Jump to content
Sturgeon's House


Forum Nobility
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mogensthegreat

  • Birthday February 28

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The digestive system of a bear

Recent Profile Visitors

1,141 profile views

Mogensthegreat's Achievements


Newbie (1/3)



  1. I haven't posted anything on this website for a great while, so I want to write something to SH's standards of quality and spite in order to properly fill the role of nobility. The website indoeuropean.eu has a great amount of information on Indo European migrations, unfortunately it has a large and glaring problem. The author of a great deal of its articles is an idiot. His name is Carlos Quiles, and he has created his own theory on the IE expansion, which seems to have a few problems of its own. The main contention between his "demic diffusion model" and typical systems of logical deduction begins with how it is introduced in his article defending his idea against its opponents, which seems mostly to rest its rhetoric on roulette analogies and not so much on comprehensible evidence. The general claim here is that the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b represents the Indo-Europeans and R1a represents the Finno-Ugrics. There are a few problems with this theory: 1. R1b and R1a are clades of the same supergroup, and thus should represent related groups, which, you will note, linguistics shows that the IEs and Finno-Ugrics are not. 2. The contention of this theory is that, somehow, the Finno-Ugrics teamed up with the Indo-Europeans during their expansion into Europe, and then, when everyone was burninated and pillaged, they just all started speaking Indo-European languages because all populations with majority R1a DNA speak Indo-European Languages and all Finno-Ugric groups have a Y-DNA haplogroup of N, not R1a. This isn't even addressed by Quiles, he just says: "The Indo-European demic diffusion model was based on a very simple assessment: R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M417/Z645 lineages expanded with different peoples, associated with different cultures (Yamna-Bell Beaker and Corded Ware) ergo they spoke different languages. Given the later evolution of their cultures in Europe and Asia, tracing these cultures back, their languages had to be necessarily identified with Indo-European and Uralic, respectively, which has very interesting consequences in linguistics, since it helps to select among conflicting theories." Essentially, "Oh yeah here's my idea - different groups so they spoke different languages, but they speak the same language now so that's weird for linguistics huh" The rather low likelihood of an entire group of marauding steppe nomads just happening to give up their unique language to another group of marauding steppe nomads for no real discernible reason is glossed over as well as the fact that the "different cultures" of the Yamna and Corded Ware are nearly identical and also likely derivative. What Quiles is mainly scoffing at is the idea that the Corded Ware culture (the one in Eastern Europe that shows up after the IEs realize that horses are good for conquering shit) was IE. His evidence for this mainly consists of holding up his own theory as evidence that they weren't IE and that then proves his idea since the strongest shape for logic to be in is a circle. Aside from this, he provides links to his own articles citing genetic studies which he seems to interpret as saying: 1. The Bell Beakers (culture in Western Europe that happens to appear when IEs both realize horses are good at conquering and also physically reach central Europe) are IE. 2. The Corded Ware had wives from different cultures. 3. The ancestors of the modern Finns came from somewhere else. 4. The IE spread south into Iran/India contains both R1a and R1b genes. 5. Finno Ugric borrowed IE words therefore they were buddies. 6. The Southern Caucasus is genetically distinct from the Northern Caucasus. You'll notice that the either tangential or contradictory nature of these studies to his claim against an Indo-European Corded Ware culture is not particularly compelling, and it is rather mysterious to me how he interprets in the main article linked above that each of these articles is a separate and individually complete confirmation of his theory. There are more things that Quiles objects to in other articles that I don't care to find again because of his ridiculous naming conventions. He thinks it ridiculous that the Corded Ware culture can be IE since it had a culture too different than the Yamna (ancestral IE group), despite the fact that the CW share the burial practices and pastoral economy of the Yamna. The cultural differences that can exist are easily explained by something simpler than his practice of inventing a new magic group of people that switch genetic lines and languages on the fly. Conquering groups adapt to the practices of the conquered (i.e. Vikings, Mongols, non-penninsulares in Spanish New World colonies), especially when they move into conquered land and take a fuckload of wives from the conquered people (MtDNA of Europe is both IE and preexisting people). The pottery is the best example - "The CW pottery isn't IE so mustn't the whole culture not be IE?????" Well no, when you have a bunch of wives whose people you just finished genociding and looting, what kind of pottery is she going to make? She's going to make the kind she was raised to make or the kind from a fusion of her culture and yours. He did not raise this objection based on difference in pottery when declaring the Bell Beakers Indo-European. This objection goes hand in hand with his inability to reconcile the idea that both the Bell Beakers and Corded Ware were IE - the article stated something sarcastic like "wow that's dumb - how could the IE invaders change cultures twice???" Here Quiles briefly forgot that the number two exists, and so disregards that the BB and CW people might be separate successor IE cultures. That's a breakdown of the main support of his theory and his denial of opposition, but there is a much more obvious theory supported even by evidence he provides in his articles that satisfies all questions. The earliest IE expansion was due to the movement out of a caste of warrior nobles represented by R1b genes (all the IE kurgan burials pre-IE expansion are R1b (i.e. the upper classes were R1b); and the earliest R1 expansion into Europe is R1b). This expansion and the cultural fusion with locals created the Bell Beaker culture which conquered Western Europe. Once all the nobles had moved out and were happy with their new conquering kingdoms, the social structure of the homeland changed and the previous lower castes were moved into the upper classes since there always has to be someone to rule and then this class expanded into Eastern Europe, fusing with the locals to form the Corded Ware culture (CW is R1a and the later R1 expansion is perfectly in line with this). After all of Europe is taken, these two societies (largely culturally homogeneous due to very closely related languages) both expanded into Southeast Asia (there are both very much R1b and very much R1a populations in India/Iran/Pakistan), thus bringing us to the status quo distribution of IE languages and genes.
  2. Predecessor cultures to the PIEs realized how handy horses were in helping one kill all the folks. "From the functional point of view, according to the sum of the data, there is no reason to doubt that in the eastern zone the horse is already present in the Late Neolithic period. Since its domestication and the emergence of a specialized horse breeding, it has been also widely used for meat, milk and dairy products (including the traditional hippace tradition of the later Scythians), and since the beginning of the early Eneolithic for transport and for riding purposes. Another thing is the horse as a means of war, a means of distant travel and expansion. The beginning of the use of a horse for these purposes, in the opinion of the author, is determined by the appearance of social symbolism in the form of horse-head scepters, and is most fully reflected in the memories of the Khvalynsk culture and, in particular, the Novodanilovka type. Concerning western or Caucasian cultural zones related to Khvalynsk, the horse is thought to have been linked to the eastern region, used mainly for riding, as a means of transport and for communication, which, however, does not exclude its use for meat." "We already had in 2016 a Samara hunter-gatherer sample dated ca. 5600 BC, representative of EHG ancestry, of haplogroup R1b1a. We also had three early Khvalynsk samples from Samara Eneolithic dated ca. 4600 BC, with a drift towards (what we believe now is) a population from the Caucasus, showing haplogroups Q1a, R1a1(xM198), and R1b1a, the last one described in its paper as from a high-status burial, similar to high-status individuals buried under kurgans in later Yamna graves (of R1b-L23 lineages), and therefore likely a founder of an elite group of patrilineally-related families, while the R1a1 sample showed scarce decoration, and does not belong to the M417 lineage expanded later in Sredni Stog or Corded Ware." "We have seen this problem arise in Bell Beaker samples expanding all over Europe, turning from a fully Yamnaya-like population to something else entirely in different regions, from more EEF-like to more CWC-like, sharing one common trait: Y-DNA. We are seeing the same happen with Balkan groups and Mycenaeans, with Old Hittites, and with steppe MLBA from Andronovo peoples expanding over Central and South Asia, and we know that patrilineal clans and thus Y-chromosome bottlenecks were common after Neolithisation, especially with nomadic pastoralist steppe clans (and probably also with many previous population expansions)."
  3. As it turns out, whenever you see a 'y' in an English word that comes from Greek, it's a lie. The 'y' is a transliterated Greek υ, or upsilon. The Romans, wanting to be able to transliterate Greek words into the Latin alphabet, transliterated it as a 'y' which is why our words like 'hyper' are the way they are. In reality, in every historical variant of Greek (you know, the ones we get our Greek loanwords from), it was pronounced iike 'oo' or 'u'. So, hyper was huper, hypo was hupo, cycle was something like cucle, or kuklos, (which is of course the origin of the name of everyone's favorite ghost dress-up circlejerk). This goes into the old Proto-Indo-European connection, huper and hupo sound much more like Latin cognates super and sub than hyper and hypo. But you'll notice that Greek changed the first letter from an 's' to an 'h'. This seems like a small thing, but underneath it lies a pattern of Greek's being the rebellious son of Proto-Indo-European. Greek is like De Gaulle's France; you've got your two big groups (Centum or Satem languages; Warsaw Pact and NATO), and then the little bastard who thinks he can be his own thing (De Gaulle or Greek). Ancient Greek this weird, silly change from PIE it almost seems like it's intentionally trying to be different and edgy. PIE ekwos (horse) becomes hippos; ok Greek, where'd you get those p's in the middle there? Everyone else was just happy with equus or asvah (Eastern IE languages turned k into s) or something similar enough to be recognizable, but hippos? really? Keep in mind, this is the word for horse, probably the most important animal to the PIEs and the reason that half the world speaks an IE language. Greek just has this weird fascination with the letter 'h'. PIE swep (sleep) is hypnos, where every other daughter language uses a word beginning with 's'. Sehwol (sun) is helios, suhnu (son) is huios, sen (old) is henos. Why is this necessary? I know you need to feel like you're separate from those barbarous Persians or Celts, but this isn't the right way to lash out, Greek. It's just silly.
  4. Oh shit sorry, whereat? I don't remember that being posted beforehand.
  5. Terrible this guy doesn't show the shaping of the bow, but oh well, cool anyways: One of the best videos on his channel:
  6. New History Channel show: Cowboys and Vikings https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXCxNFxw6iq-Mh4uIjYvufg/featured This chanel would be equally appropriate in the General Archaeology Thread, as this guy has tons of videos about Norse Myth as well as the Old Norse language.
  7. Burgonet (2,15 kg: steel, silver and gold, false-damascened, gold-leaf, roped, Germany 1560 French close helmet with a crest in the shape of a dragon, ca. 1630 Gilded helmet of General George Castriot, Italy, ca. 1460 Griffon Bourguignotte by Negroli (c1540-1545) A morion helmet lavishly decorated with historical, mythological, and biblical subjects, including portraits of Alexander the Great and Sabina, wife of the Roman emperor Hadrian. Brunswick, ca. 1560
  8. Golden neckpiece from the royal grave at Tolstaja Mogila kurgan. Scythian, Ukraine, 400 BC. Pazyryk Carpet, the oldest known surviving carpet in the world, 5th century BC. Scythian @Collimatrix Are either of these in your Scythian Art book?
  9. Boar spear, Austria 1680 149.9 cm, 1,6 kg or 3.5 lb steel, brass, staghorn, leather, wood, and silk velvet
  10. TIL that average height in Europe is still lower today than it was in pre-Neolithic times. https://ourworldindata.org/human-height#mesolithic-times-middle-ages-subsistence-societies-and-modern-foragers
  11. https://forum.wordreference.com/threads/influence-of-mongolian.2588910/ Apparently the Russian words денги (money) and лошадь (horse) are Mongol loanwords.
  • Create New...