The Avesta is the primary collection of religious texts of Zoroastrianism, composed in the otherwise unrecorded Avestan language. The Avesta texts fall into several different categories, arranged either by usage; the principal text in the liturgical group is the Yasna, which takes its name from the Yasna ceremony, Zoroastrianism's primary act of worship, at which the Yasna text is recited. The most important portion of the Yasna texts are the five Gathas, consisting of seventeen hymns attributed to Zoroaster himself; these hymns, together with five other short Old Avestan texts that are part of the Yasna, are in the Old Avestan language. The remainder of the Yasna's texts are in Younger Avestan, not only from a stage of the language, but from a different geographic region. Extensions to the Yasna ceremony include the texts of the Visperad; the Visperad extensions consist of additional invocations of the divinities, while the Vendidad is a mixed collection of prose texts dealing with purity laws.
Today, the Vendidad is the only liturgical text, not recited from memory. Some of the materials of the extended Yasna are from the Yashts, which are hymns to the individual yazatas. Unlike the Yasna and Vendidad, the Yashts and the other lesser texts of the Avesta are no longer used liturgically in high rituals. Aside from the Yashts, these other lesser texts include the Nyayesh texts, the Gah texts, the Siroza, various other fragments. Together, these lesser texts are conventionally called "Little Avesta" texts; when the first Khordeh Avesta editions were printed in the 19th century, these texts became a book of common prayer for lay people. The term Avesta is from the 9th/10th-century works of Zoroastrian tradition in which the word appears as Zoroastrian Middle Persian abestāg, Book Pahlavi ʾpstʾkʼ. In that context, abestāg texts are portrayed as received knowledge, are distinguished from the exegetical commentaries thereof; the literal meaning of the word abestāg is uncertain. The repeated derivation from *upa-stavaka is from Christian Bartholomae, who interpreted abestāg as a contraction of a hypothetical reconstructed Old Iranian word for "praise-song".
The surviving texts of the Avesta, as they exist today, derive from a single master copy produced by collation and recension in the Sasanian Empire. That master copy, now lost, is known as the'Sassanian archetype'; the oldest surviving manuscript of an Avestan language text is dated 1323 CE. Summaries of the various Avesta texts found in the 9th/10th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition suggest that a significant portion of the literature in the Avestan language has been lost. Only about one-quarter of the Avestan sentences or verses referred to by the 9th/10th century commentators can be found in the surviving texts; this suggests that three-quarters of Avestan material, including an indeterminable number of juridical and legendary texts, have been lost since then. On the other hand, it appears that the most valuable portions of the canon, including all of the oldest texts, have survived; the reason for this is that the surviving materials represent those portions of the Avesta that were in regular liturgical use, therefore known by heart by the priests and not dependent for their preservation on the survival of particular manuscripts.
A pre-Sasanian history of the Avesta, if it had one, is in the realm of myth. The oldest surviving versions of these tales are found in the ninth to 11th century texts of Zoroastrian tradition; the legends run as follows: The twenty-one nasks of the Avesta were created by Ahura Mazda and brought by Zoroaster to his patron Vishtaspa. Vishtaspa or another Kayanian, Daray had two copies made, one of, stored in the treasury, the other in the royal archives. Following Alexander's conquest, the Avesta was supposedly destroyed or dispersed by the Greeks after they translated the scientific passages that they could make use of. Several centuries one of the Parthian emperors named Valaksh then had the fragments collected, not only of those, written down, but of those that had only been orally transmitted; the Denkard transmits another legend related to the transmission of the Avesta. In that story, credit for collation and recension is given to the early Sasanian-era priest Tansar, who had the scattered works collected, of which he approved only a part as authoritative.
Tansar's work was supposedly completed by Adurbad Mahraspandan who made a general revision of the canon and continued to ensure its orthodoxy. A final revision was undertaken in the 6th century under Khosrow I. In the early 20th century, the legend of the Parthian-era collation engendered a search for a'Parthian archetype' of the Avesta. In the theory of Friedrich Carl Andreas, the archaic nature of the Avestan texts was assumed to be due to preservation via written transmission, unusual or unexpected spellings in the surviving texts were assumed to be reflections of errors introduced by Sasanian-era transcription from the
The Yamnaya culture known as the Yamna culture, Pit Grave culture, or Ochre Grave culture, was a late Copper Age to early Bronze Age archaeological culture of the region between the Southern Bug and Ural rivers, dating to 3300–2600 BC. Its name refers to its characteristic burial tradition: Kurgans containing a simple pit chamber; the people of the Yamnaya culture were the result of admixture between the descendants of Eastern European hunter-gatherers and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus. Their material culture is similar to the Afanasevo culture, they are closely connected to Final Neolithic cultures, which spread throughout Europe and Central Asia the Corded Ware people, but the Bell Beaker culture as well as the peoples of the Sintashta and Srubna cultures. In this group, several aspects of the Yamnaya culture are present. Genetic studies have indicated that these populations derived large parts of their ancestry from the steppes; the Yamnaya culture is identified with the late Proto-Indo-Europeans, is the strongest candidate for the urheimat of the Proto-Indo-European language.
The Yamnaya culture originated in the Don–Volga area, is dated 3300–2600 BC. It was preceded by the middle Volga-based Khvalynsk culture and the Don-based Repin culture, late pottery from these two cultures can be distinguished from early Yamnaya pottery. According to Anthony, the early Yamnaya horizon spread across the Pontic–Caspian steppes between ca. 4000–3200 BC. The spread of the Yamnaya horizon was the material expression of the spread of late Proto-Indo-European across the Pontic–Caspian steppes.... The Yamnaya horizon is the visible archaeological expression of a social adjustment to high mobility – the invention of the political infrastructure to manage larger herds from mobile homes based in the steppes."According to Pavel Dolukhanov the emergence of the Pit-Grave culture represents a social development of various local Bronze Age cultures, representing "an expression of social stratification and the emergence of chiefdom-type nomadic social structures", which in turn intensified inter-group contacts between heterogeneous social groups.
In its western range, it was succeeded by the Catacomb culture. These two cultures were followed by the Srubna culture. According to Jones et al. and Haak et al. autosomic tests indicate that the Yamnaya people were the result of admixture between two different hunter-gatherer populations: distinctive "Eastern European hunter-gatherers" with high affinity to the Mal'ta–Buret' culture or other related people from Siberia and a population of "Caucasus hunter-gatherers" who arrived from the Caucasus. Each of those two populations contributed about half the Yamnaya DNA. According to co-author Andrea Manica of the University of Cambridge: The question of where the Yamnaya come from has been something of a mystery up to now we can now answer that, as we've found that their genetic make-up is a mix of Eastern European hunter-gatherers and a population from this pocket of Caucasus hunter-gatherers who weathered much of the last Ice Age in apparent isolation. Several genetic studies performed since 2015 have given support to the Kurgan theory of Marija Gimbutas regarding the Indo-European Urheimat – that Indo-European languages spread throughout Europe from the Eurasian steppes and that the Yamnaya culture were Proto-Indo-Europeans.
According to those studies, haplogroups R1b and R1a, now the most common in Europe, would have expanded from the Pontic–Caspian steppes, along with the Indo-European languages. They detected an autosomal component present in modern Europeans, not present in Neolithic Europeans, which would have been introduced with paternal lineages R1b and R1a, as well as Indo-European languages in the Bronze Age. According to Haak et al. "Eastern European hunter-gatherers" who inhabited today's Russia were a distinctive population of hunter-gatherers with high genetic affinity to a ~24,000 year-old Siberian from Mal'ta–Buret' culture, which in turn resembles East Asians and other related people from Siberia. Remains of the "Eastern European hunter-gatherers" have been found in Mesolithic or early Neolithic sites in Karelia and Samara Oblast and put under analysis. Three such hunter-gathering individuals of the male sex have had their DNA results published; each was found to belong to a different Y-DNA haplogroup: R1a, R1b, J. R1b is the most common Y-DNA haplogroup found among both the Yamnaya and modern-day Western Europeans.
The Near East population were most hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus, though one study suggested that farmers dated to the Chalcolithic era from what is now Iran may be a better fit for the Yamanya's Near Eastern descent. Jones et al. analyzed genomes from males from western Georgia, in the Caucasus, from the Late Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. These two males carried Y-DNA haplogroup: J2a; the researchers found that these Caucasus hunters were the source of the Near Eastern DNA in the Yamnaya. Their genomes showed that a continued mixture of the Caucasians with Middle Eastern took place up to 25,000 years ago, when the coldest period in the last Ice Age started. Lazaridis et al. proposes a different people from Iran, as the source for the Middle Eastern ancestry of the Yamnaya people, finding that "a
Hieroglyphic Luwian is a variant of the Luwian language, recorded in official and royal seals and a small number of monumental inscriptions. It is written in a hieroglyphic script known as Anatolian hieroglyphs. A decipherment was presented by Emmanuel Laroche in 1960, building on partial decipherments proposed since the 1930s. Corrections to the readings of certain signs as well as other clarifications were given by David Hawkins, Anna Morpurgo Davies and Günther Neumann in 1973 referred to as "the new readings"; the earliest hieroglyphs appear on official and royal seals, dating from the early 2nd millennium BC, but they begin to function as a full-fledged writing system only from the 14th century BC. The first monumental inscriptions confirmed as Luwian date to the Late Bronze Age, c. 14th to 13th centuries BC. After some two centuries of sparse material, the hieroglyphs resume in the Early Iron Age, c. 10th to 8th centuries BC. In the early 7th century BC, the Luwian hieroglyphic script, by aged more than 700 years, falls into oblivion.
A more elaborate monumental style is distinguished from more abstract linear or cursive forms of the script. In general, relief inscriptions prefer monumental forms, incised ones prefer the linear form, but the styles are in principle interchangeable. Texts of several lines are written in boustrophedon style. Within a line, signs are written in vertical columns, but as in Egyptian hieroglyphs, aesthetic considerations take precedence over correct reading order; the script consists of the order of some with multiple values. The signs are numbered according to Laroche's sign list, with a prefix of'L.' or'*'. Logograms are transcribed in Latin in capital letters. For example, *90, an image of a foot, is transcribed as PES when used logographically, with its phonemic value ti when used as a syllabogram. In the rare cases where the logogram cannot be transliterated into Latin, it is rendered through its approximate Hittite equivalent, recorded in Italic capitals, e.g. *216 ARHA. The most up-to-date sign list is that of Marazzi.
Hawkins, Morpurgo-Davies and Neumann corrected some previous errors about sign values, in particular emending the reading of symbols *376 and *377 from i, ī to zi, za. Roster of CV syllabograms: Some signs are used as reading aid, marking the beginning of a word, the end of a word, or identifying a sign as a logogram; these are used inconsistently. The script represents three vowels a, i, u and twelve consonants, h, k, l, m, n, p, r, s, t, w, y, z. Syllabograms have the structure V or CV, more CVCV. *383 ra/i, *439 wa/i and *445 la/i/u show multiple vocalization. Some syllabograms are homophonic, disambiguated with numbers in transliteration, there are many syllabograms each for phonemic /sa/ and /ta/. There is a tendency of rhotacism, replacing intervocalic d with r. Word-final stops and in some cases word-initial a- are elided. Suffixes -iya- and -uwa- may be syncopated to -i-, -u-. Forrer, Emil. Die hethitische Bilderschrift. Studies in ancient oriental civilization / Oriental Institut of the University of Chicago, no. 3.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hawkins, J. D. 2000. Corpus of Hieroglyphic Luwian. Laroche, Emil. 1960. Les hiéroglyphes Première partie, L'écriture. Paris. Marazzi, M. 1998. Il Geroglifico Anatolico, Sviluppi della ricerca a venti anni dalla "ridecifrazione". Naples. Melchert, H. Craig. 1996. "Anatolian Hieroglyphs", in The World's Writing Systems, ed. Peter T. Daniels and William Bright. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507993-0 Melchert, H. Craig. 2004. "Luvian", in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages, ed. Roger D. Woodard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56256-2 Payne, A. 2004. Hieroglyphic Luwian, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Plöchl, R. 2003. Einführung ins Hieroglyphen-Luwische. Dresden. Woudhuizen, F. C. 2004. Luwian Hieroglyphic Monumental Rock and Stone Inscriptions from the Hittite Empire Period. Innsbruck. ISBN 3-85124-209-2. Woudhuizen, F. C. 2004. Selected Hieroglyphic Texts. Innsbruck. ISBN 3-85124-213-0. Yakubovich, Ilya. 2010. Sociolinguistics of the Luvian Language.
Leiden "Digital etymological-philological Dictionary of the Ancient Anatolian Corpus Languages". Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Retrieved 2017-03-14
The Rigveda is an ancient Indian collection of Vedic Sanskrit hymns along with associated commentaries on liturgy and mystical exegesis. It is one of the four sacred canonical texts of Hinduism known as the Vedas; the core text, known as the Rigveda Samhita, is a collection of 1,028 hymns in about 10,600 verses, organized into ten books. In the eight books that were composed the earliest, the hymns are praise of specific deities; the younger books in part deal with philosophical or speculative questions, with the virtue of dāna in society and with other metaphysical issues in their hymns. The oldest layers of the Rigveda Samhita are among the oldest extant texts in any Indo-European language of similar age as certain Hittite texts. Philological and linguistic evidence indicates that the bulk of the Rigveda Samhita was composed in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent, most between c. 1500 and 1200 BC, although a wider approximation of c. 1700–1100 BC has been given. The initial codification of the Rigveda took place during the early Kuru kingdom.
Some of its verses continue to be recited during Hindu rites of passage celebrations and prayers, making it the world's oldest religious text in continued use. The associated material has been preserved from two shakhas or "schools", known as Śākalya and Bāṣkala; the school-specific commentaries are known as Brahmanas Aranyakas, Upanishads. The text maṇḍalas, of varying age and length; the text originates as oral literature, "books" may be a misleading term, the individual mandalas are, much rather, standalone collections of hymns that were intended to be memorized by the members of various groups of priests. This is true of the "family books", mandalas 2–7, which form the oldest part of the Rigveda and account for 38 per cent of the entire text, they are called "family books" because each of them is attributed to an individual rishi, was transmitted within the lineage of this rishi's family, or of his students. The hymns within each of the family books are arranged in collections each dealing with a particular deity: Agni comes first, Indra comes second, so on.
They are arranged by decreasing number of hymns within each section. Within each such collection, the hymns are arranged in descending order of the number of stanzas per hymn. If two hymns in the same collection have equal numbers of stanzas they are arranged so that the number of syllables in the metre are in descending order; the second to seventh mandalas have a uniform format. The eighth and ninth mandalas, comprising hymns of mixed age, account for 9 %, respectively; the ninth mandala is dedicated to Soma and the Soma ritual. The hymns in the ninth mandala are arranged by their length; the first and the tenth mandalas are the youngest. Some of the hymns in mandalas 8, 1 and 10 may still belong to an earlier period and may be as old as the material in the family books; the first mandala has a unique arrangement not found in the other nine mandalas. The first 84 hymns of the tenth mandala have a structure different than the remaining hymns in it; each mandala consists of sūktas intended for various rituals.
The sūktas in turn consist of individual stanzas called ṛc, which are further analysed into units of verse called pada. The meters most used in the ṛcas are the gayatri, anushtubh and jagati; the trishtubh meter and gayatri meter dominate in the Rigveda. For pedagogical convenience, each mandala is divided into equal sections of several sūktas, called anuvāka, which modern publishers omit. Another scheme divides the entire text over the 10 mandalas into adhyāya and varga; some publishers give both classifications in a single edition. The most common numbering scheme is by book and stanza. E.g. the first verse is in three times eight syllables: 1.1.1a agním ī́ḷe puróhitaṃ 1b yajñásya deváṃ ṛtvíjam 1c hótāraṃ ratna-dhā́tamam "Agni I invoke, the house-priest / the god, minister of sacrifice / the presiding priest, bestower of wealth." Tradition associates a rishi with each ṛc of the Rigveda. Most sūktas are attributed to single composers; the "family books" are so-called. In all, 10 families of rishis account for more than 95 per cent of the ṛcs.
The original text is close to but not identical to the extant Samhitapatha, but metrical and other observations allow reconstruction of the original text from the extant one, as printed in the Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 50. The surviving form of the Rigveda is based on an early Iron Age collection that established the core'family books' and a redaction, co
Linear B is a syllabic script, used for writing Mycenaean Greek, the earliest attested form of Greek. The script predates the Greek alphabet by several centuries; the oldest Mycenaean writing dates to about 1450 BC. It is descended from the older Linear A, an undeciphered earlier script used for writing the Minoan language, as is the Cypriot syllabary, which recorded Greek. Linear B, found in the palace archives at Knossos, Pylos and Mycenae, disappeared with the fall of Mycenaean civilization during the Late Bronze Age collapse; the succeeding period, known as the Greek Dark Ages, provides no evidence of the use of writing. It is the only one of the Bronze Age Aegean scripts to have been deciphered, by English architect and self-taught linguist Michael Ventris. Linear B consists of over 100 ideographic signs; these ideograms or "signifying" signs symbolize commodities. They are never used as word signs in writing a sentence; the application of Linear B appears to have been confined to administrative contexts.
In all the thousands of clay tablets, a small number of different "hands" have been detected: 45 in Pylos and 66 in Knossos. It is possible that the script was used only by a guild of professional scribes who served the central palaces. Once the palaces were destroyed, the script disappeared. Linear B has 200 signs, divided into syllabic signs with phonetic values and ideograms with semantic values; the representations and naming of these signs have been standardized by a series of international colloquia starting with the first in Paris in 1956. After the third meeting in 1961 at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, a standard proposed by Emmett L. Bennett, Jr. became known as the Wingspread Convention, adopted by a new organization, the Comité International Permanent des Études Mycéniennes, affiliated in 1970 by the fifth colloquium with UNESCO. Colloquia continue: the 13th occurred in 2010 in Paris. Many of the signs are identical or similar to those in Linear A; the grid developed during decipherment by Michael Ventris and John Chadwick of phonetic values for syllabic signs is shown below.
Initial consonants are in the leftmost column. The transcription of the syllable is listed next to the sign along with Bennett's identifying number for the sign preceded by an asterisk. In cases where the transcription of the sign remains in doubt, Bennett's number serves to identify the sign; the signs on the tablets and sealings show considerable variation from each other and from the representations below. Discovery of the reasons for the variation and possible semantic differences is a topic of ongoing debate in Mycenaean studies. In addition to the grid, the first edition of Documents in Mycenaean Greek contained a number of other signs termed "homophones" because they appeared at that time to resemble the sounds of other syllables and were transcribed accordingly: pa2 and pa3 were presumed homophonous to pa. Many of these are shown in the "special values" below; the second edition relates: "It may be taken as axiomatic that there are no true homophones." The unconfirmed identifications of *34 and *35 as ai2 and ai3 were removed.
Pa2 became qa. Other values remain unknown because of scarcity of evidence concerning them. Note that *34 and *35 are mirror images of each other but whether this graphic relationship indicates a phonetic one remains unconfirmed. In recent times, CIPEM inherited the former authority of Bennett and the Wingspread Convention in deciding what signs are "confirmed" and how to represent the various sign categories. In editions of Mycenaean texts, the signs whose values have not been confirmed by CIPEM are always transcribed as numbers preceded by an asterisk. CIPEM allocates the numerical identifiers, until such allocation, new signs are transcribed as a bullet-point enclosed in square brackets:; the signs are approximations―each may be used to represent a variety of about 70 distinct combinations of sounds, within rules and conventions. The grid presents a system of monosyllabic signs of the type V/CV. Clarification of the 14 or so special values tested the limits of the grid model, but Chadwick in the end concluded that with the ramifications, the syllabic signs can unexceptionally be considered monosyllabic.
Possible exceptions, Chadwick goes on to explain, include the two diphthongs, and, as in, ai-ku-pi-ti-jo, for Aiguptios and, au-ke-wa, for Augewās. However, a diphthong is by definition two vowels united into a single sound and therefore might be typed as just V. Thus, as in, e-rai-wo, for elaiwon, is of the type CV. Diphthongs are otherwise treated as two monosyllables:, a-ro-u-ra, for arourans, of the types CV and V. Lengths of vowels and accents are not marked, and the more doubtful and may be regarded as beginning with labialized consonants, rather than two consonants though they may alternate with a two-sign form: o-da-twe-ta and o-da-tu-we-ta for Odatwenta. And begin with palatalized consonants rather than two consonants: -ti-ri-ja for -trja (-τρι
Chalcolithic Europe, the Chalcolithic period of Prehistoric Europe, lasted from 3500 to 1700 BC. It was a period of Megalithic culture, the appearance of the first significant economic stratification, the earliest presence of Indo-European speakers; the economy of the Chalcolithic in the regions where copper was not yet used, was no longer that of peasant communities and tribes: some materials began to be produced in specific locations and distributed to wide regions. Mining of metal and stone was developed in some areas, along with the processing of those materials into valuable goods. From c. 3500 to 3000 BC, copper started being used in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Central Europe. However more influential on the period than copper itself was the domestication of horses and the resulting increased mobility of cultures. From c. 3500 onwards, Eastern Europe was infiltrated by people originating from beyond the Volga, creating a plural complex known as Sredny Stog culture, which substituted the previous Dnieper-Donets culture, pushing the natives to migrate in a NW direction to the Baltic and Denmark, where they mixed with natives.
This may be correlated with the linguistic fact of the spread of Indo-European languages. Near the end of the period, another branch would leave many traces in the lower Danube area, in what seems to be another invasion. Meanwhile, the Danubian Lengyel culture absorbed its northern neighbours of the Czech Republic and Poland over a number of centuries, only to recede in the second half of the period. In Bulgaria and Wallachia, the Boian-Marica culture evolved into a monarchy with a royal cemetery near the coast of the Black Sea; this model seems to have been copied in the Tiszan region with the culture of Bodrogkeresztur. Labour specialization, economic stratification and the risk of invasion may have been the reasons behind this development; the influx of early Troy is clear in both the expansion of metallurgy and social organization. In the western Danubian region the culture of Michelsberg displaced Rössen. Meanwhile, in the Mediterranean basin, several cultures converged into a functional union, of which the most significant characteristic was the distribution network of honey-coloured flint.
Despite this unity, the signs of conflicts are clear. This was the area where Ötzi, the famous man found in the Alps, lived. Another significant development of this period was the Megalithic phenomenon spreading to most places of the Atlantic region, bringing with it agriculture to some underdeveloped regions existing there; this period extends along the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. Most significant is the reorganization of the Danubians into the powerful Baden culture, which extended more or less to what would be the Austro-Hungarian Empire in recent times; the rest of the Balkans was profoundly restructured after the invasions of the previous period but, with the exception of the Coțofeni culture in a mountainous region, none of them show any eastern traits. The new Ezero culture, in Bulgaria, shows the first traits of pseudo-bronze. So does the first significant Aegean group: the Cycladic culture after 2800 BC. In the North, for some time the Indo-European groups seemed to recede temporarily, suffering a strong cultural danubianization.
In the East, the peoples of beyond the Volga eastern Indo-Europeans, ancestors of Iranians took over southern Russia and Ukraine. In the West the only sign of unity comes from the Megalithic super-culture, which extended from southern Sweden to southern Spain, including large parts of southern Germany as well, but the Mediterranean and Danubian groupings of the previous period appear fragmented into many smaller pieces, some of them backward in technological matters. From c. 2800 BC, the Danubian Seine-Oise-Marne culture pushed directly or indirectly southwards, destroying most of the rich Megalithic culture of western France. After c. 2600 several phenomena will prefigure the changes of the upcoming period: Large towns with stone walls appeared in two different areas of the Iberian Peninsula: one in the Portuguese region of Estremadura embedded in the Atlantic Megalithic culture. Despite the many differences the two civilizations seemed to be in friendly contact and to have productive exchanges.
In the area of Dordogne, a new unexpected culture of bowmen appeared: the culture of Artenac, which would soon take control of western and northern France and Belgium. In Poland and nearby regions, the putative Indo-Europeans reorganized and consolidated again with the culture of the Globular Amphoras; the influence of many centuries in direct contact with the still-powerful Danubian peoples had modified their culture. This period extended from c. 2500 BC to c. 1800 or 1700 BC. The dates are general for the whole of Europe, the Aegean area was fully in the Bronze Age. Circa 2500 BC the new Catacomb culture, whose origins are obscure but who were Indo-Europeans, displaced the Yamnaya peoples in the regions north and east of the Black Sea, confining them to their original area east of the Volga; some of these infiltrate