Talk:Kurgan hypothesis

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• IE expansion.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Old and discredited theory

This is an old and discredited Eurocentric theory. [1] PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The cited reference credits the Kurgan hypothesis. How do you find this paper to be Template:Tq the current model? WikiLinuz {talk} 03:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

These findings give the kurgan hypothesis "a lot more credit," Nikitin says. Implying that this hypothesis has been discredited previously. I'll try to find a better reference. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I find your interpretation to be strange. "Gives a lot more credits" doesn't mean the hypothesis was previously "rejected", rather the current study "builds up or substantiated" the hypothesis even further through more modern evidence. That's how a "theory" in science works. WikiLinuz {talk} 04:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Also, consult The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony. It's a well received work. WikiLinuz {talk} 17:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It's really not. It's been the leading theory on the origin of PIE for decades and is by now all but universally accepted by linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] By all means show us what references you are basing this assertion on, but until then the Template:Tl isn't warranted and I've removed it. If anything, the article fails to reflect how much the debate has moved on in recent years, from where PIE came from, to how and why it spread. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

PunxtawneyPickle -- Considering that in the late 1980s, "Scientific American" was constantly running pieces pushing the Anatolian/Cavalli-Sforza/Renfrew hypothesis, if it's not doing so today, then it would appear to be the Anatolian hypothesis which is outdated (though "Scientific American" is hardly the last word in linguistics). AnonMoos (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

OK, well based on that and the comments above, we should be able to discuss the views on the Anatolian hypothesis and how it changed over time in the article, which we don't now. In fact, the current text of the article presents that somehow these competing hypotheses are compatible, PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

There's clearly a POV balance issue in the article. Does anyone not accept this theory? It seems that they did or do. However if you read the article it's almost like the other theories don't really exist or conflict. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. WikiLinuz {talk} 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes but clearly this is a significant competing theory. They don't have to be equal but my information from school, which might be a few years out of date, was that this theory was discredited. I'll defer to the newer info but there was period of time where it was competing with the Anatolian, and this is totally glossed over here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you have it reversed -- the Anatolian theory was a significant competing theory for a time, especially during the late 1980s and the 1990s, but it always had the problem that very few (if any) linguists who were professional Indo-Europeanists supported it, so that was mainly pushed by archaeologists and geneticists. More recent genetic analyses have discovered a significant "steppe" gene flow into Europe (though a great deal more complex than any one single invasion), and various other discoveries and theories have somewhat fallen into line (See The Horse, the Wheel, and Language etc), so that a general Kurgan or "Pontic-Caspian steppe" theory is now supported (though with much scholarly discussion about various details and minor problems, of course) -- and it doesn't have the problem of lacking support among professional Indo-Europeanist linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Template:Reply to Can you please stop messing around with my signature like you did here and here? Thanks. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 14:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not disputing the expertise or the scholarship, I am not an expert, but I think we should cover this historical shift if that is the case rather than acting like it didn't happen. Article as written does not cover this 1980s and 1990s info. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

See commons:User_talk:Mysterymanblue/Archive_1#Signature etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Recent genetic studies

Template:Yo You have changed the para in the lead starting Template:Tq to say that they Template:Tq Do any of the sources cited actually say that the Anatolian hypothesis is Template:Tq? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Haak et al. 2015. Plenty of others if that's not good enough...  Tewdar  20:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I was puzzled as to why it had been added now, and not before. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

That paragraph was probably added when the first papers were published, and was overly cautious. The recent genetics studies have led to consensus that the "PIE spread with Neolithic farmers" theory is pretty much dead. The ultimate urheimat is still not certain, however.  Tewdar  20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Yo I’ve had a look at Haak 2015 [9]. I think the relevant bit is on p136:

Template:Tq

This doesn’t actually say that the Anatolian hypothesis is Template:Tq. Rather, it says that the Kurgan hypothesis is more likely to be correct, but that it is possible that the Anatolian hypothesis may account for some of the major branches of I-E in southern Europe.

So I think that your wording Template:Tq should be deleted.

Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the preprint. Hang on a second and I'll paste up the relevant section from the peer reviewed article, along with the additional sources I added today.  Tewdar  13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The passage you quote doesn't seem to be in the peer reviewed paper. (It was in the supplement...) From Haak 2015: Template:Tq

From Shinde 2019: Template:Tq

And, Narasimhan 2019: Template:Tq

If you still don't think these sources justify the final sentence then perhaps I can find something else that will.  Tewdar  14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the reading matter. I don’t want to get into a discussion on the actual topic, on which I have no expertise, but I still don’t think that your ‘unlikely’ wording is justified by the sources you have provided.

1) Haak quote

Template:Tq Yes, but I interpreted the quote I highlighted to say that the Kurgan hypothesis has difficulty accounting for the I-E languages in southern Europe. So neither hypothesis really fits the data as currently known.

2)Shinde quote

Template:Tq

This is about the spread of I-E to India. It is not about the spread of I-E languages in Europe, and, as I understand it, the Anatolian hypothesis does not necessarily claim that the spread to India was via Iran (rather than the steppe).

3) Narasimhan quote

This is also about the spread of I-E to India, and the same comments apply.

Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

(1) If Template:Tq, then the Anatolian hypothesis is 'less likely', as the authors put it.

(2) The source says the results Template:Tq the Template:Tq

(3) If it is Template:Tq, then the Anatolian hypothesis, which postulates just such a scenario , is also Template:Tq, at least as an explanation for the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia.

Again, perhaps you are still not entirely convinced that the current sourcing justifies the word 'unlikely'. Personally, I think there are enough linguistic, archaeological, and genetic sources to describe it as Template:Tq in Wikivoice, but maybe I'll do that tomorrow. 😁  Tewdar  16:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I could always change it to 'less likely' in the meantime, if you like...  Tewdar  16:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m quite happy with ‘less’, as a ‘permanent’ amendment to the article; I see you have made this amendment. Are you happy to end the discussion in this way? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well... the Anatolian Neolithic hypothesis, as originally formulated and in its various updated incarnations, is not even plausible, let alone likely. But it can stay as it is for now.  Tewdar  18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

eg. Kristiansen et al. Template:Tq  Tewdar  19:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are agreeable to leaving the current wording as it is, then I think it’s best to end the discussion here. Thank you for your patience. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Migration of PIE people and domestication of Horses

This article implies a very early date for the domestication of horses (5th, 4th millennia). Marsha Levine and others have argued against such early dates. And such an early date is not required for the modelled expansion of the PIE peoples, since the acceleration of their migration takes place at the same time as the later dates for horse herding ( 3rd millennium, and really gets into high gear with the coming of the chariot (2nd millenium). David chaffetz (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WSJ article and source

Link: https://www.wsj.com/science/the-ancient-horsemen-who-created-the-modern-world-ba4b314d?mod=hp_listc_pos1 JohnAdams1800 (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)