Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland

the sforza citation is inaccurate, and i've removed all mention of it until the issue can be addressed

sforza's theory is not in line with renfrew's, but with gimbutas'. his principal component analysis saw three waves into europe, including a neolithic wave (associated with gimbutas' old europe, not with pie) and a very, very strong chalcolithic wave from the steppes (associated with pie). this renders renfrew's argument confused. the expansion he speaks of happened, but sforza suggests it is *not* associated with pie.

advocates of renfrew's theory are often dishonest. it's essentially a modified flood story, so they're dealing with strong religious convictions. please defer to legitimate experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk • contribs) 28 march 2015 (UTC)

You can't ignore Science & Nature forever!

This time in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45500-w "The homeland of Indo-European languages can be refined to the Zagros or Hyrcanian (Alborz) refugia", are you still waiting to see what Davidski says and ban everyone who mentions scientific studies in this page? 5.52.62.14 (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Gavashelishvili et al. (2023) simply refers to Heggarty (2023) in their suggestion for a southern Urheimat; they don't come with any new information or analysis. Ergo: one reference for Heggarty et al. (2023). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed it entirely. Gavashelishvili et al. are not even commited to the southern homeland hypothesis. They just say that if it is correct, their line of argument for the Proto-Kartvelian homeland can also be applied to the PIE homeland. We should focus on research that directly addresses the topic of this article, and not only tangentially. –Austronesier (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and I don't count it as a substantial reference for Heggarty et al.'s phylogeny. Competent critical or supportive comments can only come from papers written by historical linguists. That's not the thing you'll find in Science and Nature (as a pretty hard rule). –Austronesier (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Who can believe that in a page about the homeland of Indo-Europeans we see nothing about Heggarty et al?! It clear that when you don't mention it you can't mention other articles which talk about it too. 5.211.2.225 (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Edits 9 December about Anthony (2024)

@Skllagyook: What does the second is the position retained mean? And how can Anthony be publishing in 2024, when in my part of the world it’s still 2023? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Anthony is a visionary, isn't he? ;) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

It's the language used in the paper. Perhaps it could be alternately worded as something like "supported", "preferred", "argued for" or something similar. Skllagyook (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I wondered whether saying the ‘position’ was ‘retained’ meant that it was the ‘view’ ‘held’. ‘Preferred’ or ‘supported’ would make sense, provided that fits with the context. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I have changed ‘retained’ to ‘supported’. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

ad infinitum

The most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis, which puts the archaic, early, and late PIE homeland in the Pontic–Caspian steppe around 4,000 BCE. The leading competitor is the Anatolian hypothesis, which puts it in Anatolia around 8,000 BCE. A notable third possibility, which has gained renewed attention due to aDNA research in the 2010s, is the Armenian hypothesis, which situates the homeland for archaic PIE south of the Caucasus.

The Steppe hypothesis is not 'widely cited' anymore, and actually poorly supported by anything, by almost all accounts for several years. Based on the works of professional scholars in the field from Harvard and Max Plank, the most parsimonious hypothesis, which has emerged based on ancient DNA, is the "south Caucasus" hypothesis. This includes the nexus region between Armenia, NW Iran, and Eastern Turkey. Even if Steppe theory was still widely 'cited', it is very weakly supported by contemporary accounts of scholars with prominence in the field. 2601:882:101:1A0:9874:5131:AB08:764C (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The Steppe hypothesis is not 'widely cited' anymore, and actually poorly supported by anything, by almost all accounts for several years

To my knowledge, this characterization is false. I'm aware of Heggarty et al.'s recent hybrid hypothesis paper, but you're going to need to actually cite the reams of recent work demonstrating a shift from Kurgan to the Anatolian hypothesis—or whichever derivation or variant.

References

— Remsense诉 07:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

2601:882:101:1A0:9874:5131:AB08:764C -- As long as a critical mass of linguists who specialize in Indo-European linguistics do not endorse a competing hypothesis, then the generalized overall Steppe hypothesis still has scholarly viability. It's been very noticeable that hypotheses based solely on archaeology and/or genetic analysis, ignoring or disregarding linguistic evidence, have had a series of fluctuations and ups and downs since the 1980s. Anything that's based solely on the work of archaeologists or genetic analysts, ignoring linguistics, is unlikely to hold up over the long term... AnonMoos (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Heggarty et al. is a linguistic paper written by the greatest Indo-European linguists in the world. 5.211.196.169 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

It was not written by the greatest Indo-European linguists in the world. Sure, there are names like Kim, Kümmel and Pronk (apologies to others I have forgotten to mention), but their role in shaping this paper was to feed the database and make cognate decisions—as always in life: don't forget to read the small print! (In this case: the "Acknowldgements" on pages 11 and 12.) Interpretation of the data is still very much a Russell Gray thing. –Austronesier (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

New Article!

Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans 89.198.134.228 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice! @Joe Roe: if I understand correctly, the map in the article can be uploaded to Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Sister article: A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so, unfortunately. Both papers are licensed CC BY-NC-ND – the "NC" and "ND" parts are incompatible with Commons licensing.

Let's also not rush to incorporate these references into articles. They're preprints of cutting edge, primary research; it'll likely be years before they filter into the secondary sources we should be using. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Anti-scientific treatment of IE theories

The Palaeolithic Continuity Paradigm is a very serious proposal and needs a better treatment. "Fringe" is an adjective of gossip and not a scientific one. It would damage the scientific quaracter of Wikipedia. PCI having a separate entry was much better. Kostandisloukos (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It certainly was considered quite seriously at one time. But what is the evidence it is still widely accepted? The history of this is discussed in the article. If you see errors, or if you can think of recent sources which we can use, then please make more specific remarks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In this recent edit [1] an IP moved that theory from a point above to a point below the Fringe Theories heading. We might revert that change, but I think we need to arrive at a consensus on it. The theory is not widely accepted now, but the term "fringe" might not be appropriate for that theory. Just because it is no longer widely accepted does not necessarily mean it is fringe. The theories that are clearly fringe are those that are predicated on nationalistic rather than scientific grounds - that is, they are pseudoscientific. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The exisiting PCP literature has a walled-garden character and I hardly see the PCP mentioned anywhere in IE specialist literature. If we can't label it "fringe" in the absence of secondary sources that do so, we should think about whether the very mention of the hypothesis actually borders on WP:UNDUE. –Austronesier (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it has an important role in the history of this topic. (I tend to think topics are often best explained by explaining the history of the topic. Science is normally best seen as an ongoing discussion, so from that perspective on WP we are generally trying to summarize a snapshot, but snapshots are best understood by providing context.) One of the biggest problems with this theory is that it made little sense linguistically, even though it was about languages. It was an attempt to equate a technological dispersion with a language family's dispersion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I've encountered this theory before, but the obvious point is that if the classic 1980s Anatolian theory has the problem that there doesn't seem to be enough linguistic differentiation among IE languages in Europe to correspond to 8,000 years of geographic dispersion, then this problem would be magnified threefold for the PCP. I don't know whether that makes it "fringe", but it's a significant blow to its basic plausibility. AnonMoos (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)