![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If anything is "undue" here, it is to mention Kavoukjian at all. The discussion of the role of the hypothesis in propaganda is perfectly valid and well sourced. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dab, even if use of the hypo for propaganda is relevant, the way it's worded in the text is POV. "firmly rejected by Diakonoff" says "Dyakonoff was right, those Armenian nationalists were wrong"--i.e. it takes position, which we dont' do on Wiki. "Embraced by Patriotism" is too vague, and therefore too vulnerable to POV (like any other Weasel Word)--who are these "patriots?" Is there a procedure to label some as "patriots?" Who is the authority to make that decision? Are there non-patriot Armenians, and if so, what do they think? It's best to stick to specificity.-- TigranTheGreat 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this:
References
This paragraph is misleading at best, more likely POV. It uses weasel words ("many scholars") to give the incorrect impression that the Armenian hypothesis is more than a fringe idea and that the Kurgan hypothesis is other than mainstream. It also lists some pro-Anatolian refs as if they support the Armenian hypothesis. (It should also be noted that Gray and Atkinson do *not* support the idea of an Anatolian origin; all they do is support the idea of a breakup farther back in time, similar to what the Anatolian hypothesis claims. Nothing in their paper says anything about locations.) Take out the Anatolian and Kurgan refs, and all you're left with is a reference from 1890, which is so early that it's basically worthless -- nobody considers homeland speculations from that era as having anything other than historical interest. Benwing ( talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In his last book, Who we are and how we got here: ancient dna and the new science of the human past, David Reich mention the Armenian hypothesis asf :
From seven thousand until five thousand years ago, we observed a steady influx into the steppe of a population whose ancestors traced their origin to the south —as it bore genetic affinity to ancient and present-day people of Armenia and Iran— eventually crystallizing in the Yamnaya, who were about a one-to-one ratio of ancestry from these two sources. A good guess is that the migration proceeded via the Caucasus isthmus between the Black and Caspian seas.
So Reich confirm direct and massive genetic relationship between Armenian-like population from the Armenian highlands and Yamnaya. One to one is a very high ratio. Although it doesn't explain the relation between proto Armenian language and PIE, it gives undoubtedly weight to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov hypothesis and its worth to mention that Armenian-like population directly contributed to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya which is accepted as Late PIE by linguists, archeologists & paleogeneticians.
I would like to add it consensually, so I ll wait for the feedback from the previous editors. Aramazt ( talk) 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Joshua, apparently Reich conclusions are based on new unpublished datas. So better to wait for the paper. Indeed the conclusion is not new (Krause, Haak and others before him) but Reich who is usually extra cautious with wording is giving an unexpected high ratio which is apparently both male and female mediated, we will see soon enough. I can only agree with your quote of Pereltsvaig, genes does not carry language, and pots are not humans, nevertheless in absence of any written source both are important and the scope of indices is narrowing. I think, depending on the conclusions of the coming paper, that it would be fair for the glottalic theory to mention - extra carefully- the latest ADNA development since it will place Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model and Proto Armenian reconstruction under the spotlights until new datas/models are found. As for Quilles, he has strong bias against geneticists (somehow justified by the lack of contextualisation etc...) as you probably noticed, and he also disagrees with the glottalic theory. But be it pre PIE, early PIE, middle PIE and late PIE, he like others will have to take this into consideration and adapt their models accordingly (as they did for CW). Also although we are not here to debate, I think the main problem is coming with the "Ureimhat" definition itself. It doesn't leave much room for nuances and more complicated development models.Aramazt 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramazt ( talk • contribs)
I've deleted the following link from the External links-section: Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands. It presents an idiosyncratic map, accoridng to which the IE-languages originated in the southern Caucasus, and reached the Pontic steppes via a route east of the Caspian Sea. Frankly, I don't know what Gamkrelidze and Ivanov say about the route from Armenia to Pontic Steppe, but the only explanation to this map is "indoeuropeanlanguagemigation." That's not enough; according to whom is this the way IE spread? A similar map is contained in an article on, or by, N.S. Trubetskoy, who died in 1938... NB: a similar map is being used here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I found more: Alexander Nash (2015), THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT: THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS. It's a bachelor thesis, but at least it contains usefull information at p.13-14 (emphasis mine):
The Armenian Theory, as argued by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990), places the PIE homeland in or near the Armenian Highland. According to this model, the eventual speakers of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages split off no later than 4000 BC, invading Anatolia from the east by 2000 BC and subjugating it by 1400 BC.
The PIE community continued to fracture at this point, beginning to split into several groups -- the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics -- around 4000 BC.
From about 3000-2500 BC, these groups (and their respective languages) split further as population booms, the results of developments in agriculture in the region, sparked waves of migration in search of unfarmed land. The Greeks travelled to the west, followed by the Indo-Aryans to the east, along with the CeltoItalo-Tocharians and Balto-Slavo-Germanics, these latter then turning north once east of the Caspian Sea -- all while the Armenians remained in-situ. Before 2000 BC, the Celto-Italics had split from the Tocharians (who began travelling east) and circled west with the Balto-Slavo-Germanics, settling in a loosely confederated community north of the Black Sea. From 2000-1000 BC they then began migrating in waves to their present locations, eradicating or assimilating the native peoples and languages of Europe (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).
NB: Nash concludes (p. ii):
After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Любослов Езыкин: Please not that we follow the sources when naming articles. You might be right that "Armenian hypothesis" is a misnomer, but it seems to be the most common name in English and we can't go around making up our own names for things. – Joe ( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Armenian hypothesis → Hypothesis of Gamkrelidze–Ivanov – To follow the formalities. The new name may be not ideal from the point of view of English, but it is the best I could think of. The authors are well-known, hence the new name. Contra the old name: it is clearly non-neutral, alleges some links to modern Armenia and Armenians, foster Armenian nationalists, but more important it limits itself to the Armenian Highlands, when the authors never intended that, even avoided. The fact that a few (really few) authors mentioned Armenia must not be a decisive factor. Probably they used it as a lazy shorthand for the proper "eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia". In any case the chronology is very clear: 1984 - the publication in Russian, 1990 - the first mention in English, 1995 - the English translation, 2006 - this article. 11 years is hardly enough time for this unpopular theory to achieve notoriety in the English-speaking scientific world and get an established common name. Clearly there wasn't. The current name is obviously made up by an WP editor for whatever reasons known only to him. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
...another proponent of the Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis
It must be noted that in Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's hypothesis a significant role was also played by the steppes north of the Black Sea
the ranges of the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov homeland and the one posited here overlap
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help): immediate comparative evidence for Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's theory...
The Caucasus itself is the central point of the second noteworthy theory, whose main supporters are Tamas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov. Since the 1980s, they have been basing their hypothesis on...
The original hypothesis explicitly includes the NW Iranian region of Lake Urmia as part of a nexus where PIE developed. It's an extremely important detail, so please dont delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:5CD6:2176:AD79:7BA8 ( talk) 01:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the first sentence of the lead back to what it was in December 2020. I don’t have access to the source. If this is incorrect, please amend. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, is this edit [9] correct? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have now reverted this edit. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
David Reich's holding a lecture about an upcoming study here: [I have tried to post this three times in a row but it doesn't show up in talk page. Maybe it's because of the link, so I'm excluding it this time. The title is ' Lecture by Prof. David Reich - "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe" ' and can be found on webarchive and eupedia.]
We read: "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."
Keep an eye on it 46.177.94.68 ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Although it's not related to the work of Reich mentioned above, a brand new study was just published in Science by Heggarty et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818) that also supports the hypothesis that the primary homeland for the Indo-European languages was south of the Caucasus around upper Mesopotamia, and that a later migration northward onto the Pontic–Caspian steppe (a secondary homeland) produced "Kurgan" populations (e.g. the Yamnaya) that spoke a language ancestral to those now dominant in Europe, but not to other IE languages such as Anatolian. The study appears to be rather robust, drawing on linguistic, genetic, and archeological evidence, and should probably be reviewed for rigor and mentioned in the article if it stands up to scrutiny. Jpd50616 ( talk) 11:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The Genetic Origin of The Indo-Europeans 5.215.244.159 ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
If anything is "undue" here, it is to mention Kavoukjian at all. The discussion of the role of the hypothesis in propaganda is perfectly valid and well sourced. dab (𒁳) 13:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Dab, even if use of the hypo for propaganda is relevant, the way it's worded in the text is POV. "firmly rejected by Diakonoff" says "Dyakonoff was right, those Armenian nationalists were wrong"--i.e. it takes position, which we dont' do on Wiki. "Embraced by Patriotism" is too vague, and therefore too vulnerable to POV (like any other Weasel Word)--who are these "patriots?" Is there a procedure to label some as "patriots?" Who is the authority to make that decision? Are there non-patriot Armenians, and if so, what do they think? It's best to stick to specificity.-- TigranTheGreat 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I deleted this:
References
This paragraph is misleading at best, more likely POV. It uses weasel words ("many scholars") to give the incorrect impression that the Armenian hypothesis is more than a fringe idea and that the Kurgan hypothesis is other than mainstream. It also lists some pro-Anatolian refs as if they support the Armenian hypothesis. (It should also be noted that Gray and Atkinson do *not* support the idea of an Anatolian origin; all they do is support the idea of a breakup farther back in time, similar to what the Anatolian hypothesis claims. Nothing in their paper says anything about locations.) Take out the Anatolian and Kurgan refs, and all you're left with is a reference from 1890, which is so early that it's basically worthless -- nobody considers homeland speculations from that era as having anything other than historical interest. Benwing ( talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
In his last book, Who we are and how we got here: ancient dna and the new science of the human past, David Reich mention the Armenian hypothesis asf :
From seven thousand until five thousand years ago, we observed a steady influx into the steppe of a population whose ancestors traced their origin to the south —as it bore genetic affinity to ancient and present-day people of Armenia and Iran— eventually crystallizing in the Yamnaya, who were about a one-to-one ratio of ancestry from these two sources. A good guess is that the migration proceeded via the Caucasus isthmus between the Black and Caspian seas.
So Reich confirm direct and massive genetic relationship between Armenian-like population from the Armenian highlands and Yamnaya. One to one is a very high ratio. Although it doesn't explain the relation between proto Armenian language and PIE, it gives undoubtedly weight to Gamkrelidze and Ivanov hypothesis and its worth to mention that Armenian-like population directly contributed to the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya which is accepted as Late PIE by linguists, archeologists & paleogeneticians.
I would like to add it consensually, so I ll wait for the feedback from the previous editors. Aramazt ( talk) 22:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Joshua, apparently Reich conclusions are based on new unpublished datas. So better to wait for the paper. Indeed the conclusion is not new (Krause, Haak and others before him) but Reich who is usually extra cautious with wording is giving an unexpected high ratio which is apparently both male and female mediated, we will see soon enough. I can only agree with your quote of Pereltsvaig, genes does not carry language, and pots are not humans, nevertheless in absence of any written source both are important and the scope of indices is narrowing. I think, depending on the conclusions of the coming paper, that it would be fair for the glottalic theory to mention - extra carefully- the latest ADNA development since it will place Gamkrelidze/Ivanov model and Proto Armenian reconstruction under the spotlights until new datas/models are found. As for Quilles, he has strong bias against geneticists (somehow justified by the lack of contextualisation etc...) as you probably noticed, and he also disagrees with the glottalic theory. But be it pre PIE, early PIE, middle PIE and late PIE, he like others will have to take this into consideration and adapt their models accordingly (as they did for CW). Also although we are not here to debate, I think the main problem is coming with the "Ureimhat" definition itself. It doesn't leave much room for nuances and more complicated development models.Aramazt 14:57, 31 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aramazt ( talk • contribs)
I've deleted the following link from the External links-section: Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands. It presents an idiosyncratic map, accoridng to which the IE-languages originated in the southern Caucasus, and reached the Pontic steppes via a route east of the Caspian Sea. Frankly, I don't know what Gamkrelidze and Ivanov say about the route from Armenia to Pontic Steppe, but the only explanation to this map is "indoeuropeanlanguagemigation." That's not enough; according to whom is this the way IE spread? A similar map is contained in an article on, or by, N.S. Trubetskoy, who died in 1938... NB: a similar map is being used here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I found more: Alexander Nash (2015), THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT: THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS. It's a bachelor thesis, but at least it contains usefull information at p.13-14 (emphasis mine):
The Armenian Theory, as argued by Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (1990), places the PIE homeland in or near the Armenian Highland. According to this model, the eventual speakers of Hittite and the other Anatolian languages split off no later than 4000 BC, invading Anatolia from the east by 2000 BC and subjugating it by 1400 BC.
The PIE community continued to fracture at this point, beginning to split into several groups -- the Greek-Armenian-Indo-Iranians, the Celto-Italo-Tocharians, and the Balto-Slavo-Germanics -- around 4000 BC.
From about 3000-2500 BC, these groups (and their respective languages) split further as population booms, the results of developments in agriculture in the region, sparked waves of migration in search of unfarmed land. The Greeks travelled to the west, followed by the Indo-Aryans to the east, along with the CeltoItalo-Tocharians and Balto-Slavo-Germanics, these latter then turning north once east of the Caspian Sea -- all while the Armenians remained in-situ. Before 2000 BC, the Celto-Italics had split from the Tocharians (who began travelling east) and circled west with the Balto-Slavo-Germanics, settling in a loosely confederated community north of the Black Sea. From 2000-1000 BC they then began migrating in waves to their present locations, eradicating or assimilating the native peoples and languages of Europe (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990).
NB: Nash concludes (p. ii):
After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts.
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
@ Любослов Езыкин: Please not that we follow the sources when naming articles. You might be right that "Armenian hypothesis" is a misnomer, but it seems to be the most common name in English and we can't go around making up our own names for things. – Joe ( talk) 14:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Armenian hypothesis → Hypothesis of Gamkrelidze–Ivanov – To follow the formalities. The new name may be not ideal from the point of view of English, but it is the best I could think of. The authors are well-known, hence the new name. Contra the old name: it is clearly non-neutral, alleges some links to modern Armenia and Armenians, foster Armenian nationalists, but more important it limits itself to the Armenian Highlands, when the authors never intended that, even avoided. The fact that a few (really few) authors mentioned Armenia must not be a decisive factor. Probably they used it as a lazy shorthand for the proper "eastern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and northern Mesopotamia". In any case the chronology is very clear: 1984 - the publication in Russian, 1990 - the first mention in English, 1995 - the English translation, 2006 - this article. 11 years is hardly enough time for this unpopular theory to achieve notoriety in the English-speaking scientific world and get an established common name. Clearly there wasn't. The current name is obviously made up by an WP editor for whatever reasons known only to him. Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 14:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
...another proponent of the Gamkrelidze–Ivanov hypothesis
It must be noted that in Gamkrelidze's and Ivanov's hypothesis a significant role was also played by the steppes north of the Black Sea
the ranges of the Gamkrelidze-Ivanov homeland and the one posited here overlap
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help): immediate comparative evidence for Gamkrelidze and Ivanov's theory...
The Caucasus itself is the central point of the second noteworthy theory, whose main supporters are Tamas Gamkrelidze and Vyacheslav Ivanov. Since the 1980s, they have been basing their hypothesis on...
The original hypothesis explicitly includes the NW Iranian region of Lake Urmia as part of a nexus where PIE developed. It's an extremely important detail, so please dont delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:5CD6:2176:AD79:7BA8 ( talk) 01:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I have changed the first sentence of the lead back to what it was in December 2020. I don’t have access to the source. If this is incorrect, please amend. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, is this edit [9] correct? Sweet6970 ( talk) 11:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I have now reverted this edit. Sweet6970 ( talk) 10:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
David Reich's holding a lecture about an upcoming study here: [I have tried to post this three times in a row but it doesn't show up in talk page. Maybe it's because of the link, so I'm excluding it this time. The title is ' Lecture by Prof. David Reich - "The Genetic History of the Southern Arc: A Bridge between West Asia & Europe" ' and can be found on webarchive and eupedia.]
We read: "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."
Keep an eye on it 46.177.94.68 ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Although it's not related to the work of Reich mentioned above, a brand new study was just published in Science by Heggarty et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg0818) that also supports the hypothesis that the primary homeland for the Indo-European languages was south of the Caucasus around upper Mesopotamia, and that a later migration northward onto the Pontic–Caspian steppe (a secondary homeland) produced "Kurgan" populations (e.g. the Yamnaya) that spoke a language ancestral to those now dominant in Europe, but not to other IE languages such as Anatolian. The study appears to be rather robust, drawing on linguistic, genetic, and archeological evidence, and should probably be reviewed for rigor and mentioned in the article if it stands up to scrutiny. Jpd50616 ( talk) 11:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
The Genetic Origin of The Indo-Europeans 5.215.244.159 ( talk) 20:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)