Talk:Kurgan hypothesis

message: According to Subhash Kak http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/MahabharataII.pdf the Indic Kings of the Mittanis represent the westward migration of Yayati's sons mentioned in the Mahabharata, and very likely, forced by the  Saraswati river's drying out in 1900BC. This would indicate that there was no PIE civilization that diffused to India, and that the Mittanis originated in the Indus-Saraswati civilization. 
This view is probably not universally accepted, but I think it is worthy of mention.Sooku (talk) 05:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Kak is not WP:RS, and will not be mentioned here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only is Kak not a reliable source; even if he would be, he simply regurgitates the fringe Indigenous Aryans theory primarily brought forth and held by Hindu nationalists. It's as untenable as the North European hypothesis. Finally, rivaling theories generally belong into the more general article Proto-Indo-European homeland. --2003:DA:CF4C:7500:352E:684:3B03:54E3 (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  PIE Homeland or Indic Civilization? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This is an old and discredited Eurocentric theory.  PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited reference credits the Kurgan hypothesis. How do you find this paper to be  the current model? WikiLinuz {talk}   03:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: These findings give the kurgan hypothesis "a lot more credit," Nikitin says.  Implying that this hypothesis has been discredited previously. I'll try to find a better reference. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your interpretation to be strange. "Gives a lot more credits" doesn't mean the hypothesis was previously "rejected", rather the current study "builds up or substantiated" the hypothesis even further through more modern evidence. That's how a "theory" in science works. WikiLinuz {talk}   04:02, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also, consult The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony. It's a well received work. WikiLinuz {talk}   17:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

text: It's really not. It's been the leading theory on the origin of PIE for decades and is by now all but universally accepted by linguists, archaeologists, and geneticists. By all means show us what references you are basing this assertion on, but until then the  isn't warranted and I've removed it. If anything, the article fails to reflect how much the debate has moved on in recent years, from where PIE came from, to how and why it spread. – Joe (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

text: OK, well based on that and the comments above, we should be able to discuss the views on the Anatolian hypothesis and how it changed over time in the article, which we don't now. In fact, the current text of the article presents that somehow these competing hypotheses are compatible, PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

text: See WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. WikiLinuz {talk}   19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but clearly this is a significant competing theory. They don't have to be equal but my information from school, which might be a few years out of date, was that this theory was discredited. I'll defer to the newer info but there was period of time where it was competing with the Anatolian, and this is totally glossed over here. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have it reversed -- the Anatolian theory was a significant competing theory for a time, especially during the late 1980s and the 1990s, but it always had the problem that very few (if any) linguists who were professional Indo-Europeanists supported it, so that was mainly pushed by archaeologists and geneticists.  More recent genetic analyses have discovered a significant "steppe" gene flow into Europe (though a great deal more complex than any one single invasion), and various other discoveries and theories have somewhat fallen into line (See The Horse, the Wheel, and Language etc), so that a general Kurgan or "Pontic-Caspian steppe" theory is now supported (though with much scholarly discussion about various details and minor problems, of course) -- and it doesn't have the problem of lacking support among professional Indo-Europeanist linguists... AnonMoos (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please stop messing around with my signature like you did here and here? Thanks. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁  14:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not disputing the expertise or the scholarship, I am not an expert, but I think we should cover this historical shift if that is the case rather than acting like it didn't happen. Article as written does not cover this 1980s and 1990s info. PunxtawneyPickle (talk) 18:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old and discredited theory 

message: This article implies a very early date for the domestication of horses (5th, 4th millennia). Marsha Levine and others have argued against such early dates. And such an early date is not required for the modelled expansion of the PIE peoples, since the acceleration of their migration takes place at the same time as the later dates for horse herding ( 3rd millennium, and really gets into high gear with the coming of the chariot (2nd millenium). David chaffetz (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration of PIE people and domestication of Horses