Jump to content

Talk:Kurgan hypothesis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 60: Line 60:
This view is probably not universally accepted, but I think it is worthy of mention.[[User:Sooku|Sooku]] ([[User talk:Sooku|talk]]) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
This view is probably not universally accepted, but I think it is worthy of mention.[[User:Sooku|Sooku]] ([[User talk:Sooku|talk]]) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:Kak is not [[WP:RS]], and will not be mentioned here. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
:Kak is not [[WP:RS]], and will not be mentioned here. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 05:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
::Not only is ''Kak'' not a reliable source; even if he would be, he simply regurgitates the fringe [[Indigenous Aryans]] theory primarily brought forth and held by [[Hindutva|Hindu nationalists]]. It's as untenable as the [[North European hypothesis]]. Finally, rivaling theories generally belong into the more general article [[Proto-Indo-European homeland]]. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3|2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3]] ([[User talk:2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3|talk]]) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
::Not only is Kak not a reliable source; even if he would be, he simply regurgitates the fringe [[Indigenous Aryans]] theory primarily brought forth and held by [[Hindutva|Hindu nationalists]]. It's as untenable as the [[North European hypothesis]]. Finally, rivaling theories generally belong into the more general article [[Proto-Indo-European homeland]]. --[[Special:Contributions/2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3|2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3]] ([[User talk:2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3|talk]]) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:31, 5 April 2020

Etymology of Kurgan

Kurgan has a Turkic origin, and it should be added. It has nothing to do with Russian. Russians just lend from Turks. Beshogur (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a point; see Kurgan. Yet, your comment "it has nothing to do with Russians" is nonsense, of course; it's usage for a burial mound comes from Russian. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I know, it's actually Turkic -> Russian -> English, but isn't it funny to say Kurgan has a Russian etymology. Beshogur (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't say it has a Russian etymology, it says the English phrase "kurgan hypothesis" is derived from the Russian word kurgan, which it is. The ultimate etymology isn't relevant here. – Joe (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok understood, thanks. Beshogur (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invasionist vs. diffusionist scenarios

The final paragraph of this section is rather confusingly written. I'd take a stab at revising it, but I'm far from an expert on this material. At any rate, as I read the section, everything from this sentence, "Scholars who accept the general scenario of Indo-European migrations follow Gimbutas in her observation that the transition was probably more gradual than suggested by Gimbutas" on down should be revised, if not the whole thing. 2601:644:400:5B14:34D7:A5FE:3A46:4AA (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated Map

The map given at the beginning of the page is very old and simiplistic. It gives the wrong impression that PIE fractured into all the daughter branches all at once. Which is of course very wrong. I therefore suggest that this map be replaced by an improved one which does more justice to the Indo-European migrations.

Such as this map https://i.pinimg.com/736x/22/ec/ce/22ecce1d07010c7d8488259e3cb374fb--pre-history-talen.jpg (From a Annu-Rev-Lin paper published in 2015). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.249 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map contains three layers of colours and dates, so I don't understand how it can give the impression that "PIE fractured into all the daughter branches all at once"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The map shows Hittite and Greek migrations occurring at the same stage of the expansion. Anyone who knows even the basics about the Indo-European expansion will tell you that the Hittite migrations preceded the earliest IE Greek migrations (Mycenaean) by at least two millennia. It's better that this map (which is really old) be replaced by an improved one or in the absence of maps, by an IE phylogenetic tree like the one I posted before. The readers would be able to get a grasp of the complexity of these prehistorical migrations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.160.249 (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Anthony & Ringe map is that it has a much more restricted scope. It would be nice to have a cleaner and more up-to-date map for sure, but doing a thorough and comprehensive job would take a lot of work, and perhaps more importantly a lot of guesswork. – Joe (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The largest Black Sea Deluge Hypothesis postulates about a year to fill the sea in c8000BP.

Does this fit in any reasonable way with the Kurgan spread or the Proto-Indo-European spread?

I have seen nothing on such an idea - is there anything out there yet of this hypothesis based on other hypotheses???? Nojoking (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC) JK[reply]

That would be around c. 6,000 BCE, and that would be off by at least two or three millennia. One cannot speak of PIE speakers prior to c. 5,500-5,000 BCE, and they did not begin to spread and branch out until c. 3,500-3,000 BCE. --2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3 (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PIE Homeland or Indic Civilization?

According to Subhash Kak [1] the Indic Kings of the Mittanis represent the westward migration of Yayati's sons mentioned in the Mahabharata, and very likely, forced by the Saraswati river's drying out in 1900BC. This would indicate that there was no PIE civilization that diffused to India, and that the Mittanis originated in the Indus-Saraswati civilization.

References

This view is probably not universally accepted, but I think it is worthy of mention.Sooku (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kak is not WP:RS, and will not be mentioned here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is Kak not a reliable source; even if he would be, he simply regurgitates the fringe Indigenous Aryans theory primarily brought forth and held by Hindu nationalists. It's as untenable as the North European hypothesis. Finally, rivaling theories generally belong into the more general article Proto-Indo-European homeland. --2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]