Talk:Kurgan hypothesis

PIE Homeland or Indic Civilization?
According to Subhash Kak 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.

This view is probably not universally accepted, but I think it is worthy of mention.Sooku (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kak is not WP:RS, and will not be mentioned here. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  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 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)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * IE expansion.png

Old and discredited theory
This is an old and discredited Eurocentric theory. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The cited reference credits the Kurgan hypothesis. How do you find this paper to be discrediting the current model? WikiLinuz  { talk }  03:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * These findings give the kurgan hypothesis "a lot more credit," Nikitin says.  Implying that this hypothesis has been discredited previously. I'll try to find a better reference. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I find your interpretation to be strange. "Gives a lot more credits" doesn't mean the hypothesis was previously "rejected", rather the current study "builds up or substantiated" the hypothesis even further through more modern evidence. That's how a "theory" in science works. WikiLinuz  { talk }  04:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, consult The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony. It's a well received work. WikiLinuz  { talk }  17:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It's really not. It's been the leading theory on the origin of PIE for decades and is by now all but universally accepted by linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. By all means show us what references you are basing this assertion on, but until then the npov isn't warranted and I've removed it. If anything, the article fails to reflect how much the debate has moved on in recent years, from where PIE came from, to how and why it spread. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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


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

There's clearly a POV balance issue in the article. Does anyone not accept this theory? It seems that they did or do. However if you read the article it's almost like the other theories don't really exist or conflict. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. WikiLinuz  { talk }  19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but clearly this is a significant competing theory. They don't have to be equal but my information from school, which might be a few years out of date, was that this theory was discredited. I'll defer to the newer info but there was period of time where it was competing with the Anatolian, and this is totally glossed over here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you have it reversed -- the Anatolian theory was a significant competing theory for a time, especially during the late 1980s and the 1990s, but it always had the problem that very few (if any) linguists who were professional Indo-Europeanists supported it, so that was mainly pushed by archaeologists and geneticists. More recent genetic analyses have discovered a significant "steppe" gene flow into Europe (though a great deal more complex than any one single invasion), and various other discoveries and theories have somewhat fallen into line (See The Horse, the Wheel, and Language etc), so that a general Kurgan or "Pontic-Caspian steppe" theory is now supported (though with much scholarly discussion about various details and minor problems, of course) -- and it doesn't have the problem of lacking support among professional Indo-Europeanist linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop messing around with my signature like you did here and here? Thanks. WikiLinuz  { talk } 🍁  14:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


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

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

Recent genetic studies
You have changed the para in the lead starting Recent genetic studies… to say that they suggest that the alternative Anatolian hypothesis, which places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Neolithic Anatolia, is unlikely to be correct. Do any of the sources cited actually say that the Anatolian hypothesis is unlikely to be correct? Sweet6970 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Haak et al. 2015. Plenty of others if that's not good enough...  Tewdar   20:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was puzzled as to why it had been added now, and not before. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That paragraph was probably added when the first papers were published, and was overly cautious. The recent genetics studies have led to consensus that the "PIE spread with Neolithic farmers" theory is pretty much dead. The ultimate urheimat is still not certain, however.  Tewdar   20:30, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’ve had a look at Haak 2015 . I think the relevant bit is on p136:
 * The Anatolian hypothesis becomes less plausible as an explanation for the origin of all Indo European languages in Europe, as it can no longer claim to correspond to the only major population transformation in European prehistory, and it must also account for the language of the steppe migrants. However, the Anatolian hypothesis cannot be ruled out entirely by our data, as it is possible that it still accounts for some of the major branches of the Indo European language family in Europe, especially the branches of the south where the proportion of steppe ancestry today is smaller than in central and northern Europe.


 * This doesn’t actually say that the Anatolian hypothesis is unlikely to be correct. Rather, it says that the Kurgan hypothesis is more likely to be correct, but that it is possible that the Anatolian hypothesis may account for some of the major branches of I-E in southern Europe.
 * So I think that your wording and suggest that the alternative Anatolian hypothesis, which places the Proto-Indo-European homeland in Neolithic Anatolia, is unlikely to be correct. should be deleted.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's the preprint. Hang on a second and I'll paste up the relevant section from the peer reviewed article, along with the additional sources I added today.  Tewdar   13:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The passage you quote doesn't seem to be in the peer reviewed paper. (It was in the supplement...) From Haak 2015: These results challenge the Anatolian hypothesis by showing that not all Indo-European languages in Europe can plausibly derive from the first farmer migrations thousands of years earlier
 * From Shinde 2019: Our results also have linguistic implications. One theory for the origins of the now-widespread Indo-European languages in South Asia is the ‘‘Anatolian hypothesis,’’ which posits that the spread of these languages was propelled by movements of people from Anatolia across the Iranian plateau and into South Asia associated with the spread of farming. However, we have shown that the ancient South Asian farmers represented in the IVC Cline had negligible ancestry related to ancient Anatolian farmers as well as an Iranian-related ancestry component distinct from sampled ancient farmers and herders in Iran. Since language proxy spreads in pre-state societies are often accompanied by large-scale movements of people, these results argue against the model of a trans-Iranian-plateau route for Indo-European language spread into South Asia.
 * And, Narasimhan 2019: Thus, although our analysis supports the idea that eastward spread of Anatolian farmer–related ancestry was associated with the spread of farming to the Iranian plateau and Turan, our results do not support large-scale eastward movements of ancestry from western Asia into South Asia after ~6000BCE (the time after which all ancient individuals from Iran in our data have substantial Anatolian farmer–related ancestry, in contrast to South Asians who have very little). Languages in prestate societies usually spread through movements of people, and thus the absence of much Anatolian farmer–related ancestry in the Indus Periphery Cline suggests that it is unlikely that the Indo-European languages spoken in South Asia today originate from the spread of farming from West Asia.
 * If you still don't think these sources justify the final sentence then perhaps I can find something else that will.  Tewdar   14:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the reading matter. I don’t want to get into a discussion on the actual topic, on which I have no expertise, but I still don’t think that your ‘unlikely’ wording is justified by the sources you have provided.
 * 1) Haak quote
 * not all Indo-European languages in Europe can plausibly derive from the first farmer migrations thousands of years earlier Yes, but I interpreted the quote I highlighted to say that the Kurgan hypothesis has difficulty accounting for the I-E languages in southern Europe. So neither hypothesis really fits the data as currently known.
 * 2)Shinde quote
 * the ‘‘Anatolian hypothesis,’’ which posits that the spread of these languages was propelled by movements of people from Anatolia across the Iranian plateau and into South Asia associated with the spread of farming.
 * This is about the spread of I-E to India. It is not about the spread of I-E languages in Europe, and, as I understand it, the Anatolian hypothesis does not necessarily claim that the spread to India was via Iran (rather than the steppe).
 * 3) Narasimhan quote
 * This is also about the spread of I-E to India, and the same comments apply.
 * Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) If not all Indo-European languages in Europe can plausibly derive from the first farmer migrations thousands of years earlier, then the Anatolian hypothesis is 'less likely', as the authors put it.
 * (2) The source says the results argue against the Anatolian hypothesis, which posits that the spread of these languages was propelled by movements of people from Anatolia across the Iranian plateau and into South Asia associated with the spread of farming
 * (3) If it is unlikely that the Indo-European languages spoken in South Asia today originate from the spread of farming from West Asia, then the Anatolian hypothesis, which postulates just such a scenario, is also unlikely, at least as an explanation for the arrival of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia.
 * Again, perhaps you are still not entirely convinced that the current sourcing justifies the word 'unlikely'. Personally, I think there are enough linguistic, archaeological, and genetic sources to describe it as implausible in Wikivoice, but maybe I'll do that tomorrow. 😁  Tewdar   16:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I could always change it to 'less likely' in the meantime, if you like...  Tewdar   16:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m quite happy with ‘less’, as a ‘permanent’ amendment to the article; I see you have made this amendment. Are you happy to end the discussion in this way? Sweet6970 (talk) 17:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well... the Anatolian Neolithic hypothesis, as originally formulated and in its various updated incarnations, is not even plausible, let alone likely. But it can stay as it is for now.  Tewdar   18:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * eg. Kristiansen et al. From this we may conclude that Funnel Beaker societies spoke a non-Indo-European language, and thus another pillar in support of the Anatolian hypothesis of farming/language dispersal (Renfrew 1987) has fallen. When the whole complex of wagon terminology is taken into account, i.e. ‘wheel’, ‘axle’, ‘nave’, ‘thill’, ‘yoke’, ‘hame’, the idea that all of those terms arose independently in the daughter languages seems extremely unlikely. When we add the evidence from ancient DNA, and the additional evidence from recent linguistic work discussed above, the Anatolian hypothesis must be considered largely falsified.  Tewdar   19:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you are agreeable to leaving the current wording as it is, then I think it’s best to end the discussion here. Thank you for your patience. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

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