Talk:Kurgan hypothesis

Pastoralism vs. agriculture, redux

Just wanted to point out that while words for "plough" and "grain" have indeed been reconstructed to PIE (and possibly even for specific grain types – I'd need to check the EIEC for details; compare Sanskrit यव), I have seen the point been made that ethnic groups, or language communities respectively, can have words for concepts that play no role in their own culture, but in neighbouring cultures, and it is not at all unheard of that nomads have some agricultural lexicon (though usually not a rich, differentiated one). My understanding of the general thinking of the "steppe camp" is that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were essentially – or predominantly – (semi-)nomadic livestock breeders for whom plant-based agriculture was just not particularly important, i. e., either they did not cultivate plants at all (though they could have acquired plant-based food through trade or raids, although animal-based food is generally valued much more due to its higher energy content so they may not even have seen the need), or only as a supplement, so it played a minor role comparable to hunting (and gathering) – lots of ethnic groups engage in hunting (and gathering) without being foragers, so even if the Proto-Indo-Europeans did engage in crop-raising after all, they were not necessarily farmers, just like occasional hunting did not make them foragers. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

My impression is that the evidence would seem to indicate that the Indo-Europeans (or some sub-groups of them) were opportunistic agriculturalists -- some individuals in most groups knew basic agricultural techniques, and in many cases they had no objection to clearing land and planting a crop in spring if they thought that they would likely be around to reap the harvest in autumn. What they weren't is permanently-settled agriculturists with stone houses and elaborate granaries for storing grains from year to year. I once read that PIE likely only had one vague word for grain in general, but I don't know the details... AnonMoos (talk) 04:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That sounds just like the "supplemental agriculture" proposal I mentioned, doesn't it? Or is there a subtle difference? Just wanting to make sure that we're on the same page. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Not a big difference, but "opportunistic" might make it clearer that at some moments when circumstances were favorable, a relatively large share of their nutrition could come from agriculture, but they didn't rely on agriculture as their main food source over the long term. Sorry if this is considered nitpicking. -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll better use "crop-raising" from now on, "agriculture" being an annoyingly ambiguous term, as it can be the general term including not only crop-raising, but also animal husbandry/stockbreeding.

As for the general grain term, maybe the PIE lexeme *iéuo- which gave the mentioned Sanskrit yáva- is the one you mean, but it has also been specifically connected with barley.

Fortson does maintain that there are several reconstructed terms for different types of grains, but does not mention any details. This is really a job for EIEC, which I don't have here, though. In any case, Fortson indicates that crop-raising does appear to have been rather important in the reconstructed proto-culture, and this appears like a poor fit with the Eastern European steppe cultures indeed, which Fortson doesn't really talk about (at least not in the portion viewable in Google Books). There must be further investigations dealing with this particular problem. Does Anthony treat it? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, on de:Diskussion:Sredny-Stog-Kultur, an IP says: "By the way, the thesis of the first horse domesticators is obsolete. It is assumed that they consumed horse meat, but did not breed [horses]. They were farmers and herdsmen, not a typical steppe people. Rather, goats, sheep and cattle belonged to their household, as well as dogs, where the role of the cattle increased. To which extent is still controversial. The typical weapon of this culture was the spear, which was widespread as effective long-range weapon in the whole Black Sea region."

But then, this doesn't seem to jive with David W. Anthony's conclusions, which appear to be quite authoritative (compare Domestication of the horse). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, Anthony's theories of horse domestication have pretty much axed Levine's where there are disputes. The bit wear research is particularly compelling. Montanabw^(talk) 00:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, I know hippology is your focus, but do you happen to know if Anthony talks about the agriculture vs. pastoralism problem and what his conclusion is? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not up on what that issue is all about, but in The Horse, the Wheel and Language, (excerpts here) Anthony clearly argues that the nomadic horse-riding people prevailed over settled, agricultural people, if that's what you are asking. Montanabw^(talk) 04:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue is to which extent the people of the Yamnaya horizon and related cultures engaged in crop-raising as a food-source besides animal husbandry. I can't find the answer to my question in the Google Books preview right now. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look later today. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

New genetic study

A new genetic study by Reich et al. in support of Gimbutas's Pontic Steppes theory has popped up in Nature: Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe and should probably be incorporated. --87.180.223.9 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing :) 82.71.30.178 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)