Even if you are a Nordicist who believes the oral tradition race war that it happened 1500-1200 BCE is true, you can't prove that the RigVeda was not written until the Gupta Period and show a oldest complete written copy older than the from 1464 in the Delhi Sultanate, i.e. Persian-Greek-Scythian-Kushan-Turkish Brahminjeet mutts wrote the Vedas and not the Androslavs. The irony is that the Upanishads, the end of the Veda/Vendata, were written before the RigVeda itself and offer subtle and indirect criticisms of the Vedic religion and the caste system, although they do not explicitly condemn it as unjust or oppressive. They question the rigid social divisions and the idea that birth determines a person's destiny, emphasizing the search for truth and the common spiritual nature of all beings.

>There are, for example, thirty manuscripts of Rigveda at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, collected in the 19th century by Georg Bühler, Franz Kielhorn and others, originating from different parts of India, including Kashmir, Gujarat, the then Rajaputana, and Central Provinces. They were transferred to Deccan College, Pune, in the late 19th century. They are in the Sharada and Devanagari scripts, written on birch bark and paper. The oldest of the Pune collection is dated to 1464 CE. These thirty manuscripts were added to UNESCO's Memory of the World International Register in 2007

>It is unclear as to when the Rigveda was first written down. The oldest surviving manuscripts have been discovered in Nepal and date to c.1040 CE. According to Witzel, the Paippalada Samhita tradition points to written manuscripts c.800–1000 CE. The Upanishads were likely in the written form earlier, about mid-1st millennium CE (Gupta Empire period). Attempts to write the Vedas may have been made "towards the end of the 1st millennium BCE". The early attempts may have been unsuccessful given the Smriti rules that forbade the writing down the Vedas, states Witzel

>>17780078 (OP)
I smell Carnival troon culture or Punjabi feces... why? First of all, know that I have not read this garbage.
but the thing is, illiterate, no one says that the Rigveda was "written in 1500", it was composed orally between 1500 through an oral tradition, very common in the ancient world and the same with the Bible. However, your premise is wrong. It was "written" first by the Persians* not in the Middle Ages. End of thread

>>17780078 (OP)
>hue
>>17780111
This Brazilian is so illiterate, that I literally know the Wikipedia article he used haha but he conveniently doesn't include it
>It is unclear as to when the Rigveda was first written down
And then, he uses this paragraph and uses chatgpt to enlarge the text
>The oldest surviving manuscripts have been discovered in Nepal and date to c.1040 CE
BUTTT
>The early attempts may have been unsuccessful given the Smriti rules that forbade the writing down the Vedas
therefore, the whole premise of this thread is retard and has turned into a racial resentment xiiter.... it's like dilating like a bitch because you don't find "ancient" Rigveda writings when the essence of these myths were intrinsic to the cultural aspects, and were restricted to orality. he ironically, shows himself to be a retard again for not even reading the garbage he copied and pasted from wikicope
another thing I noticed this insect does is this part
>hue Even if you are a Nordicist hue who believes the oral tradition race hue war that it happened 1500-1200 BCE is true huee
besides practicing a blatant false premise here, using ad hominem and a flawed syllogism, he again didn't even read the author himself who he based on to support his thread,see how Witzel ironically supports the thesis of a "Nordicist" oral tradition from 1500
>The Vedic texts were orally composed and transmitted, without the use of script, in an unbroken line of transmission from teacher to student that was formalized early on. This ensured an impeccable textual transmission superior to the classical texts of other cultures; it is, in fact, something like a tape-recording of ca. 1500–500 BCE
Our jungle wizard friend has two choices
1. Oral tradition from 1500 is Nordicism, therefore, it is invalid
2. If the oral tradition from 1500 is a Nordicist concept, then everyone who postulates it is necessarily wrong, and if this is the case, Witzel is equally wrong, since he uses Nordicist concepts.

>>17780111
>It was "written" first by the Persian
Cope. The Persians, as well as most of the invaders of India before the Maurya/Gupta unification of the subcontinent, only controlled Pakistan and parts of Northern India such as Sindh, Punjab and areas adjacent to the Indus River. Their sacred texts, the Gathas, were also written in the Middle Ages and were Anti-Vedic. Zarathustra rejects the daevas, accusing them of choosing "evil" and following "lie" (druj) rather than "truth" (asha), although he does not directly call them "demons" with the later Young Avesta/Vendidad connotation.

>"You, the Daevas, and those who honor you, are the offspring of Evil Mind, Lie and Arrogance. You have brought forth all evil and impurity and have deluded mankind with falsehood." - Yasna 32.3

>“You (Daevas) have cheated the children of men by a lie, so as to destroy the life given to them by Mazda Ahura" - Yasna 32.4

>“You, Daevas, have no understanding; you are the enemies of all good and right.” - Yasna 32.5

>"“Far from the path of Truth, far from the good mind, where lies and impurity prevail, where destruction and the shadow of death dwell, there the evil spirits, the Daevas, have their abode.” - Yasna 44.16–17

>Around 535 BCE, the Persian king Cyrus the Great initiated a protracted campaign to absorb parts of India into his nascent Achaemenid Empire.[1] In this initial incursion, the Persian army annexed a large region to the west of the Indus River, consolidating the early eastern borders of their new realm. With a brief pause after Cyrus' death around 530 BCE, the campaign continued under Darius the Great, who began to re-conquer former provinces and further expand the Achaemenid Empire's political boundaries. Around 518 BCE, the Persian army pushed further into India to initiate a second period of conquest by annexing regions up to the Jhelum River in what is today known as Punjab

>>17780183
I know he just wants to provoke, this guy and his high-ranking friends don't miss the opportunity to create shitty racial intrigues. I've noticed that since he spammed /pol/

>>17780186
>At peak, the Persians managed to take control of most of modern-day Pakistan and incorporate it into their territory

>The first secure epigraphic evidence through the Behistun Inscription gives a date before or around 518 BCE. Persian penetration into the Indian subcontinent occurred in multiple stages, beginning from the northern parts of the Indus River and moving southward. As mentioned in several Achaemenid-era inscriptions, the Indus Valley was formally incorporated into the Persian realm through provincial divisions: Gandāra, Hindush, and Sattagydia

>Persian rule over the Indus Valley decreased over successive rulers and formally ended with the Greek conquest of Persia, led by Alexander the Great. This brief period gave rise to independent Indian kings, such as Abisares, Porus, and Ambhi, as well as numerous gaṇasaṅghas, which would later confront the Macedonian army as it massed into the region for Alexander's Indian campaign. The Achaemenid Empire set a precedence of governance through the use of satrapies, which was further implemented by Alexander's Macedonian Empire, the Indo-Scythians, and the Kushan Empire

>>17780186
Dude, I'm not going to read all this why do u you keep talking to me? By the way, this image is irrelevant, because confirmation bias is gay no one here mentioned "Abrahamism" as a religious system in itself, I just used it for comparison
By the way, you couldn't be a Zoroastrian, especially because you worship magical black people

Jeets are a silly race.

>>17780183
this
with that, we can abandon this thread, zucoid will talk to himself from now on.

>>17780195
>The Gathas (/ˈɡɑːtəz, -tɑːz/) are 17 hymns in the Avestan language from the Zoroastrian oral tradition of the Avesta. The oldest surviving text fragment dates from 1323 CE

>The oldest folio of the Yasna/Gathas (from the same set as the Gathas) was written in 1323 CE by Mihraban Kaikhusraw, in Navsari, Gujarat (India)

>In this manuscript, each sentence is given first in the original Avestan language, and then in Middle Persian Pahlavi, the language of Sassanian Iran (c. 224 - 651 AD). This manuscript is the second oldest Avestan manuscript that survives today after the 10th century CE fragment Sogdian manuscript (also in the British Library (BL Or.8212/84) found in Dunhuang, China

>According to the British Library, "Mihraban Kaikhusraw, the scribe of our manuscript, also made another copy of the Videvdat in 1324 and two copies of the Yasna in 1323, all of which survive today

>"The British Library manuscript belonged previously to Samuel Guise, Surgeon in the Bombay Army from 1775 to 1796. Guise's collection was made at Surat between 1788 and 1795, at great personal expense, while he was Head Surgeon to the General Hospital. His rarest manuscripts (according to his catalogue published in 1800) were purchased from the widow of Dastur Darab who between 1758 and 1760 had taught Avestan to Anquetil du Perron, the first translator of the Avesta into a European language

>"Unfortunately the first part of the manuscript was in such bad condition that Guise had folios 1-34 and 59-154 re-copied and presumably the original was thrown away. The manuscript also lacks the final leaf containing the colophon, but luckily this has been preserved in a later copy made from the same manuscript. Samuel Guise died in 1811 and his collection was sold at auction by Leigh and Sotheby in July 1812."

>>17780078 (OP)
>>17780186
>>17780195
>>17780227
People who speak of Muhl Oral Tradition forget that the Indo-Aryans themselves lived in the midst of intense theological, political and territorial conflicts, which are directly reflected in the scriptures themselves. The Vedas are not a unified body of eternal wisdom carefully transmitted without alteration, but rather a chaotic, contradictory product disputed by different Aryan groups over the centuries. The same goes for the Gathas.

A clear example of this is the internal contradictions of the Rigveda. In it, we see different hymns exalting gods who, in other sections, are demoted, ignored or even symbolically opposed by other gods or rival sects. Indra, for example, is glorified as the slayer of Vritra, but other hymns portray him as a drunken, unstable and morally ambiguous god.

One of the most repeated themes in the Rigveda is that Indra drinks immense quantities of soma, the intoxicating ritual nectar, before performing his heroic deeds. But this is not just a poetic metaphor, he literally gets drunk:

>“In drunken madness Indra once swallowed the Soma... drunk, he struck down his foes... drunk, he thought himself greater than the heavens.” - Rigveda 10.119.1–6

>"When I was drunk, I cared not for the gods... I took the sky and placed it in the balance." - RigVeda 10.119.4

That is, he gets drunk, despises the other gods, has delusions of grandeur and acts arrogantly. In addition to his drunkenness, Indra is sometimes described as violent and uncontrollable, even against allies or humans:

>"Like a wild bull, Indra rushes forth… he slays his own priest, he slays the sacrificer." - RigVeda 4.18.3

This verse suggests that not even the Aryan devotees are safe from his fury.

>>17780298
The Upanishads and Puranas only expand these aspects already present in the RigVeda, often with a critical or satirical intention, especially in contexts more influenced by Vaishnavism and Shaivism, where Indra already appears as a minor, arrogant, often ridiculed god.

The most obvious is the case of Dyauspitr, literally “Father Sky”, a direct equivalent of the Proto-Indo-European Dyēus ph2tḗr and parallel to Zeus, Jupiter and other supreme gods of the Indo-European traditions. However, in the Rigveda, he is the father of Indra (who has more to do with Perkʷūnos as his title Parjanya shows), being a minor god, irrelevant in cult, limited to fixed poetic expressions such as “Dyáuṣ and Pṛthivī” (Heaven and Earth), without his own hymns or an active role in the cult. This marginalization of the very ancestral “Father of the Gods” is enough to discredit any notion of Vedic religion being the purest continuity of PIE theology.

Other examples are Mitra and Varuna, who in the early Rigveda appear as a powerful sovereign duo, lords of Rta, the cosmic order, but who are gradually overshadowed: Mitra virtually disappears from the later corpus, while Varuna goes from being a cosmic god to a shadowy figure who punishes with disease and demands appeasement. The same occurs with the Ashvins, the divine twins, strongly connected to the Indo-European heritage as parallels to the Greek Dioscuri and the Germanic Alcis: although they receive hymns, they are treated with suspicion by orthodox Brahmins, because they are associated with popular and miraculous practices. Trita Aptya, a “third brother” hero who has clear parallels with figures such as *Trito in Proto-Indo-Euroepan Religion, also appears subordinate to Indra instead of the true Dyēus ph2tḗr (Dyauspitr).

>>17780319
Further evidence of the fragmentation of the Indo-Aryan tradition is found in the split between Vedism and Zoroastrianism, two branches born from the same Indo-Iranian trunk. One of the greatest signs of internal conflict is the inversion of the roles of the Devas and Asuras. In the Vedas, the devas are exalted as the central gods, while the asuras, although originally part of the same divine plan, appear as ambiguous figures, linked to mysterious aspects, powers not directly linked to the Vedic order, but a invisible cosmic order such as Maya (illusion/magical power), Ratri (Night) and Udaka (Waters). The asuras, like Varuna, are initially respected, but progressively associated with a more esoteric or marginal pole, until they are virtually excluded or reinterpreted in opposition to the devas. In Zoroastrianism, the situation is completely reversed: Ahura Mazda (which comes from Asura-Medhira, a title of Varuna) is the supreme god, creator of the cosmic order, and the daevas are deceptive entities. This is not a minor theological detail; it is a profound split in the cosmology, morality, and structure of the pantheon. Even more serious, there are passages in the Rigveda itself (such as in the hymn RigVeda 10.124) in which it is insinuated that central asuras such as Varuna, Agni, and Soma served Vritra, the leader of the Dasa and archetype of the serpent of chaos, whom they called “Father” before Indra.

These records show that there was a gray area between the poles of good and evil, and that these gods were later reinterpreted or even demonized in later Brahmanic literature in response to these ambiguities. Thus, far from preserving a uniform and stable oral tradition, the Indo-Aryans fought among themselves for religious authority, adapted myths according to tribal and political interests, and even completely inverted the moral axis of their deities, consciously corrupting the previous theological narrative in the name of the emerging orthodoxy.

>>17780354
The political context also reinforces this view. In the Battle of the Ten Kings (Dasarajna), recorded in the Rigveda, King Sudasa and his priest Vishvamitra (of the Kanva lineage) represent a group that worshipped Indra and Soma, as opposed to a coalition of ten rival Indo-Aryan tribes whose priests belonged to the lineages associated with Bharadvaja and Gautama, who placed greater emphasis on gods such as Varuṇa and Mitra and had divergent ritual practices. In the Rigveda itself, these names, Vishvamitra, Kanva, Bharadvaja, Gautama and other families, appear as Rishis and hymn-writers, each symbolizing one of the ten or so distinct lineages of the Vedic corpus, which claimed different mandalas: Kanva (Mandala 8), Vishvamitra (Mandala 7), Bharadvaja (Mandala 6) and Gautama (Mandala 10). The formal idea of a school crystallized later, but these families already indicated clear oral and authorial divisions.

These Rishis are part of the group known as the Saptarshi and Brahmarshi, the seven sages who in the other Vedas, Upanishads, and later Puranic literature are considered mental sons of Prajapati/Brahma and fathers of Devas and other divine beings such as Kashyapa with the Adityas, Rudras, Vasus, Daityas, Maruts, Danavas, Nagas, Manasa, Iravati, Gandharvas, Aruna, Garuda, etc. Thus, they not only symbolize the rival priestly lineages, but also assume a divine role in mythology, as founders of the order and ancestors of the gods.

The differences between these families reflect theological and ritual tensions, the strong emphasis on Indra and Soma ritual by Visvamitra and Kaṇva versus the valorization of Varuṇa, Mitra, and the moral order by Bharadvāja and Gautama. The Battle of the Ten Kings symbolizes not only a political conflict, but a religious and cultural dispute, showing that the Indo-Aryans never had a unified tradition, but a field in constant dispute where myths and gods were reinterpreted according to local interests.

>>17780438
This fragmentation is even more evident in the controversy surrounding the Atharvaveda, the fourth Veda, which is often rejected or relegated to the background by more Vedic orthodox schools and therefore the last to be canonized. Its main authors are the Bhrigus and Angirases, who in later traditions are marginalized or replaced by more orthodox Rishis in the Brahmanic genealogies. The Atharvaveda is notorious for containing healing hymns, spells, curses, and magical formulas, which brings it closer to esoteric and pre-Brahmanic traditions. It is no coincidence that many scholars associate the name of Angiras etymologically with Aŋra Mainyu (Ahriman), the spirit of evil in Zoroastrianism. The figure of Ahriman himself seems to reflect the demonization of lineages or practices considered deviant within the original Indo-Iranian body.

The Magi, who were the Medes and Persian priests, probably descendants of these schools associated with the Atharvaveda and its rites, were later called heretics by orthodox Zoroastrians themselves, precisely because of their association with Chaldean/Babylonian astrology, invocation rituals and practices considered magical. This led to their marginalization, despite originally being part of the clergy. The historical irony is that the Magi were also guardians of the Indo-Iranian religion, but later became the target of Zarathustra's reform.

The tension also appears in cosmology: the planetary devas (grahas), such as Shani (Saturn), Mangala (Mars) or Budha (Mercury), are legitimate and even beneficial entities in Vedism, linked to karma and dharma in the cosmic cycle. In Zoroastrianism, the 7 planets were reinterpreted as evil Daevic creations of Ahriman, as opposed to the 12 constellations of the zodiac, which would represent the order and creation of Ahura Mazda.

>>17780078 (OP)
>>17780186
>>17780195
uh oh saar
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46960-9

>>17780651
The part of India with the most obesity is the South, the part that least worship cattle of any kind and are vegetarian sissies, which had the most independent kingdoms instead of dominating each other to create empires that were invaded from Pakistan like the North of India, whose Upanishadic reform during the Fall of Brahmanism (Post-Vedism) the Brahmins combined the cow worship of Vedism plus the Ahimsa (Non-Violence) of Sramana (where Jainism, Buddhism and other Non-Brahmanic Aryan religions came from) on the popular Indian religion in the Hindu Synthesis that created Classical Hinduism, which worshipped cattle but did not sacrifice/eat them like the Vedics because of the Brahmanic Retcon who probably also falsified the written RigVeda.

>>17781609

>>17781611

>>17781711

>>17781713

>>17781611
bvll bros...

>>17780195
>>17780078 (OP)
What happened to Helena’s heir?

>>17782121
>Helena is sometimes called the mother of Chandragupta's son, Bindusara, because of his good relationship with the Greeks, but Chandragupta's first wife, Durdhara, is more often given this role. It's also possible that Helena had a son of her own who was not Bindusara. Durdhara was got die with birth of Bindusaar and when Helena entered in life of Chandra Gupta Maurya till then Bindusaar had already much grown old

>Bindusara (320 BCE – 273 BCE) (r.c.297 – c.273 BCE) was the second Mauryan emperor of Magadha in Ancient India. The ancient Greco-Roman writers called him Amitrochates, a name likely derived from his Sanskrit title Amitraghāta ("slayer of enemies")

>Bindusara was the son of the dynasty's founder Chandragupta and the father of its most famous ruler Ashoka. His life is not documented as well as the lives of these two emperors. Much of the information about him comes from legendary accounts written several hundred years after his death. Bindusara consolidated the empire created by his father

>The 16th century Tibetan Buddhist author Taranatha credits his administration with extensive territorial conquests in southern India, but some historians doubt the historical authenticity of this claim

>Bindusara maintained friendly diplomatic relations with the Greeks. Deimachos of Plateia was the ambassador of Seleucid king Antiochus I at Bindusara's court. Deimachos seems to have written a treatise entitled "On Piety" (Peri Eusebeias). The 3rd century Greek writer Athenaeus, in his Deipnosophistae, mentions an incident that he learned from Hegesander's writings: Bindusara requested Antiochus to send him sweet wine, dried figs and a sophist. Antiochus replied that he would send the wine and the figs, but the Greek laws forbade him to sell a sophist. Bindusara's request for a sophist probably reflects his intention to learn about the Greek philosophy

>>17783466
>The Mahabhashya names Chandragupta's successor as Amitra-ghāta (Sanskrit for "slayer of enemies"). The Greek writers Strabo and Athenaeus call him Allitrochades (Ἀλλιτροχάδης) and Amitrochates (Ἀμιτροχάτης) respectively; these names are probably derived from the Sanskrit title. J.F. Fleet believed that the Greek name was derived from the Sanskrit word Amitrakhāda ("devourer of enemies"), a title of Indra

>Diodorus states that the king of Palibothra (Pataliputra, the Mauryan capital) welcomed a Greek author, Iambulus. This king is usually identified as Bindusara. Pliny states that the Ptolemaic king Philadelphus sent an envoy named Dionysius to India. According to Sailendra Nath Sen, this appears to have happened during Bindusara's reign

>>17780078 (OP)
>nordicists bad
>but we’ll still depict a Macedonian/Sogdian woman with northern European features because of a snowbunny fetish
You people have no principles.

>>17784288
These are all posts by the favellatroon.
Ofc he is retarded and obsessed.

>>17784288
Dude, this just a generic Female Gapejak meme, seek help.

https://basedbooru.com/post/list/female%20variant%3Agapejak/1

>>17783466
>Durdhara was got die with birth of Bindusaar and when Helena entered in life of Chandra Gupta Maurya till then Bindusaar had already much grown old
worse than Google Translate.

>>17780078 (OP)
One strong piece of evidence against this is that the language of the Rig Veda is quite different to classical sanskrit which developed in the Maurya period. In fact medieval commentaries indicate the language wasn't fully understood any more, e.g. the 14th century commentary by Sayana. Vocabulary very similar to Vedic has been found in the Mitanni documents dated to c. 1400 BC, they were written by an Indo-Aryan people who had migrated to the near east. Rigvedic Sanskrit looks more archaic than classical, and late vedic sanskrit in the Brahmanas and early Upanishads looks like an intermediary form of the language. Additionally, they quote from the Vedas and comment on them. So the view that the chronology went Vedas -> Upanishads -> classical texts, still holds up.

This what the people that wrote the vedas looked like

>>17784499
I think he means the hair color and shit

>>17785043
NO SAAR WE WUZ BROWN

>>17785043
no, they are eastbaltic mongoloid abominations.

>>17780186
Zoroastrianism is a main influence on Abrahamism and it has demonized the Devas while worshipping the Asuras, the exact opposite of Buddhism (and I guess Hinduism). Zoroastrianism may be the moment everything started going bad. Also what Persian ruler was the first to become Zoroastrian?

>>17780078 (OP)
Sneed.

>>17785191
Modern Rabbinic/Talmudic Judaism was more influenced by the Zoastrianism of the Sassanid Empire, where the Gathas and other Avestanic and Middle Persian books were written, than the Zoroastrianism of the Achaemenid Empire, which was closer to the Ancient Indo-Iranian Religion/Mazdaism, Vedism and influenced the Judean Religion of the Second Temple.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Iraq#Sasanian_period

https://zoroastrians.net/2013/07/25/cyrus-the-great-was-no-zoroastrian/

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=studiaantiqua

Buddhism arose from the Non-Brahmaniac Sramana, which was more influenced by the Upanishads than the Vedas, and the major Buddha of Mahayana and Vajrayana comes from Asura.

https://dijehtranslations.wordpress.com/2016/08/08/579/

https://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/en/search/search_detail.jsp?seq=325440

>Also what Persian ruler was the first to become Zoroastrian?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishtaspa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_the_Great

>>17785027
I said ITT that the biggest problem with the RigVeda is the disputes/suppressions of the Vedic and Proto-Zoroastrian Schools during the Oral and Written Period. But yes, Vedism is the closest we have to the PIE because the Andronovo had a lot of Steppe, even though they were R1a, and the Yamnaya/PIE lived between 3300–2500 BC, and the Rig-Veda was probably written between 600 BC–300 AD, being organized in the Gupta Period, 1900 years after the PIE, while the Celtic Lebor Gabála Érenn and Nordic Eddas were written 3300 years later, being that they are not even original records, but rather late compilations of heavily syncretized and Christianized oral traditions. Furthermore, these texts do not present rituals; they are essentially mythological narratives, which characterizes a paganism devoid of the organized ritualistic and liturgical structure present in the Rigveda.

>>17786675
>inb4 But the Greeks
Most of the myths and gods of Greek Mythology are native Anatolian and Middle Eastern. The AHG/ANF lived between 15,000–5,000 BCE, and the CHG/Iran_N between 13,000–6,000 BCE. This means that the Theogony stuff, written around 700 BC, came back 14,300/12,309–7,300/6,700 after them. In contrast, the Yamnaya/IE-speaking migrations into the Aegean occurred around 2500–2000 BCE, meaning the Theogony was written only about 1300 years after their arrival and 2600 after they emerged (700 years more difference compared to the Vedic), making the AHG/ANF and CHG/Iran_N mythic substrate far older and more foundational than the later IE final layer.

Although their supreme god was PIE, even he was influenced by them, since a Minoan Zeus (Velchanos) already existed, portrayed as a divine child with a mother and part of a myth of succession. That’s a major departure from Dyeus Phter, who was not a child, had no mother and was never "born", he simply was the Light of Heaven and All-Father, most similar to Uranus.

Btw Minoans. Even the pre-Mycenaean king Minos was said to be the son of Sky-Daddy and adoptive son of Asterion (CHG/Iran_N, the reason for having the same name as Minotaur, the Greek Moloch, since the presence of Aurochs is correlated with their ancestry). Asterion was son of Tectamus (Proto-Yamnaya), son of Dorus (Proto-Yamnaya), ancestor of the Dorians, son of Hellen (IE, since he is also the ancestor of the Achaeans, Aeolians, Ionians, etc...), adoptive son of Deucalion (CHG/Iran_N, see Ziusudra before), son of Prometheus (clearly CHG/Iran_N, since he is punished by Zeus in the Caucasus where he saved his children from the Flood there like the Noah Story), son of Iapetus (EHG), son of Gaia (WHG, but AHG/ANF for Greeks and EEF, aka ANF+WHG, for Europeans).

>>17786675
>inb4 But the Greeks
Most of the myths and gods of Greek Mythology are native Anatolian and Middle Eastern. The AHG/ANF lived between 15,000–5,000 BCE, and the CHG/Iran_N between 13,000–6,000 BCE. This means that the Theogony stuff, written around 700 BC, came back 14,300/12,309–7,300/6,700 after them. In contrast, the Yamnaya/IE-speaking migrations into the Aegean occurred around 2500–2000 BCE, meaning the Theogony was written only about 1300 years after their arrival and 2600 after they emerged (700 years more difference compared to the Vedic), making the AHG/ANF and CHG/Iran_N mythic substrate far older and more foundational than the later IE final layer.

Although their supreme god was PIE, even he was influenced by them, since a Minoan Zeus (Velchanos) already existed, portrayed as a divine child with a mother and part of a myth of succession. That’s a major departure from Dyeus Phter, who was not a child, had no mother and was never "born", he simply was the Light of Heaven and All-Father, most similar to Uranus.

Btw Minoans. Even the pre-Mycenaean king Minos was said to be the son of Sky-Daddy and adoptive son of Asterion (CHG/Iran_N, the reason for having the same name as Minotaur, the Greek Moloch, since the presence of Aurochs is correlated with their ancestry). Asterion was son of Tectamus (Yamnaya), son of Dorus (Yamnaya), ancestor of the Dorians, son of Hellen (IE, since he is also the ancestor of the Achaeans, Aeolians, Ionians, etc...), adoptive son of Deucalion (CHG/Iran_N, see Ziusudra before), son of Prometheus (clearly CHG/Iran_N, since he is punished by Zeus in the Caucasus where he saved his children from the Flood there like the Noah Story),...

>>17786773
... son of Iapetus (WHG or EHG, since Iapetus and his three brothers, Hyperion, Coeus and Crius, which are clearly EHG, stood at the four corners of the world to hold the body of Sky/Uranus while Cronus, hidden in the center, castrated him with a sickle. This represents the four cosmic pillars that in the cosmogonies of the Middle East, where Cronus was, separate heaven and earth. Iapetus was the pillar of the west, a position later occupied by his son Atlas, which was associated with the extreme west of Europe, Africa and beyond into the Ocean), son of Gaia (WHG, but AHG/ANF for Greeks and EEF, aka ANF+WHG, for Europeans).

There is an equivalent of this in Aztec Mythology (probably because of the ANE) with Quetzalcoatl ruling the West (Cihuatlampa), Tezcatlipoca ruling the North (Mictlampa), Tlaloc/Huitzilopochtli ruling the South (Huitzlampa) and Xipe Totec ruling the East (Tlahuizlampa), with Ometecuhtli/Huehueteotl/Xiuhtecuhtli ruling the Center/Axis (Nahui Ollin). They were called the Four Tezcatlipocas because this god, who was their father, is very similar physically to Tezcatlipoca.