Talk:Indo-European migrations/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Page creation

This page was created out of info from other pages, to have a broad overview of the indo-European migrations. Not very elegant, but such an overview was seriously missing at Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is wrong with this article. You will need to be more specific about the countries, that have been affected due to these events. It will be easier to add more wikiprojects to this article, and we will have larger viewership. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The languages have to be mentioned. Indus script, and other proto(though disputed) writings should be added to the article. Also that how they evolved, until 500 A.D.? I think it is related with the evolution of indo-european economy, cultures. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Isn't that also in the specific language-articles? See Indo-European languages; very specialistic info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Change of change

I saw you had changed your recent change [1], recent one is harmonical. I just wanted to write that Edwin Bryant who wrote The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History, he presents arguments by "by some of the principal scholars" of linguists and archeologists who have debated, and he also cite particular groups(e.g. Nazi Reich) for describing the controversy. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Most text is still copies fromm other articles. The mentioning of "controversy" is more relevant at "Indo-Aryan migration theories"; here it is more relevant a very short historical overview (at least, that was my thought (I think (this is harmonica, isn't it? ;) )). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Diffusion from "Urheimat"

I realize there's a section missing: the diffusion from the "Urheimat" into a larger area, but before the migrations out of the Eurasian steppes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

@Paul Barlow: @Kautilya3: Beckwith gives a somewhat different chronology than Anthony, omitting the earliest migration or diffusion. See Indo-European migrations#Sequence of diffusion and migrations. What do you think of it? Which chronology is to be prefeerred? I tend toward Anthony, but it's a pity of the neat three stages of Beckwith. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would regard Beckwith's story as being a simplified version. Migrations that happened over a thousand years are going to be a lot more complicated than these simplistic scenarios. So, I think it is fine to go with Anthony's chronology. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The reliance on Beckwith is a major flaw of this article. He is neither an archaeologist nor an Indo-Europeanist. For example, see this review of his book:

  • Jones-Bley, Karlene; Huld, Martin E. (2010). "Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present" (PDF). Journal of Indo-European Studies. 38 (3&4): 431–443.

Kanguole 22:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll read it. I already had some doubts, as you'll have noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Map

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png
Indo-European migrations

I removed the second figure "Indo-European migrations", because the there outlined migration (not only ) of Germanic appears to be pure phantasy, regarding the general assumption that the Balto-Slavic languages are the closest relatives, and the Corded Ware Culture as probable stepping stone, let alone the far-fetched detour. HJJHolm (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's based on David Anthony (2007), The Horse, the Wheel and Language, Oxford University Press, chapter 1-6, especially p.56-58, p.81-82, p.98-101. See also chapter eleven: The End of Old Europe and the Rise of the Steppe. But I'm looking forward to a further explanation; I understand your comment on "the general assumption" to mean that it is a "general assumption" that "the Balto-Slavic languages are the closest relatives" (to what?), and that "the Corded Ware Culture [is a] probable stepping stone". The Corded Ware Culture may have been a stepping stone, or "ancestral" (Mallory & Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, p.127), but was itself not IE (M&A, p.127). But I may misunderstand you here. If the map needs corrections, suggestions would be very welcome of course. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The EIEC is outdated by M&A 2006. HJJHolm. One of the best wikis upon the CWC is Культура боевых топоров in ru.wikipedia. (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
See also Haak et. al., Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Nature, which refers to Anthony. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Good that you give the pages in Anthony (whom I appreciate very much), however, here he simply relies too much upon the outdated Ringe/Warnow/Taylor (only by themself called "perfect") tree and their method, which is not his field of competence (cf. H. J. Holm, The new arboretum of Indo-European 'trees', JQL 14(2-3):in particular pp. 206-8). He also is not a professional Historical Linguist as to be competent in linguistics and the subgrouping of Indo-European. Thus, this is no argument. And, what else was Indo-European if not the Corded-Ware/Schnurkeramik? At most, all are assumptions, and not to be drawn and published as fects as in that figure. The map needs no corrections, it simply is redundant, because there are better ones, e.g. that of dab. So please, let it off. HJJHolm (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
What a pity. it's a complicated topic, isn't it? Have you got some recommendations for me for reading? Regarding the Corded Ware specifically, is there a recent overview? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I just saw that you already have found the Haak et al. article, which exactly attests, what I wrote (and in fact was one of my sources). HJJHolm (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Nature-article and Corded Ware culture

@Florian Blaschke, Dbachmann, HJJHolm, and Maunus: could you please comment on the recent article on Nature, and the relation of the Corded Ware culture to the IE-migrations?

I'm re-inserting the info on Corded Ware, but I know too little about this topic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:39, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

What is to comment about facts they published? HJJHolm (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What to do with it in this, and other, Wikipedia-articles? And what to do with Anthony's approach of the history of the IE-languages? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Warnow or Tarnow

See Talk:Indo-European languages. --Thnidu (talk) 03:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional sources from 2014 & 2015

Some recent sources on genes & linguistics:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-European migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Armenians

To do/to read: Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Caucasus hunter-gatherers

Another interesting article: Eppie R. Jones et al. (2015), Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians, Nature Communications 6, Article number: 8912, doi:10.1038/ncomms9912, 2015:

"Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum. CHG genomes significantly contributed to the Yamnaya steppe herders who migrated into Europe ~3,000 BC, supporting a formative Caucasus influence on this important Early Bronze age culture. CHG left their imprint on modern populations from the Caucasus and also central and south Asia possibly marking the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indo-European migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Iranian (Zargos Mountains) origins?

This blog is interesting, connecting IE/Maykopf with Iran/Zargos Mountains. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-European migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Scientific evidence

Many of the popular notions about this subject are contradicted by genetic evidence discovered in the last decade. Molecules are a much better store of past population migrations compared to linguistics and archeological artifacts. As we get more data about the genetic compositions of populations, the history of migrations will be completely revealed. It has to do with the fact that mutations occur at a sufficiently large rate to reveal that history. Some of the popular ideas such as the Kurgan Hypothesis have already been proven wrong by the existing scientific genetic data (the greatest diversity of older descendant mutations of R or R1 does not occur in the steppes). I hope someone corrects this article by including the scientific evidence. If I have time in the future I will come back to it. Best, JS (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Overview source

Here's a nice secondary overview source: Barry Cunliffe (2015), By Steppe, Desert, and Ocean: The Birth of Eurasia, Oxford University Press. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Duplications"

This edit removed a lot of info from the section Indo-European migrations#Origins of Germanic, Italic, Celtic and Baltic-Slavic languages. Part of it is indeed repetition, part of it is not. The repetition occurs because Indo-European migrations#Sequence of diffusion and migrations gives a short overview of the various migrations, which are explicated in more detail in the following sections. For this particluar section there is not so much detail, as I am working on it at the moment, but it's indispensible for this section on the origins of the west-European IE-languages. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that my edit "removed a lot of info". In fact I didn't remove any concept or info at all. What I "removed" can be found here and here - Corded Ware culture subsection (Usatovo culture). There cannot be a reason for duplicating, and even triplicating, whole sentences, word by word. Still the current text has many issues. Just read the TOC: entire parts are still repeating themselves, and too much emphasis is given to the languages side of the story and less so to the culture side.
Many paras may be omitted, eg

The Italic languages are a subfamily of the Indo-European language family originally spoken by Italic peoples. They include the Romance languages derived from Latin (Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese, French, Romanian, Occitan, etc.); a number of ...

If Joshua Jonathan is in the process of reworking the page, they should consider the opportunity of unifying parts instead of maintaining an initial "short overview" followed by a repetition in more detail later. The "short overview" should be strictly reserved to the lede initial section only. Carlotm (talk) 21:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

the info on the Urheimat and the Kurhan thesis. Still working, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Web-sources

@Carlotm: thanks for your gnomish work on the details! But, regarding this edit: why not? In my logic (when using the sfn-format), references refer to a source, which are mentioned separately. The web-sources are the sources themself, so it makes sense to mention them together with the printed sources. PS: thanks also fro the {{r|reference}}; I didn't know that one yet. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: To be precise, sfn-format references do not refer to a source; they refer to a footnote which is linked to a source. Allow me to consider your logic a bit convoluted. Mine is simpler. Any annotation inside the text (number, letter, or both) that refers to a footnote should stay together, maybe sorted in different groups, like in this case, but together. They belong to the same family, let say. "Sources", "Further reading" and similaria are a different thing. Most of Wikipedia pages happen to consider references and sources in this same way. BTW many WEB referenced footnotes are mixed up, some are in "References", some in "Web", nullifying the whole organisation. That's what I want to correct next. So it is important we play the same game. Carlotm (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
@Carlotm: thanks. The web-references need improvement indeed; the job's not finished yet. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:40, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External link: Tony Joseph

This edit replaced a link to Tony Joseph's How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate with a link to Silva et al. (2017) A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals, with the edit-summary "Joseph's article is a very bad reading of the paper. Linked the original paper." The original paper is fine of course, but the qualification "very bad reading" is a misqualification. It gives a convenient and readable overview of recent publications, and a decent overview of the misrepresentation and misunderstanding of that recent research by some opponents of the IAmt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are important nuances of the original paper which Joseph ignored and did an [WP:OR] (the reasons, best known to him alone). Swarajya article Genetics Might Be Settling The Aryan Migration Debate, But Not How Left-Liberals Believe is a direct rebuttal to the misinformed op-ed piece. Joseph, puts in a lot of politics and philology in a genetics study, IMO. So, either you should remove the article by Joseph entirely or replace it with the original paper. Crawford88 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, right, Swarajya. Please provide serious objections. (Good morning, by the way). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If you don't have any serious academic criticism to the points raised in that article, we can stop the discussion. I can live with you acting like this article is your personal fiefdom. Good day to you too. Crawford88 (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Crawford88 is correct here about the reliablility of this opinion piece, it is written by a common writer (see his twitter). Replacing it with the Silva's research piece was better choice. Capitals00 (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
You can provide sources to support your opinion below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for comments:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request

I've added a link at the external links section to "Tony Joseph (2017), How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate, The Hindu. It was removed three times (see section above), with the argument that it is an inaccurate opinion-piece, referring to a Swarajya opinion piece: Genetics Might Be Settling The Aryan Migration Debate, But Not How Left-Liberals Believe. I think it should be included, since the article by Tony Joseph gives a good overview, whereas Swarajya is definitely not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

See also "Eurogenes blog, Ancient herders from the Pontic-Caspian steppe crashed into India: no ifs or buts" commenting on the Swarajya-piece: "Soon after came this peculiarly titled retort in the Swarajya online magazine, in which unfortunately it's impossible to find a single coherent argument [...] Generally hilarious stuff, except the parts where the author abuses blogger Razib Khan for moving with the latest genetic data and arguing in favor of the Aryan expansion into India." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Comments

How about we include all three sources? One(Silva) is already there though. Because if we go by policy of WP:EL, then all three links passes the requirement. Capitals00 (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been thinking about that too, but in a note, since three pieces on the same topic may be overdone. But a second notes-section is also overdone... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
NB: Joseph's article was published in the science-section, not in the opinion-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - The Hindu article is clearly a good overview of the recent research. Swarajya is not a mainstream news source. So we don't regard it as WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have now inserted the external link, and Silva is still there. I am sure that more can be brought here in coming years. This rfc can be closed now. Capitals00 (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
You surprise me! Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

David Anthony and the CHG/Neolithic Iranians

Where is the CHG/Neolithic Iranian component in Anthony's story? Neolithic farming spread from two centers: from Eastern Anatolia to the west, and from western Iran to the East - and also to the north? See also:

"The latest study also finds traces of the diverse foundations of farming beyond Europe. Iranian farmers moved north into the Eurasian steppe and eastwards into present-day India and Pakistan.

That is, they moved north and mixed witht he hunter-gatherers at the steppe, forming the pre-proto-Indo-Europeans. And they moved to India, forming the nucleus of ANI. In time, descendants from the ppIE moved from the steppes to India, mixing with the already existing ANI-component, that is, the Dravidian post-Harappans.

A team of researchers examined ancient DNA from four skeletons representing some of the world's first farmers from the Zagros region of Iran – the site of the oldest evidence for farming to date – in a study published today in the journal Science. Analysis found the ancient DNA to be very different from the genomes of early farmers from the Aegean and Europe. However, there were similarities between the Neolithic farmer's DNA and that of people alive today from southern Asia, including from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iranian Zoroastrians – members of one of the world’s oldest religions – in particular.


people living in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and India share considerably more long chunks of DNA with early farmers in Iran. ‘This genetic legacy of early farmers persists, although of course our genetic make-up subsequently has been reshaped by many millennia of other population movements and intermixing of various groups.’

Burger and Reich also each used their data to peer even further back in time, to the ancestors of the Zagros Mountain farmers. They found that the Zagros people descend from a group of basal Eurasians who separated from the ancestors of all other people outside of Africa 50,000 to 60,000 years ago—before other non-Africans interbred with Neandertals. So the Zagros Mountain farmers had less Neandertal DNA than the western Anatolian farmers, whose ancestors must have branched off later.

(What a relief for white supremacists and Indian nationalists: we truly are the oldest people at the earth - apart from Africans, of course...).

the Zagros Mountain farmers spread north into the Eurasian steppe and east into South Asia.

No suprise what the coming-up big ancient India genetics paper will say: ancient north-west Indians were related to ancient Iranians, due to neolithic agricultural migrations.

Burger suggests that farming was such an advantage that it spread both as an idea and by migration of people.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that the populations hemmed into river valleys in arid regions would have had greater incentives to develop farming than the populations that had an abundance of green pasture lands. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Indo-European migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-European migrations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Stone Age Pest helped Indo-European migrations?

Thanks to Eurogenes Blog, The ancient genomics revolution (Skoglund & Mathieson 2017 preprint), some new information to be added. From Bruce Bower, How Asian nomadic herders built new Bronze Age cultures, ScienceNews:

Population declines among European farmers and foragers around 5,000 years ago (SN: 11/2/13, p. 12), possibly due to epidemics (SN: 11/28/15, p. 7), may have enabled incoming Yamnaya to exert such influence. First, migrating herders sent war bands of teenage boys as advance forces to settle European territories (SN Online: 8/7/17), a team led by Kristian Kristiansen of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden proposed in the April Antiquity. The rest of the migrants arrived soon after, the researchers suspect. Yamnaya men then married women from local groups, possibly by abducting them. Kristiansen coauthored the 2015 paper by Willerslev’s group.

See also Valtueña et al., The Stone Age Plague and Its Persistence in Eurasia:

Interpreting our data within the context of recent ancient human genomic evidence that suggests an increase in human mobility during the LNBA, we propose a possible scenario for the early spread of Y. pestis: the pathogen may have entered Europe from Central Eurasia following an expansion of people from the steppe, persisted within Europe until the mid-Bronze Age, and moved back toward Central Eurasia in parallel with human populations.

Some more links:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

NB: Bower also writes:

That and other genetic studies of southeastern Europeans “suggest that some, but not all, branches of Indo-European [languages] came from steppe peoples,” says linguist Paul Heggarty of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Jena, Germany.

From Heggarty: Ancient DNA and the Indo-European Question. This is what Eurognes Blog has to say about Paul Heggarty, in Paul Heggarty: desperate or clueless? :

These are exceedingly naive and stupid comments from someone representing the Max Planck Institute. Perhaps as an ardent supporter of the Anatolian hypothesis he's feeling more than a little desperate at this point and clutching at straws?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Name change?

Maybe we should change the name of this article to "indo-European origins and dispersals"; migration is not the only explanation for the dispersal of Indo-European languages, and the origins of (pre-)proto-Indo-European are also drawing attention, with renewed interest in the Caucasian/Iranian origins of one of the contributants to Indo-European. See also Damgaard et al. (2018), The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Pest

The pest may have decimated neolithic populations in Europe, giving way to the Indo-European migrations. See:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Biased? Kurgan-Hypothese

I think this is somewhat centered on the Kurgan-Hypothese and make the other hypotheses look less likely. But according to the newest reseraches, the "South of the Caucasus" theory or "Northern iranian" theory is supported by genetics and migration.

Some refs:

  • The genetic history of Greater Caucasus[1]
  • "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran - NewScientist"[2]
  • Reich, David (2018), Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

some further informations [3], [4], ... see Armenian hypothesis.

References

  1. ^ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1
  2. ^ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2169896-worlds-most-spoken-languages-may-have-arisen-in-ancient-iran/
  3. ^ https://en.xmu.edu.cn/37/99/c10845a341913/page.htm
  4. ^ https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/013433v1

I will include some informations about that new data. --AsadalEditor (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@AsadalEditor: The sources don't support these changes. Wang et al.'s 2018 paper has no real connection to the Armenian hypothesis and doesn't contradict the kurgan hypothesis. It's also a single, unpublished primary source – we can't use that as a basis for saying the entire scientific consensus has changed. Pop science outlets like the New Scientist also aren't very reliable. Reich's book is a better; but, while I don't have a copy handy, I can only recall him saying that an Armenian origin is an outside possibility. Otherwise he has been one of the leading proponents of the renewed kurgan hypothesis.
Remember that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be conservative, reflecting the settled consensus of experts based on secondary and tertiary sources. We don't need to try to represent the cutting-edge. – Joe (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Ok, i understand. I only thought that the articles are too centered at the Steppe theory while there is evidence for a southern origin. As i understand the Kurgan hypothesis is compactible with a southern origin. But i understand now why you reverted my edit. Thank you for the clarification. —AsadalEditor (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
You need to understand that the discussion revolves about the immediate origin of the Indo-European languages. There is now broad agreement that this immediate origin is north of the Caucasus. If the Indo-Uralic hypothesis is correct, and it is quite credible (if hard to prove decisively because of the time-depth involved and the strongly divergent phonologies), then even the more remote origin of Indo-European is likely still north of the Caucasus. Any "southern origin" that archaeogenetic evidence points to is even more remote, probably prior to about 8000 BC. And it's not surprising that the ultimate origin of Indo-European would lie to the south, because all humans originate further south, in Africa! But just like the ultimate African origin is irrelevant to the discussion, so is the ultimate West (or Central, or whatever) Asian origin. Reports of archaeogenetic research all too often fail to differentiate between the different origins and their time-depths. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

‘Pre-Yamnaya’ – cattle breeding foragers?

‘The adjacent Bug-Dniester culture (6300-5500 BCE) was a local forager culture, from where cattle breeding spread to the steppe peoples’. Surely when people are breeding cattle, they are no longer foragers? What exactly is meant here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweet6970 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sharp! I've corrected the sentence. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

‘Yamnaya’ – Yamnaya horizon

This section refers to the ‘Yamnaya horizon’ without explaining exactly what is meant. Can someone clarify? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

See Horizon (archaeology). I've added a link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Sweet6970 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sea Peoples and the Bronze Age Collapse - delete

Sea Peoples and the Bronze Age Collapse

It is not known what language any of the Sea Peoples spoke. The main article on the Sea Peoples does not refer to this aspect.

‘The Sea Peoples are regarded as being composed of various groups of Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples.’ The reference given for ‘regarded’ as Indo-European is Kidner et al, Making Europe: People, Politics and Culture. This advertises itself on Amazon https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=HumKY7fn9cMC&redir_esc=y as ‘Designed for students without a strong background in history…’ so it is not a scholarly work.

Since we don’t know that any of the Sea Peoples spoke Indo-European languages, it is inappropriate to refer to these migrations in this article.

I am intending to delete the heading and the following 2 paras on the 'Sea Peoples' entirely. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hyksos and Maryannu - Delete

The section on the Hyksos says that the Hkysos may have been related to the Amorites, and to the Hebrews – both Semitic, rather than I-E. It also says that the Hyksos included Hurrians – again non-I-E. The idea seems to be that the Hurrians may have been influenced by I-E speakers (as under the section on the Mitanni) and that therefore, anyone who may be Hurrian counts as I-E. This supposed connection is extremely tenuous. Simlarly, under the Maryuannu/Maryannu section, Hurrians are spoken of as if they were I-E speakers. I am intending to delete the sections on the Hyksos and the Maryannu, as there does not seem to me to be sufficient justification for treating these people as being relevant to I-E migrations. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Armenian - proposed change

This article is supposed to be about the migrations of the Indo-Europeans, but it seems that nothing is known about how Armenian came to be spoken in Armenia, nor whether it was ever spoken elsewhere. Neither the Hittites, the Mitanni, nor the Urartians spoke Armenian. It seems that nothing is known of any languages spoken by the Hayasa-Azzi and the Nairi. These peoples may have contributed to the Armenian people, but it is misleading to refer to them here, because it suggests that they all spoke Armenian. I suggest that the first para of this section should be deleted, and replaced by the following, which is taken from Definition section of the article on the Proto-Armenian language:

"The earliest testimony of Armenian is the 5th-century Bible translation of Mesrop Mashtots. The earlier history of the language is unclear and the subject of much speculation. It is clear that Armenian is an Indo-European language, but its development is opaque.

In any case, Armenian has many layers of loanwords and shows traces of long language contact with Indo-Aryan Mitanni, Anatolian languages, Semitic languages such as Akkadian, and the Hurrio-Urartian languages."

The comment about the Armenian hypothesis would remain unaltered. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)


2nd THOUGHTS

I have had second thoughts about the Armenian section. The para I was intending to copy from the article on the Proto-Armenian Language has no references. I now propose the following, based on information taken from the website of the University of Texas at Austin, the introduction to Classical Armenian online, by Todd B Krause & Jonathan Slocum.

The Armenian language was first put into writing in 406 or 407AD when a priest known as Mesrop developed an Armenian alphabet.

There are three views amongst scholars about how speakers of Armenian came to be in what is now Armenia. One is that they came with Phrygians from the west, or with the Mitanni from the east, and took over from the non-Indo-European speaking Urartians, who were previously dominant in this area. Another view is that the Armenian people came to speak an Indo-European language after originally speaking a Caucasian language. The third view is that the ancestor of the Armenian language was already spoken in the area during the time when it was politically dominated first by the Hittites, and later by the Urartians. [arm 1]

A minority view suggests that the Indo-European homeland may have been located in the Armenian Highland.[arm 2]


I know nothing about Armenian. Any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Krause & Slocum. "Classical Armenian Online- Romanized -Introduction". Linguistics Research Center. University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved 4 May 2019.
  2. ^ Thomas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov, The Early History of Indo-European Languages, March 1990, p. 110.

Narasimha et al (2018) Revising the date of Indo-Aryan migration?

The article talks about migration into BMAC around 2400–1600 BCE and Indo-Aryan migration into Indian subcontinent around 1500 BCE. But according to Narasimha et al (2018), Indo-European migration largely skipped over BMAC and reached Indian subcontinent by 1900 BCE. Should we revise these dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.97.153.245 (talk • contribs) 30 may 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the date "1900" in the Narasimhan-article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Not neutral point of view

Mainstream view

Arbitrary break #1

This article seems rather biased in favor of the view of Maria Gimbutas (named and linked several times!), claiming that her "Kurgan hypothesis" is the "mainstream view" -- as if being "mainstream" was somehow enough to make a theory more likely than alternative theories.
The article should instead try to searate facts (archaological record, including inscriptions) from theories, and summarize the arguments that support each theory. As long as the evidence for each hypothesis is only circumstantial, the article should try to avoid taking sides.
In particular, there is this statement

According to some archaeologists, PIE speakers cannot be assumed to have been a single, identifiable people or tribe, but were a group of loosely related populations ancestral to the later, still partially prehistoric, Bronze Age Indo-Europeans. This view is held especially by those archaeologists who posit an original homeland of vast extent and immense time depth. However, this view is not shared by linguists, as proto-languages generally occupy small geographical areas over a very limited time span, and are generally spoken by close-knit communities such as a single small tribe.

The article then goes on as if the opinion of the linguists "of course" trumped that of the archaeologists.
Apart from that bias, the claim of the linguists itself is not well supported by historical precedent.

thought experiment - WP:FORUM

The Romance languages, for example, evolved from Vulgar Latin, a language that was never spoken by a "close-knit community" or a "single small tribe" over a "small geographical area" That was true of classical Latin, but the spread of Vulgar Latin (a radically different language) was not due to the tribe of Latins migrating all over Europe; rather, it was due to the use of Vulgar Latin as the language of administration of the Empire and its armies -- which were almost entirely composed of non-Latins.
Imagine, for the sake of argument, that there were no written records of any kind earlier than AD 1500. The linguists would surely recognize that the Romance languages attested from that time onwards evolved from a common language; and comparative linguists might even be able to reconstruct a "Proto-Romance" that might have some resemblance to Vulgar Latin. But they would never be able to guess the existence of classical Latin, much less reconstruct it. Moreover, the methods that are used to locate the "Urheimat" of the "Proto-Indo-Europeans" would probably locate that of the "Proto-Romantics" north of the Alps, possibly in eastern France -- never in that very "small geographical area" in Italy, way out in the periphery of the current Romance range, which by 700 BCE was squeezed between vastly larger Etruscan- and Oscan- speaking nations.
This thought experiment should show that the "small tribe" hypothesis is not at all obvious, no matter how much faith the linguists have in it.


All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you please refer to WP:RS, instead of using the talkpage as a WP:FORUM for your personal arguments? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not "forum" to discuss whether the ARTICLE is neutral or not. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The "mainstream view" is the view that accounts for all the available evidence as of now. So, that is the one that gets the most space as per WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
How can you know that? The books that push theory X naturally emphasize the evidence that supports their theory, and interpret it in the way that suits it; while generally ignoring evidence that contradicts it.
But I am not trying to argue for an alternative theory. My gripe is that the article presents as "facts" claims what are still only theories. Starting with the "fact" that there once was a small community that spoke "the" Proto-Indo-European language. We simply do not know that, and at present there is no way of knowing.

Consider how complex have been the movements and evolution of people, nations, and languages in Eurasia in the "historical" millennium from, say, 300 BCE to 700 CE. It should be obvious that, in the FOUR preceding millennia, the picture must have been much more complicated than what the map with arrows on the article would lead the reader to believe.
Equating the diffusion of pottery styles with migrations of peoples and languages is questionable too. In the 6th century BCE the Etruscans eagerly adopted the Greek figure ware style. If one were to judge by the archaeological record only, one might claim that the Etruscans of Roman times were Indo-Europeans, specifically Greek. We know that they did not speak an IE language only because their writings have survived.


--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3 follows the publications on this topic; that's how he knows. See the "Further reading" section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean that the claim "the Kurgan hypothesis is the only one that accounts for all evidence" is Kautilya3's own conclusion? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears that the original research illustrated above has spawned unfortunate merger proposals at Talk:List of ancient Italic peoples and Talk:List of ancient peoples of Italy. Krakkos (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I've collapsed two WP:FORM-comments. Here are some other comments which present apparent 'truisms' as statements of facts:
  • This article seems rather biased in favor of the view of Maria Gimbutas (named and linked several times!), claiming that her "Kurgan hypothesis" is the "mainstream view" -- as if being "mainstream" was somehow enough to make a theory more likely than alternative theories.
What the lead says is: According to the widely held Kurgan hypothesis, c.q. renewed Steppe hypothesis. Simple fact is: this theory is widely held. See Parpola (2015); Anthony & Ringe (2015); and Narasmhan et al. (2018). If someone thinks otherwise, please provide sources which say so. And yes, being mainstream is an indication that a theory is more likely than other theories.
  • As long as the evidence for each hypothesis is only circumstantial - which source says so?
  • The article then goes on as if the opinion of the linguists "of course" trumped that of the archaeologists. - where dos the article say that?
  • the claim of the linguists itself is not well supported by historical precedent - this statement is non-sensical (taken literal, it says that there is no historical precedent for the spread of languages by migrations, or for popularions undergoing a language-shift).
  • The books that push theory X naturally emphasize the evidence that supports their theory, and interpret it in the way that suits it; while generally ignoring evidence that contradicts it. - see WP:REDFLAG. Any acquaintance with recent publications on the Indo-European migrations?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • First, some "procedural" points:
  1. WP:FORUM is about use of the talk page to debate the TOPIC. Claims that THE ARTICLE is is biased, and arguments supporting that claim, are totally not "WP:FORUM", and totally within the purpose of talk pages.
  2. Sources are required for disputable statements in ARTICLE space, not on talk pages. If the article claims "left-handed people are green", a post "I don't think that left-handed people are green" on the talk page is quite valid even without a source. The editors who support the first claim should then either provide a reputable source IN THE ARTICLE, or at least give good arguments in the talk page why that post should be ignored.
  3. Arguments based on logic (rather than authority of some source), including thought experiments, are not "original research".
  4. Moreover, WP:OR applies to article space, not talk pages. "I tried it in my lab, and could not get water to burn in pure oxygen" is not admissible evidence in an article, but is a quite useful comment in a talk page, that cannot be dismissed just because "it is OR".
  5. WP:CAN
  6. I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004. This is the first time that I had my criticisms on a Talk page hidden behind pull-downs (to protect the fragile brains of readers who may wander here?), the first time I have been accused of being a "fringe theorist", and the first time saw a dissenting editor ask a friendly admin to post a warning on my user talk page, saying that, since I "have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science", I must be reminded that sanctions may befall me if I don't follow "page-specific restrictions".
For my replies about the substantive points, see below.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break #2

Replying to User:Joshua Jonathan and others:
Sure, strictly speaking, any claim by anyone about anything is a "theory". But there are theories that have literally millions of pieces of evidence that anyone can check (like "the Earth is round"), theories that are supported by lots of evidence, even if not totally conclusive (like "Homo sapiens descended from primates in Africa") theories that have supporting but not quite conclusive evidence (like "the Moon formed from debris ejected from the Earth by a colliding planetesimal"), theories that are possible but have no real evidence for or against (like "some ancient gods were aliens from another planet"), theories that are suported by some evidence but contradicted by other evidence (like "the legendary Sarasvati is the present Ghaggar-Hakra river"), theories that are quite unlikely in view of the avaliable evidence (like "the sun is a member of a binary star system") and theories that are contradicted by millions of pieces of evidence (like "the Earth is flat").
We usually call theories of the first kind "facts"; we don't usually call them "theories" because they are theories only in the most trivial sense of the term. It is certainly apropriate for a Wikipedia article to state "the Earth is round" rather than "the mainstream theory about the shape of the Earth is that it is round". If we could not use the plain word "is" for such theories, when could we use it?
So, the question is: where in this spectrum lie the various claims that are made, assumed, or implied in this and related articles? In particular, the claims that

  • A "Proto-Indo-European language" was actually spoken by some people in some past epoch.
  • That ancestral community of the "Proto-Indo-European people" lived around 4000-5000 BCE.
  • All attested Indo-European languages descend from that language through what comparative linguists call (uniparental) "genetic descent".
  • Said PIE language was at one point spoken by a small and tightly-integrated community of "Proto-Indo-European people".
  • The spread of the IE family of languages was due to migration of those "PIE people" into the areas where PIE languages were later attested.
  • Those "PIE people" were the people of the "Kurgan culture".
  • Certain genetic markers in present populations or archaeological remains were inherited from those "PIE people" or from the Kurgans.

Surely you must admit that none of these theories qualify as "facts" in the same way that "the Earth is round" does. In the above spectrum, they range from "supported by some evidence" to "rather unlikely" or worse. Here is all the hard evidence that could be relevant to them:

  • All known human populations — including Aborigines in Australia and the Andaman Andaman Islands, which have been fairly isolated from the rest of humanity for 50,000 years or more, and American aborigines, separated for 10,000 years or more —speak grammatically complex languages with large lexicons.
  • All habitable parts of Europe have been populated by hominids (such as Neanderthals) for more than 120,000 years, by modern humans since more than 30,000 years.
  • The so-called Indo-European languages, living and extinct, have certain similarities in lexicon and grammar that set them apart from other languages. Inscriptions and historical accounts show conclusively that those languages are derived (genetically or not) from a dozen or so "earliest attested ancestral languages" (EALs), like early Latin, Minoan Greek, Hittite, etc., that show the same similarieties characteristic of IE languages.
  • Archaology shows successions of different lifestyles (such as hunter-gatherer, agricultural, pastoral, urban) and "cultures" (namely styles, technologies, and habits) at every site in Europe. Some of those changes seem to have spread in waves through large areas.
  • Genetic analysys of living people and ancient remains shows the appearance and spread of certain gene markers.

On the other hand:

  • There is no direct evidence that a single "PIE language" was ever spoken by anyone anywhere. That theory is far from being a "fact". The language that goes by that name was reconstructed by comparative linguists by starting from the assumption that all the IE EALs had a unique "genetic" ancestor. Therefore, it is not surprising that many words and constructs of the IE EALs can be derived from PIE. But there are many ways in which that hypothesis may not be true.
    For instance, there may have been a wide sprachbund in Eurasia, including many languages that had been separate since much older times but which came to share the characteristic features of the IE languages, without ever merging into one language.
    In particular, native plants and wild animals have been important to humans since they set foot in the continent. Thus finding similar names in the IE EALs does not imply that they were inherited from a single PIE ancestral language. They could have come from a much older substrate into the IE languages. Consider how many Latin and Greek terms entered the lexicons of European languages, including many non-Romance ones, in Medieval and later times.
    Note, I am not proposing this as an alternate hypothesis. (Although I bet that it has been advaned by some scholars.) I am setting it out only to show to the editor of this and related articles that the actual existence of a single living PIE language at some epoch is a theory that is quite a bit lower than "fact".
    That is, the "PIE language" may well be a purely imaginary artifact created by undue extrapolation — like "Adam and Eve", the hypothetical single couple from which all humans would have descended (or its modern version, the "Seven daughters of Eve").
  • Even if at some point there was a set of people who spoke a "PIE language" from which all IE languages descend, there is no reason to believe that its speakers formed a closely knit community. For example, the "Proto-language" of the Romance languages was Vulgar Latin (no need to quote sources for that, I hope?), but the latter was not spoken by a "small community". On the contrary, it was a lingua franca of administrators, soldiers, and vassals of the Roman Empire, from Britain to Asia Minor, which were almost entirely drawn from conquered peoples, not from the people of Latium (whose native language was close to Classical Latin).
  • The epoch when the "PIE language" was spoken by the original "PIE people" was set to around 4000-5000 BCE partly as a consequence of the Kurgan theory itself. Whereas the proponents of the Anatolian hypothesis, for example, naturally put it at 8000 BCE. The fact is that there is absolutely no evidence about the evolution of IE languages in the 2-3 millennia between the "Kurgan hypothesis" date and the IE EALs.
    "Glottochronology" may be invoked in support of that date; but any such estimate is largely a guess. Biologists have an independent way of determining the time when two species diverged, and hence a way to calibrate the "DNA mutation clock" — and they find that its speed can vary enormously from case to case. Linguists, on the other hand, have no independent way calibrate the "language evolution clock" for that time period; and anyway it is likely to be at least as unreliable as the biological one.
  • Even if there was a single ancestral "PIE language" spoken by a small community of "PIE people", there is no evidence that its development into the IE EALs in ther places was due to migration of those "PIE people". Even the paper by Haal et al. says so (in spite of the title). Migrations are only one of several ways that a language can spread. The historic record shows that, while it is the way in some cases (Turkey, Australia, part of Latin America), it was defintely not the case in others (Italy (twice), Angola, Kenya, Zaire, ...)
    Moreover, a language can be carried by two or more migrations that, even if they were substantial by themselves, are negligible on the whole. Again, the historical record shows many examples. There was subtantial migration form England to the US, and from the US to Liberia, which carried the English language with them; but of course there was practically no migration from England to Liberia. So, even if the IE features of Minoan Greek flowed from the Pontic steppe to Minoan Greece, it does not follow that any humans (or genes) made that whole trip.
    The archaeological evidence may show the spread of "cultures"; but has absolutely nothing to say on the spread of languages.
    Once more, the historical record shows plenty of examples of the spread of styles, technology, habits, and religions completely divorced from languages. Blue-Jeans wearware, internal combustion chariots, and Brown Longneck glassware are plentiful in China as well as in Canada and Thailand. The dead are buried supine in graves with tombstones, closely packed in cemeteries, in Sweden, Bolivia, Mali, and Bulgaria.
    Again, around 600 BCE the Etruscans switched from their characteristic "bucchero" ware to the Greek "figure" ware. If it wasn't for the surviving inscriptions, careless historians might easily assume as a fact that the Greek invaded Etruria in 600 BCE, and the people in the region — including the citizens of Rome — spoke Greek after that date.
  • In particular, there is no evidence that the "Kurgan people" spoke an IE language. Not "little evidence", not "only indirect evidence": NO evidence whatsoever.
  • As for the genetic evidence of Haak et al, it deserves a separate post.
  • Finally, you cannot trust the supporters of a theory T about some problem P when they claim that their theory is the most widely accepted among the students of P. They will naturally exclude from the statistics all students of P whom they regard incompetent or "fringe"; and of course someone who refuses to accept theory T as "most likely" is either incompetent or fringe. (Aren't the Kurgan fans excluding a priori the proponents of the "Out of India" theory because they have decided that it is "fringe"?)
    Even if that claim is somehow upheld by independent sources, it does not make theory X more likely to be true. All experts on homepathy agree that a single molecule of poison in a pool of pure water, if well shaken, is an antidote for that poison. All ufologists agree that ufos from other planets are real. All experts in Flat Earth Studies agree that the Earth is flat...
    I learned from this or other related article that J. P. Mallory, besides being a major authority on IE Studies and supporter of the Kurgan hypothesis, is also chief editor of the journal that is the main vehicle for the Kurgan hypothesis. That is worrisome. Check what and how Eric Thompson did for the theory "Mayan glyphs are religious ideographs"...

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Some reading suggestions:
Genetics (Europe):
Genetics (India)
Genetics and language:
Linguistics and archaeology:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Theories and "believed"

As regards the ‘mainstream view’: isn’t that supposed to be the view held by the majority of scholars in the area, rather than Wikipedia editors making a judgment as to which theory accounts for all the available evidence? And if the ‘mainstream view’ accounts for all the evidence, how come there are different theories? There is a danger that Wikipedia itself becomes the reference for what is the ‘mainstream view’. ‘It is believed’ is neutral wording – it does not imply disbelief.‘Theories’ is a better description than ‘understanding’. By the way, what does ‘c.q.’ mean? Sweet6970 (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome to make arguments based on WP:NPOV, but not based on second guessing the scholars. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As to why there are so many "theories" (or rather, claims), the Indo-European languages are the most widely spoken languages in the world. Potentially every group that speaks one of them wants to be the origin of the whole family. It is all an exercise in self-glorification. We don't care. Unless this discussion becomes policy-based, I will ask an admin to come and shut it down. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya – If your comment is addressed to me, then I’m sorry, but I don’t understand it. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia should attempt to second guess any scholars. I am merely saying that Wikipedia should reflect the uncertainty which is inevitable in any view of prehistory (and a lot of history).Sweet6970 (talk) 11:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As I said WP:NPOV deals with the issue. We don't need any new off-the-cuff policies to address it. If there is an uncertainty in the sources, our content reflects it. We don't reflect the uncertainty of the various claimants.
To make this a bit more concrete, User:Kautilya3/sandbox/Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda is a draft page I started to summarise two special issues of the Journal of Indo-European Studies relating to one claimant. I don't know if I will ever complete it. But the current draft will already make it clear to you that the claimant didn't have a leg to stand on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Reply by JJ:
  • still only theories - as in "illusions," not based on sound thinking and without an empirical basis?
  • there once was a small community that spoke "the" Proto-Indo-European language. We simply do not know that, and at present there is no way of knowing. - scholars use methodologies. That there are uncertainties in theory is inherent to theories. Not a big surprise, I'd think.
  • As regards the ‘mainstream view’: isn’t that supposed to be the view held by the majority of scholars in the area, rather than Wikipedia editors making a judgment as to which theory accounts for all the available evidence? And if the ‘mainstream view’ accounts for all the evidence, how come there are different theories? There is a danger that Wikipedia itself becomes the reference for what is the ‘mainstream view’. - how many theories are there, you think? For your knowledge: the Out-of-India "theory" is not a contender in tbis regard.
  • ‘It is believed’ is neutral wording - no, it's not. It's a disqualification of sound research, relegating it to the status of belief and quack-pottery.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Joshua
I apologise if I am not using the correct format to reply to your points.
1. We seem to have a disagreement about the use of the English language. The word ‘theory’ has no connotations of being an illusion, not being based on sound thinking, or not having an empirical basis. Consider Darwin’s ‘Theory of Evolution’ or the ‘General Theory of Relativity’.
2. ‘It is believed’ is neutral wording. My native language is English English, and I have been speaking it a long time. I have never come across the expression ‘It’s just a belief’. I have come across expressions such as ‘That’s only your opinion.’ This has entirely different connotations.
3. I have no idea why you and Kautilya3 associate me with the ‘Out-of-India’ theory.
4. As regards Jorge Stolfi’s comment about archaeologists and linguists in the para under ‘Proto- Indo-Europeans’ – if there is no suitable source to support this, it should be deleted.
Regards Sweet6970 (talk) 20:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the reference for point 4. Sweet6970 (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I notice that you have been through this debate earlier. In order to make any headway, I would say that you need to bring in reliable sources. As for the use of "theory", note the OED explanation:
  • a. An explanation of a phenomenon arrived at through examination and contemplation of the relevant facts; a statement of one or more laws or principles which are generally held as describing an essential property of something.
Atomic theory, big bang theory, quantum theory, etc.: see the first element.
Theory of evolution, theory of relativity, etc.: see the final element.
  • b. More generally: a hypothesis or set of ideas about something.
Often implying that the given ideas are purely speculative in nature.
In science the (b) meaning is not used any more. But, in normal English, it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3 Thank you for providing a source which supports my point about the word ‘theory’. The meaning of words depends on their context. On Wikipedia the first meaning is the one applicable. In my Concise OED (1990) an example of the second meaning is given: ‘one of my pet theories’. This is not the context in which the word is to be understood on Wikipedia.
You have asked me for sources. For what, exactly? If you have the OED, then you will see that it supports my view of the meaning of ‘belief’ and ‘believe’. (‘Believe’ 1. accept as true or as conveying the truth…’ )
’It is believed that the Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged within the Sintashta culture…’ means ‘It is accepted as true that the Indo-Iranian language and culture…’ In the context of the article, the people doing the believing are scholars in the area, so this gives ‘It is accepted as true [by scholars in the area] that the Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged within the Sintashta culture…’ Do you dispute this?Sweet6970 (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It is funny that your Concise OED doesn't give any examples like these:

  • 1668 D. Lloyd Memoires 197 If any Laws or Presidents, had been of force to have prevented this Crimen post homines natos inauditum, it had been only a Theory in some male-content Jesuits melancholy Chamber of Meditation.
  • 1795 W. Paley View Evidences Christianity (ed. 3) II. ii. ix. 248 Theories which have, at different times, gained possession of the public mind.
  • 1867 M. E. Herbert Cradle Lands iii. 95 So varied are the theories as to the origin of these wonderful sepulchres.
  • 1880 T. A. Spalding Elizabethan Demonol. 35 This was not a mere theory, but a vital active belief.
  • 1918 Classical Jrnl. 13 372 They regard a theory of more importance than facts, for if they can only spin a theory they have no need of facts.
  • 1987 New Scientist 9 July 13/2 Creationists argued that evolution is ‘just a theory’.
  • 2005 E. Morrison Last Bk. you Read 70 They're all thinking about it. They just lack the guts—that's my theory, anyway.

"Just a theory" and "my theory" are pretty standard phrases.

For "believed", I don't think OED will be of much help. But, clearly, we use it if stating something as a fact is uncalled for, with the level of certainty in the sources. So, if you want to water it down, you need to come up with sources that express uncertainty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Kautilya3 - It is not appropriate to provide sources for the ordinary meanings of words, though dictionaries are helpful. The dictionaries referred to support my use of these words. Are you asking for a source which says that it is not possible to know for certain what languages were spoken by prehistoric peoples? Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, whatever sentence it is that you want to water down, you need a source to support such watering down. The current content is sourced and reflects the levels of certainty that are found in those sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Dear Kautilya3 – You have asked me for a source saying that it is not possible to be certain what languages were spoken by prehistoric people. Here is one: W.P Lehmann Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics Routledge 1993 para 12.2.2 ‘Shortcomings and strengths of archaeology’ p262 & following: ‘The chief problem faced by archaeological research is its inability to relate with assurance its findings to a given society speaking a specific language unless specimens of that language are discovered with those findings. The handicap is repeatedly stated, so that successive archaeologists struggle for novel ways to express it: according to a recent version, “pots do not equal people” (Mallory 1989: 164).’ The use of the word ‘theoretical’ in the title of the book (which was presumably approved by Mr Lehmann) is relevant to the usual meaning of ‘theory’ in this context. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Damgaard et al. (2018), "The First Horse Herders," especialy the linguistic and archaeological supplement, may be of interest to you. And Kristiansen, with regard to the Corded ware culture and Scandinavia. Also 2018, if I remember correctly. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Lehmann is pointing to the general difficulty of linking linguistics and archaeology, which is well known, both among scholars as well as the authors of this page. So, they don't need a reminder. But specific linkages can always be made. Anthony's The Horse, the Wheel and Language is itself a great example of such a linkage. For Indo-Iranians, the connection is made based on burial rites, the horse cult and various other pieces of data that can be found in Rigveda and Avesta. Lehmann is not contesting any of these specific associations. In fact, it seems that he agrees with them. So, I don't see any uncertainty being expressed here for the specific claims. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Regarding 'pots and peoples': Kristiansen (2017), Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe
This is related:
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more, regarding "believed": see WP:WEASEL. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

To Joshua Jonathan
Pots not people : Thank you for the links to the articles (except for the link to the article in the Mail Online, which is sensationalist and written in bad English). The articles all support the view that ‘pots are not people’. None of the articles addresses the problem of establishing what languages were spoken by prehistoric people.
‘Believe’ and ‘weasel words’: WP:WEASEL says that if you use the word ‘believed’ you should provide an attribution. In the absence of an attribution, ‘believed’ may be a ‘weasel word’ because it may give the impression that something is a fact, without any supporting source i.e. this policy statement supports my view of the connotations of the word ‘believed.’ There are several sources cited at the end of the relevant sentence about the Sintashta, so WP:WEASEL is not relevant here.
To ALL : SUGGESTIONS
It seems that there are 3 elements in this discussion:
1) associations of words ‘theory’ and 'believe’
2) uncertainty
3) emphasis on the ‘kurgan hypothesis’ in this article
ad 1) It seems that different people have different and opposite associations for the words ‘theory’ and ‘believe’.
a) I suggest that ‘Modern understanding of these migrations depends…’ be replaced by ‘Modern scholarly views of these migrations depend…’
b) I suggest that ‘It is considered by scholars that’ be inserted before ‘The Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged…’
2) A claim that it is possible to know for certain what language a prehistoric people spoke would defy common sense. If anyone makes such a claim, then it is for that person to justify the claim. In the absence of such a justification, the only question is how to express uncertainty. This is a question of wording, as in (1) above.
3) The subject matter for this article is extensive, which means that the article is unavoidably very long. I think it is not practical to follow JS’s suggestion that the article should summarise the arguments that support each theory – though I would be interested to see a draft for this. Instead, I suggest that it should be made plain in the introduction that this article is mainly written from the perspective of the ‘kurgan hypothesis’, and that the other perspectives have separate articles. This approach would involve moving the section on ‘Alternative hypotheses’ from the end to the beginning. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Add Heyd, Volker (2017), "Kossinna's smile", Antiquity, 91 (356): 348–359, doi:10.15184/aqy.2017.21 to your reading list. Regarding you proposals:
1a. I've added "scholarly" to the lead, but not changed "understanding" into "view"; "view" still suggests subjectivity, to my opinion.
2b. I've changed "The Indo-Iranian language and culture emerged" into "The Indo-Iranian language and culture probably emerged"
3. Moving the "Alternative hypotheses" upward would give WP:UNDUE weight to them.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the article.

REPLY to points:

a) I would prefer ‘Modern scholarly understandings’, even though ‘understandings’ in the plural is unusual in English.

b) I am happy with ‘probably’.

Emphasis WP:UNDUE The para ‘Due and undue weight’ includes ‘… the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained.’ The main I-E Migrations article does not explain the differences and controversies regarding the majority and minority views. As I have said, I think it would not be practical to do this, because it would make the article too long. It is better to refer the reader to the separate articles on each theory. The main article is written almost entirely from the ‘majority’ perspective, and the references to the articles on Alternative Hypotheses are at the end. I think that many readers of Wikipedia, particularly those with no previous knowledge of the subject, would only read the introduction. These readers may leave the article without realising that there are views other than the majority view, and be ignorant of the arguments for and against each view. Therefore, I think that there should be a statement in the introduction that the article is written from the perspective of the ‘kurgan hypothesis’, that there are other views, and that there should be a reference in the introduction to each of the other articles.

A separate point: The introduction currently includes the following sentence: ‘Alternative theories, such as the Anatolian hypothesis, see the migrations as starting in Anatolia, at a much earlier date.’ This is a little confusing, since only the Anatolian hypothesis sees the migrations as starting in Anatolia. I suggest: ‘Alternative theories have different models for the spread of Indo-European. For instance, the Anatolian hypothesis sees the migrations as starting in Anatolia, at a much earlier date.’ Sweet6970 (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Joshua – re my edit which you have reverted: how should the point be expressed? Sweet6970 (talk) 12:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. There is no mention in the new para of the Armenian hypothesis. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. I've added some info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Sweet6970 (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit reversion

Joshua Jonathan, you reverted my deletion of unsourced material with the comment "intro summarizes article". This does not, to my knowledge, excuse it from the rule that everything must be sourced. The rest of the intro is well sourced, the last paragraph should be as well.Viciouspiggy (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything must be verifiable, which is not the same thing as everything must be "sourced". If you have read through the body and find that the lead doesn't summarise it accurately, then you may complain. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of previous contribution

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Deletion of previous contribution You deleted my last contribution (regarding Andronovo culture) with references to Asko Parpola (2017) and Shubleya et al. (2019) and replaced them by previous references to Witzel (two papers) and Parpola (2015) and Narasimhan et al. (2018). Within your sources I did not find ANY reference to dating of Andronovo, except in Parpola (2015) which mentions the "outdated" beginning around 2000 BC, but you anyway quote it as having 1800 BC, on the other hand Narasimhan et al (2018) do not mention any dating for Andronovo neither. If my contribution is going to be replaced, it should be by a better quoting. --Lic. Carlos (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC.

End of copied part

The point those sources make is that

The Indo-Iranian language and culture probably emerged within the Sintashta culture (circa 2100–1800 BCE), at the eastern border of the Yamnaya horizon and the Corded Ware culture, growing into the Andronovo culture (ca. 1800–800 BCE)

and not that the Andronovo culture should be exactly dated to 1800-800. So, those sources will be restored. Let's see what those sources say about the dating:
You removed those sources, and added

which two first phases are Fedorovo Andronovo culture (ca. 1900-1400 BCE)[1] and Alakul Andronovo culture (ca. 1800-1500 BCE).[2]

References

  1. ^ Parpola, Asko, (2017). "Finnish vatsa - Sanskrit vatsá - and the formation of Indo-Iranian and Uralic languages", in _Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 96, 2017_ , p. 250.
  2. ^ Parpola, Asko, (2017). "Finnish vatsa - Sanskrit vatsá - and the formation of Indo-Iranian and Uralic languages", in _Journal de la Societé Finno-Ougrienne 96, 2017_ , p. 249.
Parpola (2017) gives 1800–1500 BCE for the Alakulʹ Andronovo culture (p.249), and 1900–1400 BCE for Fëdorovo Andronovo culture (p.250). Slightly different dates, soit. The Alakul/Fedorovo distinction is WP:UNDUE for the lead.Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

You show only one quoting by him, but I saw Parpola (2015) mentioning two different beginnings (in different pages) to Andronovo, 1850 and 2000 BCE: "...Srubnaya culture (c. 1850-1450 BCE)...coexisted with the contemporary Andronovo culture"(page 54), "...succeeding Andronovo cultures (2000-1450 BCE)..."(page 68), and "Andronovo cultures that dominated the Asiatic steppes of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan around 2000-1450 BCE"(page 297), so I decided to upload "his" most recent dating which is Parpola (2017). On the other hand, my latest contribution was fit, because Andronovo has at least 3 phases or sub-cultures, as per Mallory (1997:20-21): Alakul', Fedorovo, and Alekseyevka, and in my contribution I clearly mentioned the first two as having a period (1900-1400 BC) and (1800-1500), and in this order, first Fedorovo and next Alakul' (as the new research points out), and I left the rest of the time (between 1400 to 800 BCE) open to Alekseyevka and other sub-cultures that are constantly mentioned nowadays, although with no solid new data. So to me, it would be correct, in order to be clearer, to incorporate the "clarification" of this two phases.--Lic. Carlos (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed what I assumed to be an incorrect spelling

I changed the following sentence from (footnote removed):

"The Indo-Hittite hypothesis postulates a common predecessor for both the Anatolian languages and the other Indo-European languages, called Indi-Hittite or Indo-Anatolian."

to:

"The Indo-Hittite hypothesis postulates a common predecessor for both the Anatolian languages and the other Indo-European languages, called Indo-Hittite or Indo-Anatolian."

If I was wrong to change "Indi-Hittite" to "Indo-Hittite", then please tell me. (Edit: Changed tense of "changed" in previous sentence to present.)--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There's still work to do

There's still work to do here on the migrations of various Indo-European peoples. The sections on Slavs, Germanic peoples, Balts, Celts and others appear to be largely forked from the lead of the respective articles. Much of the content does not appear to be about the historic migrations of those peoples. There is lots of information about those migrations to be found in works such as Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture and The Horse, the Wheel, and Language. Krakkos (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

You're totally correct. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Addition of inappropriate material 20 September 2019

Re my (intended) reverts of the material added on 20/09/19: The addition of this material is inappropriate and illogical.

It is inappropriate because it more properly belongs in the articles on Germanic Peoples and/or the Fall of the Western Roman Empire.

It is illogical, because the Greeks created colonies, and the Romans created an empire, before the events described in the new material. Both the Greeks and the Romans spoke Indo-European languages, so these events could be described as ‘migrations’ of I-E people, but these are, rightly, not mentioned in this article.

It does not make sense to treat this article as the history of all the people who ever spoke I-E languages. It is already long enough. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:40, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have tried to revert the edits of 20/09/19, but it seems that this is not possible in one operation, so I have not made the reverts which I intended when I wrote the notes above. I don't want the article to become a mess. But these changes should be undone. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I have now undone the changes. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not unlogical, but it's indeed quite a lot. A condensation would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
While i agree in retrospect that the previous material was too long, there was still some good content there. If there are chronology issues, it would be better to fix the chronology rather than undoing everything. Similarly, our lack of information on Greek and Italic migrations isn't solved by removing material on Germanic migrations, but rather by adding material on Greek and Italic migrations. Krakkos (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Banned user

@Puduḫepa: who's the banned user? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned above. The content added by the ip needs to be WP:TNT with careful attention to WP:CHERRY and WP:INTEGRITY. The current version is a huge mess and UNDUE long. Clear case of confirmation bias. Puduḫepa 22:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, noticed later the section above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The sources in support of the Armenian hypothesis are clearly hijacked

See also: Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland § Sredny Stog and the 'Caspian route'

Recent additions diff on the Armenian hypothesis on this page (but also on Yamnaya culture, Proto-Indo-Europeans, Proto-Indo-European homeland and Armenian hypothesis) attracted my attention. So I read one the sources used (Kroonen et al., 2018). Guess what? It doesn't even talk about the Armenian hypothesis, nor does it contradict the steppe hypothesis (emphasis are mine):

Furthermore, our genetic data cannot confirm a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian Indo-European languages into Anatolia was associated with the spread of EBA Yamnaya West Eurasian ancestry. The Anatolian samples contain no discernible trace of steppe ancestry at present. [...] First, the lack of genetic indications for an intrusion into Anatolia refutes the classical notion of a Yamnaya-derived mass invasion or conquest. However, it does fit the recently developed consensus among linguists and historians that the speakers of the Anatolian languages established themselves in Anatolia by gradual infiltration and cultural assimilation. Second, the attestation of Anatolian Indo-European personal names in 25th century BCE decisively falsifies the Yamnaya culture as a possible archaeological horizon for PIE-speakers prior to the Anatolian Indo-European split. [yeah, I don't know who maintained that. Anthony (2007) already derived Anat. from Khvalynsk more than 10 years ago] [...] Our findings corroborate the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis, which claims that Anatolian Indo-European split off from Proto-Indo-European first and that Anatolian Indo-European represents a sister rather than a daughter language. [yeah again, some call it archaic PIE, some Indo-Hittite. It does not change what we known already.]

The other sources are similarly hijacked: Reich (2018) says Yamnaya has a CHG component (which we knew already), so the first stage of PIE may have been spoken south of Caucasus. It's possible, but Reich doesn't contradict the steppe hypothesis, he's looking for earlier migrations. Haak (2015) is used is support of the Anatolian hypothesis. The paper is called "Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" (!) Azerty82 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Azerty82: the ip editor who added the content is now globally blocked for long-term abuse[2]. Puduḫepa 17:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Damgaard et al. (2018) mention the Caucasian possibility, but do not defend it. And Mathieson et al. (2017), that is, Reich, do not state that 'it is unlikely that the Anatolian branch arrived in Anatolia via the Balkans'; they note theabsence of steppe-related ancestry in Anatolians, mention the possibility of Caucasian origins, and state that While this scenario gains plausibility from our results, it remains possible that Indo-European languages were spread through southeastern Europe into Anatolia without large-scale population movement or admixture. I've corrected this accordingly diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I've edited the contested info, moving info to other places, moving info into notes; and added additional info. I hope this helps; I'll remove the tag. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks better now, thank you. Adding relevant content from Anthony (2019) would also be good for balancing the point of views. Puduḫepa 09:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

“as proposed by contemporary scholarship”

I’ve struck this language from the lede diff because it’s entirely unhelpful and somewhat misleading. (1) The IE migrations are an accepted fact; current scholarship offers proposals for how they may have unfolded, but the migrations are not themselves identical with what is proposed in current scholarship, in the sense that the former is a historical phenomenon that is accepted to have happened, whereas the latter is the mechanism by which the former is proposed to have happened. (2) Everything we document on wiki, except as otherwise qualified, is necessarily “as proposed by contemporary scholarship” — if the language is merely meant to state that the proposals outlined in the article are supported by contemporary scholarship, then we can say explicitly that, although it’s frankly redundant and unnecessary except where we are contradistinguishing something as *not* aligned with the present consensus. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(1) the I-E migrations were not historical – they occurred in prehistory.
(2) There are different views about where the migrations started, and where they went.
(3) The migrations described in this article are those proposed by contemporary scholarship, and the lead describes this correctly.
Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC) 
That is my point. It’s redundant and adds nothing. Nobody disputes that the migrations occurred, except fringe cranks. There is some debate about what exactly they entailed. Contemporary scholarship offers proposals. Adding this language accomplishes nothing; it moreover erroneously asserts that the migrations *are* what is proposed by contemporary scholarship, which is a category error. What do you think this language adds? How is it helpful? Why is the qualifier uniquely necessary here? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 12:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
(a) You say: ‘Contemporary scholarship offers proposals.’ This is what the wording said: ‘as proposed by contemporary scholarship.’ So I don’t understand your objection, as you appear to agree with the wording you have deleted.
(b) You say ‘…. the language erroneously asserts that the migrations “are” what is proposed by contemporary scholarship.’ I don’t understand why you say this. The wording has ‘were’.
(c) The subject of this article is the migrations – as proposed by contemporary scholarship. The actual facts can never be known for certain.
(d) The views of scholars have changed over the years. This is not a historical article on, for instance, the Aryan race. So the wording states that this article is about the views of contemporary scholars.
I don’t understand your objection to the wording you have deleted.
Sweet6970 (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I prefer the removal. "As proposed by contemporary scholarship" replaced "proposed migrations," which was a subtle pov-pushing. Ther's no doubt anymore that those migrations did happen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
The general fact of the migrations is not proposed or disputed by contemporary scholarship (or pre-contemporary scholarship, for that matter) — so we report it straightforwardly in Wikipedia’s voice. What modern scholars ‘propose’ are specific hypotheses regarding how the migrations unfolded; it is the hypotheses that we should label as proposals, not the fact of the migrations itself/themselves. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hölderlin2019: I see that you have not answered any of my points.As far as I am aware, and according to this article, there is no direct evidence of any migrations by people speaking I-E – and there never could be, since there can be no direct evidence of what languages were spoken by prehistoric people. There has been discussion about this uncertainty on this page before (now archived), but there has not previously been any objection to the ‘as proposed by contemporary scholarship’ wording. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
At second thought, "as proposed by contemporary scholarship" may be more nuanced; both ways are acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
There doesn’t need to be “direct evidence” of something for us to assert it in Wikipedia’s voice, without qualification — the qualification is not an epistemic one, but generally one that marks the strength of consensus or the lack thereof. The very next paragraph begins with “modern scholarship...” and goes on to explain the converging lines of evidences on the basis of which the fact of the migrations is accepted. What does the qualifier in the first sentence actually accomplish? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
(i) There is no repetition between the first and second sentences. The first refers to the proposals of modern contemporary scholarship, the second refers to modern scholarly understanding.
(ii) The first sentence states what the article is about: the second sentence explains how scholars approach the attempt to work out what happened.
(iii) The qualifier in the first sentence (‘as proposed by contemporary scholarship’) notifies the general public who know nothing about the subject (i.e. the intended audience for Wikipedia) that no-one is claiming psychic knowledge of what happened in the past – the material in the article comes from scholars who are engaged in an attempt to reconstruct what happened in prehistory.
(iv) The second sentence explains how scholars do it.
Sweet6970 (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Would you be happy our explicitly stating “while there can be no direct evidence of prehistoric languages, both the existence of Proto-Indo-European and the dispersal of its daughter dialects through wide-ranging migrations are inferred through (etc.)”? The exact wording can be cleaned up. Hölderlin2019 (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have no objection to your proposed wording as such – where exactly are you thinking of putting it? Also – there are many other people who edit this page, and who may have a view on any change to the lead. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hölderlin2019: Are you still interested in this discussion? Sweet6970 (talk) 10:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, sorry, I was traveling this week and didn’t notice that you’d replied. The organic place for that language seems to be at the start of the second paragraph in the lede, although elsewhere in the lede would also probably be fine. What are your thoughts? Hölderlin2019 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, it is the apparent repetition of words to do with scholarship which you object to. Does this mean that you would be content for the words ‘as proposed by contemporary scholarship’ to be restored to the 1st sentence of the lead, provided that the 2nd sentence is altered? This would then give:

"The Indo-European migrations were the migrations of Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) speakers, as proposed by contemporary scholarship, and the subsequent migrations of people speaking further developed Indo-European languages, which explains why the Indo-European languages are spoken in a large area from India and Iran to Europe.

While there can be no direct evidence of prehistoric languages, both the existence of Proto-Indo-European and the dispersal of its daughter dialects through wide-ranging migrations are inferred through a synthesis of data from linguistics, archaeology, anthropology and genetics."

I would be happy with this. Does anyone else have any comments? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comments, I shall be changing the lead to the wording in my previous post of 22 February 2020. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Russian translation of this article point to some researcher page (don't know how to fix)

The linked page is some researcher Koshelenko he somewhat related to Indo European research but it is not a similar article on another language https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE,_%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87

There was a malformated link to that page in one of the references that was acting as an interlanguage link. I've fixed it, thanks for pointing that out. It doesn't appear that there is a version of this page on ruwiki. – Joe (talk) 05:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Late PIE, Tripolye,, and origins of Yamnaya

@Joe Roe: I've added Parpola's views on the origins of Yamana, situating it in late Tripolye. Quite different from Anthony, yet in line with the role the east-Carpatian territory has played in the dispersal of IE. And also, maybe, in ine with this intriguing comment by Davidski: "the search for the Proto-Indo-European homeland will shift west to the North Pontic steppe." How credible, you think, is Parpola's take on this? Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit of a weird one. As well as Anthony and Mallory, all the sources I have to hand (e.g. Frachetti, Rassamakin, Cunliffe) take for granted that Yamnaya is part of a continuous sequence of cultures indigenous to the core steppe region (i.e. preceded by Sredny Stog and succeeded by Catacomb culture), whereas Trypillia is oriented to the west and has a distinctly different material culture. The idea that there was some sort of assimilation between the terminal Trypillia culture and formative Yamnaya horizon is an old one—Anthony has it too, for example, with his Yamnaya patronage model—but I've never come across someone proposing that Trypillia actually turned into Yamnaya before. The closest I can think of is the body of literature on the "Circumpontic Metallurgical Province" [3][4][5], which was the dominant theory on Late Chalcolithic/EBA interactions between the steppe and eastern Europe before migrationism became fashionable again, and essentially says that the spread of steppe-like cultural forms (e.g. burial mounds) isn't an expansion of the Yamnaya, but the emergence of a trans-regional elite culture based on metal exchange, mediated by the Trypillia culture (amongst others). But if that's where Parpola is coming from he's radically simplifying.
Given that Parpola is an Indologist and there aren't any citations or discussions of actual archaeological material to support his rather exceptional claims in that chapter, I'm not sure I would include it. Or at least I wouldn't give it nearly as much weight as Anthony and Mallory, who are a lot more mainstream on this subject. – Joe (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: thanks; I already suspected so. I'll make some changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Source check needed: Mallory (2013), The Indo-Europeanization of Atlantic Europe

@Joe Roe, Sweet6970, and HJHolm: is one of you able to check the following statement:

Mallory (2013) suggested that the Beaker culture was associated with a European branch of Indo-European dialects, termed "North-west Indo-European", spreading northwards from the Alpine regions and ancestral to not only Celtic but equally Italic, Germanic and Balto-Slavic.

Source: James P. Mallory (2013). "The Indo-Europeanization of Atlantic Europe". In J. T. Koch; B. Cunliffe (eds.). Celtic From the West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo–European in Atlantic Europe. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 17–40.. I copied it from Bell Beaker culture at 23 march 2018, where it was added at 20 december 2014 by User:Lowernios. Celto-Italic and Germanic, alas, but Balto-Slavic? This is what Mallory writes in Twenty-first century clouds over Indo-European homelands (also from 2013):

Conversely, the Near Eastern model, that requires the ancestors of the ‘ancient European’ languages to wander through Central Asia, cannot place the ‘Europeans’ north of south Central Asia before c 2000 BCE at the earliest. This is going to render the Indo-Europeanization of most of Europe a far more recent phenomenon than most would expect or accept. It would detach the Indo-Europeanization of central and northern Europe from such cultures as the Corded Ware horizon that in almost every way imaginable would appear to be archaeologically, spatially and culturally a part of the Indo-European world. More importantly, it creates a ‘bottle-neck’ for the Northwest (?) Indo-European languages dated to about 1500 BCE where they all should have passed from east to west across the Pontic-Caspian and on into Europe. To propose a common secondary home and time depth for Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic so late leaves hardly any time at all to explain the phylogeny of the European languages and how they arrived in their historical seats.

While mentioning "Northwest Indo-European" and "Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Celtic and Italic" in one alinea, he's definitely not proposing here to group those languages together in a NWIE group, as Carlos Quiles proposes (see here).. And Carlos Quiles is considered fringe (see here). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
At second thought, Mallory (2007) also uses the term in Indo-European Warfare, a chapter in War and Sacrifice: Studies in the Archaeology of Conflict (eds. Tony Pollard, Iain Banks). The problem may be with "spreading northwards from the Alpine regions." This clearly refers to Celtic, but as writeen here refers to NWIE, which is incorrect, of course. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Augh... Late New Year's hang-over? Shame on me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first statement is a bit of a mangling of the source (I've emailed you a PDF copy). In typical Mallory fashion, he spends quite a lot of time describing alternate hypotheses before concluding that they should be rejected, so I can see how it happened. His "Northwest Indo-European" group does include Balto-Slavic, but he considers it more of a sprachbund that emerged during the Indo-Europeanization of Northwestern Europe rather than a true phylogenetic unit (pp. 30–31):
The other main language group of Atlantic Europe [apart from Celtic] is Germanic. From a dialectical viewpoint, Celtic and Germanic do not form a subgroup in Indo-European in the sense that some other languages do, either most certainly, as in Indo-Iranian or less certainly in Balto-Slavic and least certainly in Graeco-Armenian, although the latter pairs have often been regarded as having developed with minimal geographical separation. On the other hand, there are a series of lexical isoglosses that are shared between Celtic and Germanic, along with Italic and Balto-Slavic, that have long suggested some form of shared linguistic history, presumably about the 2nd millennium BC, after the initial dispersal of the Indo-European languages but before the emergence of the individual language groups in Europe (Oettinger 2003).
He says that it's possible that this group is linked to the Beaker culture, but only if you adopt the (extreme) minority position that it originated in Central Europe rather than Iberia (p. 37):
The significance of the Beaker phenomenon to Indo-European dispersals is complex. If one dismisses the earliest farmers in Iberia as non-Indo-European and that there was no subsequent language shift before the emergence of the Beakers, then it is difficult to see how one might associate the Indo-Europeanization of Atlantic Europe with a Beaker homeland in Iberia. [...] The spread of Indo-European languages from Alpine Europe may have begun with the Beaker culture, presuming here a non-Iberian Beaker homeland (Rhineland, Central European) for that part of the Beaker phenomenon that was associated with an Indo-European language.
And ultimately concludes that it's more likely to be linked to another Bronze Age culture, presumably Corded Ware (p. 37):
The general thrust of linguistic research would, therefore, still seem to support traditional models that associate the spread of the Indo-European languages with the Bronze Age and look north rather than south of the Pyrenees for its source.
– Joe (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: thanks!!! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

BMAC association with Indo-Iranian is not widely supported.

Removing section regarding BMAC origins for Indo-Iranians, which is highly speculative, and inconsistent with any contemporary genetic studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:5540:A535:F34A:1AB2 (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Neolithic decline

The Neolithic decline in western Eurasia is dated to the fourth millennium or c. 3000 BC. Geographically and temporally, it seems to coincide with the spread and dissolution of Proto-Indo-European. Has a link with the Indo-European migrations been suggested by anyone? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: certainly, the plague. it's mentioned in the article: Indo-European migrations#Decline of neolithic populations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Oof, yeah, I totally missed that part ... Thanks for the pointer! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Questions about cites

Copied from user talk:Skllagyook#Questions about cites

Hi,

I see you reverted my edits to the article Indo-European migrations. The material you restored has the following text as cites number 20 and 21:

"... the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus."

and

"The indigenist position is part of a "lunatic fringe"."

Are the above a user's opinions or are they from a reliable source? I find it difficult to believe a respectable source would use such language.

Thanks,

JS (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jayanta Sen:. Indigenous Aryanism, in the modern era, is generally considered fringe and pseudoscholarly. The text is from reliable sources, some of which are cited on the Indigenous Aryanism page (also see the "Rejection by mainstream scholarship" section of the page, here: [[6]], and the "Alternative hypotheses" section on this page). However it seems that User:Richard Keatinge may not have formatted the refs/cites he added correctly, making their origins unclear (I will try to have a look at that when I can). But I added other refs to the article that also support the text (one containing quotes from authors), so his cites are no longer the only ones. Skllagyook (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Skllagyook (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

End of copied part

Seems relevant to me. I've edited the references and note, and added the sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

What about R2 and its parent R?

I think editors need to keep an open mind about this subject, which essentially lacks convincing evidence for the various hypotheses.

Yes, there are some theories favored by academics, but "mainstream" can simply mean a larger number subscribe to a hypothesis even in the absence of strong evidence.

At one point it was believed that it was R1a1a marked the population where the Indo-European languages originated, but that seems to have fallen out of favor as it would leave most of Western Europe (R1b) out in the cold. Right now the mainstream candidate is R1 (as it includes both R1a and R1b).

So was PIE the language of a population where the Y-chromosome mutation R1 arose, or was it the language of an even older population?

Consider the fact that modern populations in which R2 is present in significant frequencies speak either Indo-European languages or Dravidian languages. The R2 Dravidian language speakers also belong to populations which have significant R1 frequencies.

It appears to me that as far as speaking an Indo-European languages goes, it is not possible to distinguish between R1 and R2 populations in India.

Possibly there is population genetics data that I am unaware of that indicates that R2 populations speak a non-Indo-European language in significantly greater frequencies than R1 populations.

We have gone from R1a1a to R1, why not from R1 to R? After all the other descendant of R (that is R2) also speaks Indo-European languages similar to R1 in India.

If there is any hard evidence that PIE originated in an R1 rather than an R population, please share.

Thanks,

JS (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Please present evidence that populations with Y-DNA haplotype R1 are the "mainstream candidate" for being the original Proto-Indo-European speakers. Tewdar (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Given that R1a and R1b are both considered to be original Proto-Indo-European speakers, it follows that the R1 population are also original Proto-Indo-European speakers. The evidence seems to point to R2 also being original Proto-Indo-European speakers, which should push it back to R. The science of this is relatively new and is catching up. I suppose I could find a few cites for R1 if I spent time digging around, but I think given R1a and R1b it should be obvious. Unless there is some convoluted mechanism by which R1a and R1b exited the larger R1, and then came back together again prior to development of the Proto-Indo-European language while leaving out R1* (R1 but not R1a or R1b). At this point I will appeal to Occam's razor etc. JS (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
None of what you say "follows" or "is obvious". Find *any* source that associates R* or R1* with PIE. Tewdar (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
To you it may not be "obvious", but to me if both R1a and R1b (which are distinct mutations) belonged to the same population then it is "obvious" that males without those mutations would also belong to that population. Maybe you can find a source that says R1* wasn't part of the PIE population. As I said, Occam's razor. This research is relatively new, and in a few decades the implications of the scientific evidence will become much more accepted, and will replace the theories based on fragments of broken pots, burial mounds etc. The molecules of the DNA are a much better record of history than burial mounds etc. Keep an open mind about this. JS (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

While I would absolutely love to add the phrase "Mal'ta boy almost certainly spoke Proto-Indo-European" to Wikipedia, I cannot, at the present time, find a reliable source for this. Tewdar (talk) 22:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

For a start (and I probably won't be spending all day on this), only specific subclades of both R1a and R1b are associated with the Indo-European languages. I suspect in this case, Occam's Razor is, in fact, a chainsaw, brutally destroying all of the recent work in linguistics, archaeology, and genetics, and leaving us with a totally implausible model "some R1a and R1b spoke IE languages, therefore Mal'ta boy and his R* chums spoke PIE, problem solved" Tewdar (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

scientific evidence will become much more accepted, and will replace the theories based on fragments of broken pots, burial mounds etc. The molecules of the DNA are a much better record of history than burial mounds etc. This is what Pereltrsvaig & Lewis call "scientism". Archaeology and linguistics are also a sciences. Human DNA is wonderful record of our biological history, but that's it. No molecule from the remains of a human body tells us about their material culture, the language which they spoke etc. (The former can be inferred if the body was found with other stuff that only archaeologists can assess properly, whereas the latter can be only inferred with some certainty from written text found next to that body; and even then chances are high that the text might have been written in a ritual language not actually spoken by the deceased). You cannot even tell from genetic evidence for lactose persitence from that body whether this specific individual (and their family/clan/tribe) actually raised cattle to drink its milk or not—we can only say they could have done so without tummy ache. Even with the most-refined techniques to model geneitc ancestry trees, the output from this research will have to be matched in a plausible way with evidence from other disciplines—just as happens now. The real breakthrough that finally will tell us which language Mal'ta boy and chums spoke will come with time travel. –Austronesier (talk) 09:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a decipherable language carved into mammoth bones near Lake Baikal from 20000BCE will show up in the archaeological record someday. Tewdar (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
^Just in case it wasn't obvious, this was a joke... Tewdar (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Instead of slapping labels like "scientism", address the argument.
The issue is migrations, and indeed DNA with its ability to inform us of our ancestors is a powerful tool. Whatever you may mean by "material culture" rather than simply "culture", the issue here is migrations.
JS (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

About extension of Indo-European to northeastern china

Just type the main subject line of my citation on Google u will find the article on Google. If u doubt about it. And also this a very known and most common fact about the archeological findings of Indo-European cultures in northeast China. And also there are already many such articles in Wikipedia itself..... And also there are countless article about it on Google which I haven't used as citation. Cause it is not possible to upload all citations....don't remove it.....it is already a known fact.....I simply typed this minor thing over here.... let other reader know and discuss on it..... Annishiskrishna (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the talk page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Redundant and ill-referenced edits

At this diff I have again reverted vague and probably redundant comments, poorly referenced to the splash pages of unreliable websites. Please don't re-insert this without talk page consensus. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Expansion of Indo-European in East Asia in short form...

But it is already a known fact.....and this information is already there in Wikipedia....like yuezhi, ordos culture. Ordos culture is already there in Wikipedia.... afanasievo culture....even many articles like xiongnu, qiang, yuezhi, gar, etc etc are Indo-European in East Asia....there r many many but in seperate Wikipedia articles....here in short form I've mentioned that they were spread upto northeastern China.....and it's a most common facts..... that's all....I mentioned in short form which is already there..... Annishiskrishna (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really not helpful to add this or your most recent comment ", Mongolia (Wusun,yuezhi, xiongnu,Huns,sakae, Ordos culture, ancient qiang according to Christopher Beckwith, gar, tocharian,lesser yuezhi, Scythians, and even many mixed ethnicity of Indo-European and east Asians like dinlin, and many indo-Aryan tribes as well during the period of slab grave culture)." This is confused, confusing, ill-referenced, and it makes the article worse, not better. Editing Wikipedia is a skill of its own, and I do suggest that you train your obvious good will by making smaller, simpler, and better-referenced edits. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding central Mongolia

It is only mentioned Altai. But central Mongolia is far from Altai. And was important centre of afanasaeva culture. It is not merely political boundary. That's why I mentioned central Mongolia. Central Mongolia is not Altai. That's why archeological discovery of afanasaeva culture in central Mongolia is of great importance. Krishnaloveanish (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Afanasaeva culture in central Mongolia.

Mentioning of central Mongolia is not about modern political territories. It is about the geographical extension of afanasaeva culture. Hope you understand. Krishnaloveanish (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Indo-European expansion till upto Manchurian steppes

And yes I've also mentioned in other articles here. About the extention of Indo-European people upto Manchurian steppes. Which is almost completely missing here. This important information is already mentioned in other pages of Wikipedia. But not here. So I've mentioned it here for information and knowledge. I believe and we all believe the mentioning of Manchurian steppes is an important information regarding the geographical expansion of Indo-European people. Thank you. Krishnaloveanish (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Again I have reverted unreferenced comments. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kleabwr. Peer reviewers: Lsolares.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mitanni

The paragraph on the Mitanni as it stands at present doesn't have any relevance to the topic of this article. It should contain some mention of the Indo-Aryan influence on the names of the rulers and in horse-training vocabulary, such as we find in the article Mitanni. As it stands the inclusion of this paragraph in an article on Indo-European migrations is puzzling. Kanjuzi (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@Kanjuzi: you're right. This article started with a large amount of copying from other articles, and many subsections on the various languages and regions still need improvement. So, if you can improve the subsection on Mitanni, please do so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I have done my best to amend the paragraph to make it more relevant. Possibly some further details and references might need to be added. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Need to update the article

Some of the sources used in the article, for example, Anthony 2007, Mallory 1999, Gimbutas 1997, are now out of date, in view of the ancient DNA evidence which became available for the first time in small quantities from about 2010, but in greater quantities from 2014 and 2015. Some of the earlier hypotheses therefore need to be removed the article or given less emphasis. For example, the supposed migration of IE-speakers from the Yamnaya region to Anatolia shown on one of the maps does not seem to be backed up by the DNA evidence, but this is not made clear in the text. Ringe and Warnow's phylogenetic analysis has also now been superseded by others. There are also numerous references to David Anthony's opinions without stating the evidence on which he bases those opinions, making it hard to judge whether he is correct. There is moreover a lot of overlap between this article and Proto-Indo-European homeland, which is confusing for readers. Could the two articles not be amalgamated? Kanjuzi (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit 15 November 2022

Magyar25 has made various improvements to the wording of this article. In the section Archaeology: migrations from the steppe Urheimat, there is a new wording: Alternatively, David Reich has proposed that archaic PIE originated in the Caucasus, from where archaic PIE speaking people migrated into Anatolia. This was previously: Alternatively, David Reich has mentioned that the possibility exists that archaic PIE originated in the Caucasus, from where archaic PIE speaking people migrated into Anatolia. The new version is much more positive about the ‘possibility’ of archaic PIE originating in the Caucasus. I don’t have access to the sources. Any comments on this? Sweet6970 (talk) 11:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I can only access (Serangeli 2020) right now, and it proposes that Proto-Anatolian may have originated in the Volga-Don region of the Caucasus steppes, not archaic PIE (although it slightly hints that archaic PIE did by stating the ancestors of the Yamnaya culture also originated there). I won't be updating the proposed/mentioned that the possibility exists wording, but I will change "archaic PIE" to "Proto-Anatolian".
Edit: I just realized the sentence says that this was proposed by Reich. I'll read his paper later and update accordingly. JungleEntity (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you have a link to Serangeli 2020 (and/or the name of the work/paper/book) that you can post? Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Need more red flags? This change is another one:
  • old: When Yamnaya Indo-European speakers came into contact with the indigenous peoples during the third millennium BCE, they came to dominate the local populations, yet parts of the indigenous lexicon persisted in the formation of Proto-Germanic, thus lending to the Germanic languages the status of Indo-Europeanized languages.
  • new: When Yamnaya Indo-European speakers came to dominate the indigenous peoples during the third millennium BCE, parts of the indigenous lexicon persisted in the new Proto-Germanic creoles, making them Indo-Europeanized languages.
The changed text was based on Jones-Bley (1997). I don't have access to the source, but I serious wonder if the term "Proto-Germanic creoles" is mentioned there. Not every impact of a substratum language is a case of creolization.
If one or two of these "improvements to the wording of this article" turn out to be WP:CUCKOO-edits, I suggest to revert the entire string of edits. –Austronesier (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Good catch. The only copy I can find of Jones-Bley (1997) is in German, but I would remove "Proto-Germanic creoles" I'm quite positive that isn't the wording used in the original source. I also can't find an online version of Reich's book, Who We Are and How We Got Here (although it is at my university's library, which I will check later), but it doesn't seem to be "academic" enough to be included here, and the book has been met with equal praise and criticism from all over the genetics world. I may be biased because I'm involved in this field, but from my understanding linking genetic migrations with linguistic migrations has been met with some heavy skepticism (This review talks more about historical linguists trouble with genetic population migration studies).
I think it's best to remove the Reich section for now, and I don't oppose reverting the wording edits by Magyar25, though I don't mind the editing he did to my wording in the Pre-Proto-Indo-European section. JungleEntity (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm a historical linguist and not very happy either with simplistic models that equate different layers of evidence, but when it to comes to Reich vs. Quiles, uhm, my choice goes without hesitation for Reich. –Austronesier (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I know of some of Carlos's... controversial maps and research (which I don't agree with either), but I still don't think that gives a pass to Reich. I only linked indo-european.eu because I think the review he gave for Reich goes through a lot of gripes historical linguistics have with studies like Reich's.
Barring the German paper, Serangeli (2020) seems to just cite back to Reich. If anything, I think we should revert to the previous wording and only include Reich as the source. JungleEntity (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm only accessing it through my uni's library, sorry. The book is "Dispersals and Diversification : Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European." and the section is "Introduction: Dispersals and Diversification of the Indo-European Languages". The only two mentions of archaic PIE in the context of a homeland are this: "Reich (2018: 107– 109, 120) and Kristiansen et al. (2018) suggested that a Caucasian homeland for archaic PIE (pre-Maikop and Maikop) could be combined with a steppe homeland for late PIE (Yamnaya), if Yamnaya could be derived culturally and genetically (and then, arguably also linguistically) from Maikop. Yamnaya clearly had southern (CHG) genetic ancestry and was influenced culturally by Maikop, adopting several new technologies from Maikop— arsenical bronze-making, bivalve casting molds, cast copper tanged daggers, cast copper shaft-hole axes, and possibly wheeled vehicles (Korenevskii 2012; Kohl 2007: 72– 86). But it was unknown whether Maikop could have been the genetic source of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya, because a good sample of Maikop and older genomes from graves in the North Caucasus piedmont and steppes had not been published."
and this: "The language of the Suvorovo migrants and of their Cernavoda I descendants is unknown, and their DNA has not been reported. At this early moment in the publication of aDNA, it seems to me that the most likely place for the archaic PIE (Indo-Hittite) homeland would be in the Volga-Caucasus steppes east of the Don, where the oldest admixture of EHG and CHG occurred in the fifth millennium BC or earlier; from which the Varna chiefs accepted a few mates; and where Yamnaya ancestry emerged in the fourth millennium BC. An archaic dialect of PIE, the parent of Anatolian, could have moved from the Volga-Don region into the Danube valley with the Suvorovo migrants and their Volga-Caucasus-style stone maces." JungleEntity (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I have no technical knowledge of the matters involved here, which is why I asked for comments. I am grateful for the response.
(1) Reich’s view of the possible homeland for archaic PIE: Both the old and new versions of the comment are about the possibility of the homeland being in the Caucasus. But it looks to me that the quotes provided above by JungleEntity do not support either the old or the new version – they are much more tentative, and refer to the steppes as well as the Caucasus. Have I understood this correctly? And if so, should the sentence simply be deleted, or is there another wording which would be suitable?
(2) Proto-Germanic: Austronesier has objected to the change which refers to Proto-Germanic creoles. Is there agreement that this change should be reversed?
(3) My impression is that these edits were intended to be simple copy edits, but that the effect has been to change the meaning in some instances. Austronesier has suggested that all the edits on 15 November should simply be reversed. What is the view on this, with/without the deletion I suggested in (1) ?
Courtesy ping to Skllagyook as well.
Sweet6970 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
1: I think it would be best to remove the section commenting on Reich's "proposal". It's such a niche opinion that isn't widely accepted by the field so I think it qualifies for WP:TOOMUCH. If the reader is truly interested on where PIE might of been spoken, they can find someone's non-widely-accepted opinion themselves.
2: I think we shouldn't refer to it as a creole. You can probably make an argument for it, but I think it's best to remove so readers aren't mislead.
3: I think the edits should be reverted, but I vouch for the changes Magyar25 made to my previous edit as it doesn't change anything substantial.
JungleEntity (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
In view of the comments above, I have reversed the edits made on 15 November 2022, and deleted the sentence Alternatively, David Reich has mentioned that the possibility exists that archaic PIE originated in the Caucasus, from where archaic PIE speaking people migrated into Anatolia. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Indo-European_migrations/Archive_1"