Indo-Europeans (Part 1)

-1-
Indo-Europeans (part one)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This article is the duplication of one of those I have written for the blog I have dedicated, on internet,
to the study of sabeism, and which is displayed on that page :
http://www.quand-les-dieux-et-les-hommes-etaient-des-astres.net/blog/?p=99&lang=en
The blog itself is part of the site (cf. http://www.quand-les-dieux-et-les-hommes-etaient-des-astres.net)
I have dedicated to the same topic, and in which I present the book, in sixteen volumes, I have written,
in french, under the title Quand les dieux et les hommes taient des plantes, des toiles ou des
constellations", and which translation is, in english : When gods and men were planets, stars or
constellations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indo-European is a term that remains obscure, as for its content.

Where does it come from?
Answer: from scientists who were, first, linguists, and, then, archaeologists.
The first ones have come up with the conclusion, by studying the ancient IE idioms, that one
of them was the source of Greek and Latin, and, therefore, the source of current Latin
languages like French or Portuguese.
And by discovering a lot of acquaintances, as far as words and grammar (and, therefore, the
structure of sentences) are concerned, between the aforementioned languages and other IE
languages like Sanskrit, Persian, and other IE idioms practiced in a region which was
encompassing ancient India, ancient Iran, and a great part of the Silk Road, they have come
up with the conclusion that Indo-European peoples had travelled a lot, during their migrations,
or, if it was not the case, that means that their idioms had travelled a lot, in the same time,
because of the strong contacts they had had each other, through their trade.
****
The question is to know, at this stage, where, initially, the very first Indo-European people
came from?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This article is the duplication of one of those I have written for the blog I have dedicated, on internet, to the study of sabeism,
and which is displayed on that page :
The blog itself is part of the site (cf. http://www.quand-les-dieux-et-les-hommes-etaient-des-astres.net) I have dedicated to
the same topic, and in which I present the book, in sixteen volumes, I have written, in french, under the title Quand les dieux
et les hommes taient des plantes, des toiles ou des constellations", and which translation is, in english : When gods and
men were planets, stars or constellations.
-2To answer it, archaeologists will help linguists by providing them a great deal of information
coming from their digging of the ground, here and there, proving that peoples living there,
belonged, actually, to the Indo-European family.
On their side, linguistic scholars will take advantages of their extensive knowledge of ancient
languages, in order to carefully study the profane and sacred literature of peoples of that time.
On this basis, the French scholar named Dumzil will spend his lifetime to prove that IndoEuropean peoples were to be recognized, also, as far as their mythology and religion were
concerned, through the tripartite division which was, according to him, the benchmark of their
divine and human societies.
****
After this introduction, I will give, in the first part of this article, some excerpts of the
discourse I have displayed in volume 10 of the book I have dedicated to the study of sabeism,
(see http://www.quand-les-dieux-et-les-hommes-etaient-des-astres.net) and which purpose is
to know how scholars have proceeded, before having come up with the conclusion that
peoples studied by them were, indeed, Indo-Europeans.
On this topic, we may ask first - assuming Hittite language was the very first Indo-European
idiom to have been written in glyphs - to know whether nomads and/or semi nomads of that
time, were, during their migrations, peaceful peoples or warrior peoples (in the latter case,
nomads had completely destroyed the cities inhabited by sedentary peoples, and they had
taken possession of their territory, by settling down in their region, during the final phase of
their migrations), and this, whatsoever was their race.
****
Before answering this question, we have to assume that the phenomenon of urbanization
had expanded everywhere, on earth, since the beginning of the Bronze Age.
During that time, many cities had grown up, next to quarries and ore deposits, or along the
major rivers where farmers had settled down in order to cultivate the sol remaining next to the
river, themselves benefitting, to do it, of the labour division having accompanied the
development of the city.
More precisely, these farmers had been benefitting, in that case, of the irrigation system and
of all infrastructures which had been implemented in and around the city.
In return, increasing in arable land had increased the quantity of food provided by them, and
this, not only for the welfare of the producers themselves, but also for the comfort of all of
those who had settled down inside the city.
-3In that city, some of its inhabitants had become craftsmen and/or architects.
Their job was to build the city itself and its components (the walls of the city being part of
them), and to build, inside and outside the city, all the infrastructures, and, among them, the
wells which had made possible to capture water falling from the sky, and the conduits which
had made possible to convey water from the river to the irrigation plans remaining next to it.
And if all of this had helped farmers during their own activities, it had made possible, as well,
some hierarchization of the society, with producers who, inside of it, were ruled - historically
speaking - , first by priests, and, then by a government made of two heads (or two hands):
with the priests on one hand, and with the sovereign warriors on the other hand.
And the more these cities will get richer, the more they will have to protect themselves against
looters and perpetrators, by erecting walls around the city, and a citadel inside of it.
It does not mean that these cities had been prevented from assaults perpetrated by nomads
who had, in some circumstances, taken possession of them, during their war against sedentary
peoples.
****
Having said that, two phenomena already existed, in antiquity time, to which scholars like
historians, archaeologists and linguists have given little attention, in our view, when time has
come, for them, to understand the changes, as far as sovereignty was concerned, which had
happened inside the cities-states of that time.
The first one was the marriage between the royal families (which were represented, in that
case, by a man and a woman of royal blood).
And the second phenomena is the following : once princes will be ruling, inside the new
cities-states, over inhabitants who had already settled down in the city, they will protect
themselves, their family, and the rest of the population, against assaulters who were coming
from outside, by hiring mercenaries who, given their strong physical constitution and their
outstanding qualities of warriors/combatants, were belonging to nomadic tribes remaining
outside the city.
Now, these mercenaries will, sometimes, usurp the prince power, in the city-state, by ejecting
the consort princes from it, and by establishing their own dynasty over the city-state.
And all of this will happen without any wall of the city should be destroyed, or without any
one house of the city should be burned.
****
-4Now, if the division, inside mankind of that time, between sedentary peoples on one side, and
nomadic peoples on the other side, is the main argument to understand how a new society had
emerged from the integration of the two groups, on the same territory, it does not necessarily
mean that, always and everywhere, the new society had emerged after nomad tribes had
invaded the territories of the latter, and after they had imposed them a feudal regime.
When, to give an example of the contrary, sedentary peoples were Egyptians, these ones were
led by a Pharaoh who had become powerful enough, with his own army, firstly to put an end
to invasions led by Bedouins coming from the Sinai Peninsula who were, in that case,
Apiru/Hapiru who were remaining, with herd and family, on the border, with Egypt, locating
in the eastern part of the Nile Delta, and secondly to chase them up to their own original
country (which was the Retenou/Retenu, in case of the Apiru/Hapiru).
And if Pharaoh Ramses II was supposed not to have won, nor to have lost, with his troops,
during the battle he had engaged against the Hittites, near the city of Kadesh remaining in the
south of Syria, we have to remember that these Hittites already had settled down in Anatolia,
and already had founded, there, a kingdom.
As for the sovereigns of old kingdom of Hatti, if they had been resisting, for a long time, to
invasions which had been perpetrated by nomad peoples, they had succumbed when the
Hittites had invaded their country after having convoyed, from the Balkans or from the lower
Danube region, up to the Anatolian region.
****
The same thing was to observe, as far as old kingdoms like Sumer and Accad were concerned:
these territories had succumbed after having opposed a strong resistance to invaders, when the
Guti and Lullubi tribes (all pastoralists and nomads) had invaded their territory from a region
locating in the foothills of the Zagros moutains' chain.
And before that event, king Sargon 1st of Accad had build his own empire (which was the
first one, of importance, in History), by assaulting, from his own city-state, the other citystates belonging to the old Sumerian country.
****
We have to precise, at this stage, that rulers of the different cities-states had two kinds of
opponents, at that time : princes of the other cities-states, on one hand, and pastoral tribes whenever themselves were leaving their mountains, before settling down in the plains
occupied by sedentary peoples -, on the other hand.
-5And among pastoral peoples, nomads of the steppe had founded - with their warrior
temperament which had made them terrible fighters - kingdoms of which some will become,
over time, big empires.
And because nomadic conquerors, after having settled down in the territories occupied by
sedentary peoples, will be living in a city, this one will become, if its sovereign was very
powerful, the capital of the empire.
As for archaeologists, if, by digging the grounds of this city, they will discover some traces of
its former glory, they will not know, at first, that its ruler was a fearsome warrior.
Or, if they will learn something about it, it is because they will have examined his grave, and,
by doing so, they will have found weapons and the numerous bones of horses and humans
altogether (the latter having been his servants, during their lifetime), who had accompanied
the sovereign in his death, during the big funeral ceremony which had been organized in his
honour, by his kinsmen.
****
But what should have been - by taking a very large view of the situation - the quality of
pottery and of all other materials which had been created by men, or fashioned by them,
during the time having begun with the invention of agriculture in the IX-VIII centuries BC,
and having ended at the very end of the second millennium BC; and what should have been
the style of tombs, and the way peoples of that times had been inhumed, over time, we may
not conclude, from that - to return to the present topic - that Indo-Europeans of that time have
settled down in one or in other specific region, during their migrations inside a territory which
was covering both Europe and Asia altogether.
It is like to try to know from which specific region, of Asia, Indian tribes had come from,
before they had crossed, on dry ground, the Bering Strait, and before they had settled down in
both parts of the American continent.
For their land was, in their mind, everywhere they had installed, in the past, and everywhere
they will install, in the future, with family and herd, during their migrations (provided
geographical concepts such as Asia and/or America had absolutely no sense for them).
Their main resource being the buffalo, their ancestral land was necessarily the same of that
animal during his/its own migration.
Similarly, it is very stupid, in our view, to try to find out at which place of the Atlantic
Ocean the whale was coming from, in the very beginning, before moving in and along it, from
north to south, and from south to north, during the year and its four seasons.
****
-6-
Now, because some scholars - to return to Indo-European peoples - have discovered, in China,
Tokharians who, according to them, were Indo-Europeans having migrated from the west,
rather than being natives from Central Asia, or from India, or from Iran, we only may
conclude that these Tokharians, by migrating from west to east, at the end of the third
millennium BC, had been part of the same general movement during which the Hittites had
settled down in Anatolia.
And because the Tokharians were, according to scholars, a white skin people, it does not
necessarily mean that they have travelled from Europe to China (and, more specifically, from
Germany to China - since the German and Tokharian peoples were speaking the same idiom,
according to the linguist scholars).
Indeed, we may also consider that the Tokharians had moved from the Caucasus region, since
peoples of that region were belonging to the white race.
****
Now, if, as some scholars have aimed to prove it, the Tokharian and Proto-Germanic
languages were very close to each other, it means that the ancestors of the actual Germans
belonged to an Indo-European family who, like the others at that time - had been travelling a
lot, by conveying over long distances, on the terrestrial planisphere, which means that they
were nomads or shepherds instead of being farmers.
But again, if the German and Tokharian peoples belonged to the same Indo-European family,
before the latter had broken up, it does not necessarily mean that that family was identical to
that the Hittites belonged to, on one side, and to that other peoples, who had migrated from
the Black Sea and from the Caspian Sea's region, towards the Upper Danube and the Adriatic
Sea, belonged to, as well, on the other side.
****
The Hittite language belonging to the centum" group (like, for example, Greek, Italic, Celtic,
Germanic and Tocharian idioms), scholars have concluded that the Hittites had come,
either from the Balkans, or from the Lower Danube region, before having invaded Anatolia
during the late part of the second millennium BC.
Since, conversely, the Armenian language belonged to the satem group (like, for example,
Sanskrit, old Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and, probably, the Daco-Thracian idiom), they have
concluded that the Armenian people came from Asia.
As for the discovery, made by the linguists, that the idioms practiced by the Indo-Europeans
of Anatolia (which was the Hittite language, with its local variants Luwian, Palaic and Nesite)
-7were less structured than the old Greek, or than the Sanskrit language (which was proving
their older antiquity), we may not conclude, from that, that the first Greek speakers had
come, originally, from a region which was remaining further away (assuming we were
looking towards old India - since the old Greek and the Sanskrit languages belonged to the
same family) than the region where the old Hittite people had come from.
The point, here, is the aforementioned seniority, since the glyphs which had been used to
write down the Hittite language, existed before the Linear A and B (the first one having been
used to write down the Cretan language, and the second one having been used to write down
the Mycenaean language which was spoken in the Cretan Island as well).
But again, since the Mycenaeans (who were, in that case, people of that name) will be
integrating, over time, other cultures (like the Cretan one, the Phoenician one, or the Egyptian
one) than the Indo-European one, in its sphere, it means that the Greek language will combine
other elements than the old indo-european idiom.
****
No writing system having been discovered before the Hittite language - and its local variants
as Palaic, Nesite and Luwite/Luwian - had been written down (the latter had, like the ancient
Egyptian language, a hieroglyphic-type writing), linguists have dated, from the beginning of
the second millennium BC, the beginning of the writing, as far as Indo-European languages
are concerned.
Ditto about the idioms of the Medes and the Persians, since these peoples had let them to be
known, through their inscriptions, and through the annals of their neighbours, by modern
historians, only during the first millennium BC - as we may read it on the website
http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/esagil/medes.htm, in that text:
The Medes and Persians
Origin
Medes and Persians are Indo-European peoples who had settled down in the north-western part of
Iran, at the end of the second millennium BC. Scholars assume they had come from the north and
had passed through the Caucasus, before settling down in Iran. Both peoples have first installed
themselves next to the Lake of Urmiyah, where Medes had imposed their domination on all other
surrounding tribes. Both nations were mentioned in Assyrian annals dating from the reign of
Shalmaneser III (ninth century BC), since the latter had led punitive expeditions, with his
successors on the Assyrian throne, against them. All these attacks had, indeed, little effect,
because neither the Medes nor the Persians should have dislodged, and nothing had prevented
against the rising sovereignty of the Medes, themselves taking advantage of their trade, with the
neighbouring kingdoms of Urartu and Elam, to get richer and to impose their own sovereignty.
-8During the sixth century BC, Persians (who were their vassals at that time) had installed in the
mountains of Zagros, making Anshan the capital city of the (future) Persia.
The Mede kingdom

The Mede kingdom had ruled over northern Iran and its vassal of Persia. It had come to its
maximal expansion under the Deiocides dynasty. That expansion had begun with the reign of
Deioces (730-675), who had made Ectabane the city capital of his kingship. His successor,
Phraortes (675-653), had strengthened power of his country, despite proximity of the mighty
Assyrian Empire. The long reign of Cyaxeares (653-585) had been decisive. Having begun when
Assyria was on top during the reign of Assurbanipal, this time will be followed by a slow decay of
the kingdom. Meanwhile, Persians, with impulse of Achaemenid dynasty, will build, upon the
remains of Elam, a strong kingdom which will remain, nevertheless, the vassal of the Medes.
When war, between the Assyrian Sin-Shar-Ishkun and the Babylonian Nabopolassar had begun in
that Mesopotamia that was afflicted by infightings having weakened the Assyrian Empire,
Cyaxare had seen the very opportunity to come to power. As Assyria coveted possessions in
Anatolia, he decided to ally with Babylonians, and, in 615, he invaded Assyria and took Assur, its
capital, before having destroyed it. Their, he met his new ally, so that the fate of Sin-Shar-Ishkun
was sealed. In 612, the Assyrian king was killed and his capital, Nineveh, taken and destroyed.
Medes and Babylonians had then achieved their complete victory against Assyria, by killing their
king, the usurper Assur-Ballit, in 609.
After this war having shot Assyria to death, winners had carved them in the remnants of the
vanquished. Medes only took the far north of Mesopotamia, while their Persians vassals had
recovered the region of Anshan located in the southern part of Elam. Cyaxare had gone on with
his expansions, by conquering ancient kingdoms enemies of Assyria like Urartu and Cappadocia,
but he had failed to conquer Lydia. The Median kingdom was at its maximal expansion by
including countries like northern Iran (or Medea), Persia, Armenia, northern Syria and east of
Anatolia.
The Persian Empire
Persians, who will be ruled by Achaemenid kings, remained, at this stage, vassals of the Medes.
King Cyrus succeeded his father Cambyses in 559; he was dominated by his suzerain, Astyages,
both son and grand-son of Cambyze. The Median sovereign retained, against him, and like his
predecessors the same mistrust coming from residents of Zagros who, by gaining power,
become strong opponents to him. Cyrus waited for a pretext to revolt against his great-father and
to give, finally, independence to his people.
This opportunity had been given to him by the Babylonian king Nabonidus, who had distrusted
Astyage, his ally who had become too powerful for him. He decided to call Cyrus, whom he
probably knew the intentions of, to get rid of his too harmful neighbour. Persians had revolted and
defeated the Medes in 550, and, by doing so, had captured all possessions of their former
-9overlords. Cyrus had come up, then, with a series of victories in Anatolia,
before defeating Croesus, the King of Lydia, and before breaking his alliance with the
Babylonians, so that he had become a new threat for the Medes. Having reached the banks of the
Aegean Sea, the brilliant Persian king had moved around [by marching against his opponents] and
conquered territories like Iran, Afghanistan, before reaching the south of Central Asia and the
Indus Valley [with his army]. In ten short years, he had founded a greater empire than all of those
which had been preceding it.
Babylon was, then, nothing else than a ridiculous obstacle which was ruled out by a more highly
contested king, while Cyrus was known throughout the whole Middle-East for his virtue. So the
latter had no difficulty to conquer the whole Mesopotamia, which fell in 539, a date marking the
end of the last dynasty of Babylon. It was the end of independence of all Mesopotamian
kingdoms. Despite the respect of Persians for the ancient traditions of the old Mesopotamian
civilization, this defeat had put and end to the old Mesopotamian culture, which began a slow
decade having lasted, up to its death, for six centuries.
History of Persian Empire had remained famous through ancient texts which will be known, by
us, in modern time, with help of Greek ancient authors. Cyrus the Great had conquered the whole
Middle-East, while his son Cambyze II (530-523) had invaded and brought down Egypt. Under
Darius (522 - 486), "the King of the Kings ", the empire had reached its apogee after a new
expansion towards the east. His successor Xerxes I (486 - 465) had marked History during the
Persian Wars. The following destiny of this glorious empire was not glorious, precisely, since it
was marked by revolts (some of which having had very negative effects for Babylon), by
betrayals, as well at the head of the State. When Alexander the Great had conquered this territory,
in 333, nothing had stopped him to do it. The last Achaemenid king, Darius III (335 - 331), was
assassinated by members of his entourage, after the defeat of Gaugamela, which led the fate of his
ownership in hands of the Macedonian.
****
If this text is very clear about peoples who had allowed actual Iran to come famous in History
(especially when historians were the Greeks themselves through the figure of Herodotus), we
do not know, however, so far, which tribes were living in the old territory corresponding to
actual Iran, before the first millennium BC, and what was the lifestyle of these tribes before
the two aforementioned peoples (themselves being an agglomeration of several tribes) had
settled down in the country.
And since some scholars tell us that these people had penetrated in Iran during the late part of
the second millennium BC, we may assume they had moved from the Caucasus region,
and they had done it at the same time as the Armenians, and, probably, at the same time, as
well, as "the Peoples from the Sea" when themselves had put an end to the Hittite empire by
devastating it and all other countries locating along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean
Sea, up to Egypt.
- 10 So, we may conclude that all these groups had come, originally, from the Black and Caspian
Seas' region.
But it also means that these migratory movements, made by peoples who were speaking
an IE idiom belonging to the "satem" family, were representing, in History, the third wave of
migrations belonging to the IE peoples, itself succeeding a second wave during which : a) the
Hittites had settled down in Anatolia, b) the Mycenaeans (who were the ancestors of the
Greeks) had settled down, as for them, in the region of Greece which they will give their
name to - both of them having come from an region which was, originally, the Balkans and
the Lower Danube, and both of them having emigrated during the late part of the third
millennium BC, as well as during the early part of the second millennium BC [a].
------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note a: in his book La Mesopotamie, the historian Georges Roux tells us, on this topic (cf.
Edition du Seuil, 1995, p 264), what we are going to read, by referring to the following source
: GF Ventris and J. Chadwick, Documents in Mycenaean Greek, Cambridge 1956; J.
Chadwick, The decipherment of Linear B .. Cambridge, 1958 CAH II, I pp. 609 - 617:
... Fertilized by frequent contacts, from one island to the other, with the western Anatolia
including Troas, as part of it, the Hellenic peninsula had entered the Bronze Age around 3000 or
2900. Since 2600, it had reached an advanced degree of civilization, as we may notice it by
observing the mansions of stone and the brick palaces with their tiled roofs, as well as gold and
silver jewellry which had been found in Lerna, Tiryns and Asine, all of
this having strengthened the towns remaining in the Gulf of Nauplion. On a date we may fix
between 2100 and 2000 BC, these palaces had damaged in flames; their walls had been
destroyed; their houses had been replaced by small homes with portico and apse; and a new
pottery had replaced the "saucers" which were typical of the Early Helladic period. Around 1900,
a new wave of invaders - a peaceful one - had inaugurated the Middle Helladic (1900 - 1600)
period, which was characterized by the "Minyan ceramic - probably of an Anatolian origin -, by
new architectural models and by wells in graves. This culture extended quickly - so that
to encompass the whole Peloponnese and the central Greece - and had perpetuated, without any
significant change, during the recent I Helladic (1600 - 1450) period, first phase of the
Mycenaean period. However, since the brilliant decipherment, made by Michael Ventris, in 1953,
of the "Linear B" displayed on the tablets which had been found in Pylos, Mycenae and Knossos,
we know that the Mycenaeans - or, more accurately, the Achaeans - were speaking an IndoEuropean language which was the Greek idiom in its most archaic form.
So we may associate the arrival, in Greece, of the ancestors of Mycenaeans, with these Myniens
(or Myneans) who had come, in that country, from a region which was probably Anatolia, instead
of being the Balkans or the low Danube.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for movements which had occurred in the late part of the second millennium BC, if we
may understand, through them, how the Median and Persian kingdoms had emerged, during
- 11 the first millennium BC, in the territory of actual Iran, we do not know, by reading them, at
what time the separation, between the old Indian and the old Iranian languages, had occurred
(since we have to note two things about India : a) Indianists have not still deciphered, so far,
the writing, in form of logograms, that had prevailed in the Indus Valley during the second
millennium BC and during the preceding millennia; b) the Sanskrit language will develop, in
its classic form, only during the second half of the first millennium BC).
****
This separation, between the Indian and the Iranian languages, had probably occurred when
inhabitants of the BMAC had begun to move (we were, in that very circumstance, in the late
part of the third millennium BC) : a) with some of them having moved towards the Lakes of
Urmiah and Van (and therefore towards the Kurdistan) after having skirted along the southern
coast of the Caspian Sea; b) with others of them having moved towards the Iranian plateau
(and therefore towards the central part of the country), after having crossed the area and its
main stations named Mary and Herat; and c) with the rest of them having moved towards the
Kabul and the Punjab regions, after having come along the Oxus basin, up to its source.
And since Medes and Persians had penetrated, into Iran, by coming from the north, and, thus,
from the current Azerbaijan country, it means that the "satem" group belonging to the IE
languages, had expanded over a very large territory, with Kazakhstan locating in the east, with
the Black Sea locating in the west, and with the BMAC locating in the south.
Having said that, we may also consider that the nomads who were living in the steppes of
Kazakhstan belonged, as far as their language was concerned, to the "centum group" instead
of belonging to the "satem" group; and because they had moved from west to east, they
probably were the ancestors : a) of those who had created, in the south of Siberia, the culture
of Afanasievo, and b) of those who, under the name of Tokharians, had been living in the
Tarim basin locating in the north-west of China.
But because the Persians will spread their governance, over peoples of Asia, since the
Achaemenid dynasty, it means that these peoples will speak an idiom which will part of the
"satem group, rather than of the centum group.
****
Anyway, linguists are wrong, in our opinion, to seek, on basis of very uncertain and truncated
sources, a unique IE language which should have belonged to a unique people named IndoEuropean.
As for those scholars whose purpose is to convince us that archaeology is the ideal
complement of linguistic, in order to localize the very first territory of the very first IndoEuropean family, they have to explain us why, today, Indians of Amazonia, who speak
- 12 Portuguese, do not live on the same way and in the same environment than these Germans
who, after having settled down in some residential neighbourhood of some city locating in the
Santa Catarina state, in Brazil, speak Portuguese too.
Let us imagine, at this point, that the two speakers will die without having let, behind them,
any written evidence of the idiom they were speaking during their lifetime.
The question is : will archaeologists of the future, by digging their houses, or by digging the
rests of these houses remaining in the ground, conclude that both of them were speaking the
same language?
Certainly not !
****
Now, archaeology is very helpful, for researchers, when the latter are specialists in genetic, by
allowing them to establish, after they have carefully examined the DNA of the deceased,
some well-defined genetic groups who, once they will be put on a map, will show in which
region, of the earth planet, these groups had settled down during their migrations, and what
influence their environment had played on them, in terms of genetic.
But as to infer, from that, that the language spoken by a speaker is marked, for ever, in his
genes, we can not assert it.
And we may add that the same languages which were spoken, at the beginning of antiquity
time, by different peoples who were, in our example, Indo-Europeans, will be influenced,
over time, by the progress of commerce and trade between them.
And because trade already existed in the Bronze Age, and, therefore, when the languages had
not been written down so far (at least for some of them), we were already in a time which was
influenced, as far as idioms were concerned, by the trade exchanges.
****
Apart from that, the examples provided by the Middle East (which was including Egypt, in
that case), during the first three millennia BC, show that the conquering peoples, when they
were Akkadians, had learned, from the Sumerians, once they had installed in Sumer, the
sumerian idiom, which remained, for a long time, the dominant language in the region,
especially as far as religion was concerned.
Ditto when the Hyksos Kings had learned the old Egyptian language, after having invaded the
Nile Delta, from the Palestine and the Sinai region.
- 13 Ditto again when the Ptolemaic dynasty, of Macedonian origin, like their ancestor, Alexander
the Great, had settle down in Egypt.
****
In short, insofar as language is a vector capable of evolution, in contact with populations from
different origins, if, from that point, we want to know what was the primitive
language of speakers who, in our example, were belonging to the Indo-European family, we
have to refer to communities which had been living apart from other peoples, that means : in a
complete isolation.
But if such a thing was conceivable when speakers of that time were remaining in their
mountains or in their valleys, their idiom had changed since they had opened their country
to trade.
****
And insofar as, before the fourth and third millennia BC, no written document existed, in
order to prove that speakers of that time were speaking a particular language, as far as
developed countries of that time are concerned, and before the second millennium, even
before the first millennium BC, as far as other countries of that time are concerned, only
archaeology may give relevant information about at what time, exactly, in antiquity, the
speakers had been living, and how they had been living, exactly, at that very time.
One may object that some scholars have recently discovered, in Varna, near Belgrade, the
rests of a very old civilization which was dating, according to them, from the seventh
millennium BC, and whose language, by using ideograms in its written form, should have
been the very first one in History.
But here again, insofar as it exists no unanimity, among researchers, to acknowledge that
civilization, we bet the readers of the present article to read the page that authors of Wikipedia
have dedicated, on internet, to this topic.
We may only note, here, that the ideograms or the logograms which have been found, by
these scholars, were referring, presumably, to the stars of the sky, proving, by the
way, that the religion of the Proto Indo-Europeans who were remaining in the Low Danube's
region, was sabeism.
But again, it does not mean, insofar as peoples of neolithic time - who had been living, in our
case, in the region of the Lower Danube - had put some glyphs, on some material support,
showing they had deified some very stars moving in the sky, that their writing was
comparable to that, sophisticated, as for it, which was belonging to the old sumerian people.
- 14 Similarly, it does not mean, insofar as some scholars belonging to the actual New Age
Movement, are showing us, in their writings, that the great pyramid of Giza dated from the
year 10'500 BC, that we have to believe them without discussing any of their arguments.
****
Going back to archaeology as an instrument making possible the dating of speakers, in
History, researchers will, in order to do it, inventory the objects of all kinds, and they will
exhume, if necessary, entire cities, each one with its own degree of urbanization and
civilization; and, beyond that, they will study the whole funerary material they will find here
and there (bones of animals included), all of this indicating who were, in terms of human
communities, men and women who had been living in the places studied by them, and what
was the level of their progresses, in the material area, or, that is the same, what was their
degree of civilization.
As for the language, it will help researchers to identify peoples, only if it had been put in
glyphs.
But if it was not the case, are wrong, in my view, those linguists who had made it clear,
during their life as researchers, that themselves alone are competent to answer the question
of knowing where the Indo-Europeans came from, and which was their language.
And even if, on this topic, they have created, or are to create, in the future, some models to
reproduce, by replication, the proto IE language, their project will be pure speculation, since
we do not know, in absence of writing, what was the idiom practiced by the different peoples
of that time.
****
So, instead of considering (to sum up the discussion) that all Indo-European families
were descendants of a unique people, we have to deal with them as scholars have dealt
with Indians of America after the latter had crossed the Bering Strait, that means like
communities which, although they were independent from each others, had the same gods
(functionally speaking) and the same way of life.
We have no doubt, nevertheless, that the old Indo-European families were living in
hierarchized societies. And we are certain, as well, that their ruler was a king, even if, in this
very case, we may speak- as some specialists do - of chiefdoms, since the community led by
such a ruler was a nomadic one.
And because these nomads will, finally, settle down, they had done it, in our previous
example, in Germany, as far as one branch of the IE family was concerned, and in the Tarim
basin, as far as the Tokharians - who belonged to the same family, according to their idiom -,
were concerned.
- 15 But this does not prove, once again, that these Tokharians should have come, initially, from
Germany.
And since we are here with the Tokharians, we may see them as a people whose members
were merchants of their own productions, and who had open trade counters once they had
settled down in the north-west of China.
****
Anyway, all of this does not explain why Scythians, Sarmatians, and Sakas (who were
IE peoples too) had made themselves famous, in History, by invading the whole region
extending from Asia to the eastern part of Europe, during the first millennium BC, after they
had moved along the Silk Road, from the depths of Asia.
Indeed, if we look at immense spaces which existed, at that time, given the low density of the
Asian population, it is difficult to understand such an action, on part of these tribes.
But if we consider that the climate had changed, it means that the scarcity of good land and
of good pastures had made necessary, for them, to explore new territories belonging to their
neighbours.
Ditto if these peoples and their livestock had grown up on surfaces which had remained
constant, in terms of feed efficiency (assuming we include, here, activities like agriculture,
herding, hunting and fishing).
It is like each tribe, which was locating at a very specific place, along the Silk Road (to use an
expression that everyone understands), had pushed its neighbours towards the west. With the
result that the Scythians (who located, first, in the far west of this route), will find themselves
invading the Pontic steppes.
****
So, if all of the aforementioned tribes belonged, initially, to the Indo-Iranian group, as nomads
moving inside an Asian territory which was encompassing both the Kazakhstan, the southern
Ural, and, if were looking towards the south, the old BMAC, these tribes will be moving, over
time, towards the west.
As for their ancestors, they were at the origin of the Afanasevio and Andronovo cultures (the
first one dating from the second half of the third millennium BC, and the second
one dating from the second millennium BC), both of them having laid upon leasing of land
and upon breeding of animals like sheep, goats, cows, pigs, dogs, ox (or zebu), horses and,
later on, like camels (and, if their territory remained in the southern Siberia, like reindeers), as
well as upon the hammering of the native copper when IE peoples were living in the same
southern Siberia.
- 16 -
All of this (which was including things like native and worked metals, wood, stones and other
materials) had enabled them to manufacture weapons (throwing weapons, shields, etc.)
and all the tools which had been used, by them, in different areas : culture of the
land, irrigation of the land (with help of the plow, or of the ard), construction of
wells, embankment of rivers, construction of roads (through the fields, forests, peatlands,
etc.), and, finally, the construction of swales locating next to the rivers.
The same objects, or others, will be used to consolidate or repair their homes (the latter being
occupied during the whole year, or, only, temporarily) by themselves and their livestock; or to
erect their framing graves (if the burial style was that one); or to promote activities
like fishing and hunting [a] (of wild animals whose bones, nerves, skin, fat, or oil, will
be used as heating products, or as weapons [swords, shields [b]] when time had come, for
them, to attack or defend themselves against enemies, or as raw material [skin,
leather] in manufacturing of the clothes (once it will be treated properly), or as instruments to
harness horses, or, finally, as bedding material used in home [like skin blankets, duvets or
woollen comforters, etc.]).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Notes:
a) Mongols and Kazaks had been learning, over time, to used the golden eagle (which tradition
prevails nowadays), to hunt animals like gray wolves, foxes, hares, weasels, martens, sables, otters,
raccoons or beavers, and they did it, first for their own consumption, and then to make money by
trading the skin and the fur of these animals;
b) here is how Xenophon expressed, in Cyri institute. lib. VII, cap. 1 segm. 1 and 2 (we can read that
text, on internet, in the site of Google Books, at the following address (in french) : Mmoires de
linstitut National des sciences et arts, littrature et beaux-arts, tome IV, Paris an XV Vandemiaire)
about equipment that had equipped the Persian warriors, at the time of Cyrus :
All those who had accompanied Cyrus were armed like him : they wore red tunics, breastplates of
brass of the same metal helmets, which were garnished with white egrets, swords; and each one
was armed with a dogwood wooden dart. Orehead, hest and flanks of the horses were covered
with bronze plaques, and so were the thighs of the riders. The only difference to be noticed, if we
were looking at the Cyrus' weapons, is that they were as bright as a mirror, while the others were
simply covered with a gold colour ...The anthem of Cyrus was an gold eagle which was placed on
a long stick. It remains today, says Xenophon, the king's sign of Persia [Greek text]. - Xenophon
does not mention the shield in this passage ; but he mentions it in the Cyrus' battle against
Egyptians (and iisdem libro capitei, segm. 17). He speaks of these Persians who could not
stand the assaults of the Egyptians, since the latter were equipped with genuine shields, aoric,
while themselves wore only simple screens, which they could hold only with the fingertips ...
[Greek text] - Herodotus also did mention shields made with screens, when he was
describing the armour of Persians who belonged to the army of Xerxes. Here is the passage where
- 17 we can read it (cf. lib VII, ca 61, Wesseling): "Persians had their heads covered with woollen caps
which they called tiara; their body was wrapped in tunics trimmed sleeves, and several shades of
colour, on which they had placed formed breastplates of iron scales similar to those of fish. Long
hose were covering their thighs. Tissues of wicker, under which hung quivers, were used as
shields. They were armed with short spears, big bows, and arrows made of reeds. Finally, daggers
attached at their waist were hanging down to their right thigh, " ... [Greek text] The elite
soldiers of Cyrus the ancient, were called homotimes, or the equals; they wore cuirasses [to
protect themselves]; in their left hand, they carried shields made with wicker, and in the right
hand, they carried the sword named copis, or the axe named sagaris ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****
Metal, wood, stone and clay - once cooked - were also used to manufacture furniture and
household equipment (beds, tables), as well as equipment used both in the kitchen (knives,
pots, vases, cans), and in storage and transport of food.
By the way, it is on the quality of pottery and ceramics, and on the design of the latter, that
archaeologists will rely, in their research to locate the different communities, both in time and
space, by giving them a special cultural label.
The same objects, or others, will be used to create or repair chariots equipped with full or
empty wheels, or to equip their horses, or to make clothes by using vegetable fibres (like
hemp, flax, cotton) or animal fibres (like sheep wool), and, finally, to produce all items which
were part of the habitat, for men and their livestock altogether (in this respect, the home
fire played an important role, with its fireplace producing smokes which were moving away,
from the house, by passing through the opened roof), as well as all the objets which were used
as ornaments (mirrors, pins, pearls, necklaces, belts, cosmetics, etc., etc.).
The production centers, which were used to produce pottery and various objects made with
different metals (themselves having different contents, based upon different chemical
components, and depending on the location and on the techniques of production), were
maintained at the desired temperature, with help of pits which were filled with ashes coming
from the burnt wood, and with help of slags coming from the molten metal.
****
At this point, we must not imagine that men have constantly innovated in History, in area of
production.
To speak more precisely, we must not imagine that all innovations have had, on every age, the
same effects, both on environment and on the way of life of peoples.
- 18 Since the two greatest revolutions having ever existed, in History, in this respect, have been
the invention and/or discovery of agriculture, in Neolithic time, on one hand, and the
industrial revolution in England, during the late part of the eighteenth century, and during the
early part of the nineteenth century AD, on the other hand.
I am not claiming, now, that men of antiquity time did not innovate at all.
In this respect, the classification, in Stone Age, Copper Age, Bronze Age, an Iron Age,
established by the specialists, with respect to the material which had been used, in production,
by men of that time, proves that they were innovators as well.
And inside the different ages mentioned above, specialists (who are, here, archaeologists)
have classified the communities studied by them, according to the following criteria : a) the
quality of the pottery, and the design of the latter; b) the housing architecture and the
materials which were used, in the construction area, at the different ages [1], and c) the
funeral rites (themselves depending on : 1) the type of tombs or of graves; 2) the location of
the latter, inside or outside the house of residence which was specially reserved for this
purpose, and which was located, in time of the Kurgans regime, under mounds which were
named kurgans, precisely), 3) the number of people who had been buried in the same place
(or, other variant, who had been incinerated, and whose body ashes will be discovered at the
same place, by archaeologists), 4 the position of the bodies, in the tombs, and, finally 5) the
quality of the material, as well as the presence of all creatures who had accompanied the dead
in the grave (themselves being human beings, on one side, and animals on the other
side, when the deceased was a sovereign who had been accompanied, in death, by all of those
who had been sacrificed during a ceremony which was, generally, an holocaust).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Note 1: we may note, at this stage, that the configuration of the roofs rectangular, circular, sloping,
conical, or any other form - depended on things like the profile of the terrain, the temperature during
the year, and - last but not least - the climate (in this respect, the peaked roofs had been more adapted,
since the very beginning, to the mountain's regions, than to every other region - because in the
mountain's regions, snowfalls and frequent rainfalls are weighing on the roof of the
houses; conversely, in the low rainfall regions, men had build up, since the very beginning, houses
with flat roofs, and they had equipped them with ponds in order to capture the (rare) rain from the
sky.
The same remarks are available as far as wells and tanks are concerned, which had been built next to
residences of the men and their herd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Now, it is by observing the presence or absence of such practices, that scholars have
differentiated the IE tribes from the Semitic ones.
****
- 19 -
To come back to the evolution of humanity over time, it is obvious, in view of archaeologists,
that that one has experienced a great variety of different cultures, since the prehistoric times.
But this perception is correct only because these specialists have carefully studied the events
which have been predominant, in the development of humanity, in material area, during
its own history, and because they have established nomenclatures on that basis.
But if, however, we take some distance, with regards to these events, we may conclude that
two events, only, have completely changed the way of life of humanity, since the antiquity
time, the first one being the passage of a society composed of collectors hunters, or hunters
collectors, to a society composed of farmers; and the second one being the industrial
revolution which has occurred, in England, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and
which had been preceded by a (in french) Sicle des Lumires during which philosophers
and scientists of that time had developed science and technology both in agriculture
and industry (at first, in the textile area, and later on, in the transport area, with railway and
shipping engines which will be working, from now on, with the steam energy).
And because the Industrial Revolution had happened in Great Britain, this country will
dominate the rest of the world, by enlarging its power to the five continents of the earth
planet, and by becoming, consequently, the centre of the first empire in modern times.
****
To sum up, it is by studying the way people have produced, in History (specifically in the
textile area and all other areas which have been using new engines technologies and material
components), and the way they have transported themselves (in modern times with help
of new steaming engines) that we may measure the progression of humanity, as far as its
material aspect is concerned, since the antiquity time.
And by doing so, we may conclude that the Industrial Revolution (which had begun, in
England, two centuries ago), had completely changed the way of live of human
beings, compared to more antique times.
Now, let us be clear about it: if our ancestors of Cro-Magnon and of Neanderthal were
transporting themselves by foot, the Homo Sapien, by domesticating, over time, horses,
reindeers and camels, will move faster than his ancestor, on the earth's planet.
And after having manufactured rafts, boats and ships, he will use the water surfaces (oceans,
seas, lakes, rivers, etc.) to transport himself rapidly, from one place to another.
And he will also domesticate animals like donkeys, mules, or onagres, in order to transport
goods from one place to another, and specifically over mountain passes where other animals
- 20 than those mentioned above, won't put their hooves because of their very steep - and
dangerous ones, as well, for this very reason - paths.
****
Anyway, if men of antiquity time had improved their habitat by creating most solid materials,
humanity will have to wait - as we know now - for the Industrial Revolution, in England, and
its steaming engines (with their applications in textile industry, as well as in the transport by
railway and by road), to see production increasing significantly, both in agricultural and
industrial areas, and, furthermore, in the transport area - at first, with streaming engines, and,
then, with innovations in the automobile and aircraft areas, and, later on, by developing
new energies (gas, oil, electricity, and, finally, solar energy - all of them
becoming the substitutes of the first stream energy, in order to impulse, as raw energy
products, engine motors).
When we look at progresses made by men in these different areas, since the late eighteenth
century and the early nineteenth century belonging to the modern times, we realize that
innovations that men had accomplished, so far, since the invention of agriculture in neolithic
time, represent little.
The proof remains in the fact that in time of King Louis XIV, men were not transporting
themselves faster than the Turkish-Mongolians when the latter were riding their horses
throughout the Mongolian steppes, four thousand years ago.
And if men have modified, over time, their funeral rites, during the six thousand years, and
more, which had been preceding, in History, the birth and coming up of the three major
monotheistic religions which we know now, this argument is not relevant to explain why and
how men had changed, overtime, their way of life, as far as material elements are concerned.
Men have probably changed their views, about world or cosmos, by doing so, but to conclude,
from that point, that they had completely changed their way of life, there is a margin.
Ditto about the size of the worlds population : if, by the time of their full development, cities
like Erek/Uruk, in Sumer, and, later on, like Babylon, Alexandria or Rome, had 100'000
inhabitants, and more, remaining inside their walls, it does not mean that all cities of that time
had this size ; and it does not mean, too, that countries of that time had the same density of
population, over a given space, compared to the actual ones.
****
So, we can not compare the modern period with an antique period which will really change as we have said here above - only by the time of implementation of the agricultural and
industrial revolutions, in England, during the second half of the eighteenth century AD.
- 21 -
As for the Marxist theory which has classified society, during its historical evolution, by
focusing on the antique model, on the Asian model, on the medium-alt model (based, in this
case, on serfdom) and, finally, on the modern model (this one lying upon capitalism), if it
helps us understand that different social regimes have prevailed, in History, we have to
understand, too, that only two great periods have accompanied the development of the human
race, since the invention of the plow drawn by oxen or by zebus: the time before the
industrial revolution on one hand, and the time after the industrial revolution on the other
hand.
****
By writing these sentences, we do not want to under-estimate what our ancestors of antiquity
time had done, to make themselves honourable, in history of civilizations.
For example, Phoenicians had already come around Africa, with their boats, by the ninth
century BC - which relegates, once we do see at things retrospectively, Portugueses in a role
of second fiddle, in this area.
Ditto about the builders of pyramids of Giza : these builders possessed a knowledge so great,
that some modern builders seem to be analphabets, with their own science, compared to
engineers of that time.
But again, despite all discoveries our ancestors of that time had made, to merit of History,
these discoveries did not go further - if we take, for example, the transport area - than relying
on winds, as far as rowing and sailing boats were concerned, and relying on domesticated
animals (like horses or camels) as far as transportation inside terrestrial areas was concerned.
Indeed, Icarus may have tried to be a bird by flying, like them, he had succeeded, in doing it,
only during the time he had spent before crashing on the floor. That means that the planet
embodied by him, which was Mercury, had made its looping inside the dense part of the
Milky Way remaining in and next to the Taurus and Gemini constellation, after having flied,
like a bird, by overpassing the totality of the Aries constellation and the beginning of the
Taurus constellation (all of that proving that the adventures of Icarus belonged to sabeism, as
far as religion and mythology of that time were concerned).
****
And if the invention of writing (and consequently, the culture development) is to put to
credit of our ancestors of antiquity time, humanity will have to wait until modern times, in
other words it will have to wait until the democratization of the political institutions, as well
as the democratization of instruction, to take a full advantage in this area.
- 22 As for ideology which had prevailed in the religious area, during ancient times, insofar as it
had been referring to sabeism, it means that men of that time had given more importance
(religiously speaking) to the stars and to the planets (and, particularly, to the sun and to the
moon) than it is the case today.
By the way, humanity has given up to pay attention, during the night, to the stars moving in
the sky, since the invention of electric light by Edison.
****
In political area, men have not been waiting to live in modern times, to create royalties and
empires.
That means that inequality, inside humanity, already existed in antiquity time.
But again, if, according to some experts, a) the Neolithic society was more egalitarian than
that belonging to the Bronze Age, and b) the latter was more egalitarian than that belonging to
the Iron Age, it means that: a) wealth produced by men of Iron Age was greater than that
produced by men of Bronze age, and b) wealth produced by men of Bronze Age was greater
than that produced by men of Neolithic age.
We may ask why? Response : because of this : the more men have to fight against the Nature
to survive, the less time they have - and the less resources they have, too - to dedicate
themselves to the war they make each other.
****
But it also means that the invention of agriculture had made possible the existence of a first
hierarchy, in human societies. And this invention had made possible, as well, the development
of the cities, themselves benefitting from the trade expansion and from the better labour
division on one side, and from the multiplication of businesses which had accompanied this
movement, on the other side, to grow further.
These cities, some of them had become so rich (if we were including the river and the
shipping ports, in the list), by disposing of a monopoly, given the profile of the region, in
terms of routes and trails used by caravans belonging to these merchants who had come from
everywhere, to make money in these cities.
We may add that their resource was, sometimes, robbed by these nomads who had settled
down next to the cities, with family and herds.
These cities had protected themselves by erecting walls which purpose was to prevent them to
be regularly robbed by these nomads of whom some had become, by necessity, brigands who
- 23 were living with the resource taken during the raids they had committed against the merchants
or against the cities themselves, rather than to live with the resource given by their livestock.
****
By the way, all warring chiefdoms had begun on this manner, in History.
With, consequently, the presence, in that History, of a strong and constant struggle between
different communities (sedentary peoples in one case, and nomad peoples in the other) to
control the routes devoted to trade, and the trade itself which was flourishing in the cities.
But it also means that each city had a governor to rule over it, himself, governor, being a
prince when his city had become the capital of the city-state he was controlling with his
soldiery and his administration.
And inside the city-state, power will be transmitted, over time, from father to son, inside the
royal family.
Furthermore, the city of residence of the prince will become, sometimes, the capital of an
empire; more precisely, on every time himself, prince, will submit other cities-states (which
was the case, for example, of Babylon, when the prince of the City - his name was
Hammurabi - had submitted the princes of the other cities-states implemented in
Mesopotamia, with his own army).
****
Coming back (after this parenthesis in order to show how peoples of that time was living), to
those who had been living in the Oxus Basin, and had created, there, an important civilization,
the fact that these peoples had increased, in size - themselves and their livestock - during the
period of prosperity that had accompanied the second half of the third millennium BC, this
fact will force them (due to scarcity of the pastures) to divide in two groups, one of them
remaining in place, and the other moving to elsewhere.
The second group, by moving over longer distances, had returned to nomadism.
Before the separation, all inhabitants of the region were shepherds who were living like semi
sedentary peoples, or semi nomad peoples, by remaining one part of the year in the city,
and the rest of the year outside of it, in camps which were expanding - if we look large by
including different tribes - from the chain of Ural in the west, to the Yenisei river and the
chain of Altai, in the east, and to the BMAC region locating in the southern part of actual
Kazakhstan.
And by moving towards the west, at the end of the second millennium BC, these IE peoples
had founded, once having settled down during the first millennium, chiefdoms, by
- 24 dominating, with their temperament of warriors who had come very efficient, on the
battlefield, since they were riding the horses of the steppe, peoples who, although they were
more advanced, than them, in terms of civilization, were producers of wealth, rather than
peoples with a warrior temperament.
And because we were in Iron Age, warriors, when belonging to the nomadic chiefdoms, were
using iron weapons, precisely (in addition to bows and arrows), as well as their small and very
fast horses, to carry out their raids against sedentary peoples.
****
During the precedent age - that means during the Bronze Age -, tribes remaining along the
Silk Road (and which/who had been classified, according to their way of life, in the
Andronovo culture, by archaeologists), by moving southwards, during their own migration,
had caused the displacement, as well as the separation, of the population of the BMAC.
In this population, some peoples, by conveying away towards India, and the others, by
conveying away towards Iran and Kurdistan, had returned to nomadism, after having been
sedentary or semi sedentary peoples in the BMAC, and this in a context which was
characterized by less rainfalls and an increasing drought over the whole territory of Western
Asia.
And the movements we have just talked about, from IE peoples, instead of having taken place
at the end of the first millennium BC, had taken place, either at the end of the third
millennium BC, or at the beginning of the second one, with IE peoples who had settled down
both in India, in Iran and in Kurdistan, during the first half of the second millennium BC.
And it is at that very moment, too, that the Harappa civilization had come to end.
But all of this proves that that civilization, instead of having come to end because of the
Aryan conquest, had ended for complete different reasons.
As for those scholars who have referred to the Sacred Scriptures (in that case, the latter were
part of the Avesta and of the Rig Veda) to justify the Aryan invasion, they have been, in my
view, misguided.
(To find out why they have been misguided, readers of the present article are invited to read
the volume 10 of the book I have written on sabeism, which deals extensively with this topic).
Claude Gtaz
- 25 (End of the first part of that article)

Indo-Europeans (Part 1)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indo-Europeans (Part 1)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-1-

Indo-Europeans (part one)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Indo-European is a term that remains obscure, as for its content.

The Mede kingdom

- 25 (End of the first part of that article)

You might also like