Talk:Armenian hypothesis

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)[reply]

Quite right, again one of these completely blue-eyed articles. HJJHolm (talk) 14:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wait for

WP:OR. But of course, it reminds of the Armenian hypothesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes: The Armenian Plateau Hypothesis Gains In Plausibility. But, see Haak, as cited in Languages of the World: An Introduction by Asya Pereltsvaig, p.38: "ancient DNA is silent on the question of the languages spoken by preliterate people." No doubt those Armenian-Iranian people will have brought their own language, but it may have morphed into another, distinctive language, c.q. proto-Indo-European, due to the language spoken by the EHG-component (from their wives?). Compare the proposed farmer-substrate in German, and the possibility that Dravidian originated as recent as the 3rd century BCE in India itself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting and relevant information, which definitely needs to be included in the article. I am lucky to have checked the talk page, but not anyone would do so. The consider a book published by a field scholar to be RS, what else could be expected? Darwwin (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice coincidence: Undo-european.eu (march 30, 2018), Proto-Indo-European homeland south of the Caucasus?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:05, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)

This new info is very interesting and has actually made me reconsider my personal position on this idea although I will have to read the papers. However, that doesn't change the fact that this page has a severe

WP:NPOV problem. It reads as an ad for the theory without considering hte (very serious) historical criticism it has incurred over the decades. Both sides need to be discussed and it is giving much more space to the "pro" side.-- Calthinus (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Please see

No such user (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually in that discussion he said himself, "I do not clearly understand what has made English-speaking scientists name the theory 'Armenian' when the authors of the theory themselves rarely mention Armenia". It's not just a question of what terminology Gamkrelidze & Ivanov used, especially since they didn't primarily write in English. Reliable secondary sources in English use "Armenian hypothesis", e.g. [1] and [2].

Another problem with putting Gamkrelidze—Ivanov in the title is that the article doesn't just discuss their work, but others that have built on their original idea (especially with recent advances in palaeogenetics).

As for Lyuboslav's other edits, I agree they seem fine. – Joe (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: No, you simply do not understand. Pereltsvaig wrote her book after 2006, clearly using Wikipedia as a source, at least as a source for the name. She is clearly not a specialist on the subject of IE studies. Moreover, her books can be characterized as "popular linguistics" for an average Joe (sorry for a pun), not serious on the subject of PIE. At best she understand a thing or two about linguistics that allows her write such books. So here there is a circular citation, where around 10 years ago a Wikipedia editor created a misnomer which has widespread outwards to other places, and miraculously those 4th-5th hand sources become "proofs" for the article on which those sources were originally based! Whether "my" name is clumsy English does not matter, unless the name is true and correct. Clumsiness is not an argument for naming, but validity is. I hope you will revert yourself, I do not have much desire to waste my time proving the obvious. I have spent quite enough time today on the thing which, frankly, I do not very interested in.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what "I said myself" was clearly before I found out that the name had never existed before Wikipedia. This name was born in 2006, period.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it seems you haven't understood,

common name

in reliable secondary sources, it is still the common name in reliable secondary sources.

And for, the record, Pereltsvaig is a professional linguist and a specialist in Indo-European studies, amongst other things; see http://asya.pereltsvaig.com/linguistics/. – Joe (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally you create your own interpretations. One single mention of "Armenia" does not miraculously transform into "Armenian hypothesis". You have claimed the name is well-accepted and well-known, but you cannot prove it, so your last resort is vague mentions of Armenia here and there. I know perfectly well who is Pereltsvaig, I do not need her credentials and I'm not impressed by her regalia. If she has been using Wikipedia while writing her books, well, this better characterizes her than any regalia.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it did, it merely shows that English-speaking scholars have understood this hypothesis to refer to "Armenia" before Wikipedia existed, incorrect or not. I have provided two high quality sources to back up that this theory is commonly referred to as the Armenian hypothesis, and I believe you could easily find many more if you cared to look. Unless you are going to start substantiating your own assertions, we really have nothing to do discuss. – Joe (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Mallory & Adams does not mention G. & I. So you have decided for them what they actually meant and why they used the word "Armenia". Probably they meant G. & I., probably not. I'm glad you know how to use Google search and have managed to find a couple of sources to substantiate your shaky point. I'm afraid I did it before you, so your search results do not impress me very much.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbachmann who I pinged from the RD so that he could explain what source he used for his terminology, but unfortunately he seemed to have ignored that request. No source that I've seen calls it that except sources after 2006. So whether we can prove those sources after 2006 used or were influenced by WP one way or another (maybe sometimes w/o even realizing it) is entirely irrelevant. The burden of proof is not on those who reject that terminology but on those who maintain that it was the common terminology in 2006. The point is that when the article was named in 2006 there had to be pre-existing reliable sources using that terminology. WP is not supposed to invent terminology. Do please show us some. Let the creator of the article show us some. So the question is not that "Armenian hypothesis" is a misnomer. The problem is that WP apparently either manufactured terminology or adopted biased terminology, that was absolutely not current at the time, from unreliable sources. If WP lets this stand and continues to impose terminology it has essentially invented and spread, it would be doing something that would be entirely antithetical to its purported mission. This whole story would make for an interesting case study in any event. I'm curious how it will develop because this is serious stuff that can have repercussions way beyond WP. Basemetal 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

It doesn't matter what it the common name was before 2006. The title should reflect the common name now. But I very much doubt that dab plucked it out of thin air, and nobody has produced any actual evidence that Wikipedia created the terminology.

And the

burden of proof is very much on those who want to move this article from the stable title it has had for twelve years. – Joe (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

"Nobody has produced any actual evidence that WP has created the terminology"?. You've got it entirely backwards. It is WP that needs to prove that it used terminology used in reliable sources by citing those sources (which it never did) and that's by its own supposed standards. Anyway, I've done my bit. Life is too short to waste with stupidities like that. I'm sorry I even got involved and even more sorry that Lüboslóv Yęzýkin wasted his time trying to fix WP. Take care y'all. Basemetal 20:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a disincentive experience. At least it will be a lesson for me to think twice before editing and investing my time. But my time is not entirely wasted, though, other my edits are still intact. What is also interesting, even amusing, that despite the article is 12 years old, nobody has ever provided the title to the original work and its English translation. This means that really all of the previous editors never even read the book. It seems I'm the first editor who read/knew about the hypothesis before reading/editing this article. And for 12 years nobody cared. So a question arises: why should I care?..--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What makes us doubt that the original creator didn't pluck it out of thin air? He has not yet reacted to this discussion. Judging by the very first version of the article the author had clearly a vague idea on the subject, because he even did not mention the English translation of the book and most likely never read the work itself. Most likely he had read some vague mentions of the hypothesis in some book about Armenia(ns), so he could not come up with a better idea than to name it accordingly. But this does not necessary mean this name has been a common name as you claim.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick final remark that's not properly part of the conversation but is just a commentary on it. This may be of interest to anyone who's read or will read this conversation in the future. Pay attention to this: this manufacturing of terminology by WP without reliable sources (in fact no source reliable or unreliable were cited) shows what bullshit WP's claims to reliability and neutrality can be. But this very conversation and its result also show something interesting, namely what bullshit WP's slogans about "consensus" and "community" can be: four people took part in this conversation, three were in favor of renaming the "Armenian Hypothesis" article, and one was against. Yet it is the minority side that won. Ask yourself why. This should be an eye opener for anyone who'd be tempted to be taken in by mere slogans. Basemetal 07:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note in Russian WP it was originally (re)named "Armenian" in 2009, clearly parroting English WP, but two years later in 2011 renamed again, despite the fact that in the discussion there were given quite enough Russian sources that mention the Armenian Highlands (among other places). But even this did not stop the editors, because the former name never existed in Russian and is clearly non-neutral from any point.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]