Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:30, 6 February 2021

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proto-Indo-European homeland article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Archaeology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Cultural Evolution (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cultural Evolution, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cultural EvolutionWikipedia:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionTemplate:WikiProject Cultural EvolutionCultural Evolution Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Linguistics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

Recent edits by سیمون دانکرک

User:سیمون دانکرک has added, and re-inserted, a substantial amount of info/characters, which was reverted three times by User:Skllagyook. Skllagyook explained his objections several times; the response was "relevant to the subject" and "if you have any considerations go to talk page and do not delete referenced matterial s. It's against rules."

This edit added

The former , placing the PIE homeland in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 4000 BC, is the theory supported by most scholars, although it is greatly debated by newest genetic findings in South Caucasus archeological excavations and linguistic studies related to Iranian model.

References

1. Haak 2015. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHaak2015 (help)
2. Reich, David (2018). Who We are and how We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-882125-0.
3. Reich, David (2018-03-23). "Opinion | How Genetics Is Changing Our Understanding of 'Race'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
4. Wang, Chuan-Chao; Reinhold, Sabine; Kalmykov, Alexey; Wissgott, Antje; Brandt, Guido; Jeong, Choongwon; Cheronet, Olivia; Ferry, Matthew; Harney, Eadaoin; Keating, Denise; Mallick, Swapan (2019-02-04). "Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions". Nature Communications. 10 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8. ISSN 2041-1723.
5. Wang, Chuan-Chao; Reinhold, Sabine; Kalmykov, Alexey; Wissgott, Antje; Brandt, Guido; Jeong, Choongwon; Cheronet, Olivia; Ferry, Matthew; Harney, Eadaoin; Keating, Denise; Mallick, Swapan (2018-05-16). "The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus". bioRxiv: 322347. doi:10.1101/322347.
6. "Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
7. Quiles, Carlos (2017-11-18). "The renewed 'Kurgan model' of Kristian Kristiansen and the Danish school: "The Indo-European Corded Ware Theory"". Indo-European.eu. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
8. Quiles, Carlos (2018-05-10). "No large-scale steppe migration into Anatolia; early Yamna migrations and MLBA brought LPIE dialects in Asia". Indo-European.eu. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
9. "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
10. "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
11. Haber, Marc; Mezzavilla, Massimo; Xue, Yali; Comas, David; Gasparini, Paolo; Zalloua, Pierre; Tyler-Smith, Chris (2016-06). "Genetic evidence for an origin of the Armenians from Bronze Age mixing of multiple populations". European Journal of Human Genetics. 24 (6): 931–936. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2015.206. ISSN 1476-5438. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
12. Kozintsev, Alexander. "Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue". Journal of Indo-European Studies, vol. 47 (3-4), pp.293-380.
13. "Story of most murderous people of all time revealed in ancient DNA | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
14. "Genetic evidence from the South Caucasus region shows surprising long-term stability". phys.org. Retrieved 2020-07-11.
15. Holmes, Ian (2018-04-25). "What Happens When Geneticists Talk Sloppily About Race". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2020-07-11.

I don't understand the "although"; the Steppe theory is the leading theory. At best, it could be added to the fourth paragraph ("A notable third possibility"), but as Skllagyook noted, the "Near eastern model" is already being discussed. And Carlos Quiles definitely is not WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you for looking at this. I am going over the recently added sources again (which you have compiled here), and, as I thought, several (refs/footnotes 3, 6, 13, 14, and 15, as you have them listed here) do not seem to mention to southern hypothesis at all - some seem quite irrelevant, and the others (as I also mentioned in my notes) are for the most part already incorporated in the article (some already in the 4th paragraph of thd main theories/main hypotheses section). Skllagyook (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The two theories are not mutually exclusive. None of those studies argue that PIE was not spoken in the Steppe. They aver that it was spoken earlier in the "Near East" (generally in northern Iran} before migrations of 'proto-PIE' speakers towards the Pontic-Caspian steppe. For instance in Kosintsev (2019): Three migration routes from the Near East to the steppe across the Caucasus can be tentatively reconstructed — two early (Khvalynsk and Darkveti-Meshoko), and one later (Maykop). Alcaios (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Gladly and (unfortunately) rarely, this recent comment has included some useful related scientific considerations and facts. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, Skllagyook, and Alcaios:

I have not seen a reason for deletion of my editions. Is there a credible cause for it. In return I see this article has been turned to a cult for praising Steppe Ancestry theory and especially its contemporary progenitor and defender David W.Anthony. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Three problems:

• Presenting tentative proposals for a southern origin of PIE as 'the Iranian model'. That's not what those sources are about; some of them raise the possibility that the pre-proto-IE was spoken in an area in northwestern present-day Iran; they do not throw the entire steppe-model into limbo. Nor is that their prime intention; they are not about an "Iranian model"; they are about the steppe-theory.
• An unclear statement which does not adequately express your point of view: what exactly is "debated" abot the steppe model?
• Taking an agressive stance, as reflected in "cult" and your complaints at the noticeboards, while omitting the initial step of initiating a discussion at the talkpage here.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: your so-called problems' answers:

The limbo you are mentioning is not claimed by me. For example: there has been several excavations regarding human ancestors; many of them has been a revision on the history of human being. This does not mean that the skeletons are false or irrelevant or etc.

secondly: there is not an aggressive approach in my side of debate. Cult thing has been deducted from you and the other devoted user to delete everything that I write or reinstate anything that I delete ignoring all references and edit summaries. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your pov-pushing is obvious and silly diff; but obviously, it's the easy part; it's not clear what studies exactly you're referring to, or what you're trying to say. If you want to state that PIE, or pre-PIE, originated in Iran, then construct a clear statement based on WP:RS, and add it to the right place, instead of selective deletion of sourced info, twisting accurate info, and making unclear statements at the wrong place. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

at last I invite you to review thoroughly the script of the references I presented before you impartially. We will discuss it soon. I have to go now, the debate remain open. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources you mention have already been used; in essence, what you're trying to say is already said in the article. Carlos Quiles is not WP:RS. NewScientist is unaccessible. And Kozintsev has been discussed before, and rejected. The bottomline is: you want to rewrite this article based on a personal pov. See the fate of User:MojtabaShahmiri, of whom you remind me eerily. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

as you yourself admitted in the same page you have malnourished your POV based on a radical blog named «Eurogenes», an ethnocentric (in this case eurocentric) racist blog that you follow thoroughly it's lead in this entry inappropriately. I urge all the readers to review the mentioned weblog to be illuminated extensively in the subject and act duly as Misplaced Pages and its readers deserve. Additionally please avoid unethical warnings seriously or you will be reported upon that undoubtedly. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Newscientist is accessible. At least the printed version is there and the online version has the brief core of the script on it, you are avoiding and disregarding the references unnecessarily. on the contrary you mention any reference that you could reach anywhere putting too much weight on your beloved POV. In addition you ignored the sources on Carlos Quilled blog From well-known Der Spiegel, Nature and Science magazines, also Science Daily, New York Times, etc. simplifying pretention in order to flipping the coin in accordance with your desired POV-pushing. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding Quiles, Carlos (2017-11-18). "The renewed 'Kurgan model' of Kristian Kristiansen and the Danish school: "The Indo-European Corded Ware Theory"". Indo-European.eu.: Kristiansen (2018) is about the Corded Ware Culture.
• Regarding Quiles, Carlos (2018-05-10). "No large-scale steppe migration into Anatolia; early Yamna migrations and MLBA brought LPIE dialects in Asia". Indo-European.eu.: Damgaard (2018) is mentioned in the artcile, and cited at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Lack of Neutral point of view:

p.7: "the early spread of IE languages into Anatolia was not associated with any large-scale steppe-related migration." P.8: "We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG derived admixture before 3700 BCE , but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus, and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and smallscale movement during the Bronze Age. Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west the Anatolian IE language branch, including Hittite, did not derive from a substantial steppe migration into Anatolia."

Damgaard doesn't even argue for Armenian, let alone Iranian, origins; they just state that they cannot 'reject' the possibility of a Caucausus-derived, CHG-related introduction of PIE into Anatolia. They also state that "the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus." I'll repeat it for you: "the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus." I'll repeat it again: "the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus."

• Regarding "World's most-spoken languages may have arisen in ancient Iran | New Scientist". www.newscientist.com.: that's behind a paywall, but according to Carlos Quilles (May 27, 2018), The new Scicomm’s warhorse is “CHG ancestry = PIE” and the Iranian homeland, that article is about Wang (2018). Wang is also mentioned in the Wiki-article, and at Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland#Lack of Neutral point of view:

Wang et al. 2019 (p.8, 9) state that the Caucasus served as a corridor for gene flow between cultures south of the Caucasus and the Maykop culture during the Copper and the Bronze Age, speculating that this "opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus," (p.10) which "could offer a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages, as shown on many PIE tree topologies." (p.10) However, Wang et al. also acknowledge that "the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region," as explained in the steppe hypothesis. (p.10)

See also Quilles comment on this proposal.

So far, again, for your sources on Iranian origins of pre-PIE: speculations and tentative suggestions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

"Pre-proto-Indo-European" is not a valid concept - whether this term has been used professionally or not. We have no reliable way of distinguishing between pre-proto-Indo-European and proto-Indo-European. The reality of differential splitting, makes linguistics less useful than genetics, when it comes to the PIE question.2600:1700:1030:2070:58A3:E1BE:F489:26E5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The term/concept is used in the sources to distinguish between PIE and a proposed earlier common ancestor of PIE and the basal Anatolian branch/Anatolian languages (as proposed in the hypothesis of a broad "Indo-Anatolian" or "Indo-Hittite" family including both). It concerns a proposed precursor of proto-Indo-European (another proposed one being the proposed "Indo-Uralic" ancestor according to another theory, as mentioned elsewhere). Whether it is used professionaly is indeed relevant/is what matters. Per Misplaced Pages policies, we edit based on the sources (WP:RS) and what they state, not on our own opinions of what they should say or our own reasoning based on syntheses of more than one source or what we personally think makes more sense. Skllagyook (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Any reader passing by here in this talk page could identify an enthusiastic coordinated biased two man team effort against an alternative ancestry theory for Indo-European urhaimat, POV-pushing in accordance with some racist eurocentric blog called Eurogenes which is not a credible source of pseudoscience let alone science. I strongly suggest reconsideration in attitudes toward Misplaced Pages and respecting the wiki readers. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of Neutral point of view

There is an obvious tendency to empower the Steppe hypothesis especially focusing on David W. Anthony, ignoring recent genetic findings that could enlighten the prehistory of Indo-European languages' speakers in this article by few users. I suppose it is a must to maintain more scientifically approach in an encyclopedia. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

As before: you're pov-pushing on supposedly Iranian origins of pre-PIE - a pov which is mentioned in the article. See WP:DONTGETIT. Take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

pov-pushing is a claim that you make as an undocumented one. It is an unjust label that I could tag to your claims likewise. Stop claiming and start reasoning. You are investing in Steppe hypothesis as a false dominant theory. Your judgement is personal and you have added editorial adjectives to the article to you pov-pushing approach. Have a nice day سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Putting too much emphasis on the possible Iranian origins of pre-PIE, which is a tentative proposal within the bounds of the Steppe-theory, as you did with this edit, referring to WP:WEIGHT, is indeed pov-puhing:

Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.

The Steppe-model is the dominant model, period. And your preferred pov is being covered in the article.

NB: the sentence

The most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis

is covered by five sources: Mallory & Adams 2006; Anthony 2007; Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015 p.1–16; Anthony & Ringe 2015; Haak et al. 2015. Could you please tell us where those sources say that

One of the three most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is the steppe hypothesis

with other words, that the Anatolian hypothesis is widely accepted; and that the supposedly Iranian origin is widely accepted? Regarding the Anatolian hypothesis, see Spencer Wells (2017), The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, Princeton University Press, p.168:

Thus, while we see substantial genetic and archaeological evidence for an Indo-European migration originating in the southern Russian steppes, there is little evidence for a similarly massive Indo-European migration from the Middle east to Europe.

And Bomhard (2019):

other scenarios regarding the possible Indo-European homeland, such as Anatolia, have now been mostly abandoned

See also note 2. Now, that's the Anatolian hypothesis. The tentative suggestions of an Iranian origin of pre-PIE are not even a hypothesis, let alone a theoretical model, but just that: suggestions, put forward by a handfull of authors. And, despite being a minority view, this pov is being covered in the article. And not widely accepted; Anthony surely doesn not agree with these two claims...

NB2: note that I added these references in response to this request by User:Chiorbone da Frittole, so be carefull with statements like you have added editorial adjectives to the article to you pov-pushing approach. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Iran:

• Mallory, Dybo and Balanovsky (2020): "enetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG)."
• Haak et al. (2015a), supplementary information p.138: ""The Armenian plateau hypothesis gains in plausibility"; no mention of Iran.
• Reich (2018), p.120: "This suggests to me that the most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia."
• Damgaard (2018), p.7: "the early spread of IE languages into Anatolia was not associated with any large-scale steppe-related migration." P.8: "We cannot at this point reject a scenario in which the introduction of the Anatolian IE languages into Anatolia was coupled with the CHG derived admixture before 3700 BCE , but note that this is contrary to the standard view that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus, and that CHG ancestry is also associated with several non-IE-speaking groups, historical and current. Indeed, our data are also consistent with the first speakers of Anatolian IE coming to the region by way of commercial contacts and smallscale movement during the Bronze Age. Among comparative linguists, a Balkan route for the introduction of Anatolian IE is generally considered more likely than a passage through the Caucasus, due, for example, to greater Anatolian IE presence and language diversity in the west the Anatolian IE language branch, including Hittite, did not derive from a substantial steppe migration into Anatolia."
• Wang et al. 2019 (p.8, 9) state that the Caucasus served as a corridor for gene flow between cultures south of the Caucasus and the Maykop culture during the Copper and the Bronze Age, speculating that this "opens up the possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus," (p.10) which "could offer a parsimonious explanation for an early branching off of Anatolian languages, as shown on many PIE tree topologies." (p.10) However, Wang et al. also acknowledge that "the spread of some or all of the PIE branches would have been possible via the North Pontic/Caucasus region," as explained in the steppe hypothesis. (p.10)
• Kristiansen (2020): ""...the origin of Anatolian should be located in the Caucasus, at a time when it acted as a civilizational corridor between south and north. Here the Maykop Culture of the northern Caucasus stands out as the most probable source for Proto-Anatolian, and perhaps even Proto-Indo-Anatolian."

Six sources on a southern pre-PIE: "southern Caucasus or Iran" or "steppelands north of the Caucasus"; Armenia; "perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia"; southern origin 'cannot be rejected' but steppe-origins is the dominant model; "possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus" but the steppe-model also explains the early origins; Maykop culture. That's what these sources say; "Iran" is no more than a "perhaps," as an alternate but less likely possibility for the Caucasus, which is an alternate but less likely possibility for the steppes. The only reason this minority view is being mentioned is because the Armenian hypothesis has some scholarly credibility, and because Mallory and Reich are notable scholars. That's it. And that's quite a lot of coverage already for this. So, yes, any more pushing on this is WP:DISRUPTIVE pov-pushing, giving WP:UNDUE weight to a tentative possibility. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Remarkable job in collecting a bulk of evidence but I still disagree with you in the method and tone of summarising a theory or hypothesis or suggestion _as you tend to deviate the scripts that you've well assembled_ according to your point of view. I gather you have a strong bias towards Steppe hypothesis and putting too much effort to document it in this regard. There is a difference between seeking scientific method and seeking a theory and collecting evidence in accordance with it. Finally, even your approach here is different from the main page and obviously biased.سیمون دانکرک (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Southern archaic PIE? South of what?!

It is clear that some of this article's editors as they behave like so-called self-appointed chief editors of the script, has selected a term "Southern archaic PIE" which is a vague non-informative geographical address and gets us to nowhere to avoid mentioning "Iranian origin" for PIE. You may ask the enthusiastic writers of the text : where is your compass station that shows another theory South of it, so that the presumptuous and recently questioned theory of Steppe hypothesis gain the ground zero? سیمون دانکرک (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Armenian hypothesis, quite obviously. That's a hypothesis; Iran is a tentative suggestion. Regarding "southern," see Haak et al. 2015: "the question of what languages were spoken by the 'Eastern European hunter-gatherers' and the southern, Armenian-like, ancestral population remains open.". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

• It seems that the Proto-Indo-European origin or urhaimat is not so obvious that you want to be, otherwise there weren't so many theories about the same subject, but then again: you seem to have decided your point of view as you mentioned the name at this page based on a radical racist blog called Eurogenes which is deeply full of pseudoscience matterials. What a pity that a sharp mind wastes in such manner. Best regards سیمون دانکرک (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. All this "Proto-proto-Indo-European" and "Pre-Pie" are escapist language from pseudo-logicians, from those avoiding the impending truth - namely that Steppe theory is dead, and the PIE emerged from the nexus between Armenia/NW-Iran/E-Turkey. It's understandable that researchers have to be careful nowadays, given such a heated topic. It's about PIE - and it's not like there is a sound means to distinguish between proto-PIE and PIE, anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:58A3:E1BE:F489:26E5 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Iranian origin hypothesis: references needs to be added

Bernard Sergeant

Oddly, there is no mention of well-known French scientist, Bernard Sergeant (especially in his book: les indo-européens. histoire, langues, mythes, paris 1995) in the paper. It includes outstanding views regarding the resemblance of material evidence of pontic-caspian region (northwestern Iranian plateau), zarzian culture (northern Zagros mountains at Western Iranian plateau) , kebarian culture (mesopotamia, Western Iranian plateau) and Djebel Cave, Turkmenistan (northeastern Iranian plateau). سیمون دانکرک (talk) 03:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

He's in the notes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

He has been undermined in the article's main text considering his respected scientific and academic status. Moreover, there is not a direct link that leads to even his name. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

The Iranian hypothesis should be included in the article

Agreed. Especially with the current situation, the Iranian hypothesis should be included in the article - 2600:1700:1030:2070:E19C:E8E3:1CF:8918 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What situation? There have been dozens and dozens of hypotheses over the years, so we can only really justify including those that have attracted widespread commentary in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Both The Max Plank Institute and prominent geneticist David Reich belive the Indo-European homeland was in the South Caucasus, including Iran and Armenian. The archeological evidence of a South to NW influence is glaring.In contrast there is nothing of modern of evidence that places the homeland in the Steppe. The Steppe was flooded with Iranian genes, as evidenced by both Y, mtdna and autosomal dna. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:BCF6:1514:CACE:C732 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Reich's statement is already included, as are other opinions supporting the Armenian/south Caucasus/north Iran/Southern hypothesis (it's under "Southern archaic PIE hypothesis" and "Armenian hypothesis"). Some recent work does also place the roots of IE in the steppe. David Anthony (2019) places the origin of PIE in the Eastern European Steppe, and Bomhard (2019) suggests a hybrid/mixed Eurasian steppe + Caucasus origin for the roots of PIE. Regarding Y-DNA, the lineages found in early IE people (branches of R1b, R1a, and I) seem to have their origins in the Eastern European steppe (in the earlier Mesolithic hunter-gatherer groups of that region, where they have also been found), rather than in Iran or the south Caucasus; Anthony discusses that.(Uniparental contributions in early IE people from the south seem to have been more maternal/mtDNA rather than Y-DNA.) Regarding autosomal DNA, early IE people (the Yamnaya) had an even mixture: from both Caucasus/southern peoples and peoples from the Eastern European steppe region. Their genetics were mixed, and their culture likely was as well (however, the main source of their language, whether steppe, southern/Caucasus, or both/hybrid, is as yet uncertain). Skllagyook (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like you are running circles around the point. R1a , R1b and funny you should mention, I have all independently been suggested to be originated in Iran. Early clades are certainly not found in the Steppe, and that approach has been played unsuccessfully, more than a decade ago. The Steppe VERY clearly has Iranian genes, whether this was mediated through more southwardly cultures is arguable. And the term "Caucaus" is often applied as a euphemism for "Iran", as Wang et al extended analysis has determined North Caucaus genes, are actually attributable to earlier Iranian Neolithics/S. Caucaus types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:1478:9B4F:1B24:576B (talk) 17:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Basal R1a and R1b orinated ca 25,000 years ago (see: ] and ], possibly in Iran/the Caucasus, the Steppe, or Central Asia. But some branches migrated north in and around the late Paleolithic-Mesolithic long before the divergence/formation of PIE or proto-PIE, and the particular branches of R1a/R1b ancestral to those carried by the Yamnaya and other early IE cultures (and their Eastern European steppe hunter-gatherer/EHG predecessors, where R1a and R1b have also been found) were from the Eastern European/Eurasian steppe (though the basal Paleolithic ancestors of R1a/R1b may have been from the Iran region).

Also see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Sredny_Stog_culture, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/Khvalynsk_culture (esp. under the "Genetics" sections), all EHG-derived cultures of the East Eastern European steppe region, who are likely ancestors and/or relatives of the PIE (proto-Indo-Europeans) and who carried Y-haplogroups ancestral and related to those of PIE/early IE peoples. (For example, the Dnieper-Donets people, who carried mostly EHG but no Caucasus/CHG ancestry, had the same Y-haplogroups, R1b and I2a, as the Yamnaya.) Skllagyook (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

No, the Iranian influence I'm talking about was not found in the Paleolithic. Almost all of the early Steppe cultures carry almost a split mix of 'Neolithic Anatolian' and 'Neolithic Iranian', which obviously met at front between the nexus of Armenia, NW Iran, and Eastern Turkey, and expanded into the Steppe sometime between the CHALOLITHIC and BRONZE AGE. No scholar denies this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:58A3:E1BE:F489:26E5 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Which "scholars" do you read? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The entire Max Plank Institute. David Reich. Joseph Lazaridis. Wang et al https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1.full.pdf . 2600:1700:1030:2070:58A3:E1BE:F489:26E5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the composition of the steppe peoples, I do not believe that is the case. The Bronze Age steppe people (e.g. Yamnaya, and their predecessors the Khvalynsk people) were found to be a roughly mix of EHG (Eastern European hunter-gatherer) and CHG (Caucasus hunter-gatherer, also found in northwest Iran). Recent evidence (e.g. David Anthony 2019) suggests that this mixture took place, not in the Chacolithic or Bronze Age, but around the Neolithic (and/or possibly earlier) when CHG people moved north and met EHG people in the region of the East European the steppe just north of the Caucasus near the southern Volga. Also, making edits based on your own inferences/reasoning not explicit in the source is WP:OR (sometimes WP:SYNTHESIS, a type of OR) and against Misplaced Pages policies. That includes deleting sourced material based on your own inferences/opinions. The statements/proposals of Reich and Wang et al. are already cited and included (both in the lede/intro and in other relevant places in the article). Skllagyook (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Everything I've seen suggests Chalcolithic Iranians were a main source of Steppe admixture - not Neolithic Iranians. Earlier Iranian samples of the Neolithic only carried an indigenous Iranian component. Chalcolithic Iranians were an almost undiluted mix of of earlier Anatolian/Iranian Neolithic peoples. And that signature of Neolithic Anatolian/Neolithic Iranian shows up in ALMOST EVERY early IE associated culture (through the Caucasus, Steppe, ancient Greece, Corded Ware). This is what has led researchers to hypothesis the front between Anatolians and Iranians, sometime between the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, and in the nexus between the South Caucasus, E. Turkey, and NW Iran, was the original homeland of the PIE. https://i.ibb.co/ZgkF2tY/Iran-Proto-Indo-European-homeland.jpg 2600:1700:1030:2070:58A3:E1BE:F489:26E5 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

None of this supports/justifies your previous large deletions of sourced material based on your own inferences and WP:Synthesis of one or more other sources (that, again, is against Misplaced Pages policies).

It is generally agreed that the Yamnaya were primarily a mix of EHG and CHG. This is found in earlier sources (such as Lazaridis et al., Jones et al., and Haak et al.) as well as in the recent Wang et al. study (e.g. in Fig. 4, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1.full) and recently mentioned in Anthony 2019. According to the recent paper by Anthony (in part replying to Wang and others), most of the CHG admixture in the Yamnaya came from around the Neolithic rather than later (The Yamnaya generally had little or no admixture from Chacolithic/Bronze Age Caucasus groups such as the Maykop, and the Maykop were likely to have been non-IE-speaking and not the source of IE languages in the steppe).

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Archaeology_Genetics_and_Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

And either way, as explained, we edit based on what the sources explicitly say, not on what we personally think makes more sense based on our own conclusions/reasoning. What we may believe/conclude is "suggested" by the evidence is not relevant unless reliable sources explictly state it (again, please see WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS). (If the statement/reasoning is not explicitly found in source, it is WP:OR.). And Wang et al. (and their tentative suggestion re south Caucasus origins for PIE) is, as mentioned, already included in this article (namely in the Southern/Armenian hypothesis section, as well as cited in other relevant places). Skllagyook (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The "Anatolian" component in the steppe cultures came there via the Balkans. It seems to me that someone bere is living in a parallel universe. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Anthony paper is not been widely regarded, and should simply be taken as the rather arbitrary viewpoint of one author (not to mention that he writes like an undergraduate). Nothing in Anthony's article makes it definitively clear that the Yamnaya component was Neolithic - and so, not surprisingly, other scholars have not conceded. It's just one (corrupt) interpretation of genetic history. So one shouldn't be compelled to base a Wiki article on a single viewpoint - and one that is redundantly complicated. But importantly, the 'CHG' component does not exist, and is rather become the choice euphuism for Neolithic Iranian. Wang's Extended Analysis makes that clear (The Iran Gang Dareh reflects an almost purely Iran Neolithic component and that is what is shared between the Caucausus groups). And Anthony implies this himself throughout his paper:

"If the CHG element in Yamnaya came from a non-admixed CHG population of this kind, they could have walked into the steppes from northwestern Iran/Azerbaijan at any time before about 5000BC — before admixture with Anatolian Farmers began"

So you can't talk about CHG, without implying Iranian. Therefore, the Yamanya were, in fact, a mix of Iranian/EHG. And the general consensus is still that there was a Chalcolithic Iranian component for Yamanya. So I advocating that the article upholds the general consensus - not my personal opinion based on my own reasoning/logic, as you accuse me of.

2600:1700:1030:2070:C02C:1515:E435:EC5C (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

We've heard you, we don't agree, and there's WP:CONSENSUS not to add your personal (mis)interpretations of sources. I think we can leave it there; we've had enough repetition of this pov-pushing over the last year. See WP:CANTHEARYOU. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it shouldn't really matter if you agree or not, and if you were listening, it's not my interpretation. The article should put Pet theories aside and adopt the consensus. Now stop being a tyrant and clean the article up. 2600:1700:1030:2070:C02C:1515:E435:EC5C (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

To the IP: The article is not based around one single viewpoint. It includes the opinions of multiple authors and hypotheses. As mentioned, the hypothesis that PIE originated south of the Caucasus (the "Armenian/Southern hypothesis" - duly/appropriately described as "a notable third possibility/hypothesis") is included in several sections (e.g. the suggestions of Reich and Wang et al., etc.), as are the opinions of Bomhard and Anthony (that it arose on the steppe from a base of EHG languages with Caucasus/Caucasus-related influences). And, it is also relevant that the Southern origin suggestions of Reich, Wang, and Kristainson concern "archaic" or "pre-proto-IE (the proposed common ancestor of PIE and Anatolian) with PIE ("PIE proper" - i.e. including all other branches besides Anatolian) likely still originating from the steppe).

Your claim that "Anthony is a "corrupted source" is indeed an opinion (a WP:POV). He is a notable researcher on the topic (and a leading Indo-Europeanist) and is often cited in IE-related articles. And his is not the only recent research to argue for a steppe origin for PIE (or early PIE); Bomhard also does (as has other research, much cited in the article).

The steppe theory is still the standard model (for both PIE proper and it's predecessor), with the Caucasus/south of the Caucasud being an alternative hypothesis (which, again, is included/represented in this article). I would suggest carefully reading these discussions: ] and ]

According to Anthony (and others), the CHG component was present both in the Caucasus and northwest Iran (and to a lesser extent, parts of eastern Anatolia). "CHG" is the term used in the literature, your opinion that "there is no such thing" is an opinion (again, WP:OR, unless you can find a reliable source/WP:RS arguing against its use). But, at the same time, there seems no problem with mentioning where relevant that "CHG" peoples also lived in nearby parts of Iran as well as the Caucasus. It already is mentioned (where Anthony's recent piece is discussed) that the CHG component may have migrated from an area including northwest Iran (Azerbaijan, which is in the Caucasus) to the steppe through the eastern Caucasus (near/along the Western Caspian) and mixed with EHG peoples living there. Anthony clearly argues that CHG peoples migrated there before before contacts with the Maykop Culture began, who (the Maykop), he finds, carried too much Anatolian admixture to have contributed the CHG component found in the Yamnaya, who received theirs by way of EEF through the Balkans/Southeast Europe and not directly from Anatolia nor from or through the Caucasus (Anthony page 7), which thus, being from Europe, contained a WHG component not found in the Maykop. The Yamnaya's predecessors/ancestors, the Kvalynsk and Sredny Stog peoples, lacked Anatolian or EEF and had only EHG and CHG).

You may be correct that the admixture between EHG and CHG (which is estimated at around 5,000 BC) occured in the Chacolithic (which began around 7,000-5,000 BC in the Middle East). Whether Anthony believes that the CHG-descendants who migrated north were Chacolithic or Neolithic in their technology is unclear from the source (seemingly not stated). And the article in fact does not say that the migration or EHG/CHG admixture happened in the Neolithic. The more important/relevant point is that the aforementioned migration and admixture with the EHG occurred significantly before the Bronze Age (and too early for the Maykop to have been the source of CHG in the steppe people, or of PIE languages, as previously suggested by some). This (including the possibly Chacolithic date of the admixture) is already mentioned in the section describing Anthony's research as well. It states:

"Anthony proposes that the Yamnaya derived mainly from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) from the steppes, and undiluted Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) from northwestern Iran or Azerbaijan, similar to the Hotu cave population, who mixed in the Eastern European steppe north of the Caucasus. According to Anthony, hunting-fishing camps from the lower Volga, dated 6200–4500 BCE, could be the remains of people who contributed the CHG-component, migrating westwards along the coast of the Caspian Sea, from an area south-east of the Caspian Sea. They mixed with EHG-people from the north Volga steppes, and the resulting culture contributed to the Sredny Stog culture, a predecessor of the Yamnaya culture."

The possibility that the CHG people ancestral to that component in the Yamnaya derived from Northwest Iran (or a region including parts of northwest Iran) and that the date of their admixture with the EHG in the steppe may have been Chacolithic are both included. None of these facts justify deleting relevant information regarding recent research referencing Bomhard and Anthony from the "Main theories" section, as you did here ], and seemingly justified your deletion with this comment on the Talk page ], which does not follow. Deleting relevant material from reliable sources and removing sourced details based on WP:POV (as here] is not cleaning the article up. The Southern hypothesis is already duly represented, as is the possibility that the Yamnaya descended from CHG living in Iran (and that the admixture ocurred ca 5,000 BC, which could be within the Chacolithic). These things are not in conflict with the article as written. If you think there is a view that is not being duly represented here, you must find reliable sources (WP:RS) that explicitly argue for it. Skllagyook (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

'Anatolian-Iranian front as IE-homeland' - topic-ban would appropriate

Talking about sources, I really would like to know from which source this graph comes, which seems to be the basis for the IP's 'consensus' on Iranian origins. The caption speaks of the suggestion that "the proto-Indo-Europeans were an earlier Anatolian/Iranian mixed population." Where do the authors suggest that "the front between Anatolians and Iranians in the nexus between the South Caucasus, E. Turkey, and NW Iran, was the original homeland of the PIE"? Who are these authors? NB: note the yellow component present in the Iranian samples, but missing in the CHG and steppe Yamnaya samples. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm afraid I don't know. I wondered also. It does not seem to come from Wang. Skllagyook (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The caption also seems to contain a mistake: "blue (Iranian)" should be "green (Iranian)," whereas grey-green must be EHG. Note also that the "Iranian" component accounts for no more than 20% of the steppe Yamnaya ancestry. To call this Anatolian/Iranian mixture is weird. And 20% is not a sign of a mass movement of people introducing a new language. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I would agree. Also, the caption contains (at least) two typos: "Charachteristic" and "Levantian" (instead of "Levantine"), which is also a bit weird (as is the fact that EHG is never mentioned). Skllagyook (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Via the Yamnaya_Bulgaria_outlier, I probably found the original, also here. From Wang et al. (2018) The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus 2018 BioRxiv preprint. Same info reused in Wang et al. (2019), Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions, Nature communications. From The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus:

Archaeogenetic studies have described the formation of Eurasian ‘steppe ancestry’ as a mixture of Eastern and Caucasus hunter-gatherers. However, it remains unclear when and where this ancestry arose The steppe groups from Yamnaya and subsequent pastoralist cultures show evidence for previously undetected farmer-related ancestry from different contact zones
----
Yamnaya individuals who share the characteristic ‘steppe ancestry’ profile as a mixture of EHG and CHG/Iranian ancestry
----
...developments south of the Caucasus, where Iranian and Anatolian/Levantine Neolithic ancestries continue to mix, resulting in a blend that is also observed in the Caucasus cluster, from where it could have spread onto the steppe we observe an increase in farmer-related ancestry (both Anatolian and Iranian) in our Steppe cluster, ranging from Eneolithic steppe to later groups. In Middle/Late Bronze Age groups especially to the north and east we observe a further increase of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry consistent with previous studies of the Poltavka, Andronovo, Srubnaya and Sintashta groups and reflecting a different process not especially related to events in the Caucasus. The exact geographic and temporal origin of this Anatolian farmer-related ancestry in the North Caucasus and later in the steppe is difficult to discern from our data a minimum of four streams of ancestry is needed to explain all eleven steppe ancestry groups tested, including previously published ones (Fig. 2; Supplementary Table 12). Importantly, our results show a subtle contribution of both Anatolian farmer-related ancestry and WHG-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Tables 13 and 14), which was likely contributed through Middle and Late Neolithic farming groups from adjacent regions in the West. A direct source of Anatolian farmer-related ancestry can be ruled out (Supplementary Table 15). At present, due to the limits of our resolution, we cannot identify a single best source population. However, geographically proximal and contemporaneous groups such as Globular Amphora and Eneolithic groups from the Black Sea area (Ukraine and Bulgaria), which represent all four distal sources (CHG, EHG, WHG, and Anatolian_Neolithic) are among the best supported candidates

Not at all a "hypothesis" of a "front between Anatolians and Iranians in the nexus between the South Caucasus, E. Turkey, and NW Iran, was the original homeland of the PIE," let alone a "consensus" for such a (non-existing) hypothesis. Pure WP:OR and WP:TENDENTIOUS. In Dutch, we call this "uit je duim zuigen," that is, 'making up a story'. I'm in for a topic-ban for this IP, who is probably User:سیمون دانکرک again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: As you mentioned my ID, you may need some illuminations to call you off from pursuing this funny and weird approach substantiating a romanticist eurocentric crusade: if you consider anyone who refutes your progressively outdated biased eurocentric beloved theory of Steppe Archaic Homeland for Indo-Europeans _that you grasp to any remote evidence to glorify it, and rule out any apparent scientific evidence against it on mainly jiberjaber pretexts_ the same person and an identical IP, apparently you cannot earn the qualifications to edit here and your editing behaviours should and will be addressed accordingly. You are not in the majority flank of racism disguised in archeological hypothesis, so try not to be confused by your sole teammate here to a monopolistic Mannar in manipulating and ignoring the new genetic data and facts in edition of this article, which is obviously and unfortunately supported by some hierarchical shadows to feel like everything is in place. Your shallow radical dominance on this topics has an expire date and no deep regrets would be sufficient enough Dutchman ,as it has many predecessors ,so evidently it is not an exception. سیمون دانکرک (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Interesting. That would certainly be WP:OR (seemingly a fairly heavy instance of it). The original looks quite different. The image and caption (as the IP presented them) then would seem not to be from a reliable source (but to have been fabricated/synthesized by someone else from pieces of a preprint of a reliable source, if I am understanding correctly). Thank you for your work in tracking it down. I would not disagree with a topic ban. Skllagyook (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Cite your source that 20% is "not a sign of a mass movement of people introducing a new language" 2600:1700:1030:2070:C59D:946F:EF83:1B6B (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wang is referring to those on the Eastern Periphery. He is implying that a more Western source of Anatolian. But these events are explicitly and necessarily related to early PIE, but later PIE related events. 2600:1700:1030:2070:C59D:946F:EF83:1B6B (talk)

@Joshua Jonathan: Now what seems to be a similar IP, see here: ] (probably the same person) is deleting sourced material at Yamnaya culture that does not support their Iranian origin POV. I reverted them once there. They seem unlikely to listen (as they did not on this Talk page). I suggest they should be reported perhaps. Skllagyook (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: do we need to open a thread at ANI for this stupidity ("cite your source" in response to an urgent request to provide the source on which they seem to base their deviant 'understanding'), or can you intervene right away?

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Archaeology articles
• High-importance Archaeology articles
• C-Class Linguistics articles
• High-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles