Talk:Proto-Indo-European homeland

the sforza citation is inaccurate, and i've removed all mention of it until the issue can be addressed

sforza's theory is not in line with renfrew's, but with gimbutas'. his principal component analysis saw three waves into europe, including a neolithic wave (associated with gimbutas' old europe, not with pie) and a very, very strong chalcolithic wave from the steppes (associated with pie). this renders renfrew's argument confused. the expansion he speaks of happened, but sforza suggests it is *not* associated with pie.

advocates of renfrew's theory are often dishonest. it's essentially a modified flood story, so they're dealing with strong religious convictions. please defer to legitimate experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.80 (talk • contribs) 28 march 2015 (UTC)

New Article!

Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans 89.198.134.228 (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! @Joe Roe: if I understand correctly, the map in the article can be uploaded to Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sister article: A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, unfortunately. Both papers are licensed CC BY-NC-ND – the "NC" and "ND" parts are incompatible with Commons licensing.
Let's also not rush to incorporate these references into articles. They're preprints of cutting edge, primary research; it'll likely be years before they filter into the secondary sources we should be using. – Joe (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new article was released in the journal Nature
the genetic origin of the Indo-Europeans 37.98.34.132 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Joe Roe 37.98.34.132 (talk) 14:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Link. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Link for people who like free stuff 😊  Tewdar  17:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Beating the retreat from the Steppe hypothesis
Paul Heggarty
https://paulheggarty.info/blog/
https://www.academia.edu/127485847/Beating_the_retreat_from_the_Steppe_hypothesis 5.212.1.150 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Now that this new paper supports that original homeland from genetic data too" - parallel universum? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You also included Lazaridis et al. 2022 in Wikipedia. But you did not include Lazaridis et al. 2025. 5.212.113.247 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To the IP: Contrary to Heggerty's states that the new paper "concedes" that the Anatolians lacked steppe DNA, the paper actually explicitly states that small amounts of steppe ancestry (from the CLV people, including both CHG and EHG components) were found in possibly Hittite-speaking Central Anatolians. This being one of the new findings (linking both the Anatolian branch, and other branches of IE to the CLV people, as the paper concludes). Skllagyook (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why shouldn't Hegarty's study be mentioned in Wikipedia? Anyone interested in Indo-European studies has heard of it, with a lot of coverage in the news media and on social media, and Krause and Hegarty are still supporting it from 2016 (in Moscow) to 2025 (in Albania), so it should be included in Wikipedia as one of the scientific hypotheses. As mentioned in Wikipedia the Southern Arc hypothesis. 5.212.37.91 (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is how Wikipedia works. We just summarize what has been published in publications which have a reputation for fact checking, so we rarely use blogs. See WP:RS.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean Heggarty et al. (2023) in Science.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818 5.212.113.247 (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My girlfriend has a pair of flares like Heggarty's cline.  Tewdar  14:49, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Critical Analysis of “The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans” as Published in the Journal Nature by Lazaridis et al on February 5, 2025.
Michael St. Clair
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389041604_A_Critical_Analysis_of_The_Genetic_Origin_of_the_Indo-Europeans_as_Published_in_the_Journal_Nature_by_Lazaridis_et_al_on_February_5_2025 89.198.12.21 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Heggarty et al. (2023) in Nature

Do ‘language trees with sampled ancestors’ really support a ‘hybrid model’ for the origin of Indo-European? Thoughts on the most recent attempt at yet another IE phylogeny Alexei S. Kassian & George Starostin https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04986-7 5.217.51.233 (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do ‘language trees with sampled ancestors’ really support a ‘hybrid model’ for the origin of Indo-European? LOL, somehow I think I can guess the answer without reading the article 😂  Tewdar  20:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Indo-European Cognate Relationships dataset
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-05445-3 5.212.231.178 (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Heggarty et al. 2023 confirmed
Evolution is coupled with branching across many granularities of life
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2025.0182 5.215.152.65 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bayesian phylogenetics for language prehistory— and archaeology
Paul Heggarty & Adam Powell
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192868350.013.11 204.18.218.230 (talk) 16:40, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revise paragraph

The following paragraph needs to be revised:

«Apart from DNA evidence (see below), Anthony and Ringe (2015) give a number of arguments against the Anatolian hypothesis. First, cognate words for "axle", "wheel", "wagon-pole", and "convey by vehicle" can be found in a number of Indo-European languages ranging from Irish to Tocharian, but not Anatolian. This suggests that Proto-European speakers, after the split with Anatolian, had wheeled vehicles, which the neolithic farmers did not. For various reasons, such as the regular sound-changes which the words exhibit, the suggestion that the words might have spread later by borrowing or have been introduced by parallel innovation in the different branches of Indo-European can be ruled out. Secondly, the words borrowed at an early date by Proto-Uralic, as well as those borrowed from Caucasian languages, indicate a homeland geographically between the Caucasus and the Urals. Thirdly, if the Indo-European languages had spread westwards from Anatolia, it might be expected that Greek would be closest to Anatolian, whereas in fact it is much closer to Indo-Aryan. In addition, the culture described in early poems such as Homer's – praise of warriors, feasting, reciprocal guest-friendship, and so on – more closely match what is known of the burial practices of the steppe peoples than the neolithic farmers.»

The sentence «This suggests that Proto-European speakers, after the split with Anatolian, had wheeled vehicles, which the neolithic farmers did not. For various reasons, such as the regular sound-changes which the words exhibit, the suggestion that the words might have spread later by borrowing or have been introduced by parallel innovation in the different branches of Indo-European can be ruled out.» is particularly nonsensical. CaptchaEdgedKeyed (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptchaEdgedKeyed: is it the language itself you find badly written, or something about the logic? (Keep in mind this should be from a publication.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A need to add Paul Heggarty’s “Hybrid Hypothesis”

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abg0818 Abdul1516 (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Proto-Indo-European_homeland