Talk:Proto-Indo-European society

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Text issues[edit]

so far, the text is copied from the summary article Proto-Indo-European: it should be expanded into more detail here. dab 13:44, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To editor Dbachmann: Dab, I have a textbook on Indo-European language and culture. Let me see what I can add. One thing is, this article is littered with political correctness.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"roth"?[edit]

PIE citation forms are in e-grade, not o-grade; and if that h is meant to be a laryngeal, you should indicate which one it is. Furthermore, according to American Heritage, PIE *ret- meant verb 'roll', not noun 'wheel', and isn't indicative of whether wheels existed in the protoculture the way *kwekwl- is. AJD 14:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you're citing "wheel" than the o-grade is supposed to be there (and the laryngeal as well, as you say). The noun is *rotH₂-eH₂ (the feminine is in -eH₂), hence Latin rotā and Sanskrit ratha. O-grades are typical in deverbal noun formation. The citation form of the verb stem is properly *retH₂-. --Glengordon01 21:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I could to help you with the roots but, man, this article is in bad need of research and I don't have time to waste rearranging this entire article. There are better pages to contribute to. --Glengordon01 21:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the horse and reflections in Celtic languages[edit]

I found an article by Xavier Delamarre: https://www.academia.edu/36260415/De_lindo-europ%C3%A9en_au_celtique_Les_noms_du_cheval_en_gaulois_et_dans_lonomastique — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:C0A3:8F54:5BDE:1875 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European Names (Ethnozoonym)[edit]

An article that lists many Indo-European ethnonyms that mean some sort of animal:

Sergent, Bernard. Ethnozoonymes indo-européens. In: Dialogues d'histoire ancienne, vol. 17, n°2, 1991. pp. 9-55. DOI : https://doi.org/10.3406/dha.1991.1932 www.persee.fr/doc/dha_0755-7256_1991_num_17_2_1932 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CE7:8E72:35E8:EAFB:FD0C:DF3E (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritical tone throughout article[edit]

The BS is very strong in this article. A lot of sweeping proclamations based on extremely little evidence. And probably will be revealed to be full of errors in a couple of decades. For example, section Patron-client states that there was a *w(n)nakts who was a king, presumably based on an older etymology of the Greek anax, however Beekes in his recent, fairly authoritative Greek etymological dictionary states that anax does not have an IE etymology and is Pre-Greek. Most of the claims about the legal system, cannabis use, charms against worms, poets being rewarded by women, are utter garbage testifying only to the overactive imaginations of linguists (who are mostly, btw, receiving their salaries from taxpayer money to work on stuff like this). This is not science, just amusing fairy tales. It's all based on nothing, possibly dubious etymologies that are assumed to have revelatory significance. There should be a disclaimer at the top of the page: "an artist's impression". 46.109.77.155 (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to be honest, I see this. Cahmad25 (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Quiles' map[edit]

The map, from Quiles' Indo-European demic diffusion model (2nd ed.), is sourced to "Anthony 2007; Piezonka 2015; Czekaj-Zastawny, Kabaciński, and Terberger 2015". What do people think about including this (or other cartographic efforts by Quiles)? Tewdar 19:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pings for @Tobby72: and @Wikiuser1314:. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the "Khvalynsk invasion of Uralic Sredny Stog" arrows... among a few other things. Tewdar 19:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos and his site indo-european.info are generally viewed in an unsavory light on Wikipedia and in IE studies for a myriad of different reasons. At best, his academic claims are shaky. Furthermore, the conflation of genetic lineages as speaking a particular language is shaky, and is controversial in IE studies (which Carlos himself acknowledges). We can certainly illustrate the diffusion of several material cultures, as Carlos does in that map, but that is all that should be taken from it.

I personally think the map is at least out of scope for the article, and doesn't provide much information for the surface-level learner.

Carlos's maps are always shortly removed from articles shortly after they are posted. I doubt this will ever change. 23:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC) JungleEntity (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a real friend of the maps by Carlos either, I would not include them, but if they are well sourced and not displaying his personal views, they (or some at least) may be used. I agree with JungleEntity's points regarding scope. But if you think the map is useful I won't disagree.Wikiuser1314 (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find the map particularly useful, and I don't think we should include it here. Tewdar 07:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]