Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 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: [] and [], possibly in Iran/the Caucasus, the Steppe, or Central Asia. But some branches migrated north in and around the late Paleolithic-Mesolithic long before the divergence/formation of PIE or proto-PIE, and the particular branches of R1a/R1b ancestral to those carried by the Yamnaya and other early IE cultures (and their Eastern European steppe hunter-gatherer/EHG predecessors, where R1a and R1b have also been found) were from the Eastern European/Eurasian steppe (though the basal Paleolithic ancestors of R1a/R1b may have been from the Iran region).
Also see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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: [] and []
According to Anthony (and others), the CHG component was present both in the Caucasus and northwest Iran (and to a lesser extent, parts of eastern Anatolia). "CHG" is the term used in the literature, your opinion that "there is no such thing" is an opinion (again, WP:OR, unless you can find a reliable source/WP:RS arguing against its use). But, at the same time, there seems no problem with mentioning where relevant that "CHG" peoples also lived in nearby parts of Iran as well as the Caucasus. It already is mentioned (where Anthony's recent piece is discussed) that the CHG component may have migrated from an area including northwest Iran (Azerbaijan, which is in the Caucasus) to the steppe through the eastern Caucasus (near/along the Western Caspian) and mixed with EHG peoples living there. Anthony clearly argues that CHG peoples migrated there before before contacts with the Maykop Culture began, who (the Maykop), he finds, carried too much Anatolian admixture to have contributed the CHG component found in the Yamnaya, who received theirs by way of EEF through the Balkans/Southeast Europe and not directly from Anatolia nor from or through the Caucasus (Anthony page 7), which thus, being from Europe, contained a WHG component not found in the Maykop. The Yamnaya's predecessors/ancestors, the Kvalynsk and Sredny Stog peoples, lacked Anatolian or EEF and had only EHG and CHG).
You may be correct that the admixture between EHG and CHG (which is estimated at around 5,000 BC) occured in the Chacolithic (which began around 7,000-5,000 BC in the Middle East). Whether Anthony believes that the CHG-descendants who migrated north were Chacolithic or Neolithic in their technology is unclear from the source (seemingly not stated). And the article in fact does not say that the migration or EHG/CHG admixture happened in the Neolithic. The more important/relevant point is that the aforementioned migration and admixture with the EHG occurred significantly before the Bronze Age (and too early for the Maykop to have been the source of CHG in the steppe people, or of PIE languages, as previously suggested by some). This (including the possibly Chacolithic date of the admixture) is already mentioned in the section describing Anthony's research as well. It states:
"Anthony proposes that the Yamnaya derived mainly from Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) from the steppes, and undiluted Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) from northwestern Iran or Azerbaijan, similar to the Hotu cave population, who mixed in the Eastern European steppe north of the Caucasus. According to Anthony, hunting-fishing camps from the lower Volga, dated 6200–4500 BCE, could be the remains of people who contributed the CHG-component, migrating westwards along the coast of the Caspian Sea, from an area south-east of the Caspian Sea. They mixed with EHG-people from the north Volga steppes, and the resulting culture contributed to the Sredny Stog culture, a predecessor of the Yamnaya culture."
The possibility that the CHG people ancestral to that component in the Yamnaya derived from Northwest Iran (or a region including parts of northwest Iran) and that the date of their admixture with the EHG in the steppe may have been Chacolithic are both included. None of these facts justify deleting relevant information regarding recent research referencing Bomhard and Anthony from the "Main theories" section, as you did here [], and seemingly justified your deletion with this comment on the Talk page [], which does not follow. Deleting relevant material from reliable sources and removing sourced details based on WP:POV (as here[] is not cleaning the article up. The Southern hypothesis is already duly represented, as is the possibility that the Yamnaya descended from CHG living in Iran (and that the admixture ocurred ca 5,000 BC, which could be within the Chacolithic). These things are not in conflict with the article as written. If you think there is a view that is not being duly represented here, you must find reliable sources (WP:RS) that explicitly argue for it. Skllagyook (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

@Joshua Jonathan: I'm afraid I don't know. I wondered also. It does not seem to come from Wang. Skllagyook (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The caption also seems to contain a mistake: "blue (Iranian)" should be "green (Iranian)," whereas grey-green must be EHG. Note also that the "Iranian" component accounts for no more than 20% of the steppe Yamnaya ancestry. To call this Anatolian/Iranian mixture is weird. And 20% is not a sign of a mass movement of people introducing a new language. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: I would agree. Also, the caption contains (at least) two typos: "Charachteristic" and "Levantian" (instead of "Levantine"), which is also a bit weird (as is the fact that EHG is never mentioned). Skllagyook (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Not at all a "hypothesis" of a "front between Anatolians and Iranians [...] in the nexus between the South Caucasus, E. Turkey, and NW Iran, [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: [] (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 []) 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

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

Another "Myth"

Addition of off-topic material

POV-pushing on Iranian homeland, again

Horseback expansion

Clarify "Southern archaic PIE-homeland hypothesis"

Wikipedia Notes

Caveat vs. peacockery

New Reich/Lazaridis DNA study

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

Similarity to Indo-European migrations article

Missing source

Homeland In The Black Sea?

BCE or BC

Steppe hypothesis is outdated

Hybrid Hypothesis

You can't ignore Science & Nature forever!

Edits 9 December about Anthony (2024)

ad infinitum

Anti-scientific treatment of IE theories

Censor History

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI