Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Iranian origin hypothesis: references needs to be added [again]

Bernard Sergeant [sic]

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: [[1]] and [[2]], 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/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Donets_culture, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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: [[3]] and [[4]]

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 [[5]], and seemingly justified your deletion with this comment on the Talk page [[6]], which does not follow. Deleting relevant material from reliable sources and removing sourced details based on WP:POV (as here[[7]] 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, [which] 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: 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: [[8]] (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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Jonathan (talk • contribs) 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: The IP (a slightly different IP now, but I think very likely the same person) is still edit warring at Yamnaya culture, (see here [[9]]) albeit a bit more slowly/less frequently (deleting much the same sourced material that conflicts with what seems to be their POV). I have warned them and they have ignored it. I think this may have to go to ANI.Skllagyook (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI

I've started a thread at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request topic-ban for User:سیمون دانکرک/IP-range 2600:1700:1030:2070:*. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Both user-accounts are blocked; IP-range hopefully too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Svetlana Zharnikova

@109.252.123.36: I think that this

Eastern European homeland

The Eastern European region, as the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans (*Sanskrit-spoken people), was indicated in the book “Archaic roots of the traditional culture of the Russian North” by Svetlana Zharnikova (author of a 4-volume scientific study “The Origin of Indo-Europeans” ). Among other evidences, she analyzed the names of the rivers Volga-Oka basin and established a connection Kursk field with the site of the epic Battle of Kurukshetra .

She wrote: “The country between Yamunā, Sindhu, Upajalā and Parā was called(*governed by) Avanti (Vaṁśa). This is exactly how - وانتیت‎ Wāntīt (A-Vantit) the land of Vyatichi between Oka, Don, Upa and Para was called by Arab travelers and Byzantine chronicles.

Mahabharata and Rigveda mention the people Kuru and Kurukshetra. Kurukshetra - literally “Kursk field”, and it is in the center of it that the city Kursk is located, where “The Tale of Igor's Campaign” mentions the Kuryans as noble warriors. The ally of Kauravas in the great war with Pandavas were Sauvirs people living in the country of Sindhu. But this is exactly what - sauvirs were called until the 15th century Russian-northerners, and one of them was the prince Igor Svyatoslavich of “The Tale of Igor's Campaign”. Thеsе people were mentioned as Sauvirs by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.

The Rig Veda reports on the warlike people of Krivi(क्रिवि, *after the king Kraivya Pāñcāla). But Latvians and Lithuanians also call all Russians - “Krivi”, after the name of the neighboring Russian ethnos Krivichi, whose cities were Smolensk, Polotsk, and Pskov, and present-day Tartu and Riga.”

is interesting, but poorly written, and hard to verify. It reads like Out-of-India prose, while Zharnikova seems to argue that Sanskrit river- and place-names resemble eastern European names, from which they are derived. That would make some sense, of course. I'll try to read more. Notice, though, that that would be in line with the steppe-theory. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the sources:

• S.V. Zharnikova (2020), Archaic roots of the traditional culture of the Russian North, WP IPGEB
• Svetlana Zharnikova (2020), The Origin of Indo-Europeans, White Alves - is that the same as Cultural traditions and Origins Indo-Europeans (sic)?
• S.V. Zharnikova (), Meru Mountains: (Hyperborea and Aryan ancestral homeland):

The Vologda ethnographer Svetlana Zharnikova was not at all surprised: "The present Indians and Slavs had one ancestral home and one protolanguage - Sanskrit," says Svetlana Vasilievna. - Our distant ancestors lived in Eastern Europe on ...

Sanskrit as the proto-language of both Slavs and Indo-Aryans? Hmmmm... not the usual point of view on this. The intro refers to "The Arctic Home in the Vedas"; that's as fringe as fringe can be, but nevertheless, this looks interesting; she argues that the Meru Mountains are the "Aryan ancestral homeland, proposing that Mount Meru refers to the northern Urals. That might be an interesting addition to Mount Meru; she may also be interesting for The Arctic Home in the Vedas. NB: nice anecdote at "Where did the Drevlyans and Krivichi disappear," about an Indian professor visiting a specific Russian region, and able to undrstand the language because of the similarities with Sanskrit.

• Kursk field, Battle of Kurukshetra, source: Some archaic roots of the Northern Russian traditional culture
• "Some archaic roots of the Northern Russian traditional culture https://www.booksite.ru/fulltext/1/001/001/073/j4.htm] - unfortunately in Russian.
• "She wrote: “The country between Yamunā, Sindhu, Upajalā and Parā was called(*governed by) Avanti (Vaṁśa)" - no reference; can't find one at Google.

You posted the following links at Joe's talkpage:

• https://vk.com/topic-32482446_31777280 - discussion site in Russian, with a short exposition, and criticism.
• https://www.nkj.ru/archive/articles/9493/ - in Russian, but Google ytranslates helps; the article only seems to mention Zharnikova once, though
• https://cont.ws/@INFObazaSM/161480/full
• http://www.knt.org.ru/Jarnikova%201.htm - Russian site with links to related articles; interesting site, gives some more info

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a fringe theory that is mostly ignored by academia, unless it gets a mention as such—an outlandish fringe proposal that has gained popularity among a lay audience in Russia (hence the advocacy we can observe now). A discussion of the full background of this "theory" is discussed in this chapter by Shnirelman in the volume Selective Remembrances: Archaeology in the Construction, Commemoration, and Consecration of National Pasts, P. L. Kohl, M. Kozelsky, N. Ben-Yehuda (eds.), 2008, University of Chicago Press. We might consider an inclusion in "6 Other hypotheses", similar to "Out of India theory". The similarities to Hindutvas co-opting their respective fringe theory is striking. –Austronesier (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Definitely a fringe theory, and while I'm not opposed in principle to discussing it as such, I think we agreed a while ago that the "Other hypotheses" can't possibly include every hypothesised homeland (there must be hundreds by now), but only the most significant ones. The Shnirelman chapter links to an Arctic homeland, which is one of the more long-running and notable fringe theories, so maybe it could be combined with that.

I asked the IP for reliable sources, unconnected to the theory's proponents, that discuss it. Of the four links above, one is obviously unreliable (a VKontakte post) and two are strongly connected to Zharnikova. The article in Nauka i Zhizn is a little more viable but the actual content is a just a mess of outlandish philological claims, e.g. that Roslagen, Roskilde, Ararat (?), and Эстроген (??? – apparently a region in England?), all derive from Rus' and therefore must have been founded by Proto-Indo-Russians. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Zharnikova's fringe theory seems to be a Russocentric variant of the Arctic homeland theory, and as such could be mentioned in the article about Arctic homeland, but so far there's only an article about The Arctic Home in the Vedas. Gweorth (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

That's my "free translation" (with commentary). The russian version is:

• Восточноевропейский регион, как прародину индоевропейцев(*говорящего на санскрите народа), указала в книге «Архаические корни традиционной культуры Русского Севера» Светлана Жарникова (автор 4-х томного научного исследования «Происхождение индоевропейцев»). Среди прочих доказательств она проанализировала названия рек Волго-Окского бассейна и установила связь Курского поля с местом эпической битвы на Курукшетре.

Она писала: «Страна между Ямуной, Синдхом, Упаджалой и Парой назывлась А-Ванти. Именно так — Вантит (*وانتیت‎ Wāntīt) называли землю Вятичей между Окой, Доном, Упой и Парой арабские путешественники и византийские хроники.

Махабхарата и Ригведа упоминают народ Куру и Курукшетру. Курукшетра — дословно «Курское поле», и именно в центре его стоит город Курск, куда «Слово о полку Игореве» помещает курян — знатных воинов.

Союзником кауравов в великой войне с пандавами был народ саувиров живших в стране Синдху. Но именно так — саувирами называли вплоть до 15 века русских-северян, откуда родом был герой «Слова о полку Игореве» князь Игорь Святославович. Упоминается этот народ — саувиры и Птолемеем во 2 в. н. э.

Ригведа сообщает о воинственном народе Криви(*क्रिवि, потомки народа правителя Kraivya Pāñcāla). Но латыши и литовцы так и называют всех русских — «криви», по имени соседнего с ними русского этноса кривичей, чьими городами были и Смоленск, и Полоцк, и Псков, и нынешние Тарту и Рига».

Жарникова также соотносит древний Хастинапур (*हस्तिनापुर, «Город-слона», известный из Махабхараты) и археологический комплекс Костёнки, хорошо известный своими жилищами, построенными из костей мамонта.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.122.141 (talk • contribs)

In the fourth volume of her work, S. Zharnikova correlates Harappa in the Indus Valley with a toponym from the Slavic epic: «Веда славян (Обрядные песни языческого времени, сохранившиеся в устном предании у македонцев и фракийских болгар-помаковъ)». Собранные и изданные Стефаном Ил. Берковичем в 1875-76 гг. Во втором томе, опубликованном в С.-Петербурге в 1881 г., Хараппе посвящено несколько песен. Отметим, что руины Хараппы открыты Р. Сахни в 1921 г. Современные интерпретаторы песен ищут Харапскую землю в Албании, у Скифов или в Аравии. Хотя в песнях Юды идут в Харпска-град с Дунава, но идут они далеко на Край-земли у моря, что может более относиться к Хараппе, чем к Албании, тем более при наличии в Харапской земле трех королевств.

For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. KJV Mark 4.22.

References

Shnirelman's work "The Aryan myth in the modern world" as a vivid example of a pseudoscientific approach

1. The cover of the book tries to "deny" philology as a discipline. This is reflected in the complete disregard for the issues of linguistic kinship and denial of the obviousness of the existence of the Indo-Aryan language group. 2. This approach led Sh-n to a false premise - denial of the common cultural heritage of this group. 3. Sh-n constantly quotes opponents in a disdainful and dismissive tone (mostly=especially in russian lang), ignoring their main arguments and deliberately suppressing the facts with which he should have been familiar in order to judge the subject. 4. Rightly fighting against racism, he himself, in fact, is one of the "instigators" of it in Russia. Indeed, in the process of his "presentation" he ruins the historical and cultural memory of most of the peoples of all Eurasia and denies population genetics. 5. Using the fact of long-term transformation of the very concept of "aryan" and inconsistencies in the definitions of different researchers, he is constantly engaged in the substitution of this concept and simply "spam" into the topic.

- therefore, his opinion cannot be considered relational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mammooth (talk • contribs) 09:46, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Another "Myth"

The term "Slavs" could be used by medieval chroniclers as a synonym for the modern "Indo-Europeans". Authors like Cornelius Aurelius were professional falsifiers of the history of the origin of the peoples of Europe. This is what Olga Semyonova-Rotterdam discovered: "The Dutch chronicle of 1620: "In the year after the birth of our Lord in 370 or so, the Wilts, who are now the founders; and the Slavs, they are now the Dutch; and Neder-Sassen, who are now Frisians, gathered and exchanged people and formed a very large people and moved up the Rhine in ships" ... --> The Dutch are the Slavs! The Slavs have lived in the Lower Lands from time immemorial. They lived and built their cities here".

The "Dutch" < "Wilti" < (Early) Slavs.

1. «Beschrijvinge der stad Rotterdam, en eenige omleggende dorpen, verdeeld in 3 boeken». Door Geraard van Spaan. De tweede druk. Te Rotterdam, 1713. Pag. 24-25. Istochnik: https://books.google.ru/books?id=a-lWAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Beschrijvinge+der+stad+Rotterdam,+en+eenige+omleggende+dorpen,+verdeeld+in+3+boeken&hl=ru&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju1ombjZnwAhVuo4sKHbGTB44Q6AEwAnoECAQQAg 2. «Vaderlandsche historie. Deel 1» (1749), Jan Wagenaar» https://www.dbnl.org/tekst/wage004vade01_01/colofon.php) 3. Gerard Van Loon «Beschryving der aloude regeeringwyze van Holland», Volumes 1-2, By Pieter vander Eyk, 1744 https://books.google.ru/books?id=MFVbAAAAQAAJ&hl=ru&source=gbs_navlinks_s 4. Ol'ga Semionova-Rotterdam «Slavische steden van Nederland» www.awakeupnow.info/nl/58-feiten-meningen-en-hypothesen/3139-slavishe-steden-van-nederland 5. Ol'ga Semionova-Rotterdam «Slavyane - predki gollandcev» https://www.tart-aria.info/slavjane-predki-gollandcev/ 6. Koninklijke Bibliotheek (Cornelius Aurelius, Die cronycke van Hollandt Zeelandt ende Vrieslant. Leiden, Jan Seversz, 1517. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek: KW 1084 A 6). http://resources.huygens.knaw.nl/retroboeken/divisiekroniek/#page=0&accessor=thumbnails&view=homePane

Het oude Goutsche chronycxken van Hollandt, Zeelandt, Vrieslandt en Utrecht [Door Petrus Scriverius] https://goudaopschrift.nl/index.php/publicatie/gouds-kroniekje#3

«alsmen hier nae noch wel hoeren sel UOer die qheboerte ons heren ihesu cris=ti dusent hondert ende ses ende tsestich. iaer soe staken hen te samen die sicambriene die=men nv franschs hiet. ende quamen mit veel scepen ouer die zee ende wouden in brutangen we=sen om dat lant te winnen, soe dat si versta=ken mitten wynde. ende quamen gheuaren an die zeeusche cust Ende doe dit die slauen vernamen soe hadden si sonmighe scepen ende toghen op ter zee tot die sicambriene. daer si tegens streden. ende wonnen hem alte groten roef of ende sloghen veel volcs. ende behilden al hoer scepen. ende quamen soe weder te slauenburch daer omtrent daer nv vlaerdinc staet. mer dat oude vlaerdinc dat staet nv verde in die maes Dit volc dese slauen gheneerden hem ter zee ende inden woude. ende creghen veel kin=der te samen. soe dat si hem stroyden. ende to ghen een groet deel woenen ouer die maes dat nv zuythollant hiet Die ander toghen in zeelant dat een groet onbewoent eylant was Ende plaghen hem te gheneeren ter zee mit visschen ende mit roeuen Dus worden die luden zeelanders qhehieten Die ander ...»

---

[edition 1663, 3 page]: alsmen hier na noch wel hooren sal. Door de qheboorte ons heeren Jesu Christi elf hondert ende sessent-sestich jaer/ soo staechen hem te samen die Sicambrinen diemen nu Franschen hiet/...

---

We will hear about this later on. It was 1166 BC when the Sicambrians, now called Franks, crossed the sea with many ships. They wanted to go to Britain to conquer that country. They got off course because of the wind, so that they were heading for the coast of Zeeland. When the Slavs learned of this, they sailed to sea with a number of ships to fight against the Sicambrians. They robbed them and killed a lot of the men. They kept all their ships and returned to Slavenburg, the place where Vlaardingen is approximately. However, the old town of Vlaardingen is now further in the Meuse, and these people, the Slavs, sought their food at sea and in the forest. They had many children, who went to live scattered. A large part went to live above the Maas, which is now called South Holland, while the others moved to Zeeland, which was then a large uninhabited island. They lived off fishing and sea raids. That is why these people are called Zeelanders. Those who already lived in South Holland were called the ...

I really don't know what you're talking about. No one in the 17th century was aware of "Indo-Europeans" in the modern sense or the 1786 Sir William Jones sense. AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Addition of off-topic material

@109.252.123.71 constantly adds text that is supposed to come in support of the fringe theory by Zharnikova about a northern origin of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but includes much off-topic material that is not about the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Neither the quotes from Denisova nor from Krainov link the Fatyanovo culture with Proto-Indo-Europeans, but people ancestral to the Balts/Slavs (or Balts/Slavs + Germanic peoples). This is hardly related to Zharnikova's wilder speculations, and none of them talk about the Proto-Indo-Europeans as Indo-Slavs. PS, if you are User:Mammooth: logging out for edits to circumvent sanctions against the main account falls under WP:sockpuppetry and will result in another block. –Austronesier (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

POV-pushing on Iranian homeland, again

I've removed diff pov-pushing on a possible Iranian homeland. This topic has already been given undue coverage, but this addition was really too much, if not WP:OR:

In the historical context, after the Last Glacial Period ended around the the 10th millennium BC, following the Neolithic Revolution and the domestication of cattle like goats at the foothills of Zagros Mountains as early as the 8th millennium BC, many of the earliest known human settlements were established in the Near East and the Persian Plateau (namely the Burnt City in the Sistan Basin, and the community at Susa in the Fertile Crescent — one of the oldest-known human settlements); but as the planet was warming and the environment was changing, there was a push for further migrations outwards towards the north in search of better and more stable pasturelands for cattle and for farming. Some of the notable changes in the environment in the millennia following the end of the LGP that might have prompted such migrations were the receding of the Persian Gulf and the drying of the Sistan Basin.

References

further migrations outwards towards the north in search of better and more stable pasturelands for cattle and for farming. - we're talking here about people without farmer-genes... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Right; but the main idea was that the change in the environment acted as a driving force for migration (regardless of the settlements having farmers or not). As we were talking about the theories, we are merely providing explanations for them. mjrx (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You cannot use sources which do not actually talk about the Proto-Indo-European homeland. Citing sources to prove a point that is not made in the source itself violates WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. –Austronesier (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not up to you to provide explanations; we give an overview of the explanations given in WP:RS. Lambeck speculates about the possibility of people moving wesrwards from the east of Iran beflre 6000 BCE; Hamzeh et al. write about eastern Iran. This has nothing to do with possible migrations to the steppes; the sentence there was a push for further migrations outwards towards the north in search of better and more stable pasturelands for cattle and for farming is unsourced, and unrelated to a possible Iranian PIE-homeland, as we're talking here about a pre-farming genetic component. Had farmers reached the steppes, they would have introduced an Anatolian component. That component is found at the steppes, but it came there via the Balkans. See also here, referring to Wang: "the CHG/Iran N type ancestry on the steppe emerged without any admixed Anatolian Farmer ancestry [...] This therefore, makes a major dent to the hypothesis of Reich and other geneticists that PIE originated South of the Caucasus and spread to the steppe via the Caucasus route." (I'll bet Reich c.s. figured that out too. Not coincidentally, I suppose, no new suggestions in this regard for the couple of years.) Ergo, original research and synthesis with faulty conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Horseback expansion

We read in Kurgan hypothesis section: "Indo-European speaking nomads from Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC, invading and subjugating supposedly peaceful European Neolithic farmers" but scientific studies have rejected the association between horseback riding from the steppe and the spread of Indo-European languages in Europe, read it: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.80.17.18 (talk) 06:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That paper was published 6 days ago. It's a little early to start rewriting this article. – Joe (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The paper does not seem necessarily to conflict with the idea that the Yamnaya/Indo-Europeans expanded on horseback or had horses (they ceetainly had them). It seems to find that they were not the first to have horses in many areas they inhabited and that most modern domestic horse breeds in Eurasia descend primarily from a later post-Yamnaya breed. Skllagyook (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It clearly says: "Our results reject the commonly held association between horseback riding and the massive expansion of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists into Europe around 3000 bc.", it is an objection to the idea that "Indo-European speaking nomads from Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC, invading and subjugating supposedly peaceful European Neolithic farmers". --212.80.17.18 (talk) 11:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

To the IP: The study does not conflict with the idea that the Yamnaya/IE migrated in waves and subjugated (most of) the non-IE peoples of Europe (linguistic, genetic, and archaeological evidence shows that they did). But it does question that horses were important in their doing so. From the paper:

"Whereas horses living in the Western Eurasia steppes in the late fourth and early third millennia BC were the ancestors of DOM2 horses, there is no evidence that they facilitated the expansion of the human genetic steppe ancestry into Europe as previously hypothesized. Instead of horse-mounted warfare, declining populations during the European late Neolithic may thus have opened up an opportunity for a westward expansion of steppe pastoralists."

It seems to find that they were not the first to have horses in many areas they inhabited - where does the paper say so? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I had thought that the paper was arguing that the Yamnaya were not the ones responsible for introducing horses to some of the areas where they settled (and it finds that in the steppe horses were domesticated by earlier steppe cultures before the Yamnaya). But I may have misunderstood its conclusions regarding Europe west of the steppe. It seems the paper may be arguing that the Yamnaya could have been the first to have horses in some of those regions, but that horses are not what facilitated their spread (or the spread of their ancestry), and that that spread was facitated by other factors (as suggested in the quote I posted in my previous comment). Skllagyook (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

You just say your personal opinions, this genetic study has clearly rejected it: "According to the Kurgan hypothesis as formulated by Gimbutas, Indo-European speaking nomads from Eastern Ukraine and Southern Russia expanded on horseback in several waves during the 3rd millennium BC, invading and subjugating supposedly peaceful European Neolithic farmers of Gimbutas' Old Europe." In fact it can be considered as a lie. --212.80.17.18 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The paper clearly mentions "the westward expansion of steppe pastoralists" into Europe (and Asia) associated with IE in the third millenium. The question is what facilitated their expansion and whether or not horses were an important part of it. It does not question the steppe origin of IE, only the horse association aspect as formulated by Gimbutas (and there has been much more research since her). Also please see the replies/edit summaries by User:Joe Roe and User:Joshua Jonathan. As mentioned, it is a single recent paper and it has already been incorporated into the article. Skllagyook (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about the Kurgan hypothesis which says "Indo-European speaking nomads from the steppe expanded on horseback during the 3rd millennium BC", the steppe origin of IE can be still possible but this hypothesis is wrong. --212.80.17.18 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah; so, according to Librado et al. (2021, the horseriding is incorrect; not the fact of the migrations. You're seeing what you want to see. Now, this talkpage is not a WP:FORUM, so end of spamming fringe-theories. Goodbye. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have initially reverted the addition of text because it was squeezed in between an outline of Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis. This is bad "but/however/although"-editing, especially if it is paired with poor understanding of what the new paper actually refutes, and of what remains uncontested by its authors.

I'm still unhappy with the placement of the note. The role of horseback riding in the expansion is just one piece in the steppe hypothesis package, and if this piece found to be weak in a multi-disciplinary authored study, so be it. But then, this aspect probably merits a separate subsection, ideally including earlier studies about this subtopic. And as always, nothing should be presented as if it were the final word about it. It's the amateurs whose thinking revolves around dogmatic categories of truth and lies; the WP editorial community reflects scientific consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

According to Leiden University: Genetics proves it: Indo-European did not come to Europe on horseback, Hypothesis in part dismissed, "This finding at least in part dismisses an important archaeological and linguistic hypothesis, Kroonen explains. Linguists have been trying for a long time to work out how the Indo-European language family managed to spread so rapidly and so successfully. Popular theory has it that the domestication of horses may have played a role in this because horses allowed people to travel faster. But this research shows that the theory does not hold for Europe." It should be certainly mentioned in the main section. --Shahmoj (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, this is just a news release accompanying the Nature-article, so it doesn't add anything that's not in the article itself. –Austronesier (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the "horse theory" is only said to be partly dismissed. Note that Kroonen mentions the role of pastoralism instead, but the fact is that the "horse theory" actually relates to its use in pastoralism. So I doubt anything will really change in relation to the mainstream theory of an origin in the Yamna culture.--Berig (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier:, it is actually is a peer review of this study by Guus Kroonen, the important thing which has been mentioned by him is that "This finding at least in part dismisses an important archaeological and linguistic hypothesis.". --Shahmoj (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the problem here? It is in the nature and the purpose of science to modify theories. If it "in part" dismisses a theory, it does *not* dismiss it. It only suggests that the theory needs to be modified.--Berig (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It can also lead to full dismissal of a theory. Anyway I see no reason that this important genetic study is not mentioned in the main section. --Shahmoj (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Of course, it can lead to full dismissal. However, on Wikipedia we wait until most tenured professors in the field at respectable universities dismiss it (or at least a sizable minority of them), before we change anything. :-).--Berig (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Just to correct one misunderstanding by @Shahmoj: the Leiden press release is not "a peer review of this study by Guus Kroonen". Kroonen (and btw also Anthony) is co-author of the Nature-article, or rather – in the words of the press release – a contributor of a sub-study within the article. And of course, his institution "proudly presents" the contribution of one their researchers to this interdisciplinary study. –Austronesier (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

os 2 povos mais proximos do homeland sao eslavos e iranianos mas a citia era um fossil vivo do homeland e foi absorvido por turanianos no medievo o que nao tira a citia como candidata e asia central/eurasia central os turanianos anacronicamente reinvindicam turan como asia central pos invasao mas eles surgiram na siberia oriental pois foi encontrado restos citas ate no altai e eram comuns no tarim ate rio ordo etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.211.79.58 (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Clarify "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis"

It would be great have a two line introduction to the section named "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis".

Just explain the difference between "late PIE" and "early/archaic/ancestral PIE". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.207 (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Notes

Copied from User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Wikipedia Notes

What you have conveyed in the notes is probably one of the strongest genetic studies in favor of a new theory that claims that Indo-European ancestors originated in the southern Caucasus and northwestern Iran. Considering that usually no one pays attention to the notes, I think it would be much better to add this content again to the previous section. 188.159.171.172 (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

End of copied part

Krause and Trappe's publiction is a general overview; they don't refer to specific genetic studies. So, which genetic study are you referring here to? Their thesis is problematic;

• According to Krause and Trappe, archaic PIE spread from the Caucasus/northern Iran with the early Iranian farmers at ca. 8000 years ago (6000 BCE?), both to the Pontic steppe and to Pakistan and northern India; yet, according to Narasimhan et al. (2019), the Iranian component arrived in India before 6000 BCE, before the advent of farming. No mention of this at all; at least for the English edition that's a fallacious omission;
• At the same page, Krause & Trappe state that Indo-Iranian languages came to India from the north. So, the IE-languages arrived in India twice?
• According to Kraus & Trappe, the steppe-model explains the influx of C/I genes as mddiated through the Maykopf-culture; yet, Anthony argues against this;
• They state that Anatalia was IE-speaking until the advance of the Turks. How many languages are ignored here?

Rambling... This is hardly a theory; it's all suggestions, nothing more. PS: this is what Davidsky has to say about Krause. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean the analysis of the most extensive and recent genetic research done in this book by johannes krause. His opinion is valuable because he is one of the few people who has a good scientific position in the university along whit david Reich and has dealt whit this issue. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.159.171.172 (talk) 15:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Where's the analysis? I see only statements, and no references to recent publications. Krause refers to Gray (2003), a colleague from the MPI, who came uo with the 8000 YA for archaic PIE. That date is rejected by Garrett and Chang (2015) (see here), who propose 6000 YA. Quite a difference, ignored by Krause. Nor do they refer to Narasimhan et al. (2019), or Anthony's thoughts on the Maaykop-culture. So, while the German edition of 2019 had some relevance in this regard, the 2021 English edition is not based on the most recent research, but on the outdated Anatolian hypothesis and a two decennia old study on the origins of PIE. Not the kind of "analysis" that warrants a separate mention. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Davidsky is clearly a Eurocentrist, does it really matter what he says?! We are talking about a highly valuable scientific study regarding the homeland of Indo-Europeans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.55.243.123 (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Caveat vs. peacockery

@Joshua Jonathan: You say It *is* relevant; the MPI has somewhat different opinions on some issues, so it's good to know where this comes from - and it's also why it's relevant. You know this about the MPI, Skllagyook knows it, I know it, so to us it reads as a caveat; but to the uninitiated reader, to the contrary, it lends the statement extra weight of authority, which is unnecessary peacockery. The fact that Krause is a geneticist already indicates that this statement comes from a non-linguist and non-historian who relies on Russell Gray and his tree and dating methods (phylogenetic subgrouping methods: a big red flag!) as background information for his conclusions. –Austronesier (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

At least, then, we should me tion "MPI." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not just the MPI that think this, though; seems to be a common belief amongst geneticists: 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 - David Reich, WWAAHWGH, page 120...  Tewdar  20:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It's certainly not a 'common belief'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, there are several genetics papers already cited in the article that do propose a possible Caucasus/Iran etc. origin. Incidentally, I feel that the article misrepresents Damgaard et al 2018 ("The First Horse Herders") when we say this paper states that "the steppe-model is the dominant model" - they say Within Europe, the “Steppe Hypothesis” is supported by the reconstruction of Proto-IE (PIE) vocabulary (8), as well as by archaeological and genomic evidence of human mobility and Early Bronze Age (3000–2500 BCE) cultural dynamics (9). For Asia, however, several conflicting interpretations have long been debated. and Thus, while the “Steppe hypothesis,” in the light of ancient genomics, has so far successfully explained the origin and dispersal of IE languages and culture in Europe, we find that several elements must be re-interpreted to account for Asia[...]we demonstrate that the Anatolian IE language branch, including Hittite, did not derive from a substantial steppe migration into Anatolia. (my emphasis)  Tewdar  08:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's a couple of jolly old blogs: 1, 2  Tewdar  09:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And another one (featuring Mr. Bean)  Tewdar  10:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

'Propose a possibility' indeed; only Kristiansen and Krause actually seem to be convinced of this:

• Haak et al. (2015) state that their findings of gene flow of a population that shares traits with modern-day Armenians into the Yamnaya pastoralist culture, lends some plausibility to the Armenian hypothesis, no more than that;
• Reich makes a suggestion, which he relativizes;
• Damgaard et al. (2018) state that they cannot rject the possibility of a Caucasus origin of archaic PIE, but also state (direct quote) that "the standard view [is] that PIE arose in the steppe north of the Caucasus";
• Wang et al. (2019) state that there is a "possibility of a homeland of PIE south of the Caucasus, but do neot reject the standard model;
• Kristian Kristiansen argues for a Caucasus origin, mediated via the Maykopf-culture; which is unlikely, given the higher share of Anatalian farmer ancestry in Maykopf, compared to Yamnaya;
• Krause merely states that ""we are quite certain that the Indo-European languages ultimately originated in the Fertile Crescent," but does not offer references to genetic research, even less to archaeological research. His opinions seem to have little impact.

There don't seem to be publication from the last 2 years arguing for a Caucasus/Iranian origina of archaic PIE. So, no, a Caucasian/Iranian origin of archaic PIE is not a "common belief" among geneticists, not among archaeolohgists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan: Looks like Reich intends to give a lecture on this subject: The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal  Tewdar  12:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be really interesting if they have more genetical data pertaining to this possibility. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Somehow, I doubt it. But, who knows, right?  Tewdar  16:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan: article has been released here! Check out that map!  Tewdar  09:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Easy access here...  Tewdar  10:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:28, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

New Reich/Lazaridis DNA study

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36007055/

Sets forth the Southern Arc hypothesis, I think it's generally called the "Near Eastern model" (see Armenian hypothesis article)

-Geneflow from south of the caucasus into the steppe which formed the Yamnaya (notice the date of the second migration. Matches with the PIE tree) -Zero or 1-2% EHG dna (associated with Yamnaya since they were about 50% EHG) to bronze age anatolia, with no evidence of a possible language-introducing migration

Check it out yourself too. Also has a section in the supplemental with the competing hypotheses. Lazaridis has made some further clarifications in his twitter replies (eg both migrations into the steppe being more male-driven than feme, in other words there was a sex bias). Might interest you, also mentions another study (2022) that further dates the second (possibly PIE-bringing) migration into the steppe with dates Reich/Lazaridis also discovered. 46.177.103.153 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that European racists who believe Indo-European languages originated in the East of Europe, allow that these scientific studies are mentioned in this wiki page. --31.2.198.157 (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure it will be added, as soon as one of us has time to properly summarize it...  Tewdar  16:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

And certainly we won't twist its content to pretend that it lends any support to Iranian or Indo-Aryan continuity pipe dreams. –Austronesier (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Austronesier love your attitude towards scientific progression, specially the way you label new data and information as "pipe dreams". The information is as clear as day light, and you desperately try to dismiss it by throwing around "controversial" irrelevant labels such as "Aryan". This is an important geoo-genetic study, and Iran is here is used not as a political-nationalism term, but rather as the name of the geo-cultural domain of the cultures of the plateau of Iranzamin; it's very unscientific and unprofessional of you to try and label new findings as political in order to try and nullify them, just because it doesn't fit your evidently preferred colonial euro-centeric outdated narrative. Idreamelectrosheep (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Which specific passage(s) in the new paper support theories of Iranian or Indo-Aryan continuity, exactly?  Tewdar  15:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

We Iranians know that you Europeans hate Iranian people and support dictators against us, we just want that scientific studies are mentioned here, nothing more nothing less. 5.114.152.39 (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I have nothing against Iranian people, and fucking hate dictators. Why don't you summarize Lazaridis et al. 2022 yourself, if you're in such a rush (and can do a reasonable job of it)? Tell you what, I'll do it later today if I have time, to demonstrate my support for the Iranian people. Will you apologize for your rude and ludicrous comments then?  Tewdar  11:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

There. I suppose now it doesn't mention Iran enough?  Tewdar  13:15, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I apologize if I offended you, we are angry, bad things are happening here, we need to hear some good news. --5.114.113.62 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I wish you and all your compatriots the very best. Good luck.  Tewdar  15:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

proto-proto is not the official consensus for the S. Caucauses/Iran hypothesis.

The section on a near eastern theory for PIE suggests Armenia/Iran may have been a 'proto-proto' homeland. Their is a sole reference, which has long stood in contrast to the PIE/IE designation for the hypothesis. I have removed that section. 2601:882:101:1A0:39D4:9976:4C27:581F (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Similarity to Indo-European migrations article

This article seems very similar in content to Indo-European migrations and goes over much of the same ground. This is confusing for readers. Could the two articles not be merged? Kanjuzi (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The distinction seems clear enough to me. This article covers the place where Proto-Indo-European was originally spoken (or more precisely, the many theories about where that place was); Indo-European migrations covers the subsequent spread of Indo-European languages from that homeland. Apart from the summary of this article in Indo-European migrations#Origins of the Indo-Europeans, what overlapping content is there? – Joe (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Joe Roe.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Missing source

"Schnirelmann 2008, p. 38-39. Harv error: link from CITEREFSchnirelmann2008 doesn't point to any citation."  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish😼: Corrected to CITEREFShnirelmann2007. I have found the same error in Hyperborea. –Austronesier (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Homeland In The Black Sea?

The discussion of homeland seems to be making a division (north of the Black Sea? south of it?) or otherwise treating the Black Sea as if it were an obstacle to move around, when in fact much of it was dry land, and the rest of it a lake. Aren't there any references that posit that the Black Sea, itself, is the earliest homeland? That includes the shores, now under water, which would have all been contiguous when the Black Sea was a lake, as well as the body of water, itself, as a "Lake Indo-European", much as the Mediterranean was a Roman body of water for a period of time. -- 13:14, 10 January 2023‎ 65.29.226.169

At times relevant to a Proto-Indo-European homeland, people generally had to go the long way around it (whether on land or sailing close to the shore), so the north and south shores were widely separated by travel distance. AnonMoos (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

BCE or BC

This article needs to settle on one or the other. Right now it's veering back and forth, sometimes within the same section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• BCE - neutral; Christ has nothing to do with this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• BCE is fine with me.  Tewdar  07:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• As a general rule I think BCE is more appropriate for prehistory topics. – Joe (talk) 08:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• BC. BC is more generally understood: it is used by the BBC, the British Museum, and the Guardian. It is a label which, as an abbreviation, has no religious content. BCE is also based on the assumed year of birth of Jesus, so BCE is as much based on Christianity as BC. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Sweet6970: per MOS:ERA, we're looking for reasons to use one or the other that are specific to the content of this article. The general question of whether BC/AD or BCE/CE is preferable has been discussed to death and will never be resolved. – Joe (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I’m aware of that, and I don’t want to start another of the general discussions. But Joshua Jonathan gave as a reason for supporting BCE that BCE is neutral and that Christ has nothing to do with this. I am responding to that comment: (1) BCE is not neutral, in the sense that it is geared towards a specialist audience, rather than the general audience of Wikipedia (2) BCE has no less (or more) religious significance than BC. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  If Wikipedia accepted the argument you are making, then use of "BCE" would simply be banned here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  Well, yes, I consider that only BC and AD should be used on Wikipedia, but as I said, I don’t want this to turn into a general discussion on era styles, because such discussions are fruitless, and this discussion should be related to this article only. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

• Don't care. In its early stages, it was a BC-article until this edit. Dunno if MOS:RETAIN already existed then. BCE certainly is more commonly used in this field, but note that one of the major linguistic sources for this topic (Mallory & Adams 2006, which is the one that attempts to reconstruct PIE cultural lexicon in its entirety and thus is the backbone of all subsequent interdisciplinary research) uses "AD/BC". –Austronesier (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

  MOS:RETAIN (part of MOS:ENGVAR) is irrelevant because this is not a question of usage with strong national ties. Even when it does apply, we don't apply it unless discussion can't come to a consensus. We only default to the version used in the first non-stub version of the article as a last resort; it's not a first-resort that short-circuits normal discussion. I think you might be thinking of MOS:STYLEVAR, but it also does not short-circuit discussion; it applies against making willy-nilly changes to an established style to suit an individual editor's personal preferences. This article has no established style or I would not have opened the discussion about the lack of one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• BCE since Christianity has no connection to the topic, and more current linguistic source material uses BCE than BC. Thirty years ago there may have been an argument that general-audience readers did not understand "BCE" but this is no longer true, and we link it at first occurrence anyway (or are supposed to) to Common era. PS: Should this discussion swing strongly toward BC, I'll support that; it's more important that one or the other be used consistently in the article than which one is used.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC); revised 21:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  You say that general-audience readers understand BCE, but you don’t give any evidence to support your view. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Ehm... Sweet6970, you stated BC is more generally understood; the WP:BURDEN is on you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  Umm…. point taken! But I think I could use as support for my view the fact that the BBC, the British Museum and the Guardian all use BC/AD – this is presumably because they think that BC and AD are better understood by the general public than BCE and CE. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

  BC is probably more common among the general populace, but we shouldn't always use the most common option, especially if scholars have different ideas than the general public. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

  Exactly. "BCE isn't as widely used by average people as BC" doesn't equate to "average people have no idea what BCE means", especially when we'll be linking to it anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It looks like there is more support for BCE than for BC so the article should be changed to BCE throughout to be consistent. I will do this shortly unless there are any objections. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think so. I only count one vote for BC. (I have not voted. As long as we choose one system, I'm happy. Obviously using "BC" is not intrinsically religious, but on the other hand the movement to replace it is a respectable one among good sources.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I think I have now changed BC to BCE throughout, except for quotations. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oof, I would have voted for BC mainly on the grounds that that's what the original writer. I think that stare decisis should be operative in cases like this when either way is right and it's not super important. Applying this principle would have solved the problem right off. That's the main benefit, but also, I'd prefer to give more weight to the person who created the article (the actual work of the project after all) than people who came later to replace her personal preference with their own, for no gain and quite possibly for ideological reasons. Herostratus (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Who's the "original writer"? Dbachmann created the page in 2007, but mixed BC and BCE in the first revision (perhaps copied from elsewhere?), hasn't expressed a preference here, and only 1.6% of the current text was written by him. Joshua Jonathan essentially rewrote the whole article back in 2016, remains the largest contributor by a large margin (33.7%), and indicated a preference for BCE above. Overall if we weight the !votes above by authorship (the "actual work"), there's 45.1% in favour of BCE, versus 0.2% in favour of BC and 54.7% with no expressed preference. – Joe (talk) 12:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Steppe hypothesis is outdated

It is clear that the most widely accepted proposal about the location of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is NOT the steppe hypothesis, everyone who reads scientific papers already knows it. https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/fefab2ec-92b1-4cd3-901e-e772c9dea5bd/full/ "Prospects for solving the Indo‑European enigma are brighter now, free from the outdated preconception that the Steppe must have been its earliest, original source." 5.210.191.195 (talk) 07:45, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

the most widely accepted proposal [...] is NOT the steppe hypothesis - that's not what your source says. And which paper is Heggarty referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, here it is: "Redefining Indo-European Origins? [eLetter comment on Lazaridis et al. 2022 in Science: ‘The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe’]". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The steppe hypothesis is not "outdated"; this is a rather simplistic view about how scientific consensus takes shape. The steppe hypothesis has been seriously challenged, but the jury is still out if the new alternative reading of the aDNA data (i.e. tracing Anatolian and the remaining bulk of IE languages to CHG-ancestry and thus locating the homeland to the Caucasus region) is a better solution, especially when it is solely based on the equation of massive demic spread with linguistic dispersal without considering linguistic evidence.

And even if correct, the new findings do not challenge our understanding of the vectors of dispersal for all living IE branches after they split from the Anatolian branch. –Austronesier (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

According to Lazaridis et al. 2022: "In the case of Anatolia, this is complicated by the influence that neighboring Indo-European peoples may have exerted on the population since the 1st millennium BCE (e.g., Persians, Greeks, Phrygians, Galatians, Romans, to name a few). Yet, despite these influences, steppe-derived Y-chromosomes are rare to non-existent throughout Anatolia." In fact other than ancient Anatolians, other IE-speaking people, like Iranian, Hellenic and Celtic people, who lived in Anatolia had no steppe ancestry too. 5.210.73.246 (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

That's a cherry-picked misinterpretation. The statement is only about steppe-derived Y-chromosomes, and not about the full genomic ancestries of individuals from Anatolia that can be assumed to have been Iranic, Hellenic and Celtic-speaking based on burial context. Also according to Lazaridis et al. (2022): "In the post-Bronze Age landscape of Anatolia, we do find outliers marked by European or steppe influence, but this is a period when Anatolia is influenced by numerous linguistically non-Anatolian Indo-European populations, including Phrygians, Greeks, Persians, Galatians, and Romans, to name only a few." –Austronesier (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

PS: @MojtabaShahmiri, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. This also includes talk page space. I will end this "discussion" here and suggest that Joshua Jonathan does the same (up to you JJ). –Austronesier (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

5.210.191.195 -- As long as the majority of linguists who specialize in ancient Indo-European do not favor another theory, then the "steppe hypothesis" is ipso facto not "outdated" (as has already been seen back in the 1980s etc). AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

WP's coverage of the steppe hypothesis and alternatives is a bit outdated, though. It seems to be stuck in the 2000s for the most part.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

That's arguably because no substantial, genuinely relevant new evidence has come forth since then. There's only so much you can do with archaeological and genetical evidence considering the notoriously shaky match of material culture and genes with languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Hybrid Hypothesis

Please see my comment on Talk:Indo-European migrations. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your comments on the 'Indo-European migrations' talk page. The new study from Science by Heggarty et al. (https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818) appears to be robust and interdisciplinary, and so should be reviewed by an expert and mentioned in this (and other) articles. I also left a summary of the study's basic conclusion on Talk:Armenian_hypothesis. Jpd50616 (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.academia.edu/108547976/Ten_Constraints_that_Limit_the_Late_PIE_Homeland_to_the_Steppes Afs.rnoru9 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

new article Afs.rnoru9 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2023 (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)