File talk:IE expansion.png
 | This file was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2020 but was kept. If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first. |
Copy from en-wiki image talkpage:
There is good map. But there are several mistakes:
1) Corsica and Sardinia were not Indo-European up to 1000 BC, because its population (Corses and Sardes) are described by ancient authors as relatives of non-Indoeuropean Hispanic Iberes. Romanisation of these islands was made to 1st cent. AD.
2) Eastern Spain was home of non-Indoeuropean Iberes and this area was romanisated up to 1st cent. AD.
3) In Scandinavia Northern Bronze Age culture which associated with Indo-Europeans spread to Norway and more large part of Sweden.
4) Estonia had no significant Indo-European population and generally border between Finnic and Baltic populations was Daugava (Dvina River) in today Latvia.
5) It is believed that in migration in Europe Indo-Europeans is divided to 2 branch: northern (Paleoeuropeans - ancesors of Celts, Illyrians, Italics, Venets, Germans, Slavs and Balts) and southern (ancesors of Greeks, Thracians, Phrygyans and Armenians). Border between these two branch was Carpatian mountains.
6) Up to 1000 BC nor Crete nor Cyprus were not Indo-European which is fixed in historical accounts.
7) It is believed in Kurgan hypothesis and is evidenced from historical and linguistical data that Anatolians came from Agean Sea basin (for example Carians).
8) Armenian Highlands was not Indo-European up to 800 BC. Its population were predominantly Caucasian-speaking Hurrians and Urartians.
9) About Tocharians: from linguistical data is known that Tocharians is strongly contacted with Finno-Ugric tribes. From this and archeological accounts it is believed that ancesors of Tocharians were population of Fatyanovo culture (central Russia). When and by which way Tocharians came to Sinkiang (Western China) is not known, but because slightly linguistical contacts between Tocharian and Iranic languages proposed that migration went through forest zone (not steppe).
Generally I think that it will better correct map.
Dmitry Krotko (til@bigmir.net).
yes, all your points are valid, and the map would be improved by implementing them. Just bear in mind that the map was never supposed to be a rough sketch of the Kurgan framework, it doesn't pretend to have more resolution than the general direction of the crudely-drawn arrows, so you shouldn't attempt to give it more resolution that it can reasonably have. Perhaps a lower-resolution map should be used. --dab (𒁳) 10:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Needs reverting[edit]
The first versions already had some minor problems, now someone has attempted to "correct" it and make it more precise which makes it much worse.
- how do you know Anatolians didn't cross Caucasus? Why are they shown as splitting off that one contrived, over-elaborate branch? Anatolians being the very first to split off is one of the few things where there is at least some consensus(!)
- what is that second random little arrow pointing to the Baltic (was it just put there to fill empty space, that's what it looks like)
- how do you know that Indo-Iranian splits only in what is approximately Uzbekistan? Finno-Ugric, for example, has a thick layer of early, specifically Iranian borrowings and I'm pretty certain this happened much further to the north, also Iranic Scythians at one point spread through Eastern Europe, did they really drag their behinds all the way from Uzbekistan? No, they were present much further to the north, as Finno-Ugric contact prove (as much as you can talk about "proof" in such distant past.)
This unnecessary editorializing seems to try to give the impression that there is certainty about how this happened. If you read books on this, it is the exact opposite, authors more and more move away from "arrow models" and there is anything but certainty. If anything there should be less arrows. The more agnostic original version is much better. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Iberian peninsula[edit]
The map indcates the ligurian and iberian speaking areas as indo-european, which is wrong. On the other hand, the celtiberian and lusitanian areas are missing. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.115.62.35 (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
