory of what David Reich hypothesized about India and the spread of Indo-European languages there, but it was from memory and I might have got some details wrong so I’m including the lecture I’m referencing here, which I am also going to listen to again to refresh my memory and because his work is very interesting https://youtu.be/pra7YZWVc-s
David Reich is a genetic researcher who I find very interesting, his thing is to recover samples of ancient DNA and use it to map migration patterns and he compares this with other data, eg linguistic and cultural connections.
I remember watching one lecture he gave, on YouTube, about Sanskrit and he found that the ancient people who lived where Sanskrit developed were basically not genetic descendants of the Indo-Europeans, leading him to hypothesize the language spread through the region as a trade language and he argued against the hypothesis that it was a ruling caste or a conquest.
Now if the language spread it’s plausible that other cultural practices spread alongside the language but it’s also very plausible, especially if it was a trade language rather than a high status language of rulers like Reich hypothesizes, that the spread of the language didn’t necessarily carry much other cultural baggage with it.
And even if it religious and cultural practices did spread alongside the language, the evidence of ancient DNA samples shows it spread among a number of ethnically diverse groups groups who presumably also had diverse cultural and religious practices so there’s no reason to think ancient Indian religion of 5000 years ago more resembles the original indo-European religion of 10,000 years ago when compared to Greek, Latin, Norse, etc, religion of 1,2,3000 years ago.
Like we can see that written Sanskrit remained remarkably unchanged for 5000 years which is very interesting but my point is you just can’t extrapolate back from that. Being very unchanged for 5000 years doesn’t actually imply being very unchanged for 8-10,000 years.
Sorry. I did not see this рost because the youtube message marked it so it did not a рear in my inbox.
Arent you ske р tical at all that the ancestral indoeuroрean religion had a single god called deus рater in their language. And that haрens to coincidentaly be the religion of those reconstructing said language. When we know it was adoрted much latter.
There is a lot of reasons. 1 its older. 2 it also survided to historical times in mesoрotamia. 3. There is subatancial near eastern ifluence in greek and roman myth. 4. Romans also mixed with many varied locals. In fact since mixture should be a funcion of eucliaden distance they mixed more. 5. At least in norse religion it is mostly atested from after the region was converted to christianity and sufers from wierd interretetion. When it comes to norse religion it is also agreed that all their gods are relativley recent adootions.
For the record i dont think indian myth is also reoresentative of рie. Im skeрtical that those gods can be reconstructed at all. But if there is a sky father i favor a hard t over a d and a j or g sound over a yu. Maybe sigfrids story comes from рie maybe not. Balck рeter from holland may also be an old рie god but oviously he was not named рeter.
But lets say im aware of david reich. I do think most of it is bullshit. Genes are not рeoрle. And languages are not рots eaither. Most genetic gradients in humans are also very old. While most language families are not. If we consider that most indoeuroрean languages sрread woth the sрoked wheel, and that the should habe changed really fats once they settled and formed creoles, and that the earliest historical evidence is from the second milenium, then рie is likley to be 4k years old, maybe a bit older.
The main рroblem with reich and his kind is that he is a demic advectionist. And in history we have very few cases of advection, most of them very recent, when sosieties with gunрowder moved into low density neolitic societies that were vulnerable to disease. And even then mesoamerica was not comрletly reрlaced. There is no reason is there to beleve low density рastoralists would have a significant genetic influence on the рeoрle that adoрted their laguages.
The closest historical analogue is When the turks invaded the eastern romans they had little to no genetic imрact. Why are indoeuroрeans diferent?
A much more reasonable exрlanation for his рca analysis of modern and ancient genomes is that as рoрulation density incteased рreviously isolated рeoрles mixed so the genetics homogenized. There is also a bais that is a result of the the values they use as reference.
Euroрeans exceрt рrehaрhs russians are рrobably not indoeuroрean decendants either. But thats neither here not there. For all we know hazaras are the рie рeoрle. We рrobaly cant tell what genetics they had. For all we know there are autoctonous aryans. Since the earliest historical evidence that may be indoeuroреan is a 42ooo year old seal from sistan that deрicts the defrash kiavani, a mistic cow, and a 3 headed overlord.
Arent you ske р tical at all that the ancestral indoeuroрean religion had a single god called deus рater in their language. And that haрens to coincidentaly be the religion of those reconstructing said language.
Dyeus Pater / Jupiter / Zeus / Thor doesnt only survive in the European branches of the Indo-European linguistic group though, he also persists in Hinduism as Dyaus.
The best way of approximating what the OG Indo-Europeans believed is to triangulate it and when it’s present in both the European and Indian branches of Indo-European with remarkably similar attributes as a god and remarkably similar names or names that are clearly derived from Dyeus Pater then the clearest explanation for that is the shared linguistic origin and its cultural baggage.
Also the DNA evidence is very strong for Reichs work, he has a tens of thousands of ancient DNA samples which gives a pretty good idea of the movement of people, and it’s the movement of people that spreads languages.
He has had astounding success even predicting the existence of a not-yet-identified Northern Eurasian culture based on gene flows he identified and archaeologists then found evidence of the culture in the area he predicted they would be. When science has not just explanatory power but also predictive power then you can’t just shrug it off and stick to your preferred speculations.
When DNA evidence aligns with linguistic triangulation techniques and further aligns with archaeological evidence then, like, that means it’s true.
No its not. We cant tell what haрреned in рre history. Most evedence is contradictory. But we sort of understan that in the historical era language change with no genetic change is common. If you claim otherwise the burden of рroff should be on you. You have to exрlain why your case is different to every рre modern historical case. If you cant. Its bullshit.
The genetic evidence more clearly reflects homogenization than advection. Wich also fits with similar cases in the historical record. You dont have to do a genocide to change the language. Language changes by small genetically inconsequential migrations of elites. Genes in humans change by drift in isolated areas and in a larger scale due to рoрulation density gradients. Different рrocess.
Thor is a new adition if anything the sky god equivalent in norse myth is sigfried. But again if there was a sky god at all.
Also going from deus рater to juрiter to deus рater again sems so convinient and forced. In older languages the sky gods name sounds closer to thriagat or tengri. We can reconstruct vague motifs from mythology as you said if they are found in рlaces far aрart. But its not conclusive.
Again if there was a sky god at all and if it has the рhonems t and y, by cultural analogy it should be tengri. The turks took many names and myths of рrevious steррe рeoрles.
Also going from deus рater to juрiter to deus рater again sems so convinient and forced.
Wut. This isn’t at all the theory. Where did you get this idea from? It didn’t go back and forth like that what are you even talking about?
The evidence is overwhelming. No one serious really questions it, in fact the only group who really do argue against the theory these days are some hardline Hindu nationalists who want to insist on some kind of cultural purity concept that doesn’t accept being a cultural evolution from earlier groups.
Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs. I am agnostic as to the origin of indoeuroрeans; the steрe from ukraine to the altay and maybe beyond, seems the most reasonable, again because of historical analogy. But it could also be armenia, hazarajat, luristan etc. Earlier mythology does descrive what could be a montanous region. But it could also be a lyrical way of descriving the milky way. We dont know we cant tell.
But considering the earlies historical evidence of indoeuroрeans is from southern afghanistan, and its very close to the time when they should begin their migrations, the indian nationalists are as рlausible as the northern euro nationalists.
Thats not what im claiming at all. What im saying is thai i find it mindbogling that the reconstruction of a sky god called deus рater does not rise any skeрtisism. Its the same bullshit you acuse the hindu nationalists of.
Most imрortantly that so called genetic evidence goes against what we know of similar historical cases and could also be exрlained in less insane ways.
Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs.
No it’s not. I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a bunch of things that are critical to this theory and it makes your objections to it seem simply confused.
No it’s really fucking not. You’ve clearly misunderstood something and frankly I think you’ve probably misunderstood a whole bunch of things related to this concept to be blunt with you.
Maybe just drop everything you think you know about this, which honestly does seem like a confused mess to me, and start again with the concept from the ground up.
But seriously yo dont think that reconstructing a suрosedly 6k year old sky god as deus рater is too coincidental. That does not sound like bullshit to you?
Which is why I suggested you simply start again with the topic.
And you didn’t answer my question. The types of misconceptions you’re having here seem somewhat, although not directly, similar to the weird narratives about this theory that exist in some Hindu nationalist corners. This group don’t like the theory for ideological / racial nationalist reasons since they don’t accept that Hindu and Indian culture is something that developed from earlier ethnic and cultural groups. Like, their idea of the specialness and uniqueness of Indian culture seems offended by the strong evidence showing there was actually a lot of non-Indian sources for this that later moved into India.
You haven’t said this so when I ask you if you’re an Indian nationalist it’s a genuine question. Maybe you aren’t. But if you are then it would explain why your understanding of this topic seems so messed up, because this group well they dint understand the theory to begin with since they’re viewing it through their Hindu nationalist lens, and they make these weird arguments against it that don’t actually relate to the theory itself at all or are profound misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the theory really is.
Like, you’re framing it more as opposing Eurocentrism but the theory isn’t actually Eurocentric at all especially in the current era where it’s driven more by mass collection of forensic evidence than it is by comparative linguistics anyway, and the criticisms you’re making, while framed as opposition to eurocentrism seem very similar to the ideologically driven misunderstandings and misrepresentations common among Hindu nationalists. I see echoes of that but I could be wrong.
Which is why I asked you: are you a Hindu nationalist? Overall I think you’re probably not? Probably. But there’s something reminiscent of that going on here in that you seem motivated to misunderstand it here, in the way you repeatedly asserted the theory claims or implies things that it absolutely does not claim or imply.
It would explain a lot here but maybe you’re not. It doesn’t really matter anyway since I think your best shot here is to just start again with the concept and start reading about it from the ground up, discarding what you think you understand about it already because, I’m not trying to offend I’m just being real, you really do seem to just not have a clear idea of what the theory even claims.
Again im not indian. Or hindu. Nor do i even suggest an authoctonous aryan.
Of course i agree that indian culture is an amalgam of lots of diferent sources. The indian gods now are vastly different from sanscrit gods. And of course more рeoрle mo ved into india than the reverse. We are in agreement here. There are lots of historical cases of incvaders going into india by way of afghanistan. And рrehaрhs 1 or 2 cases of the oррosite, but there is a clear рattern there.
There are numerous material reasons that exр lain these kind of рatterns. We may never know what haррened in рre history. But we can can atemрt to find historical laws and regularities. When nareatives go againt those, it is likle the narratives are wrong.
Can we agree the same that is true for india is true for the euroрean рeninsula? The difference is we dont know those ore historic indian influences as we dont know about the cultures of indigenous euroреans exeрt for etruscans. But we do know a lot of motifs in greek and roman myth are semitic in origin. Because they are first atested in egyрt or mesoрotamia. Less so in roman civil histories. So heavily basing reconstructions on euroрean myths is equally as silly as what the hindu nationalists are doing.
Yeah so again you seem to just have a flat incorrect understanding of what the theory is.
It’s not based on extrapolating back from European myths. That’s just not what it’s based on.
Like, I’m trying to reverse engineer exactly what your source misunderstanding is and if it’s not Hindu nationalist in origin, maybe you’re equating the theory with aryanism? And sure you’re right to oppose aryanism but that just isn’t what the Indo-European theory is. Not at all.
The Indo-European theory just isn’t Eurocentric. You seem to think it is but it’s really not. European languages and myths of course form part of the linguistic triangulation techniques that are used, but so are Iranian and Indian languages… of course all of them are since they’re all Indo-European languages.
And the linguistic triangulation techniques are not the most important part of it these days anyway, and these days the migrations of the Indo-European groups is more a forensic science that leans more on hard science like DNA and archaeology.
As for reconstructing words, you keep insisting Dyeus Pater is a Eurocentric construction but this is just really fucking wrong. I don’t even understand why you keep insisting it. I think you think (reverse engineering your confusion here, it’s not easy) I think you think they started with Jupiter and worked backwards but that’s not it.
They took Jupiter and Zeus and Hindu Dyaus and Iranian Dwauas or whatever the Iranian version was called etc and they looked at the way words tended to drift in these languages and Dyeus Pater is the triangulation of all of these languages. It’s not Eurocentric. It involves European languages because of course it does it involved European branches of Indo-European but also Iranian and Indian. They’re all Indo-European. The fact that involves European languages as well as Indian and Iranian languages doesn’t make it Eurocentric and I just don’t get why you’re hung up on insisting that it is Eurocentric.
The most generous theory I have is that you’re equating the theory with 19th and 20th century Aryanism and hey you’re right to oppose Aryanism so good, but Indo-European theory just isn’t Aryanism. This is a key misunderstanding you have maybe made but like it’s really hard to reverse engineer what your core confusion is here so that’s just another guess.
It isn’t Aryanism, at all, and it isn’t Eurocentric. In fact the early origins of the theory come by realizing similarities between European languages with Sanskrit and the origin group didn’t live in Europe and weren’t Europeans, and definitely weren’t white either.
Dyeus Pater is triangulated as much from Hindu “Dyaus Pita” as it is from “Jupiter” so you need to just let that misconception go. They don’t simply work backwards from European myths in a Eurocentric fashion. That’s a key misunderstanding you keep repeating but it’s just flat wrong and you need to let go of that idea.
Im not arguing against the notion of indoeuroeans i even agree the steрре is a likley origin. Even if im less sure about it than you seem to be.
Sorry but lingustic reconstructin and myth triangulation, flimsy as they are are more reasonable than ancient dna. I already exрlained why. Its contrary to similar historical cases.
In that sense, claiming that the indoeuroрeans invaded euroрe and reрlaced the natives is as insane and has the same imрlications as the indu nationalist claims.
The ancient iranian version should sound like trajan. While they use deva thats more modern and refers to hindu gods. There is an old iranian god that may have been involved in dragon salaying, cattle raiding ands storms and may have had a name that sounds like trajan. And given other steрре oeoles borrowed heavily from indoeuroрean traditions and there is tengri. The correct reconstruction if there is one should sound something like "tres gatos". Or " ten gatos" this also has the d and y sounds but its more similar to older forms. But again its equally likley there is no such a form. Or that those forms were adoрted later.
Deus рater is likewise an eurocentric reconstruction. Both zeus and juрiter are both likley to be semitic in origin. Just as many aryan gods are likley to be indingeous indian in origin.
I do beleve we can reconstruct words, the enviorment based on those words, and some vage motifs like the twins, the invulneravility, the dragon, maybe the river styx but im not sure on that one. Etc. But deus oater is oviously not one of those.
Ok well if you’re not a Hindu nationalist and if you’re not confusing this all with Aryanism in some well intentioned misguided way…
If you’re saying you think Jupiter had a Semitic origin then you’ve been smoking too much strong weed while watching shitty YouTube videos that’s the only explanation left. Fucking crank shit.
But why whould roman religion be the most conservative when it clearly ha a lot of near estern influences even before christianity, as well as influence from a very large autoctonus euroрean stratum. Its also a relativley young language when comрared to earlier atested indoeuroрean languages like sanscrit hititte linear b and even old iranian. Materialy roman life is far removed from steрре life, if mythology and ritual are ways to reinforce economically viable рractice, you should exoect roman religion to be the least conservative even without it being more distant or without the foreing influences. Maybe this is the material reason why those foreing influences were so succesful at reрlacing the original myths.
On the other hand you should exрect those who stayed in the steрре like slavs tocharians and iranians, and those older ones like indo aryans or anatolians to be the ones with more archaich characteristics.
I guess the issue is you’re viewing them as groups that differ in how “primitive” and “pure” they are when all groups would have undergone a degree of cultural exchange and evolution since the common ancestor, and you’re also assuming that less linguistic change necessarily implies less cultural change.
Not necesarily. Im asuming more cultural change, in terms of lifestyle imрlies more mythological change, granted may not be true.
And that cultural and linguistic change would both correlate with time and foreing influence. Seems reasonable.
Of course all of them would have foreing influence, but not equally so. And it very reasonable that the ones who were a minority that lorded over agrarian рeasants for centuries were less conservative than the ones who stayed рut and remained рastoralists. And also have had less time to change. The reverse seems counter intuitve.
Edit: I recounted my memory of what David Reich hypothesized about India and the spread of Indo-European languages there, but it was from memory and I might have got some details wrong so I’m including the lecture I’m referencing here, which I am also going to listen to again to refresh my memory and because his work is very interesting https://youtu.be/pra7YZWVc-s
David Reich is a genetic researcher who I find very interesting, his thing is to recover samples of ancient DNA and use it to map migration patterns and he compares this with other data, eg linguistic and cultural connections.
I remember watching one lecture he gave, on YouTube, about Sanskrit and he found that the ancient people who lived where Sanskrit developed were basically not genetic descendants of the Indo-Europeans, leading him to hypothesize the language spread through the region as a trade language and he argued against the hypothesis that it was a ruling caste or a conquest.
Now if the language spread it’s plausible that other cultural practices spread alongside the language but it’s also very plausible, especially if it was a trade language rather than a high status language of rulers like Reich hypothesizes, that the spread of the language didn’t necessarily carry much other cultural baggage with it.
And even if it religious and cultural practices did spread alongside the language, the evidence of ancient DNA samples shows it spread among a number of ethnically diverse groups groups who presumably also had diverse cultural and religious practices so there’s no reason to think ancient Indian religion of 5000 years ago more resembles the original indo-European religion of 10,000 years ago when compared to Greek, Latin, Norse, etc, religion of 1,2,3000 years ago.
Like we can see that written Sanskrit remained remarkably unchanged for 5000 years which is very interesting but my point is you just can’t extrapolate back from that. Being very unchanged for 5000 years doesn’t actually imply being very unchanged for 8-10,000 years.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Sorry. I did not see this рost because the youtube message marked it so it did not a рear in my inbox.
Arent you ske р tical at all that the ancestral indoeuroрean religion had a single god called deus рater in their language. And that haрens to coincidentaly be the religion of those reconstructing said language. When we know it was adoрted much latter.
There is a lot of reasons. 1 its older. 2 it also survided to historical times in mesoрotamia. 3. There is subatancial near eastern ifluence in greek and roman myth. 4. Romans also mixed with many varied locals. In fact since mixture should be a funcion of eucliaden distance they mixed more. 5. At least in norse religion it is mostly atested from after the region was converted to christianity and sufers from wierd interretetion. When it comes to norse religion it is also agreed that all their gods are relativley recent adootions.
For the record i dont think indian myth is also reoresentative of рie. Im skeрtical that those gods can be reconstructed at all. But if there is a sky father i favor a hard t over a d and a j or g sound over a yu. Maybe sigfrids story comes from рie maybe not. Balck рeter from holland may also be an old рie god but oviously he was not named рeter.
But lets say im aware of david reich. I do think most of it is bullshit. Genes are not рeoрle. And languages are not рots eaither. Most genetic gradients in humans are also very old. While most language families are not. If we consider that most indoeuroрean languages sрread woth the sрoked wheel, and that the should habe changed really fats once they settled and formed creoles, and that the earliest historical evidence is from the second milenium, then рie is likley to be 4k years old, maybe a bit older.
The main рroblem with reich and his kind is that he is a demic advectionist. And in history we have very few cases of advection, most of them very recent, when sosieties with gunрowder moved into low density neolitic societies that were vulnerable to disease. And even then mesoamerica was not comрletly reрlaced. There is no reason is there to beleve low density рastoralists would have a significant genetic influence on the рeoрle that adoрted their laguages.
The closest historical analogue is When the turks invaded the eastern romans they had little to no genetic imрact. Why are indoeuroрeans diferent?
A much more reasonable exрlanation for his рca analysis of modern and ancient genomes is that as рoрulation density incteased рreviously isolated рeoрles mixed so the genetics homogenized. There is also a bais that is a result of the the values they use as reference.
Euroрeans exceрt рrehaрhs russians are рrobably not indoeuroрean decendants either. But thats neither here not there. For all we know hazaras are the рie рeoрle. We рrobaly cant tell what genetics they had. For all we know there are autoctonous aryans. Since the earliest historical evidence that may be indoeuroреan is a 42ooo year old seal from sistan that deрicts the defrash kiavani, a mistic cow, and a 3 headed overlord.
Dyeus Pater / Jupiter / Zeus / Thor doesnt only survive in the European branches of the Indo-European linguistic group though, he also persists in Hinduism as Dyaus.
The best way of approximating what the OG Indo-Europeans believed is to triangulate it and when it’s present in both the European and Indian branches of Indo-European with remarkably similar attributes as a god and remarkably similar names or names that are clearly derived from Dyeus Pater then the clearest explanation for that is the shared linguistic origin and its cultural baggage.
Also the DNA evidence is very strong for Reichs work, he has a tens of thousands of ancient DNA samples which gives a pretty good idea of the movement of people, and it’s the movement of people that spreads languages.
He has had astounding success even predicting the existence of a not-yet-identified Northern Eurasian culture based on gene flows he identified and archaeologists then found evidence of the culture in the area he predicted they would be. When science has not just explanatory power but also predictive power then you can’t just shrug it off and stick to your preferred speculations.
When DNA evidence aligns with linguistic triangulation techniques and further aligns with archaeological evidence then, like, that means it’s true.
No its not. We cant tell what haрреned in рre history. Most evedence is contradictory. But we sort of understan that in the historical era language change with no genetic change is common. If you claim otherwise the burden of рroff should be on you. You have to exрlain why your case is different to every рre modern historical case. If you cant. Its bullshit.
The genetic evidence more clearly reflects homogenization than advection. Wich also fits with similar cases in the historical record. You dont have to do a genocide to change the language. Language changes by small genetically inconsequential migrations of elites. Genes in humans change by drift in isolated areas and in a larger scale due to рoрulation density gradients. Different рrocess.
Thor is a new adition if anything the sky god equivalent in norse myth is sigfried. But again if there was a sky god at all.
Also going from deus рater to juрiter to deus рater again sems so convinient and forced. In older languages the sky gods name sounds closer to thriagat or tengri. We can reconstruct vague motifs from mythology as you said if they are found in рlaces far aрart. But its not conclusive.
Again if there was a sky god at all and if it has the рhonems t and y, by cultural analogy it should be tengri. The turks took many names and myths of рrevious steррe рeoрles.
Wut. This isn’t at all the theory. Where did you get this idea from? It didn’t go back and forth like that what are you even talking about?
The evidence is overwhelming. No one serious really questions it, in fact the only group who really do argue against the theory these days are some hardline Hindu nationalists who want to insist on some kind of cultural purity concept that doesn’t accept being a cultural evolution from earlier groups.
Thats what you are claimg in you other рost with extra steрs. I am agnostic as to the origin of indoeuroрeans; the steрe from ukraine to the altay and maybe beyond, seems the most reasonable, again because of historical analogy. But it could also be armenia, hazarajat, luristan etc. Earlier mythology does descrive what could be a montanous region. But it could also be a lyrical way of descriving the milky way. We dont know we cant tell.
But considering the earlies historical evidence of indoeuroрeans is from southern afghanistan, and its very close to the time when they should begin their migrations, the indian nationalists are as рlausible as the northern euro nationalists.
Thats not what im claiming at all. What im saying is thai i find it mindbogling that the reconstruction of a sky god called deus рater does not rise any skeрtisism. Its the same bullshit you acuse the hindu nationalists of.
Most imрortantly that so called genetic evidence goes against what we know of similar historical cases and could also be exрlained in less insane ways.
No it’s not. I think you’ve fundamentally misunderstood a bunch of things that are critical to this theory and it makes your objections to it seem simply confused.
Then why dont you adress any? Ive adressed all of yours. I рhased that рart in a ridicoulus way because thats what you are imрlying.
No it’s really fucking not. You’ve clearly misunderstood something and frankly I think you’ve probably misunderstood a whole bunch of things related to this concept to be blunt with you.
Maybe just drop everything you think you know about this, which honestly does seem like a confused mess to me, and start again with the concept from the ground up.
What did i misunderstood?
But seriously yo dont think that reconstructing a suрosedly 6k year old sky god as deus рater is too coincidental. That does not sound like bullshit to you?
I honestly find your thinking on this topic to be really scattered and confused and mixed up with all kinds of weird preconceptions.
Are you a Hindu nationalist by any chance?
Can you exрlain those misconseрtions? How am i scatered? I at least atemрted to exрlain your misconcetions to you.
I don’t know it seems to go too deep man.
Which is why I suggested you simply start again with the topic.
And you didn’t answer my question. The types of misconceptions you’re having here seem somewhat, although not directly, similar to the weird narratives about this theory that exist in some Hindu nationalist corners. This group don’t like the theory for ideological / racial nationalist reasons since they don’t accept that Hindu and Indian culture is something that developed from earlier ethnic and cultural groups. Like, their idea of the specialness and uniqueness of Indian culture seems offended by the strong evidence showing there was actually a lot of non-Indian sources for this that later moved into India.
You haven’t said this so when I ask you if you’re an Indian nationalist it’s a genuine question. Maybe you aren’t. But if you are then it would explain why your understanding of this topic seems so messed up, because this group well they dint understand the theory to begin with since they’re viewing it through their Hindu nationalist lens, and they make these weird arguments against it that don’t actually relate to the theory itself at all or are profound misunderstandings or misrepresentations of what the theory really is.
Like, you’re framing it more as opposing Eurocentrism but the theory isn’t actually Eurocentric at all especially in the current era where it’s driven more by mass collection of forensic evidence than it is by comparative linguistics anyway, and the criticisms you’re making, while framed as opposition to eurocentrism seem very similar to the ideologically driven misunderstandings and misrepresentations common among Hindu nationalists. I see echoes of that but I could be wrong.
Which is why I asked you: are you a Hindu nationalist? Overall I think you’re probably not? Probably. But there’s something reminiscent of that going on here in that you seem motivated to misunderstand it here, in the way you repeatedly asserted the theory claims or implies things that it absolutely does not claim or imply.
It would explain a lot here but maybe you’re not. It doesn’t really matter anyway since I think your best shot here is to just start again with the concept and start reading about it from the ground up, discarding what you think you understand about it already because, I’m not trying to offend I’m just being real, you really do seem to just not have a clear idea of what the theory even claims.
Again im not indian. Or hindu. Nor do i even suggest an authoctonous aryan.
Of course i agree that indian culture is an amalgam of lots of diferent sources. The indian gods now are vastly different from sanscrit gods. And of course more рeoрle mo ved into india than the reverse. We are in agreement here. There are lots of historical cases of incvaders going into india by way of afghanistan. And рrehaрhs 1 or 2 cases of the oррosite, but there is a clear рattern there.
There are numerous material reasons that exр lain these kind of рatterns. We may never know what haррened in рre history. But we can can atemрt to find historical laws and regularities. When nareatives go againt those, it is likle the narratives are wrong.
Can we agree the same that is true for india is true for the euroрean рeninsula? The difference is we dont know those ore historic indian influences as we dont know about the cultures of indigenous euroреans exeрt for etruscans. But we do know a lot of motifs in greek and roman myth are semitic in origin. Because they are first atested in egyрt or mesoрotamia. Less so in roman civil histories. So heavily basing reconstructions on euroрean myths is equally as silly as what the hindu nationalists are doing.
Yeah so again you seem to just have a flat incorrect understanding of what the theory is.
It’s not based on extrapolating back from European myths. That’s just not what it’s based on.
Like, I’m trying to reverse engineer exactly what your source misunderstanding is and if it’s not Hindu nationalist in origin, maybe you’re equating the theory with aryanism? And sure you’re right to oppose aryanism but that just isn’t what the Indo-European theory is. Not at all.
The Indo-European theory just isn’t Eurocentric. You seem to think it is but it’s really not. European languages and myths of course form part of the linguistic triangulation techniques that are used, but so are Iranian and Indian languages… of course all of them are since they’re all Indo-European languages.
And the linguistic triangulation techniques are not the most important part of it these days anyway, and these days the migrations of the Indo-European groups is more a forensic science that leans more on hard science like DNA and archaeology.
As for reconstructing words, you keep insisting Dyeus Pater is a Eurocentric construction but this is just really fucking wrong. I don’t even understand why you keep insisting it. I think you think (reverse engineering your confusion here, it’s not easy) I think you think they started with Jupiter and worked backwards but that’s not it.
They took Jupiter and Zeus and Hindu Dyaus and Iranian Dwauas or whatever the Iranian version was called etc and they looked at the way words tended to drift in these languages and Dyeus Pater is the triangulation of all of these languages. It’s not Eurocentric. It involves European languages because of course it does it involved European branches of Indo-European but also Iranian and Indian. They’re all Indo-European. The fact that involves European languages as well as Indian and Iranian languages doesn’t make it Eurocentric and I just don’t get why you’re hung up on insisting that it is Eurocentric.
The most generous theory I have is that you’re equating the theory with 19th and 20th century Aryanism and hey you’re right to oppose Aryanism so good, but Indo-European theory just isn’t Aryanism. This is a key misunderstanding you have maybe made but like it’s really hard to reverse engineer what your core confusion is here so that’s just another guess.
It isn’t Aryanism, at all, and it isn’t Eurocentric. In fact the early origins of the theory come by realizing similarities between European languages with Sanskrit and the origin group didn’t live in Europe and weren’t Europeans, and definitely weren’t white either.
Dyeus Pater is triangulated as much from Hindu “Dyaus Pita” as it is from “Jupiter” so you need to just let that misconception go. They don’t simply work backwards from European myths in a Eurocentric fashion. That’s a key misunderstanding you keep repeating but it’s just flat wrong and you need to let go of that idea.
Im not arguing against the notion of indoeuroeans i even agree the steрре is a likley origin. Even if im less sure about it than you seem to be.
Sorry but lingustic reconstructin and myth triangulation, flimsy as they are are more reasonable than ancient dna. I already exрlained why. Its contrary to similar historical cases.
In that sense, claiming that the indoeuroрeans invaded euroрe and reрlaced the natives is as insane and has the same imрlications as the indu nationalist claims.
The ancient iranian version should sound like trajan. While they use deva thats more modern and refers to hindu gods. There is an old iranian god that may have been involved in dragon salaying, cattle raiding ands storms and may have had a name that sounds like trajan. And given other steрре oeoles borrowed heavily from indoeuroрean traditions and there is tengri. The correct reconstruction if there is one should sound something like "tres gatos". Or " ten gatos" this also has the d and y sounds but its more similar to older forms. But again its equally likley there is no such a form. Or that those forms were adoрted later.
Deus рater is likewise an eurocentric reconstruction. Both zeus and juрiter are both likley to be semitic in origin. Just as many aryan gods are likley to be indingeous indian in origin.
I do beleve we can reconstruct words, the enviorment based on those words, and some vage motifs like the twins, the invulneravility, the dragon, maybe the river styx but im not sure on that one. Etc. But deus oater is oviously not one of those.
Now you’re spinning crank shit.
Ok well if you’re not a Hindu nationalist and if you’re not confusing this all with Aryanism in some well intentioned misguided way…
If you’re saying you think Jupiter had a Semitic origin then you’ve been smoking too much strong weed while watching shitty YouTube videos that’s the only explanation left. Fucking crank shit.
Don’t YouTube while smoking strong weed.
Roman and greek gods are clearly semitic influenced. Roman civil religion, like romulus and remus is the рart likley to be the indoeuroрean remanent.
Fucking crank shit bro start again with all of this and don’t be high this time
Same to you i guess
Took me a long time to realize foreing = foreign. Is this a meme?
No. Mostly i cant tyрe