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.

Muddled sentence and a half

The second paragraph under Proto-Indo-European_homeland#Genetics currently reads:

"According to genetic studies, individuals from the Yamnaya culture have a mix from eastern European hunter-gatherer[3] and Caucasus hunter-gatherer[28] ancestry. Iran Chalcolithic people with a Caucasian hunter-gatherer component.[29][29][note 4][clarification needed]"

The initial sentence is well-formed. The fragment following it may be intended as an insert or replacement at the end of that sentence, but I am not familiar enough with the material to confidently combine the two into an intelligible whole, let alone know if the result is true.

The doubled link to what is currently reference 29 (Lazaridis 2016, p. 8) similarly indicates an earlier editing error.

I hope someone more informed than I will be alerted by this note and make an appropriate correction.

Whoever does so is welcome to then delete this section!

GeorgeTSLC (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Misshap

To editor Joe Roe:, I get it now. After reviewing the article, I realize this is about the language, not just the ethnicity, so I see the need for the linguistics project tag now.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Anatolian origin

The article states: The major alternative theory was the Anatolian hypothesis, which put it in Anatolia around 8000 BC,[5] but this theory has lost support due to the explanatory limitations of this theory.[6][1]

At least source number six (Boukaert et al. 2012) is in support of the Anatolian hypothesis - from the abstract: We found decisive support for an Anatolian origin over a steppe origin. Both the inferred timing and root location of the Indo-European language trees fit with an agricultural expansion from Anatolia beginning 8000 to 9500 years ago. Why does the article present it as saying something else? And why can't the article say that the issue is not yet settled? -- Zz (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume [6] was supposed to be attached to the first clause (i.e. "put it in Anatolia around 8000 BC,[5][6]"), but has gone astray at some point. I'll fix that now. – Joe (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

As I thought I remembered, we used to have a much better explained and referenced lead. It seems to have gotten pared away at some point, I'm not sure why, and that's resulted in the sources getting jumbled up and misrepresented (Anthony & Ringe don't say that the matter is settled, they say they think it ought to be). Does anyone mind if I restore that version? – Joe (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Zickzack -- the relevant fact is that very few historical/comparative linguists focusing on Proto-Indo-European have supported the Anatolian hypothesis (see some of my comments in previous discussions above), and it will be very hard to consider the Anatolian hypothesis the leading theory until more of them do. I can't access the Bouckaert et al. paper (or even its abstract), but that paper is actually a lexicostatistics paper, not a paper in historical linguistics as this is usually defined. They're employing more sophisticated versions of the methods of glottochronology, something which had a very mixed record in 20th-century linguistics, and has often been controversial. You can see [1] for a popular account of some criticisms of Bouckaert et al... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• The Bouckaert et al. paper got a lot of attention and was particularly popular among people who like Bayesian modeling, and the Anatolian model generally has been advanced by archeologists rather than historical linguists. There is a wide agreement among linguists that it does not fit the linguistic evidence well. The few linguists who would probably be in favor are those who support the indo-hittite hypothesis. Nevertheless, it is true that the matter is no definitively settled, but the steppe-model has much stronger support in linguistics and archeology than the Anatolian model. With Haak et al's demonstration of massive gene flow from the steppes in to Europe in the period proposed by the steppe model was very important in shifting the weight of the evidence evenm further towards the steppe model. This difference in support should be reflected in the lead.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I personally have mixed feelings. The Kurgan thesis lacks the driving force that is supposed to stand behind the Anatolian hypothesis, namely the introduction of agriculture. But then, lexico-statistics is nothing that can make me happy, either. On the other hand, Cavalli-Sforza has pointed out that the two need not be mutually exclusive. The Kurgan area might be the region of a secondary expansion, and this makes some sense to me.

However, I just wanted to point out that the current lead might confuse well meaning readers who actually check references. A reversal to an earlier option might be an idea. -- Zz (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

According to some, the driving force of Indo-European expansion was the Secondary products revolution, accompanied by domestication of horses (including basic carts with plank wheels), and the ability to work copper and sometimes "arsenical bronze". Some further technological refinements (such as spoked wheels, chariots, and true tin bronze) were important in the expansion of certain Indo-European subgroups, but came too late for the Proto-Indo-European period... AnonMoos (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: I think you'll find that few prehistorians believe that there was a "secondary products revolution", never mind that it caused the Indo-European expansion.

In any case, our job isn't to decide which hypothesis is the most likely, it's to summarise what reliable secondary & tertiary sources say about them. Studies like Haak et al. may be hammering the nail in the coffin of the Anatolian hypothesis, but I don't think that's reflected in the literature yet. Until that happens, the pre-aDNA reviews like Mallory & Atkinson 2006 are what we have to go on. I'll go ahead and restore the lead that was based on those. – Joe (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

This might indeed be a close call and a question of timing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Fabbri

This addition has been reverted three times now, by two different editors diff edit-summary "Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Tirgil34" diff diff; a similar addition has been reverted four times, by three different editors, at Massagetae diff diff diff diff. About time to discuss (or open a new Tirgil34 thread?). This is the reverted text:

An Armenian origin of Proto-Indo-Europeans followed by a migration through Iran northward into the Eurasian steppe is also supported by Fabbri, who proposed for the ancestors of the Indo-European and relative peoples the name Suparsthas. Under this name the descendants of peoples would have been indicated, who would have concentrated in the Armenian Mount territory after a flood over Mesopotamia around 8000 BC. Suparsthas would have then been distinguished as Suparas to the North and Parsthas to the South. Around 6000 BC, Suparas would have started to migrate northwards up to Siberia and then partially flowed back into Subartu and up to Syria. Parsthas, ancestors of Indo-Europeans, would instead have started to migrate to the South-West (Parthas/Qartas/Hattas) up to Anatolia, and to the South-East (Parsas/Arsas/Aras) up to the Iranian highlands and hence into the prairies of Central Asia between the current Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, which would have become a secondary home. However, this theory is not widely accepted yet.

References

The addition "However, this theory is not widely accepted yet" hits the point, except that "theory" is too much honour, pron=bably. From the introduction of that article:

Th hypothesis of a flod on Mesopotamia due to a temporary increase in the sea level as a consequence of the melting of glaciers at the end of the last Ice Age (9000 BC6) would also explain the separation of caucasoid somatic morphology peoples into branches speaking languages belonging to apparently diffrent families, in particular the Semitic and Indo-European languages. It is believed in fact that the languages of these two families, attested in documents of the third millennium BC, can be derived from a single language through an evolution process lasted about 6000-6500 years.

If Mesopotamia was floded, the caucasoid morphology populations, who were gathered there, tried to escape into the surrounding areas, which probably were already partly occupied by their relatives. Thy thus resulted separated by a water barrier stretching from north-west to south-east. Th populations who escaped to the North, on the mountain chain stretching from Anatolia to the Iranian highlands, and those that fled to the south, on the highest parts of the Arabian peninsula, maintained the common somatic morphology with small mutations, such as minor changes in forehead, eye arch, and nose curvature. Thir descendants, in the historical age, resulted in speaking Indo-European and Semitic languages, respectively. The populations who escaped the flod to east and west probably interbred with people of diffrent morphology, settled respectively in the Indus and Nile Valley, contributing to the civilization of these areas.

References

And more:

The area where *Suparsthas were originally gathered and from which they moved into Anatolia, Caucasus, and Iranian highlands

WP:FRINGE... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Fabbri is a professor of engineering who publishes his indo-european theories in romanian journals. There is no indication that this work is notable enough to merit any form of inclusion.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Fabbri, who teaches industrial engineering by day and completely lacks relevant credentials, just makes up stuff and interprets sources arbitrarily to suit his speculations, which are essentially fantasy. He's a typical crank – amusingly, it has even been noted that engineers are somehow particularly prone to crankery. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

"Truthteller"

@Truthteller301: this edit of you ignores the concencus at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Fabbri, while this edit is an WP:UNDUE duplication of a WP:FRINGE theory already described at Proto-Indo-European homeland#Out of India theory. See also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)