Talk:Yamna culture

Naming questions

I propose to move this article to Yamna culture, simply for the sake of consistency of name space.--FourthAve 15:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing:

a feature associated with both Proto-Indo-Europeans or Proto-Indo-Iranians

This suggests the two populations are distinct, when in fact one is a descendant of the other. Might one not expect this feature in any population derived from the Proto-Indo-Europeans? If so, we might as well remove the mention of Proto-Indo-Iranians. --Saforrest 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

What about DNA research? Are the people of Yamna were Caucasian type or predominantly dark-haired like Iranians? Is there any genetic proof that links Yamna people with Tocharians?

Kurgan Culture

Marija Gimbutas invented this term and it properly goes with her Kurgan hypothesis. Those who have not studied the subject and have not read Gimbutas are perhaps too much influenced by the other propositions most of which Gimbutas resoundly refuted in her lifetime and fall into the category of crank or offbeat. Some are worth considering. Nevertheless we are giving them all a fair shake here, but not at the expense of being unfair to Gimbutas, who has the dominant theory and answered these others quite effectively and would continue to do so were she here. So, I am redirecting the redirect to Kurgan Hypothesis. Gimbutas means by Kurgan Culture (again, her term) all the Kurgans and their immediate precedents not just the Yamna. You will find a definitory ref on it by Gimbutas under Kurgan Hypothesis. Now, if it turns out the other theories are using the term in a different sense - a post-Gimbutas development - then we need to redirect to a disambig page on Kurgan Culture. Until such uses are pointed out to us then it is best to redirect to Kurgan Hypothesis. By this way this article really has to be considered stub. It says little about a very significant culture.Dave (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested Expansion

Only one source was used for this. It happens to be a brief encyclopedia by some creditable authors but it is not presenting the original work of those authors. There is an article on this encyclopedia in Wikipedia but that article says that the archaeological details are often inaccurate! The write-up in that encyclopedia is not very long. I dare say some of the statements in the article of this discussion are questionable or wrong as stated. I requested a cite on one of them (only one?). Most properly I should say this article relies too much on one author but obviously it is a stub. Rather than mark it as a stub I just requested it be expanded because it needed that anyway! There is hardly enough there to hang a picture on. Similarly it needs inline cites but how can you do that when all that is given is a few paragraphs in a quick encyclopedia! If it were expanded the questionable statements might go away. So there you have it.

I see DBachmann has taken a hand. The only trouble is, dab, you are giving off-the-cuff personal assessments in this case with such emotional dismissals as we are not being slaves to Gimbutas. Well, that is not an unbiased or correct statement. You yourself have required rigid standards of me and other people often in this encyclopedia. How about YOU applying your own high standards to yourself? Everything I have done in this set of articles I have accounted for. If you cannot give an equal accounting including refs please do not change what I have. I'm putting the redirects (there are two of them) back to Kurgan hypothesis as you neither answered my argument nor provided another. I don't find that too helpful. Have you provided money to Wikipedia? If so I will just back out but if not you need to follow Wikipedia policies and not have two standards, one for you and one for us.Dave (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Archeology vs history, and attribution of Pit Grave Culture

dab, it would be a good idea to hear and understand how is archeology inconsistent with history before you declare the template "undue" and repeatedly delete it. Please share your line of thinking.

On subject of attribution of Pit Grave Culture there is no universally accepted opinion, and until we can agree that there is one, declaring the Pit Grave Culture per Gimbutas as the only is deliberately misleading, since there are more hypotheses and schools of science against it as there are for it, especially when some schools openly class the Gimbutas hypothesis as only regurgitated and discarded racistic Germanic Calcholithic Invasion Theory <‘myth’ (Häusler 2003) - of an Indo-European Invasion in the Copper Age (IV millennium B.C.), by horse-riding warrior pastoralists>: <the scenario behind it, can now be considered as altogether obsolete>.

To maintain the misleading views in the preamble, without any proper disclamers, is straightforward deceiving. Barefact (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Fringecruft

Barefact, please stop flooding the page with pan-Turkist fringecruft. Even though you are keen to assign the Kurgan hypothesis to the realm of "19th-century (?) European nationalism", it is the theory that has gained wide acceptance in academic circles, while your imaginings have none. if you continue pushing your original research into the article, we shall continue this discussion on WP:FTN. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

My dear Ghirlandajo, please do not assault me, and all all the scholars who do not support the infamous Kurgan theory, with your "pan-Turkist fringecruft". You should not call scholars like Colin Renfrew, Bruce Lincoln, Mario Alinei, G. Erdosy, Meinander, Nuñez, and many more "pan-Turkists". As a scholar said, "After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario (i.e. scenario "imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century"), which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic élites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1979, 1980)." You should not use calling names as an argument. I will gladly attend the WP:FTN, "Wikipedia:Fringe theories state, theories outside the mainstream that have not been discussed at all by the mainstream are not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia", the bias conserns must be discussed, referenced, and resolved, not steamrolled with soundbite declarations. Barefact (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't add OR to this the article. Go find actual reliable sources which says the Yamna culture was created by Altaic groups, (with explicit statements) and then add them. --Nepaheshgar 23:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good statement. We need references. Proclamations and promotions would not do. That's what we need, you are absolutely right. BTW, welcome back, life is not the same without you. That the article carries some debility we all can agree now, I hope. Lets talk, see who subscribes to this advertised idea, see who don't, and try to make it sane. Please, read the other comments on this talk page. Barefact (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bringing a fresh (and unbiased, since I know nothing about this topic) eye to the article, there are three things that strike me. First, the article in its current state looks pretty good, and doesn't cry out for major changes. Second, the edits by barefact are too poorly written to be acceptable, regardless of their factual status, which seems very dubious. Third, other editors, namely Nepaheshgar and Ghirlandajo, are warring unnecessarily by reverting each others changes, in a matter where it looks like both are reasonable people and ought to be able to agree on a wording if they would discuss the issue with each other.Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction. I did not r.v. Ghirlandajo.. I removed the OR by barefact..--Nepaheshgar 03:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

South Asia

The phrase "In 2009, however, the main candidate is South Asia, based on R1a haplogroup studies" when discussing the PIE homeland seems unfounded. I removed the comment. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yamna vs. Yamnaya

David W. Anthony calls this culture the Yamnaya horizon in his book and I was wondering about including that name in the opening. If I'm reading it right Yamna/Yamnaya is a Ukrainian/Russian difference, but the wikipedia article should be named by whatever is the most common usage in English language sources. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)