Talk:Fertile Crescent

The modern-day North Caucasians (the Chechens, the Ingush, the Batsbi, and the people of Dagestan) have direct linguistic links to the Fertile Crescent.[3]

Linguistically, most languages in the region and in the Fertile Crescent itself are relatively recent arrivals. Now, however, linguist Johanna Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, has used language to connect modern people of the Caucasus region to the ancient farmers of the Fertile Crescent. She analyzed the Nakh–Dagestanian linguistic family, which today includes Chechen, Ingush, and Batsbi on the Nakh side; and some 24 languages on the Dagestani side ... Thus location, time, and vocabulary all suggest that the farmers of the region were proto-Nakh–Dagestanians. "The Nakh–Dagestanian languages are the closest thing we have to a direct continuation of the cultural and linguistic community that gave rise to Western civilization," Nichols says.[3] ” The Ingush have the highest (89%) frequency of J2 gene, and the Chechens have 57% respectively. J2 is closely associated with the Fertile Crescent.[4]

This is a appalling academically. Having this , whilst entirely plausible and referenced to a respected scholar, is highly POV. It basically presents one scholar's opinion as a bibilcal fact, without further discussion, and the fact that many of J NIchol's linguistic conclusions have been questioned, and even abandoned by herself. Who has proved that Semitic was not indigenous to the region, nor that modern day Arabs do not have direct links to the anceint region either; or perhaps that none of the midern day populations are directly linked to the ancient civilizations.

This paragraph need to be either modified entirely, or it warrants removal due to the unacceptable level of bias which degrades the quality of the article. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Kavkas (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Slovensky it is the referenced scientific materials it is not just Nichols who said it. Harpeding and Baranovsky also noted it.

The problem section lacks relevance to the subject Fertile Crecent as such, so I move it here: The modern-day North Caucasians (the Chechens, the Ingush, the Batsbi, and the people of Dagestan) have direct linguistic links to the Fertile Crescent.^[1]

The Ingush have the highest (89%) frequency of J2 gene, and the Chechens have 57% respectively. J2 is closely associated with the Fertile Crescent.^[2] The only fitting comment I see is "so what?", especially when one considers its placement directly after the lead.. -- Zz (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Kavkas (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC) It is important for the research. It is a lost link between past and present.

Your assertion is unclear. Could you please address the points made by Slovenski and me? -- Zz (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Linguistically, most languages in the region (Caucasus) and in the Fertile Crescent itself are relatively recent arrivals. Now, however, linguist Johanna Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, has used language to connect modern people of the Caucasus region to the ancient farmers of the Fertile Crescent". Refers to the first peoples (Caucasians) who began the Fertile crescent civilization not the peoples who are relatively recent arrivals e.g. Semitic peoples, Persians etc. If it is not clear to you and slovenski, you can delete it. I don't mind. Kavkas (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, I want to delete it. The section comes directly after the summary, an exposed place, and the quote alone does not support that the culture of the fertile crescent has been started mainly by people who spoke languages Caucasian languages. We must wait for scientific consensus. -- Zz (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) a.k.a. Science Journal from which the quotations were taken is not science? What scientific cosncensus? It is already a well established fact both linguistically and genetically, but I do see your political agenda which doesn't fit the "neutral" defenition. Kavkas (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A user named "Kavkas" chides others for pursuing a political agenda? Nice deflection. Links between indigenous languages of the Caucasus and more southerly languages such as Hattic and Hurro-Urartian have been asserted for ages but with no compelling confidence, only the usual typological and soundalike comparisons which can be made to link any language family with any other because statistically there are always a few close similarities and a shipload of vague similarities, especially when you don't bother to reconstruct anything and just pick random words out of dictionaries (compare false cognate, which used to have a huge list now buried in the history), and ignore the requirement to compare bound morphology and irregular paradigms in particular, and rarely borrowed (usually functional) lexemes such as pronouns. (See also pseudoscientific language comparison.) It doesn't help that the indigenous languages of the Caucasus are relatively obscure, deeply known only to few experts and not particularly well researched overall, and Hattic and Hurro-Urartian are even more obscure and poorly known, so cranks and semi-cranks can claim a lot without fear of being called out and laughed out the room immediately. Sumerian is attested unambiguously at least since the early-mid 3rd millennium BC (not sure if we can tell confidently that the 4th-millennium materials are actually in Sumerian rather than some substratum, as pointed out by Gordon Whittaker, so I'll grant that), and per Proto-Semitic language, Semitic has been present in the Fertile Crescent at least since the 4th millennium BC. Elamite seems to have been present for a similarly long time. Calling these languages "recent arrivals" is ... odd. Same for the Caucasian languages (at least the three autochthonous families). Nakh-Dagestanian can be traced to the Kura valley in Azerbaijan; it may once have been spoken more southerly than the area between the Kura and Araxes rivers in Azerbaijan and Armenia, but that is speculation and there is no particularly compelling reason to think that an ancestral form has ever been spoken as far south as (say) Assyria. (I grant the possibility that ancestral forms of the three Caucasian families were once spoken somewhat further south in the Bronze Age, say, around the Lesser Caucasus, and that especially Georgia may have been Indo-European-speaking, as there are typological and lexical similarities of the Caucasian languages with Indo-European that might be easier to make sense of in such a scenario, but that's only a tentative suggestion that I would like to mention because scenarios where Indo-European languages were replaced with non-Indo-European ones – rather than the reverse situation, which is of course far more typical, but certainly not universal – in prehistory are usually not considered, even though there is evidence pointing to replacements of this kind having actually happened in areas such as Northeastern Europe.) The genetic evidence is not particularly probative as linking genes and languages is notoriously difficult. So, no, just because a hypothesis was seriously considered and published in a reputable journal makes it by no means the scientific consensus. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

These don't match what's in the text. --Dan Bolser (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned above at #Nile Delta, #Including Nile and #Remove Egypt, Egypt is not part of the Fertile Crescent. Certainly Breasted did not define it as such - look at his map in the first section of the article.

I will BeBold and remove it.

Oncenawhile (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of the map found in the German article, File:Fruchtbarer Halbmond.JPG? Oddly, not even Sumer is included in the Fertile Crescent there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are there any other sources than just Breasted that says this? I am very concerned about making changes to the world's online encyclopedia because just one writer said so, even if he originally coined the name. What is the common usage today? William Harris • talk • 02:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond treats Egypt as decidedly separate from the Fertile Crescent, and with explicit reasons. I understand that he is not an outlier and the most common definition still does not include Egypt nowadays. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fertile Crescent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160414142437/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/ to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/development-of-agriculture/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Why is Nile not included in the map of the Fertile Crescent? It seems to me that other sources (Britannica etc.) draw a wider crescent. Is this a controversial issue? 180.216.171.54 (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

History section, first paragraph. 'As well as possessing many sites with the skeletal and cultural remains of both pre-modern and early modern humans' given its mention, the link should relate to early modern humans page Jimbee2 (talk) 13:06, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done Signed, Guessitsavis (she/they) ^Talk 13:21, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to fix some grammar here. --~2025-38525-26 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC) ~2025-38525-26 (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. IsCat (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2025 (UTC)