Bronze Age and Pre-Historic /lit/ - best be brushing up on your sanskrit edition

[Anonymous No.16557840]

Any good books for fellows interested in the Proto Indo-Europeans and their bronze age offshoots (I really like Minoans desu)

[Anonymous No.16557868]

>>16557840
>tfw no steppes gf

[Anonymous No.16557888]

>>16557840
OP here, here are some other introductory reads, I'm going through Campbell's book for a class.
Here's a quick run down for those of you who don't know about the PIE:
https://youtu.be/SqK7XXvfiXs

[Anonymous No.16558678]

>>16557840
>>16557888
Thanks, really appreciate the chart. Any more recs on PIE Religion and Mythology?

Also some of my favorite presentations on the subject:

A bit big, but pretty entertaining and genious Linguistic presentation and introduction
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAPQEx3tgDQ
Cool derpy presentation of Proto-Indoeuropean Culture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I
Bit of an overview, methods and example of their predictive power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngnh76-mxsU
Divine twins in Indo-European Myth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pPW7NofvH0

[Anonymous No.16558769]

>>16558678
Sorry that's all I have, but there's this interesting series called Archaeology and Language that deals with the kind of methodology people use when studying the PIEs. Can't speak to how good it is, but we use it in my historical linguistics class.

[Anonymous No.16559670]

bump

[Anonymous No.16561180]

Which books would you recommend to someone completely new to this?

[Anonymous No.16562308]

>>16561180
If you don't have a background in archaeology or linguistics, definitely get some beginner textbooks. The problem with prehistoric peoples is that their ethnographic material is sparse, and require some extra theoretical leg work. If you just want to start with bronze age stuff, there are plenty of art history books that can double as an archaeological background.

[Anonymous No.16562389]

>>16557840
i loved that book and i read it 2 times (a very rare thing for me). but it was written before the genetical studies of the last 10 years, which prove that the indoeuropean speaking people (all of them, in all tombs) of south europe (balkans and italy) after 2000BC were racially identical to modern day south europeans, that is, pelasgians (herder and hugo were incredibly right). so you have 1) a pure indoeuropean culture which is that of north europe and royal scythia 2) a probably pure indoeuropean culture that is the vedic one, 3) and a surely not indoeuropean culture which is that of the ancient greeks.

[Anonymous No.16562504]

>>16562389
I had hear that the book was outdated in some regards. I've never studied bioanthropology lmao, so I just like it for the dual archaeology / linguistic approach. Thanks for the run down anon!

[Anonymous No.16562539]

>>16562504
that book is still an excellent read. but the idea of reconstructing an originary people (which did exist) from the few comparative "traces" in completely different cultures is ruinous. today the trend is studying the original indoeuropeans only through archeology and archeogenetics.

[Anonymous No.16562587]

>>16562539
>reconstructing an originary people (which did exist)
Maybe you can help me out with this one. In all of my linguistics classes, they beat down that there is no originating language in our heads (which is justifiable since the field has been tripping over it for the past few centuries). However, my knowledge of genetics lacking, why should we assume that there can ever be such a thing as an originating people? By the same logic the linguists use, why does the field of biology continue to theorize about origination when linguistics (its forerunner) has given it up? Please enlighten me, I'm too scared to ask my professors and no grad student has given me a straight answer beyond "muh genes".
t. sophomore anth undergrad

[Anonymous No.16562672]

>>16562587
it's very simple actually. we can analyze ancient genomes and cluster them in specific groups. there is an almost one-to-one correspondence between genetic clusters and archeological cultures, even if we don't know their language before the historical age (= written documents). we know for sure that the bell beaker culture expanded all over europe in 3000-2500BCE, by the same period kurgan burials appeared and extesive traces of the horse and a particular kind of wheel (the spoked one, which was not unknown e.g. in egypt though). same happened in india by the same period. this set of peoples were probably the originary indoeuropean speakers, whose genetics varied from scottish-like dna to mordvin-like dna. though the dna of bronze age balkans overlaps with that of ithe modern day balkanians. the heirs of these kurgan cultures later showed some similarities in mythology and ritual practises. some rare clues can be found in the latins and the greeks too.
point is, mallory's book is not immune to popular fiction such as dumezil's re-creation of the indoeuropean as a mix of all ancient indoeuropean-speaking cultures.

[Anonymous No.16562681]

>>16557840
I got this and read 50 pages and it was quite possibly the most boring thing I've ever read. And I'm an ancient history guy.

[Anonymous No.16562699]

>>16562587
you can dig up people (if they're not native american), but you can't dig up languages with no writing
t. anth grad student (i know sad)

[Anonymous No.16562840]

>>16562672
>>16562699
That doesn’t really answer his question though. If the only difference between the two is that biologists are able to dig up physical evidence and linguists are not then it stands to reason there actually was an originating language.

[Anonymous No.16562877]

Bros... I feel the steppes calling...

[Anonymous No.16562901]

>>16562840
The only difference is that animal communication exists. So it's taken that language diversity has always existed so long as there has been intelligent life. But again, by that same logic, why do we need to believe that there was a single geographical location at which all of humanity originated. If most early civilizations arose close to the same time, despite being in completely different hemispheres, biomes, and geographies, then why couldn't early humans have popped up all around the world.
t. anon who asked the question and still feels like it's unanswered
>>16562877
>tfw no steppes gf

[Anonymous No.16562957]

I remember one night I was really high on psychedelics and I watched to a video where someone recited the "King and the God" in reconstructed PIE. Obviously there were flaws in the reconstruction and we probably aren't for sure what those flaws are, but the video spoke to me (pun not intended). It sounded completely alien but not in the way arabic or chinese does. It really gets my noggin joggin for some reason.

[Anonymous No.16562996]

>>16562504
>>16562539
I watched a presentation of J.P Mallory on his latest work, "The origins of the Irish", and he's well integrated on some of the latest finds in archaeogenetics since 2018.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdLUcBbYZqU

I think the input coming from the genetic field has been a major innovating force, and an arbitrating tool for a number of questions still left unanswered by old scholarship. But the very start of the PIE field itself, and much of its foundation has its basis on the linguistic approach, and the amount of things that have been confidently reconstructed from the daughter languages and cultures is nothing short of amazing. The comparative approach and other linguistic methods are powerful tools to reverse engineer parent cultures. So is Genetics a powerful allied tool in the field nowdays, but unfortunately we can't tell what language certain ancient people spoke based solely on that. Or what Gods they worshipped (though archaeology might), or what concepts were central to their cultures based on the surviving traces of the daughter languages.

The tendency of the field is not to become exclusional, but to become increasingly more multi-disciplinar, with increasingly more interconnection of the linguistic, historical, archaeological and archaeogenetic fields. What one field may fall short of telling us, another can complement its drawbacks, and vice versa, so in the end we can have a more complete and precise narrative.

[Anonymous No.16563006]

>>16557840
>(I really like Minoans desu)
that's just reading historians fanfic. there's no evidence for anything, they just make up retarded shit. it's worse than fantasy

[Anonymous No.16563047]

>>16562389
>and a surely not indoeuropean culture which is that of the ancient greeks.
Bullshit, show evidence

[Anonymous No.16563069]

>>16562957
It's one of Xdnaf's videos.

[Anonymous No.16563087]

>>16563006
Yeah when you go that far its really hard to know what is real and what isnt, theres far too much conjecture. I have been to Crete and visited a lot of the ruins, including those of Knossos and its sad how much of it was reconstructed from what the archeologists/historians thought it should look like rather than what it actually did look like.

[Anonymous No.16563110]

>>16563087
It's even worse that most historians are autistic bugmen who have no understanding of culture and no hope to ever understand anything yet they try to impose their interpretations over everything

[Anonymous No.16563112]

>>16557840
Indo-European Studies

Historical Linguistics: An Introduction by Lyle Campbell (The MIT Press; 1999).
The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World by Douglas Q. Adams (Oxford University Press; 2005).
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World by David Anthony (Princeton University Press; 2007).
The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe: Selected Articles from 1952 to 1993 by Marija Gimbutas (Institute for the Study of Man; 1997).
In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth by J. P. Mallory (Thames & Hudson; 1989).
Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction by Benjamin W. Fortson, IV (Wiley-Blackwell; 2004)

[Anonymous No.16563167]

>>16563110
I wouldnt go that far, but its mostly a problem of historians focusing too much on what interests them specifically, so you have some historians paying too much attention to "realpolitks" and assuming that the ancient man was essentially the same as us and focused only on money and anything spiritual was a scam to get more money and so on, while you have other historians that make it all about spirituality and disregard the day-to-day life. To me its just practically impossible to try and understand such an ancient culture and any interpretation is bound to be limited and likely wrong. I wouldve prefered to go to the sites and see just the crumbled rocks but at least see "real" ruins rather than half rebuilt buildings based on what they thought it wouldve looked like.

[Anonymous No.16563178]

>>16563167
For a reference on what i mean by this

>Moreover, the archaeological evidence indicated that multiple stories had existed at Knossos. Arthur determined on a bold new plan: he would "reconstitute" as much of the palace as was justified by the evidence. Reinforced concrete – concrete poured around steel strengthening members – had been used satisfactorily for the Villa Ariadne. Now Arthur would provide features he was certain had existed but were not attested by any surviving structures: ceilings, upper floors, roofs, stairways. He wished as much as possible to create a facsimile of the palace as it actually had been, as far as he could discern from the evidence. This decision was perhaps the most heavily criticised in later times. The critics assert that he created a modernist building according to the standards of the day, not according to ancient concepts. The truth of the criticism cannot be ascertained, as the ancient standards did not survive, except the ones used by Evans.

>Doll did not return in 1922. He had elected to join his father's architectural firm, which he directed after his father's death for the rest of his life. In 1922 Piet de Jong, an English architect (of Dutch name) was hired to supervise the reconstitution. De Jong's qualifications were highly appropriate. He had done archaeological drawings and paintings for Alan Wace, Director of the British School at Athens, 1914-1923. He had involved himself in the Reconstruction Service for rebuilding Greece and the Balkans after the war. His first task at Knossos was to reconstruct the Stepped Portico. He had more work than he could do from then on. In 1926 Fyfe returned for a month to rebuild the South Propylaeum.

[Anonymous No.16563203]

I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to this subject. Is there any significant difference between the terms "Aryan" and "Proto Indo-European," or is the latter just a more politically correct version of the former?

[Anonymous No.16563212]

>>16563203
Many use them interchangeably but I believe Aryan specifically refers to the IE peoples of Iran. I could be wrong though.

[Anonymous No.16563247]

>>16562996
Thanks I'll watch it later.

>>16557888
>>16558678
>>16557840
>>16562308
Thanks for book recs

[Anonymous No.16563257]

>>16563203
It's pretty much what you think. Old scholarship used to use the term "Aryan", nowdays it's more correct to refer to these people and their culture as "Proto-Indo-European", short PIE.

[Anonymous No.16563330]

>>16563167
>>16563178
Yeah you're probably right it just pisses me off. They did the same for the archeological evidence for the Iliad

[Anonymous No.16563420]

Glad to see this, I've been interested in this topic but its hard to find where to start / what material is worth looking into.

[Anonymous No.16563509]

good thread

[Anonymous No.16563895]

>>16563203
>indo-aryan
It's just the indic language family. Nothing politically incorrect about it unless you're a crazy white person who likes appropriating pajeet sovl.

[Anonymous No.16563903]

Good documentaries?

[Anonymous No.16564157]

>>16557888
>>16558678
I'm so fucking happy that after 1.5 years or so, my Indo-European chart is still making its way through this board

[Anonymous No.16564193]

>>16564157
Thanks for your contribution anon, very much appreciated!

[Anonymous No.16564238]

>>16564157
fucking bless you anon

[Anonymous No.16564289]

>>16564157
Thanks a lot anon.

Also, very interesting article relevant to the topic, and another testament to the power of the multi-disciplinar approach of archaeology with the field of old literature and linguistics.

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/102-1309/features/1205-timber-grave-culture-krasnosamarskoe-bronze-age

[Anonymous No.16564319]

>>16562308
The book of the dead is not from the bronze age

[Anonymous No.16564379]

>>16564289
>wtf olaf, why didn't you bring spare shirts, it's freezing out here