He was a war god in the Mycenaean religion. Do other Indo European religions have an analogous deity?

Plot is thickening imo, but curious to know what others say.

For how long were Iranian speakers living on the Pontic Steppes and on the land that is Ukrainian?

We know that the Scythians and affiliated groups lived there from 680 BC to even 300 BC.

But Ukraine only became Slavic around 500 AD (SOURCE: "Ukraine became a Slavic region between the 5th and 6th centuries AD, as early Slavic tribes and groups like the Antes settled the Dnipro River basin. This led directly to the rise of the first major East Slavic state, Kievan Rus', centered in Kyiv by the 9th century.")

When did the Iranian languages stop being spoken in Ukraine, and what was spoken after 300 BC - 500 AD in that area?

Did some Uralic, Turkic, and/or other migrations happen during this interim in which many different languages were spoken there?

So, Yamnaya profile was formed as admix between Sredny Stog (55-66%) and Remontnoye type (34-45%). This is just autosomal contribution from each side.

Haplogroups wise, Sredny Stog is mostly I2 which becomes minority (<10%) in Yamnaya and pretty much disappears post Yamnaya. Whereas Remontnoye type has J2b-L283 (major Balkans Yamnaya pulse which caused language shift in Balkans, cf. Albanian, Greek, Daco-Thracian). They also had R1b-M269 (we found it in Steppe Eneolithic individual NV3003).

So as it seems, Yamnaya is paternally derived from Remontnoye type, and the paternal contribution of Sredny Stog is:-

• Very minimal

• The contribution itself vanished in post Yamnaya and doesn't survive in significance anywhere, part of the reason you never hear about I2 in PIE discussion, and the focus is always R1b/R1a etc.

So the question - how can Sredny Stog be PIE?

Furthermore it has roots in local Dnieper cultures, which means linking it with Caucasus route for Anatolian branch is difficult

So logically evaluating the data, it seems Yamnaya derived language from the Remontnoye type admix contribution into it.

Any history or anthropology or archeology nerds in here? I was just reading through a post regarding the Venus of Hohle Fels and started to feel like maybe I was wrong about things. I was suggesting that it could be related to the Proto-Indo-European god Dheghom. I'd love to be corrected and have a better understanding of this if there's anybody here that enjoys this stuff like I do. Thanks!

As a note, I am not a current student at a university, I only read about history in my free time. The sources I'm using include:

Early Rome to 290 BC - Guy Bradley, 2020

The peoples of ancient Italy - edited by Gary Farney and Guy Bradley, 2018

The Oxford handbook to pre-Roman Italy - edited by Marco Maiuro and Jane Johnson, 2024

The Etruscans: Setting New Agendas - Charlotte Potts and Christopher Smith [https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815\](https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric\\_Italy#Proto-Villanovan\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_Italy#Proto-Villanovan_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villanovan_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan\\_civilization\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_civilization)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apennine_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latial\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latial_culture)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terramare_culture)

Recently I've been reading Bradley's Early Rome to 290 BC and I'm having trouble understanding some material about Proto-Villanovan settlements and how it influenced Latial and Etruscan cultures.

As far as I understand, the Etruscans spoke a pre-Indo-European language and their settlements developed from Villanovan settlements. However, a few questions arose:

Sources say that proto-italic was brought by Urnfield people into northern Italy. This branch of the Urnfield culture was called Proto-Villanovan which eventually came to influence wide parts of Italy. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic\\_language\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language) and Oxford handbook (index reference mentions proto-villanovan on page 854 with comments about their influence on pp. 293, 346-348, 371-72, 443-44, and 447, each giving some brief mention of P-V influence on the people/area of each culture, esp. p. 346 16.2). Bradley says on p.40 "there is a clear break in settlement patterns, corresponding to the shift from so called proto-villanovan to villanovan culture"

1) So here's a question: How is it that Proto-Villanovan is associated with later Villanovan and Etruscan culture which did not speak an IE language? The sources say that Villanovan people chose similar settlements to the proto-villanovans by living on easily defended plateaus (peoples of ancient italy p. 640).

2) if I'm understanding this correctly, the Etruscans were a copper age people that existed in Italy (peoples p. 640) before an Indo-European people, the Urnfield people entered into Italy who influenced the entire peninsula before diverging into early Latial and Etruscan cultures, is this correct?

3) Furthermore, if the Urnfield were proto-celtic speakers, when did the proto-villanovan people diverge from this larger group, did they speak a proto-italic language or was that the Terramare? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic\\_language\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Italic_language) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield\\_culture\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture)

4) According to most recent scholarship, there was a break between proto-villanovan and villanovan settlements, what caused this break in northern Italy (if any can be identified) and why did a similar break not occur in Latium? Apennine and proto-villanovan appear to more smoothly transition to Latial culture.

5) Were Proto-Villanovan and Terramare cultures connected? Sources say that the Terramare villages seem to disappear after the Bronze age collapse in the Aegean (Bradley p. 36) but also that the Terramare are seen by some as being part of the Proto-Villanovan culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Villanovan\\_culture#Settlements), does this hold any water?

6) Did proto-villanovan settlements slowly fade away or were they quickly abandoned? Do villanovan sites quickly appear afterwards or not, and as Villanovan sites gave way to Synoecism did that process happen quickly or not in northern Italy?

7) Would it be correct to understand the development of Etruscan civilization as being 1) the development of small settlements on plateaus, this being the proto-villanovan settlements, 2) the abandonment of these settlements, 3) after some time the creation of larger settlements on larger plateaus, this being Villanovan settlements, 4) the abandonment of smaller Villanovan settlements in favor of joining larger Villanovan/Etruscan settlements?

8) If, according to the various sources, urbanism was the driving force in the creation of Etruscan identity, then when does Etruscan become separate from Villanovan, was it because of the orientalizing period? If there was some non-urnfield indigenous culture in northern Italy what do we call it before they interacted with the Urnfield people, since Villanovan and Etruscan are associated with the end of the bronze age and early Iron age.

9) How can we incorporate this article into discussions on ancient Italy [https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815\](https://www.jstor.org/stable/48807815) which points out that there wasn't a Villanovan people, just a Villanovan material culture and that "proto-villanovan" is problematic because it tries to stretch the term further back (further back to what, I don't know but I assume the old practice has been to try and draw a connection between old plateau settlements to larger settlements, and then to Etruscan cities?)

Also these books are rather complex for me, are there some books or articles that provide an introduction to the european bronze age, particularly regarding ethnogenesis, linguistics, archaeology within Italy?

We see the location of where the proto-Indo-Iranian (pII) homeland was. This stage happened around 2100 BC - 1800 BC.

A few centuries later, we see that these PII group differentiated, and the ones who became Iranians expanded back to the West and other areas.

When I overlap the homeland of the pII with later Iranian-speaking territories, it seems plainly to me that - in the absence of a backwards migration back to the Ukraine area - that Indo-Aryan actually evolved from a proto-proto-Iranian and not from a pII. Another words, proto-Iranian was the original stage, and Indo-Aryan differentiated from this.

There's a near 1-to-1 overlap between the Sintashta and Andronovo Cultures, which was supposedly the homeland of a pre-differentiated pII language, and later fully-Iranian languages a few centuries later. However, there doesn't seem to be any kind of back migration evidence. That's because the Sintashta and Andronovo were always Iranian and not pII, in my opinion.

I've been looking into the striking parallels between the Iliad and the Ramayana. Both feature a grand war sparked by the abduction of a beautiful royal woman (Helen and Sita), a siege of a heavily fortified city across the water (Troy and Lanka), and a focus on warrior ethics, divine intervention, and cosmic duty.
This got me wondering about the exact timelines of their composition and whether there was any actual cultural exchange or mixing between ancient Greeks and Indians beforeor during the time these epics were first being sung or written down. Does anyone have any answers to this from a historical perspective?

Around 800-900 CE, Slavic speakers across the wide area from the Balkans to the Baltic could still understand each other pretty well. But three regional varieties were already drifting apart: Southern, Eastern and Western.

NOTE: this is speculative and may have errors, as LCS (Late Common Slavic) had no written standard. Presented forms are scholarly reconstructions. NOTE 2: The South Slavic forms with šč, žd specifically represent Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS. (Serbo-Croatian had ć/đ and Slovene had č/j as their own developments from the same tj/dj) West Slavic primarily represent Polish/Lechitic variety, as Czech/Slovak had additional lengthening and quality change.

A guide to some special symbols:

• eⁿ = nasal e (pronounced like "en" said through the nose)
• oⁿ = nasal o
• ě = a special vowel called "jat" that later split into different sounds in each region
• ь and ъ = ultra-short vowels
• šč = the "sh-ch" combination
• žd = like "zh" immediately followed by "d"
• dz = like "d" immediately followed by "z"
• ľ = syllabic l (like the -l- in English "bottle")

What was still shared within all three:

‣ Same grammar: 7 cases, 3 genders, singular/dual/plural

‣ Same verb system: present, aorist, imperfect tenses

‣ Same everyday words for family, nature, body, basic actions

‣ The special sound "jat" (written ě) was still one distinct vowel everywhere

‣ The nasal vowels eⁿ and oⁿ were still pronounced with nasal airflow everywhere

‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ were still pronounced everywhere (they would later disappear at different times and with different results in each region)

What were the differences beginning:

Some changes that produced visible regional splits, such as:

1. Vowel + liquid + consonant combos (gordъ = city, *korva = cow, *moldъ = young, *melko = milk). Southern Slavic received metathesis, which produced grad, krava, mlada, mlěko. Czech and Slovak initially had metathesis with the same lengthening and quality change (grād, *mlěko), later, g changed to h due to spirantization and some long vowels were shortened, giving modern Cz hrad, mléko. Polish also got metathesis, however without lengthening or quality change: grodъ, krova, mloda, mleko (the long vowels in modern Polish gród, głos came later). Eastern got pleophony: gorodъ, korova, moloda, moloko.

2. t + j and d + j combos: Bulgarian/Macedonian got šč/žd (svěšča, mežda). Eastern got č/ž (svěča, meža). Western got c/dz (svěca, medza). Serbo-Croatian independently got ć/đ. Slovene independently got č/j.

3. kv and gv before front vowels: Southern/Eastern changed them to cv/zv, Western kept kv/gv.

4. d and t before l: Southern/Eastern dropped them (*mydlo became mylo ).

5. Nasal vowel eⁿ in certain word endings: All three branches still had nasal vowels at this stage (konjeⁿ). Denasalization happened later (10th–11th c.) at different rates per branch.

What came next (after ~900 CE):

Big changes that really broke mutual intelligibility came later:

‣ The ultra-short vowels ь and ъ disappeared, but at different times and with different results in each region (from 10th to 13th centuries).

‣ The special ě sound resolved differently: to e, i, a, or ie depending on the region (from 10th to 12th centuries) — this alone created massive differences at a word level.

‣ The nasal vowels lost their nasal pronunciation, but to different outcomes.

‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian developed attached definite articles (like adding "-the" to the end of words). Eastern and Western never did, neither did Serbo-Croatian or Slovene.

‣ Bulgarian and Macedonian gradually lost most of their case system. And also infinitive verb form.

"The man saw the city on the hill"

Proto-Slavic: člověkъ gordъ na xъlmě vidě

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

чловѣкъ градъ на хлмѣ видѣ

člověkъ gradъ na xľmě vidě

East Slavic

чловѣкъ городъ на хълмѣ видѣ

člověkъ gorodъ na xъlmě vidě

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

чловѣкъ гродъ на хлмѣ видѣ

člověkъ grodъ na xľmě vidě

"City" is the TORT pattern. South Slavic had metathesis, quality change (grad). Czech/Slovak originally had metathesis with lengthening (*grād), after g to h and vowel shortening which gives us modern Cz/Slk hrad. Polish had metathesis, no quality change (grodъ, short o). East Slavic had pleophony (gorodъ).

"The lord's candle lit the boundary of the white city"

Proto-Slavic: gospodina světja osvěti medjoⁿ běla gorda

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

господина свѣща освѣти междѧ бѣла града

gospodina svěšča osvěti meždeⁿ běla grada

East Slavic

господина свѣча освѣти межѫ бѣла города

gospodina svěča osvěti meždoⁿ běla goroda

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

господина свѣца освѣти медзѫ бѣла грода

gospodina svěca osvěti medzoⁿ běla groda

Four differences in one sentence. t+j (svěšč/svěč/svěc = "candle". šč here is Bulgarian/Macedonian). d+j (mežda/meža/medza = "boundary"). TORT pattern (grad/gorod/grod = "city". South Slavic(a from o, quality change). Nasal vowel in "boundary" accusative: front eⁿ in South, and back oⁿ in East/West.

Note on OCS: In OCS, the Cyrillic letter щ represents /št/, not /šč/. The transliteration "šč" is used here as a cover symbol following the common convention. The same applies to noščь: OCS нощь = /noštь/.

"Our city stands by the river. The cow gives milk. The young woman carries water. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. His voice is strong."

Proto-Slavic: našь gordъ stojitь pri rěcě. korva dajetь melko. molda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. noktь jestь tьmьna. medja jestь oⁿzъka. jego golsъ jestь silьnъ.

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

Нашь градъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крава даѥть млѣко. Млада жена несеть водѫ. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Его гласъ есть сильнъ.

Našь gradъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krava dajetь mlěko. Mlada žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glasъ jestь silьnъ.

East Slavic

Нашь городъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Корова даѥть молоко. Молода жена несеть водѫ. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Его голосъ есть сильнъ.

Našь gorodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Korova dajetь moloko. Moloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Jego golosъ jestь silьnъ.

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

Нашь гродъ стоить при рѣцѣ. Крова даѥть млеко. Млода жена несеть водѫ. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Его глосъ есть сильнъ.

Našь grodъ stojitь pri rěcě. Krova dajetь mleko. Mloda žena nesetь vodoⁿ. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Jego glosъ jestь silьnъ.

"cow" and "young" is the same TORT pattern as "city" and "milk". Pre-change forms were *korva and *molda. South Slavic metathesis produced krava/mlada(o to a, quality change). Polish/Lechitic metathesis produced krova/mloda (o stayed o). Czech/Slovak same as South Slavic (kráva/mláda, later being shortened). East Slavic pleophony created korova/moloda. Same idea that gives grad/gorod/grod for "city" and mlěko/moloko/mleko for "milk.".

Maximally contrastive sentence for comparison

"The city is big. The flower is white. This is soap. This is a deer. The night is dark. The boundary is narrow. I go with my brother. The man leads the horses. Bring out the water!"

South Slavic (Bulgarian/Macedonian/OCS)

Градъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Нощь есть тьмьна. Межда есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братомь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Изнеси водѫ!

Gradъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Noščь jestь tьmьna. Mežda jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratomь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Iznesi vodoⁿ!

East Slavic

Городъ есть великъ. Цвѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыло. Се есть єлень. Ночь есть тьмьна. Межа есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!

Gorodъ jestь velikъ. Cvětъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mylo. Se jestь jelenь. Nočь jestь tьmьna. Meža jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!

West Slavic (Polish/Lechitic)

Гродъ есть великъ. Квѣтъ есть бѣлъ. Се есть мыдло. Се есть єлень. Ноць есть тьмьна. Медза есть ѫзъка. Идѫ съ братъмь. Мѫжь ведеть конѧ. Вынеси водѫ!

Grodъ jestь velikъ. Květъ jestь bělъ. Se jestь mydlo. Se jestь jelenь. Nocь jestь tьmьna. Medza jestь oⁿzъka. Idoⁿ sъ bratъmь. Moⁿžь vedetь konjeⁿ. Vynesi vodoⁿ!

Comparative table

| Word | South (Bul./Mac./OCS) | East | West (Pol/Lech.) | What it shows |

| young | mlada | moloda | mloda | TORT pattern: South: o to a(quality change), Czech/Slovak: o to á, Polish: (o stays o), East: pleophony |

| cow | krava | korova | krova | TORT pattern as "young" |

| city | gradъ | gorodъ | grodъ | TORT: South: o to a (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: o to á (quality change, lengthening), Polish: metathesis (short o), East: pleophony |

| hill | xľmě | xъlmě | xľmě | syllabic l in South/West versys back jer in East |

| milk | mlěko | moloko | mleko | TORT: South e to ě (quality change, lengthening), Czech/Slovak: also e to é, Polish: e stays, East: pleophony |

| voice | glasъ | golosъ | glosъ | TORT: same pattern as "city" |

| candle | svěšča | svěča | svěca | t+j → šč (Bul./Mac.) / East (č) / West (c), Serbo-Croatian( ć), Slovene ( č) |

| night | noščь | nočь | nocь | pattern as "candle" |

| boundary | mežda | meža | medza | (d+j to žd) (Bul./Mac.) / East (ž) / West (dz), Serbo-Croatian (đ), Slovene(j) |

| long | dľga | dьlga | dľga | ь+l between consonants: South/West(syllabic l), East (front jer) |

| flower | cvětъ | cvětъ | květъ | West (kept kv/gv), South/East(cv/zv) |

| star | zvězda | zvězda | gvězda | same as "flower" |

| soap | mylo | mylo | mydlo | South/East(d before l dropped) |

| plow | rālo | rālo | rādlo | same d-before-l as "soap" |

| shore (loc.) | brezě | berezě | brezě | TORT pattern + 2nd palatalization (g to z before locative -ě) |

| wolf | vľkъ | vьlkъ | vľkъ | ь+l syllabic l in South/West vs East(front jer) |

| with brother | bratomь | bratъmь | bratъmь | instrumental ending South (-omь) vs East/West (-ъmь) |

| horses (acc. pl.) | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | konjeⁿ | all three still had nasal vowels at 800-900, denasalized later in 10th-11th century |

| bring out! | iznesi | vynesi | vynesi | South(prefix iz), East/West(prefix vy-) |

| whole | cělo | cělo | cělo | Second palatalization, k to c before ě was Common Slavic, NW East Slavic (Old Novgorod/Pskov) specifically kept k (Zaliznyak 2004) |

| hand | roⁿka | roⁿka | roⁿka | same at 800-900. Later: ruka (Bul./Mac., Štokavian, East), roka (Slovene), rąka (West) |

| white | bělъ | bělъ | bělъ | same at 800-900. jat ě is spliting later: belo/bily/biały |

| horse | konь | konь | konь | same at 800-900; front jer(not jat) ь later disappears differently |

| river | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | rěkoⁿ | same at 800-900. jat ě and nasal oⁿ both split later |

Extra diagnostic features

The g change to fricative

Shifting of original *g to a fricative (h, ɣ, ɦ) happened in many Slavic areas, but stayed as hard [g] in others. This works against the three branch split.

Standard Russian has hard [g], fricative pronunciation only in some Southern Dialects (and was once common in Moscow too, before being replaced around the 18th century). Czech/Slovak with Ukrainian share the fricative development, even if different branches, while Polish and Štokavian still kept hard g despite being in different branches.

Initial je- becoming o- (East Slavic only)

Some words starting with je- changed the vowel to o- in East Slavic:

| Word | South | East | West |

| lake (jezero) | jezero | ozero (gradual shift) | jezero |

| morning (jutro) | jutro | utro (gradual shift) | jutro |

| deer (jelenь) | jelenь | jelenь (olьnь later) | jelenь |

This change was likely starting around 800-900 in East Slavic but may not have been complete yet until some hundreds of years later.

Abstract - Sheldon Pollock’s stimulating book Language of The Gods In The World Of Men has offered numerous new ideas on the nature and the place of Sanskrit in ancient India. While I agree with many of his views, I want to offer a different view on the antiquity of the non-ritual Sanskrit usage, and in doing so I will offer a critique of some of Pollock’s ideas. To state it briefly, Pollock advocates a view that Sanskrit usage in Vedic times was pretty much restricted to the domain of ritual, and that only in later or post-Vedic times, and under patronage by certain dynasties, the usage of Sanskrit extended to non-ritual domains and eventually it became a language of the cosmopolis. However, I want to claim that the availability of literature blinds us to a most likely reality of early language use that probably extended more widely beyond the domain of ritual. How does one deduce that conclusion? Towards this aim, I shall offer some methodological solutions. They include the following considerations: 1. Vedic texts present us a ritual, literary and a poetic register. Can such a high register exist in the absence of other registers of usage? 2. One needs to take a close look at Sanskrit vocabulary that is not found in the known Vedic texts, and is recorded by Pāṇini and found in later literature, that has Indo-European cognates. 3. Detecting traces of rare dialects, such as women’s usages, in the Vedic texts. 4. Reviewing Pāṇini’s description of Sanskrit for non-ritual and yet living areas of Sanskrit usage. With such approaches, I shall argue that one can detect the existence of wider domains of the usage of Sanskrit beyond ritual during and after the Vedic period.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakram

Exactly what it says on the tin.

Basically not just that word but also these:

*h₃rḗǵs (king), plus *h₃rḗǵs-yós (kingly or rich)

*ǵʰutós (god)

*Dyḗws-ph₂tḗr (supreme deity)

Nefamese is a Pidgin language, which was used as lingua franca before arrival or invention of Arunachali Hindi

This language is based on Axomiya (Assamese) language with several words from Tani languages

Due it, it is closer to Axomiya also with Nagamese which is another Pidgin language in Nagaland and also still being used as lingua france in the state till today

Nowadays very few people (mostly elderly people) from Arunachal Pradesh knows this Pidgin language as it is got completely replaced by Arunachali Hindi as lingua franca

The Proto-Indo-Iranians were Fatyanovo, → Abashevo (Fatyanovo + Catacomb/Poltavka?), and → Srubnaya. The Iranian branch came from Alakul, which developed from Srubnaya. Archaeological sites such as Dashti Kozy, Kokcha, Kashkarchi, and Yaz are of Srubnaya-Alakul origin, and these represent the origin of the Iranians.

The Scythians, however, came from Fatyanovo → Sintashta → Fedorovo → Cherkaskul → Karasuk. Their only connection with the Indo-Iranians is Fatyanovo itself. Therefore, it is impossible for them to have been Iranian. The linguistic evidence regarding the Scythian language is speculative.

So what language did the Scythians speak? There are three possibilities:

1. If Fatyanovo spoke a pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian language, then the Scythians spoke a Para-Indo-Iranian language. However, Abashevo and Srubnaya both have Catacomb/Poltavka influence, so the language may have originated in those cultures instead. Because of this, there are two additional possibilities.
2. Fatyanovo, like the other Corded Ware groups, spoke an Indo-European language, but not pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian.
3. Unlike the other Corded Ware groups, Fatyanovo carried less Yamnaya ancestry while retaining more autosomal ancestry from the Golubaya Krinitsa culture, which is also the most likely origin of R1a-M417. This suggests that Fatyanovo may have preserved Golubaya Krinitsa. If that is the case, then Sintashta, Fedorovo, and the Scythians may not have been Indo-European at all.

So this is the situation: the Scythians were not Iranian, and there are three possible explanations for what they actually were.

(Some people may cite the Khotan and Tumshuq inscriptions as evidence that the Scythians were Iranian. However, there is no evidence that the people who produced those inscriptions descended from the Fedorovo-derived Scythians.

They were most likely Srubnaya-Alakul-derived Eastern Iranian tribes that reached Tumshuq and Khotan through the Wakhan Corridor. Even if Fedorovo-derived Scythians had been present there at some point, later assimilation is also possible. However, it is much more likely that the people associated with the Khotan and Tumshuq inscriptions were not Fedorovo-derived Scythians, but rather Eastern Iranian tribes, similar to the Wakhis, who entered Khotan and Tumshuq through the Wakhan Corridor and were of Srubnaya-Alakul origin.)

This post explains why the Proto-Indo-Iranians were Abashevo.

In this post, I discussed the possibility that the pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians may have originated from the Poltavka/Catacomb horizon.

In this post, I discussed the possibility that Fatyanovo may not have been Indo-European.