Notice the plural. That is because there is not one theory ,assumption related with this matter but several. There is the theory that all languages where just one Indoeuropean one. There is the theory that there was an Indoeuropean people that migrated from Asia to Europe and where the ones who conquered agriculture. There is the theory that their are several languages which are deeply related but it is to soon to call that there was an existance of just one people/pre-nationality according to our knowledge. There are the Aryan BS. And other ones i ignore.

The Indoeuropean theories are related to the evolution of language , humanity and the history of all people in that region. It is related to more than just one field of science.


My position is that we should study all of the theories but to lower our expectations in them of being totally truth.

The subject was also briefly discussed in the 300 thread

There is the theory that all languages where just one Indoeuropean one.
Is there really someone who says this? All languages are from Indoeuropean?

Well anyway, I was just reading Jared Diamond's brief rudiment on PIE in the Third Chimpanzee. What I can gather from the consensus given by him and others is that the Indoeuropeans lived a little north of the area between the Black and Caspian seas and eventually migrated and dominated Europe and India and Anatolia. Of course the Languages of India and Anatolia are heavily influenced by later Mongol and Turkish invaders but retain their similar base vocabulary. European language became more closely related after Latin dominated the majority of the continent, thusly French, Spanish, Italian and Romanian are more closely aligned than English and Gaelic and Greek. The only non-indoeuropean language that survived in Europe, that I can think of is Basque, but other languages like Finnish and Hungarian migrated in after the Indos.

I remember Diamond also said that Indoeuropean languages share some agricultural words, so it is likely that they did farm before migrating, but I wouldn't doubt that other people did as well.

But you have to remember that Diamond is full of "diamonds", so don't trust that guy too much.

I wasn't drawing my conclusion solely based on Diamond. What I presented was a consensus of many historians; I just happened to be reading him yesterday.

Would you like to enlighten us?

The Indo-european language family is pretty well established in linguistics and the branching of the tree is mostly settled. We can tell they're related and establish relative degrees of closeness, but recontructing past languages is really hazy. Nobody could reconstruct or learn to speak PIE.There's no reason that PIE had to be one language as opposed to several, either.

There are fairly firm limits to what we can derive from historical linguistics. Humans have had a language faculty for at least 100 000 years and yet we can barely see back more than about 8000 years. That's 90% of human linguistic history completely beyond knowing

I agree with Arwon.

And apart from that, I don't think most people speaking an Indo-European language are aware of how different other languages really are, until they actually start learning one.

From what I read, Indo-European could have been a singular language before the Bronze Age, the single ancestor to Latin, Germanic, Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Indian, Iranian, Greek and lot more families.

You can still see a lot of similar, basic words. Take numbers:

English - Latin - German - Russian - Greek - Sanskrit/Hindi - Irish

One - Uno - Ein - Odin - Enas - Ek - Aon
Three - Tres - Drei - Tri - Treís - Traya - Tri
New - Novus - Neu - Novi - Neo - Nayas - Nua
Night - Nox - Nacht - Notch - Nychta - Rat - Oiché
Mother - Matre - Mutter - Mat - Mitéra - Matr - Mathair
Thou (you) - Tu - Du - Tý - Ésis - Tum/Tú - Tú

Things related to government: Rex (Latin for King), Realm, Rix (Celtic for King), Raj (Some indian language word for King), Reich, etc.
Even Law and Straightness - Recto/Derecto (Latin), Right, Recht
A curious one is the word angst, that also means fear in German and has the correspondente angustia, meaning angst, in Latin, but not through borrowing.

And there are much more examples, countless ones. Mostly, basic words like food, family members, things related to agriculture, etc. But besides that, differences are vast. Even English and German, languages in the same family and sub-family, are quite different (but that's because English is basically a creoule). Bottomline: despite being vastly different, many curious correspondences can be found between Indo-European languages.

^ congrats, you've summed up everything i wanted to say.

Anyway, to continue the topic, where do you guys think we come from? Is the Caucasus theory the real deal or what?

From what I know, Indians are closer to Australian Aborigines genetically than Europeans. It hink the current theory is that, yes, Caucasians did come from, funnily enough, the Caucasus. But language seldom has anything to do with race, so Caucasians could have picked up Indo-European languages from their neighbours.

That old Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid theory of race has been debunked, despite what my blatantly racist encyclopedia collection here at home says. It's pretty much established that the Aryans were driven into Iran after they were kicked out of India, where they mingled with the local population (which they hadn't really done in India much, caste system and all that) and never went anywhere else, so that Nazi bs is out. Semites are genetically different to Indians. I'm pretty sure what were once known as Mediterranean-type peoples (ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.) are supposed to be an offshoot of Semites, and Northern Europeans are also an offshoot of Semites. From what I remember, all Northern Europeans are supposed to be descended from a single man, born with the mutation of blonde hair and blue eyes, about thirty thousand years or so ago - maybe less.

As you might have gathered from what I'm typing above, the fact is there is NO SUCH THING AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN RACE. Language, yes, race, no. I know no-one has claimed otherwise, but sooner or later someone will, best to beat them to it. Especially since I read some of the idiocy in the 300 thread just yesterday.

From what I know, Indians are closer to Australian Aborigines genetically than Europeans. It hink the current theory is that, yes, Caucasians did come from, funnily enough, the Caucasus. But language seldom has anything to do with race, so Caucasians could have picked up Indo-European languages from their neighbours.

That old Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid theory of race has been debunked, despite what my blatantly racist encyclopedia collection here at home says. It's pretty much established that the Aryans were driven into Iran after they were kicked out of India, where they mingled with the local population (which they hadn't really done in India much, caste system and all that) and never went anywhere else, so that Nazi bs is out. Semites are genetically different to Indians. I'm pretty sure what were once known as Mediterranean-type peoples (ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.) are supposed to be an offshoot of Semites, and Northern Europeans are also an offshoot of Semites. From what I remember, all Northern Europeans are supposed to be descended from a single man, born with the mutation of blonde hair and blue eyes, about thirty thousand years or so ago - maybe less.

As you might have gathered from what I'm typing above, the fact is there is NO SUCH THING AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN RACE. Language, yes, race, no. I know no-one has claimed otherwise, but sooner or later someone will, best to beat them to it. Especially since I read some of the idiocy in the 300 thread just yesterday.
That all makes sense, The old theory was pretty much questioned in my mind after i studied the Polynesians and kinda wondered, "are Austronesian's considered Asians or what?"

First time i've heard Australian Aborigine genetically close to Indians, but i remember a theory of them sailing along the coast from eastern africa along india then to australia so maybe.

Anyway about the northern europeans thing, it's been pretty much proven that people started having blonde hair to be more sexually attractive to a mate, and it's not that uncommon, blondes are not that uncommon in the near east, Iran, Indegenous Australians, latins and japanese.

The blue eyes part is probably what you said, a genetic mutation.

After reading a few books about ancient Europe, from what I know, the "Indo-Europeans" came from the Caucasus Mountain region, invaded the plains of the Ukraine and stopped when they reached the mountains of Romanian around the year 2000bc. There they stayed and influenced the Europeans, probably with their advancements they picked up from the Sumerians and later generations, like the Ionian Greeks, who invaded Greece about that time, picked up a few words from the "Indo-Europeans" and so on. The "Indo-Europeans" who invaded India, were probably of a different tribe, but shared a common language.



From what I know, Indians are closer to Australian Aborigines genetically than Europeans. It hink the current theory is that, yes, Caucasians did come from, funnily enough, the Caucasus. But language seldom has anything to do with race, so Caucasians could have picked up Indo-European languages from their neighbours.

True. Aboriginals spread out along the coasts when they left Africa.

It's pretty much established that the Aryans were driven into Iran after they were kicked out of India, where they mingled with the local population (which they hadn't really done in India much, caste system and all that) and never went anywhere else,

Not really, the Aryans arrived before the caste system was developed.

so that Nazi bs is out.

True.

Semites are genetically different to Indians. I'm pretty sure what were once known as Mediterranean-type peoples (ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.) are supposed to be an offshoot of Semites, and Northern Europeans are also an offshoot of Semites. From what I remember, all Northern Europeans are supposed to be descended from a single man, born with the mutation of blonde hair and blue eyes, about thirty thousand years or so ago - maybe less.

Kind of. There are two types of European, the dark haired/eyed that probably were semetic or from the mountains of the middle east and a negroid-like which are light haired and light eyed. It is unlikely that blue eyes and blonde hair came from a man 30 thousand years ago as the first humans to live in Europe had African features and over the time span, the mutations whites now have occurred.

As you might have gathered from what I'm typing above, the fact is there is NO SUCH THING AS AN INDO-EUROPEAN RACE. Language, yes, race, no. I know no-one has claimed otherwise, but sooner or later someone will, best to beat them to it. Especially since I read some of the idiocy in the 300 thread just yesterday.

There was an indo european race, we have archeologic evidence to support this. They were probably related to the mountain tribes men that used to raid the cites of Sumeria.

Not really, the Aryans arrived before the caste system was developed.
I meant because they developed it, similar to the Incas in Peru. There's a great deal of evidence to suggest that they laid its foundations, and the Brahmans improved it after they were ejected.

Kind of. There are two types of European, the dark haired/eyed that probably were semetic or from the mountains of the middle east and a negroid-like which are light haired and light eyed. It is unlikely that blue eyes and blonde hair came from a man 30 thousand years ago as the first humans to live in Europe had African features and over the time span, the mutations whites now have occurred.
Which is why I said, "maybe less." I actually think it was 14,000 years ago, but was hedging my bets because I couldn't remember exactly off the top of my head.

There was an indo european race, we have archeologic evidence to support this. They were probably related to the mountain tribes men that used to raid the cites of Sumeria.
Allow me to clarify: There was no mighty Indo-European super-race that ruled the galaxy until Darth Vader wiped them out or some-such. I'm aware that there was a race of people who are known in anthropology as the Indo-Europeans, and they had a tremendous impact on all of the cultures in the area - but we are not descended from them. Well, not most of us.

What I heard is that, before the Indo-European arrival to Europe, so, probably 1000 BC or even before, there were a lot of people living in Europe. How did they look like? White, brown, black hair and eyes, maybe green. Most of them actually lived in matriarchal societies. However, the Indo-Europeans arrived. They were taller, maybe had lighter complexion, including blue eyes, but probably most would be brown-haired, etc., and were warlike and advanced. My guess is that they bascially established themselves as the upper class in most of Europe and India, only to assimilate and be assimilated at the same time.
Acutally it is thought that the Basque people, that have no relations to any other people and whose language is isolate, are the remnants of those pre-Indo European Europeans. They were probably related to the Iberian tribes, but those were overrun by Celts and later Romans. The point is, people from Europe and European descent come from a big mix of "native" Europeans and Indo-Europeans, not from a single place.

And BTW, the Baltic people (not to confuse with Slavs), like the Lithuanians and the Latvians are the ones whose languages are closer to original Indo-European. They might be the closest ones to the original IE as well.

I have noticed that whenever I see a list of words in several languages used to establish the relationship between I-E languages, Lithuanian is usually one of them, and its conservatism would be why. (I also almost always see Sanskrit.)

I'm inclined to believe that Proto-Indo-European was a single language, rather than multiple languages or a trade language between several groups that were originally not linguistically related. This is simply because the grammatical structures we can reconstruct for ancestor languages are too complex to be a creole, and the shared vocabulary extends to really simple words that are rarely borrowed.

From what I know, Indians are closer to Australian Aborigines genetically than Europeans. It hink the current theory is that, yes, Caucasians did come from, funnily enough, the Caucasus. But language seldom has anything to do with race, so Caucasians could have picked up Indo-European languages from their neighbours.

Not really. Dravidians are unrelated to Caucasians, but it's a stretch to call them "related" to Aboriginal Australians.

It's pretty much established that the Aryans were driven into Iran after they were kicked out of India, where they mingled with the local population (which they hadn't really done in India much, caste system and all that) and never went anywhere else, so that Nazi bs is out.

Actually, Aryans intermingled with the native population in India according to every source I've seen on the subject. The eventual "Hindu" culture seems to be a mix of the old Harappan influences and Aryan.

Not really. Dravidians are unrelated to Caucasians, but it's a stretch to call them "related" to Aboriginal Australians.



Actually, Aryans intermingled with the native population in India according to every source I've seen on the subject. The eventual "Hindu" culture seems to be a mix of the old Harappan influences and Aryan.
Culturally. There wasn't much intermarriage, at least not compared to the amount commonly seen when new ethnic groups arrive in an area.

And Indians and Aborigines are part of the same haplogroup. Ergo, related, albeit distantly.

Culturally. There wasn't much intermarriage, at least not compared to the amount commonly seen when new ethnic groups arrive in an area.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. They made something of an ethnic impact; Harappan skeletons look different than modern Indians.

And Indians and Aborigines are part of the same haplogroup. Ergo, related, albeit distantly.

I'm definitely no expert, but according to Wikipedia, they don't seem to share many haplogroups. Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup)

I'll see what I can dig up over the next couple days in the library on the subject if I remember.

Well, I wouldn't go that far. They made something of an ethnic impact; Harappan skeletons look different than modern Indians.



I'm definitely no expert, but according to Wikipedia, they don't seem to share many haplogroups. Link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup)

I'll see what I can dig up over the next couple days in the library on the subject if I remember.
Of course they made an ethnic impact. I'mm just saying they were more standoffish than is common with invaders.

And every haplogroup map I've ever seen has Aborigines arriving in Australia through Southern India. Of course, the ethnic make-up of Indians has changed quite a deal since, so maybe the relationship is even more distant than I thought.

And every haplogroup map I've ever seen has Aborigines arriving in Australia through Southern India. Of course, the ethnic make-up of Indians has changed quite a deal since, so maybe the relationship is even more distant than I thought.

Well, that's about as useful as saying the Americans are more closely related to Asians than anyone else. True in principle, but...

Allow me to clarify: There was no mighty Indo-European super-race that ruled the galaxy until Darth Vader wiped them out or some-such. I'm aware that there was a race of people who are known in anthropology as the Indo-Europeans, and they had a tremendous impact on all of the cultures in the area - but we are not descended from them. Well, not most of us.
The first part of that statement is all well and good.

But how much proof is there really that there ever was a specific "race" of PIE (or something down the line from an assumed PIE) speakers at all?

Not a lot I would say.

There is no necessity in assuming genetic transference ("blood" in the traditional view, which still haunts the assumpuion) to have languages travel between groups of people.

Already the 19th c. physical anthropologists in the 1860's decided that there wasn't any real evidence of any kind of Indoeuropean race ever invading Europe. The late 19th c. consensus among that group was pretty much that people looked pretty much like they always had in Europe and thet that the anatomical composition was rather stable.

As for the linguists Johannes Schrader already in 1880's proposed his rather sensible "Wellentheorie", the Wave Theory, which helps explain layering of strains of Indoeuropean languages. There have likely been a couple of events in establishing these languages. And none of them necessarily need assumptions about invasions and "Völkerwandrung".

Then there are the more functionalist-minded recent linguists, like Colin Renfrew, who are rather of the mind that languages spread and are replaced as an effect of specific functions. Hypothetically the reason Indoeuropean was adopted in Europe wasn't due to any invasion, but through the spread of agriculture. That theory is quite nice in how it then explain then non-Indoeuropean isolates, like Basque, as the older languages that hung around in areas less well suited for agriculture.

My general impression of this thread is actually that the position of science re. "Indoeuropeans" pre-1860 seems to be pretty well represented in it. It's not as if any of the caveats surrounding the theorey, and pointed out already at the time, have been waived either. "Plus ca change..." etc. Funny that.:)

Well, that's about as useful as saying the Americans are more closely related to Asians than anyone else. True in principle, but...
Of course it's distant. Merely stating they're more closely related than say, to the British.

@Verbose: There were a group of people who are known anthropologically as the Indo-Europeans. Doesn't have anything to do PIE, it's just a name for a group of people that happened to live smack bang in the centre of the area, namely the Caucasus. No different than calling a group of people who used to live on Crete the Minoans. Doesn't mean sh*t, except that's what we call them.

It isn't implicit they had to be a whole 'race' or ethnic group. They were probably unified by culture, and yes, language. Mastering some technologies that Europeans hadn't discovered yet, they easely submited or mixed with them. It has been said that before IE arrival, most communities in Europe were matriarchal and peaceful, while the IE brought a more warlike posture and introduced the patrarchal society.

It isn't implicit they had to be a whole 'race' or ethnic group. They were probably unified by culture, and yes, language. Mastering some technologies that Europeans hadn't discovered yet, they easely submited or mixed with them. It has been said that before IE arrival, most communities in Europe were matriarchal and peaceful, while the IE brought a more warlike posture and introduced the patrarchal society.

This is a theory proposed by a single archeologist, one that finds very little support for that conclusion from any other experts in the field. She is often criticized by her contemporaries for making unfounded leaps of logic without supporting argument or clear evidence to her somewhat absurd conclusions. There is no evidence that anyone else can seem to find that makes a matriarchal Pre-IE society likely. And it certainly wasn't peaceful they have found evidence of weapons and forts before that time.

In short, there's every reason to believe that the matriarchal, goddess worshiping, peace-loving, earth-loving Eden is little more than hippy BS ripped from the imagination of an eccentric archeologist. Its archeology with an ideological agenda, it is not supported by those researchers grounded in reality.

Yeah, like all theories about an Indoeuropean homeland, a point of origin, the proposed PIE-speaking race located in the Caucasus has pretty much as much chance/risk of being an artifact of the activities of one, ore more, archeologists/linguists/anthropologists, as those proposed by some of their colleagues.

Long on hypothesis, short on proof, and it was ever so. It sure is interesting regardless (hey, I've spent the better part of a year delving into its history), but there isn't a lot of certanities around.

But it is very difficult to study a people and its migrations without many artifacts or records. Moreover, many scholars have reconstructed a Proto-Indo-European language, based on assumptions maybe. You can't write a language that has never been written, right?

^ congrats, you've summed up everything i wanted to say.

Anyway, to continue the topic, where do you guys think we come from? Is the Caucasus theory the real deal or what?

Indoeuropean came from Baltic region.

That old Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid theory of race has been debunked, despite what my blatantly racist encyclopedia collection here at home says. It's pretty much established that the Aryans were driven into Iran after they were kicked out of India, where they mingled with the local population (which they hadn't really done in India much, caste system and all that) and never went anywhere else, so that Nazi bs is out. Semites are genetically different to Indians. I'm pretty sure what were once known as Mediterranean-type peoples (ancient Greeks, Romans, etc.) are supposed to be an offshoot of Semites, and Northern Europeans are also an offshoot of Semites.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

OMG!!! That's vey funny.

Infraction for spam. If you have nothing to contribute, pls leave the discussion alone. - KD

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

OMG!!! That's vey funny.
What are you on about?

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

OMG!!! That's vey funny.

Nope. Semites are a distinct group. They might share a distant origin with Indo-Europeans, as do Turkic peoples or even native Europeans (like the Basques or Samis), but they developed at different times and developed different languages. Basque is not related to any known languages, Hebrew and Arabic are from the same family - Afro-Asiatic languages - and Indo-Europeans, well, you know about that.

Is that even what he was on about? I still can't figure out why he quoted me, then laughed.

Is that even what he was on about? I still can't figure out why he quoted me, then laughed.

I laughed because i found your writing funny :p

English - Irish

One - Aon
Three - Trí
New - Nua
Night - Oíche
Mother - Máthair
Thou (you) - Tú

Sorry - this is a thread about language, I had to correct your spelling.

There is a lot of cross contamination as well that is hard to weed out, for example:
Two year old post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/archive/index.php/t-188384.html)

Oct 05, 2006, 07:54 PM
No, those are where the Latin comes in :) But the initial sound in my head was very Germanic (I have heard Irish spoken).. it was just the feel I got from the numbers that surprised me with how German they sounded
phonetically they are:
Ain, Doe, tree, kahher, kuig, shae, shoct, huct, nee, deh, ain-deog, do-deog.
there is a little latin and german similarities,
Ein=aoin=one=uno
do=two=duo
tri=three=trio
not sure if those o`s should be in on the latin ones.
coinin[irish]=rabbit
rabbit=coney[english]
coneye[dutch]=rabbit
[norse]konneen=rabbit.
tis all indo-european :)The problem with this is that rabbits weren't native to Ireland and that the name more than likely came with the animal when it was introduced by the Normans.

I laughed because i found your writing funny :p
I understand that using correct grammar and punctuation must all seem strange and new to you, but please, try to contain your enthusiasm.

I understand that using correct grammar and punctuation must all seem strange and new to you, but please, try to contain your enthusiasm.

Is it so hard for you to be coherent with the thread? You look rather like a child, who try desperately to change topic to conceal his nuts (though, considering the totally nonsense of your claims about indoeuropeans, it is probably wise that you do so).

And about my grammar and punctuation, i gonna improve them, but i do not pretend the perfection considering this is not my first language.

Infraction for personal attk. - KD

If anyone is still reading the 300 thread for any purposes whatsoever they fail because its about half a year old. That really says something sad for this forum that something not exceptionally great can even survive for that long...

Is it so hard for you to be coherent with the thread? You look rather like a child, who try desperately to change topic to conceal his nuts (though, considering the totally nonsense of your claims about indoeuropeans, it is probably wise that you do so).

And about my grammar and punctuation, i gonna improve them, but i do not pretend the perfection considering this is not my first language.
What are you on about now? Change the topic? You said you found the way I wrote funny, I pointed out that I use correct grammar and punctuation, which is rare for this thread, and inquired - albeit sarcastically - why that is so amusing. I'm not the one who changed the topic, you are.

I wasn't mocking your grammar or punctuation at all, I can tell you're not a native English speaker.

If anyone is still reading the 300 thread for any purposes whatsoever they fail because its about half a year old. That really says something sad for this forum that something not exceptionally great can even survive for that long...
No-one here is reading the 300 thread. I was linked to it in a completely different thread.

Note to all - pls get back to the discussion, and stop threadjacking about some 300 thread or on language/spelling or flaming. Thanks.

you are.



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

This is the no plus ultra, dude. After this, the most lunatic sci-fi film looks realistic.

I just laughed for your nuts, nothing of special.

Infraction for continual threadjacking after warning is given. - KD

Note to all - pls get back to the discussion, and stop threadjacking about some 300 thread or on language/spelling or flaming. Thanks.

THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!

Actually, I am interested in the language of the original Indo-Europeans and I could have sworn I saw a list of it in this thread...


There's little doubt the Greeks were of indo-european descent. However, what strikes me as odd, is that the Greeks were originally from Illyriam (Yugoslavia) and then moved south into modern Greece, conquering the Palace Cultures, who were probably related to the Minoans. They did this around 2200-2000BC. Now, the Indo-European invasion was around 2000BC, so what's going on here. Did the Greek Ancestors invade before they had a chance to be absorbed into the IE culture? How did they learn IE then spread it into Greece almost immediately?

My guess is that they got pushed out of Illyriam by the IE, after maybe being a branch or associated tribe of the IE. The Mycenaeans built their thick walls around their cities because they were probably terrified of the IE.

Can someone give me the etymology of the word panther ?

Here:

The word is often presumed to derive from Greek pan- ("all") and ther ("beast"), but this may be a folk etymology. Although it came into English through the classical languages, panthera is probably of East Asian origin, meaning "the yellowish animal," or "whitish-yellow".

Basically we are not sure, either Greek or some East Asian language. It became a wanderword anyway (a word used in so many different languages that it's virtually impossible to give an etymology for it. Another example of such a word being "wine", for example)

Online etymology dictionary says:
panther
c.1220, from O.Fr. pantere (12c.), from L. panthera, from Gk. panther, probably of Oriental origin, cf. Skt. pundarikam "tiger," probably lit. "the yellowish animal," from pandarah "whitish-yellow." Folk etymology derivation from Gk. pan- "all" + ther "beast" led to many curious fables.

I wasn't drawing my conclusion solely based on Diamond. What I presented was a consensus of many historians; I just happened to be reading him yesterday.

Would you like to enlighten us?
Sure: Diamond is basicaly a liar with an agenda.

Can you elaborate?

I doubt it.

Oh cartman

Can you elaborate?
Something about Muslims.

:lol: hurry pannonnius, write a peer-reviewed article to dismiss his lies! Save the world!

I see lots of linguistics here but nothing about one of the bonebacks of indoeuropean expansion: tarpans and assumed early interactuations with (still totally nomad) early Scythes who domesticated that horses around 3000 BC.
Without this, any thread on indoeuropeans cannot be taken seriously.