> Here is a direct quote from the 2003 papertheory.
> "Languages, like genes, provide vital clues about human history1,2.
> The origin of the Indo-European language family is "the most
> intensively studied, yet still most recalcitrant, problem of
> historical linguistics"3. Numerous genetic studies of Indo-European
> origins have also produced inconclusive results4,5,6. Here we
> analyse linguistic data using computational methods derived
> from evolutionary biology. We test two theories of Indo-
> European origin: the `Kurgan expansion' and the `Anatolian
> farming' hypotheses. The Kurgan theory centres on possible
> archaeological evidence for an expansion into Europe and the
> Near East by Kurgan horsemen beginning in the sixth millennium
> BP7,8. In contrast, the Anatolian theory claims that Indo-
> European languages expanded with the spread of agriculture
> from Anatolia around 8,0009,500 years BP9. In striking agreement
> with the Anatolian hypothesis, our analysis of a matrix of
> 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age
> range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800
> and 9,800 years BP."
> There is *no doubt* that they do not support the kurgan horsemen
> Here is the portion of the para you quoted earlier:That's right, they write not Kurgan horsemen, but Kurgan expansion.
> "The consensus tree also shows evidence of a period of rapid
> > divergence giving rise to the Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic and
> > perhaps Indo-Iranian families that is intriguingly close to the
> > time suggested for a possible Kurgan expansion. "
> I think you are reading what you want to read in this sentence. But
> what the authors are actually saying is, the period (which means
> TIME) of rapid divergence is intriguinngly close to the TIME
> suggested for a possible Kurgan expansion. That does not mean they
> are actually supporting the Kurgan horsemen theory. There is no
> mention of Kurgan horsemen anywhere in the paper.