Thank you. I have been waiting for you to mention the Kassites. If you ever choose to go down that rabbit hole, I have quite a number of things that you'll find interesting. The Kassites are the first. Aryans, are of them. Kashmir, kashgar, kizzuwatna, Gens Cassia of Rome. The Kassites were a people that were excellent by virtue of virtue itself. A great book that you might like is The God Kings of Europe by Hugh Montgomery. He figured out by good scholarship what i figured out by chasing rabbits. He explains where the Goths come from, and a few other things of interest.
I could literally go on forever about these people, but the magic of it all would be ruined, because there story will literally reveal itself to you if you look. Then you'll understand what makes me so obsessed. Have fun good sir!
Excellent work! This period in history is so fascinating because it is so obscure/mysterious. Have you taken a look at Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett's works, such as "The Trojan War of 650 BC" and "Moses in the Hieroglyphs"? They are blacklisted/demonized in a similar way to Waddel. I don't agree with all their points, but they raise a fascinating analysis on Ancient Egypt and Troy, chronological issues in the Ancient Near East, and issues with carbon dating obfuscations/deceptions. There is also a most intriguing book, "Where Troy Once Stood" by Iman Wilkens that points to a more Northern/Western origin for the first Troy featured in Homer's beautiful "Iliad" that was later conveyed to Greece by migrating/invading peoples. I just wanted to share those titles since they are very fascinating and offer good points and wondered if you had read them at all.
Thank you for your content! You were the one who opened my eyes (your Alexander the Great video is what got me hooked and down the rabbit hole, so to speak) to what's really going on and History's powerful truths, for which I hold you in the highest regard. I always enjoy hearing/watching your videos and reading your content and the level of insightful depth you apply to each of them. It is always a deep joy when a new one appears! Thank you!
Great stuff. Though, it begs the question of what the story is before 2000 BC. There's clearly much more ancient history to uncover and the Aryans of course did not spring out of the ground of the steppe...
You are correct. They came from high in the mountains. Those, who from above, came down to Earth. The heavenly ones, who lived above us... Anu-na-ki
Aryans are branch off of the fluke of genetic chance that were the Kassites. A people who had been living in the Himalayan mountains since the extinction of Neanderthal. They were literally the first hybridized humans.
Forced by their ability to all of a sudden experience empathy and compassion into the higher altitudes, where life was harder, they learned to build with what they had, stone not mud. They found metals, and they mastered them. In mountain valleys they were able to invent and successfully practice equine husbandry.
They came down back into the lush tropical environment to confront the hordes of lesser creatures who gathered to kill them for no good reason. They offered knowledge and sympathy. They received violence. But this time, they had keeps of stone. Swords of bronze. Horses that would bear to be ridden.
And they had a plan, something they all could agree was a noble goal that would be worth one's dying to pursue. Something more than feeding one's face.
Those were the Kassites. The Aryans as we know them are really just those who decided on taking horses and pushing further into the low land plains.
Which is why you'll find Caucasian mummies in China... and Egypt. And everywhere really. Because we were first. As old as the species and then some.
So refreshing to read where someone has a clear understanding of history and a good reasoning power. Whenever an ancient people is brought up, on youtube or otherwise, there are always a ton of comments from people who claim to be their direct descendants merely by inhabiting the same land that they once did. This always comes up when in videos about the Scythians in particular, where modern peoples of Iran, India, Central Asia etc. aggresively claim themselves to be their heirs, and attacks even the notion that modern Europeans could be related to them. A land area is merely a land area, it does not magically produce a certain people. This is especially true with the former Indo-European presence in Asia, like the same India and Iran. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking going on with regards to these topics. People seem incapable or simply too stupid to make meaningful distinctions between groups of peoples. The Iranic peoples for example is not a referance to the entire peoples of the region, but only the Indo-European/Aryan derived populations who conquered and settled, and ruled, and later to varying degrees moved West. This is such a simple distinction, and one would think an obvious one to all involved, yet many seem incapable of grasping it. When peoples like the Scythians are described as fair haired and eyed, and the Indo-Aryans of India are self describing themselves in the same way, this is obviously important. In the same regions they once inhabited, like India, Iran, Central Asia etc. these traits are now quite uncommon, and one would think people would be able to draw the obvious conclusions, and realize that the present day populations of those lands are not exactly carbon copies of the ancient peoples. Yes, it is true that many of them have remnant ancestry, usually relatively insignificant, from the Aryan tribes, and some of the population from the Aryans settled down for good there and ultimately mixed and disappeared as a distinct ethnicity. Yet it is clear to most who evaluates the complete picture that the vast majority, especially the more mobile/less settled steppe Aryans, were pushed and driven further and further West, into Europe.
I am also thankful for you pointing out the fact that a minority ruling elite does not simple mix with the population they are ruling over. There is a tendency i have noticed, where "historians" treat every relative small people group who settles/conquers in an area where they are heavily outnumbered by a radically different ethnic group, as if by the second this minority population enters the land they mix and disappear. This seems absurd to think, as if they would have no ethnic conciousness whatsoever, and merely melt into the larger population as if by magic. We are to believe that the Indo-European groups that settled in Asia, in areas heavily outnumered at times, merely disappeared within a couple of hundred years, without impacting history any further. It is simply a laughable idea. It also does not take into account that the Aryan element of those lands in ancient times were the nobility and those who had conquered the land, often if we are to believe what they said themselves (like the Rig Veda, where the Aryans fought massive armies of swarthy adversaries) against much larger numerical forces. Yet they had still triumphed, and now ruled over these same peoples. It may sound harsh, but why would they, the Aryans, who so clearly prized capability and excellence especially in combat, willingly mix with them? It makes little sense. The Rig Veda as an example speaks quite negatively about the aboriginals of India. It makes much more sense that as this general region became more inhospitibal due to various factors, not least the advance of the Huns, that those still energetic and resiliant enough decided to move, as was their custom, to relatively friendlier territory to the West.
Just some thoughts, probably too long of a text. That said, your clarity on these issues is refreshing and enjoyable.
I think we all have quite a bit of learning or teaching to do, before we're able to view these topics in a healthy, balanced, accurate way, again.. we've been pulled so far off the mark.
Yes, this is true. The Journey will none the less be interesting. As a side note, i find the Gutians who were settled in modern day Iran to be an interesting group. There is very little info on them, yet they seem to have played an important role and were located quite close to where the Scytho-Medes later settled. Might be of interest.
Agreed, the Gutians are fascinating.. with possible mentions of them all the way back to Sumerian times. I'm diving much deeper on all of this subject matter as we speak.
Happy to know that you are in substack. I cannot help but connect the Kassites to the tribe of Kashi in Northern India. In Vedic Sanskrit, Kaš means “the shining ones.” Their temple and ruling aristocracy traces descent from the Manu through the Solar (Suryavansha) kings who were predominantly priest-kings, chariot warriors and master archers. Laurence Gardner connects the Kassites and the Suhasini Tantra priesthood to the elf-kings of Mitanni and the Elamite aristocracy who were mostly likely cousin brothers and sisters, given that there was a Sanskrit speaking family of priests in ancient Sumer. I’m led to believe that before even the steppe invasions that occured around 1700-1500 BC, the Mesopotamian / Babylonian civilisation was spread all the way from Levant, Middle east and into North-Western India - a time when the priest and the warrior ruler was one single entity and not two separate castes.
Hattians (wikipedia): “The Hattians (/ˈhætiənz/) were an ancient Bronze Age people that inhabited the land of Hatti, in central Anatolia (modern Turkey). They spoke a distinctive Hattian language, which was neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Hattians are attested by archaeological records from the Early Bronze Age and by historical references in later Hittite and other sources. Their main centre was the city of Hattush. Faced with Hittite expansion (since c. 2000 BC), Hattians were gradually absorbed (by c. 1700 BC) into the new political and social order, imposed by the Hittites, who were one of the Indo-European-speaking Anatolian peoples. The Hittites kept the country name ("land of Hatti") unchanged, which also became the main designation for the Hittite state. … The use of the term "Proto-Hittite" as a designation for Hattians is inaccurate. The Hittite language(self-designation: Nešili, "[in the language] of Neša") is an Indo-European language and thus linguistically distinct from the (non-Indo-European) Hattian language. The Hittites continued to use the term “Land of Hatti” for their own state. The Hattians eventually merged with people who spoke Indo-European languages of the Anatolian group, including Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic.”
It seems the Indo-European invaders (Nesites?) adopted the existing name of the land they claimed and became intermixed with the pre-existing peoples over time, perhaps coming to use a variation of their name over time? This seems to mirror the Aryan invasion of India in some ways, interesting how these patterns reoccur across such vast geographical and chronological divides.
Thank you. I have been waiting for you to mention the Kassites. If you ever choose to go down that rabbit hole, I have quite a number of things that you'll find interesting. The Kassites are the first. Aryans, are of them. Kashmir, kashgar, kizzuwatna, Gens Cassia of Rome. The Kassites were a people that were excellent by virtue of virtue itself. A great book that you might like is The God Kings of Europe by Hugh Montgomery. He figured out by good scholarship what i figured out by chasing rabbits. He explains where the Goths come from, and a few other things of interest.
I could literally go on forever about these people, but the magic of it all would be ruined, because there story will literally reveal itself to you if you look. Then you'll understand what makes me so obsessed. Have fun good sir!
I will certainly take a look at that work..
I believe it’s new to me - always exciting.
Excellent work! This period in history is so fascinating because it is so obscure/mysterious. Have you taken a look at Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett's works, such as "The Trojan War of 650 BC" and "Moses in the Hieroglyphs"? They are blacklisted/demonized in a similar way to Waddel. I don't agree with all their points, but they raise a fascinating analysis on Ancient Egypt and Troy, chronological issues in the Ancient Near East, and issues with carbon dating obfuscations/deceptions. There is also a most intriguing book, "Where Troy Once Stood" by Iman Wilkens that points to a more Northern/Western origin for the first Troy featured in Homer's beautiful "Iliad" that was later conveyed to Greece by migrating/invading peoples. I just wanted to share those titles since they are very fascinating and offer good points and wondered if you had read them at all.
Thank you for your content! You were the one who opened my eyes (your Alexander the Great video is what got me hooked and down the rabbit hole, so to speak) to what's really going on and History's powerful truths, for which I hold you in the highest regard. I always enjoy hearing/watching your videos and reading your content and the level of insightful depth you apply to each of them. It is always a deep joy when a new one appears! Thank you!
Great stuff. Though, it begs the question of what the story is before 2000 BC. There's clearly much more ancient history to uncover and the Aryans of course did not spring out of the ground of the steppe...
You are correct. They came from high in the mountains. Those, who from above, came down to Earth. The heavenly ones, who lived above us... Anu-na-ki
Aryans are branch off of the fluke of genetic chance that were the Kassites. A people who had been living in the Himalayan mountains since the extinction of Neanderthal. They were literally the first hybridized humans.
Forced by their ability to all of a sudden experience empathy and compassion into the higher altitudes, where life was harder, they learned to build with what they had, stone not mud. They found metals, and they mastered them. In mountain valleys they were able to invent and successfully practice equine husbandry.
They came down back into the lush tropical environment to confront the hordes of lesser creatures who gathered to kill them for no good reason. They offered knowledge and sympathy. They received violence. But this time, they had keeps of stone. Swords of bronze. Horses that would bear to be ridden.
And they had a plan, something they all could agree was a noble goal that would be worth one's dying to pursue. Something more than feeding one's face.
Those were the Kassites. The Aryans as we know them are really just those who decided on taking horses and pushing further into the low land plains.
Which is why you'll find Caucasian mummies in China... and Egypt. And everywhere really. Because we were first. As old as the species and then some.
Brilliant. Thank you. Huge fan
I loved this... absolutely fascinating.🏅Thank you.
So refreshing to read where someone has a clear understanding of history and a good reasoning power. Whenever an ancient people is brought up, on youtube or otherwise, there are always a ton of comments from people who claim to be their direct descendants merely by inhabiting the same land that they once did. This always comes up when in videos about the Scythians in particular, where modern peoples of Iran, India, Central Asia etc. aggresively claim themselves to be their heirs, and attacks even the notion that modern Europeans could be related to them. A land area is merely a land area, it does not magically produce a certain people. This is especially true with the former Indo-European presence in Asia, like the same India and Iran. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking going on with regards to these topics. People seem incapable or simply too stupid to make meaningful distinctions between groups of peoples. The Iranic peoples for example is not a referance to the entire peoples of the region, but only the Indo-European/Aryan derived populations who conquered and settled, and ruled, and later to varying degrees moved West. This is such a simple distinction, and one would think an obvious one to all involved, yet many seem incapable of grasping it. When peoples like the Scythians are described as fair haired and eyed, and the Indo-Aryans of India are self describing themselves in the same way, this is obviously important. In the same regions they once inhabited, like India, Iran, Central Asia etc. these traits are now quite uncommon, and one would think people would be able to draw the obvious conclusions, and realize that the present day populations of those lands are not exactly carbon copies of the ancient peoples. Yes, it is true that many of them have remnant ancestry, usually relatively insignificant, from the Aryan tribes, and some of the population from the Aryans settled down for good there and ultimately mixed and disappeared as a distinct ethnicity. Yet it is clear to most who evaluates the complete picture that the vast majority, especially the more mobile/less settled steppe Aryans, were pushed and driven further and further West, into Europe.
I am also thankful for you pointing out the fact that a minority ruling elite does not simple mix with the population they are ruling over. There is a tendency i have noticed, where "historians" treat every relative small people group who settles/conquers in an area where they are heavily outnumbered by a radically different ethnic group, as if by the second this minority population enters the land they mix and disappear. This seems absurd to think, as if they would have no ethnic conciousness whatsoever, and merely melt into the larger population as if by magic. We are to believe that the Indo-European groups that settled in Asia, in areas heavily outnumered at times, merely disappeared within a couple of hundred years, without impacting history any further. It is simply a laughable idea. It also does not take into account that the Aryan element of those lands in ancient times were the nobility and those who had conquered the land, often if we are to believe what they said themselves (like the Rig Veda, where the Aryans fought massive armies of swarthy adversaries) against much larger numerical forces. Yet they had still triumphed, and now ruled over these same peoples. It may sound harsh, but why would they, the Aryans, who so clearly prized capability and excellence especially in combat, willingly mix with them? It makes little sense. The Rig Veda as an example speaks quite negatively about the aboriginals of India. It makes much more sense that as this general region became more inhospitibal due to various factors, not least the advance of the Huns, that those still energetic and resiliant enough decided to move, as was their custom, to relatively friendlier territory to the West.
Just some thoughts, probably too long of a text. That said, your clarity on these issues is refreshing and enjoyable.
Appreciated..
I think we all have quite a bit of learning or teaching to do, before we're able to view these topics in a healthy, balanced, accurate way, again.. we've been pulled so far off the mark.
Yes, this is true. The Journey will none the less be interesting. As a side note, i find the Gutians who were settled in modern day Iran to be an interesting group. There is very little info on them, yet they seem to have played an important role and were located quite close to where the Scytho-Medes later settled. Might be of interest.
Agreed, the Gutians are fascinating.. with possible mentions of them all the way back to Sumerian times. I'm diving much deeper on all of this subject matter as we speak.
Ad calenda graecas.
Chariots from yamnaya culture? Aren't you skipping/forgetting something?
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/357191814214743307/
You are connecting Greek with esmi? How? Here is the modern Greek είμαι/eimai.
And here is modern Serbian = "ja sam", "jesam" compared to Sanskrit "asmi".
By the way can you tell how the romans got to that saying ad calenda graecas?
Where did they borrow the term calenda if it wasn't the greeks and what does it refer to?
Come on, i expect more from you, you keep skipping steps in both your writing and your videos.
Happy to know that you are in substack. I cannot help but connect the Kassites to the tribe of Kashi in Northern India. In Vedic Sanskrit, Kaš means “the shining ones.” Their temple and ruling aristocracy traces descent from the Manu through the Solar (Suryavansha) kings who were predominantly priest-kings, chariot warriors and master archers. Laurence Gardner connects the Kassites and the Suhasini Tantra priesthood to the elf-kings of Mitanni and the Elamite aristocracy who were mostly likely cousin brothers and sisters, given that there was a Sanskrit speaking family of priests in ancient Sumer. I’m led to believe that before even the steppe invasions that occured around 1700-1500 BC, the Mesopotamian / Babylonian civilisation was spread all the way from Levant, Middle east and into North-Western India - a time when the priest and the warrior ruler was one single entity and not two separate castes.
Found this from cursory look at wikipedia:
Hattians (wikipedia): “The Hattians (/ˈhætiənz/) were an ancient Bronze Age people that inhabited the land of Hatti, in central Anatolia (modern Turkey). They spoke a distinctive Hattian language, which was neither Semitic nor Indo-European. Hattians are attested by archaeological records from the Early Bronze Age and by historical references in later Hittite and other sources. Their main centre was the city of Hattush. Faced with Hittite expansion (since c. 2000 BC), Hattians were gradually absorbed (by c. 1700 BC) into the new political and social order, imposed by the Hittites, who were one of the Indo-European-speaking Anatolian peoples. The Hittites kept the country name ("land of Hatti") unchanged, which also became the main designation for the Hittite state. … The use of the term "Proto-Hittite" as a designation for Hattians is inaccurate. The Hittite language(self-designation: Nešili, "[in the language] of Neša") is an Indo-European language and thus linguistically distinct from the (non-Indo-European) Hattian language. The Hittites continued to use the term “Land of Hatti” for their own state. The Hattians eventually merged with people who spoke Indo-European languages of the Anatolian group, including Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic.”
It seems the Indo-European invaders (Nesites?) adopted the existing name of the land they claimed and became intermixed with the pre-existing peoples over time, perhaps coming to use a variation of their name over time? This seems to mirror the Aryan invasion of India in some ways, interesting how these patterns reoccur across such vast geographical and chronological divides.