Catacomb, Poltavka and Potapovka cultures were succeeded by the Srubna culture, and the Sintashta and Petrovka cultures were succeeded by the Andronovo culture. Reception Anthony's work received generally positive reviews. The New York Times, noting the longstanding debate among scholars over the origins of the Indo-European language group, stated, "Anthony is not the first scholar to make the case that Proto-Indo-European came from [the steppes of southern Ukraine and Russia], but given the immense array of evidence he presents, he may be the last one who has to." Geographer Arthur Krim discussed the work in Geographical Review. According to Krim, Anthony's "debate is with the archaeologist Colin Renfrew" and his Anatolian hypothesis, which proposed that early Proto-Indo-European developed by around 6500 BCE, originating in the famous Neolithic site at Çatalhöyük in Turkey. According to Krim, The Rocky Mountain Modern Language Association's Rocky Mountain Review called the work "an archaeological feat" that "bridges the stubborn gap between linguists and archaeologists." The review noted with approval Anthony's drawing upon Soviet and Eastern European studies that had previously been unknown to western researchers. The most critical review was Philip Kohl's "Perils of Carts before Horses: Linguistic Models and the Underdetermined Archaeological Record" in American Anthropologist. Kohl argues that Anthony's linguistic model is overly simple on the development of the Indo-European languages as products of divergence originating from one single source, though he admits that Anthony pays some attention to loanwords and the influence of neighboring cultures. Kohl is critical that Anthony's linguistic model guides "the archaeological interpretation rather than the reverse." According to Kohl, "such a procedure almost necessarily means that the archaeological record is consistently manipulated to fit the linguistic model that it is meant to confirm; the reasoning is circular." Kohl further notes that Anthony's reconstruction is bold and imaginative but is also "necessarily selective" and sometimes misleading when it relies on a rather limited number of items. According to Kohl, Kohl cautions about Anthony's proposal that horseback riding developed very early in the Chalcolithic in the Proto-Indo-European homeland. According to Kohl, horseback riding was almost invisible in the Ancient Near Eastern pictorial record until practically the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. Finally, Kohl notes that past fantasies about superior Aryans are dismissed by Anthony but that his descriptions of the influence of the Indo-European cultures on the Eurasian world may nevertheless feed into "fantasies about peculiarly gifted and creative