Quote: (03-06-2015 01:04 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:
The Anatolian hypothesis is interesting because all the sources I read, like Razib Khan, Dienekes, Greg Cochran, seem to think the Anatolian hypothesis is not supported by the bulk of evidence. As such I have never really heard the affirmative case for the Anatolian hypothesis in detail, only heard the affirmative case for the Steppe hypothesis and heard the Anatolian hypothesis discredited.
I wonder if my impression, that the Steppe hypothesis is generally more widely accepted, is accurate.
I think I've read Dienekes side with the Anatolian hypothesis. Razib has written about it without going strongly for or against it. Not sure about Cochran.
In general, the more comfortable someone is with numbers, the more likely they support the hypothesis. The best research supporting it is pretty heavily quantitative. Most researchers in the field are not numbers people and most of them still hold onto the Steppe hypothesis.
The language we call Indo-European probably did come from the Steppe, but I don't think proto-Indo-European or Indo-Hittite originated on the Steppe.
I've got the dick so I make the rules.
-Project Pat