|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurgan hypothesis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
And Florian, for your information, you wouldn't know a native speaker one bit you in the backside. You make the mistake of judging by my name and assuming that I am not a native speaker. Bad mistake. This is the Wikipedia, remember? I could be Japanese for all tat you know. But know, I am what my page says I am, with nothing to hide. I have been an English language journalist for years, I am a translator, editor and proofreader by profession — working in English. I translate, edit and proofread at African Union and UN level. I am also an English language trainer with former students that include Angolan Cabinet Ministers. So, bite your tongue before you go around saying "Don't mar this article with poor English". Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
- Appeal to authority. If the English you added to this article is dodgy, it's still dodgy. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ironically, "you wouldn't know a native speaker one bit you in the backside" is itself ungrammatical English, so you inadvertently proved my point and undermined your own. (Adding an "if" would help.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- At the very least (together with the "tat" typo), it illustrates nicely just how easy it is to fall into the trap known as Muphry's law.
- In view of your chest-thumping here, it's also pretty hypocritical to accuse me of having an "ego problem". (Equally hypocritical, by the way, is your accusation of unfounded bias on my part against you due to your non-English name, given your bungled dig against me.) Your assumption that authority equals infallibility does not inspire confidence in the worth of your education. (And I'm exercising considerable good faith by accepting your claimed credentials unexamined in the first place. Arguments from authority are particularly ridiculous in situations where credentials are far easier claimed than verified, such as on the Internet.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: could you please take a look at the recent edits by Jayanta Sen? See also my talkpage, User talk:Joshua Jonathan#Origins of the PIE. Thanks, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ilber8000: could you expand the section "From Corded Ware culture to Andronovo culture"? Could you also take a critical look at the R1A1a1 section? It may unbalanced, too much favoring a hypothesized connection between R1A1a and the Indo-Europeans, as Jayanta Sen noticed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: Late Proto-Indo-Europeans Yamnaya and Afanasievo (central asia) are genetically identical with similar phenotype (brown eyes & hair) while Andronovo (derived from Corded Ware) represents new phenotype (light hair and eyes) which they seem to have acquired in Corded Ware culture from native Europeans.
According to Allentofte et al, closely related ancient groups are expected to show highly correlated statistics. A, Yamnaya/Afanasievo.. B, Sintashta/Corded Ware. C, Sintashta/Andronovo. Accoridng to the study, Afanasievo culture to the east is related to the Yamnaya, and that the Sintashta and Andronovo cultures had ancestry derived from the Corded Ware. Nature
This quote is from Sciencemag regarding Allentofte study, "This eastern branch of the Yamnaya (or Afanasievo) persisted in central Asia and, perhaps, Mongolia and China until they themselves were replaced by fierce warriors in chariots called the Sintashta (also known as the Andronovo culture)."Ilber8000 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I had to look through this page, there are some minor mistakes regrading bronze age migrations as Central Asia seems to have had two waves of migrations, first wave = Afanasevo, similar to Yamnaya and second wave = Sinstasta/Andaronovo similar to Corded Ware. I will organize this section later today. Ilber8000 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Coming in late with little to add but the obvious, we can only go by what the sources directly say, we can't interpret them or comment on them , including commenting on what they don't say/cover, that's all original research. Doug Weller talk 19:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- While I agree that "we can only go by what the sources directly say, we can't interpret them or comment on them", I think we don't have to include to include sources that are obviously wrong. Editors do have the power of deciding what to include. This is still a new area, and even articles in reputable journals have published half baked ideas. The idea that R1a (let alone R1a1a) has any special claim to the origin of IE is wrong given that R1b has an equal claim (unless someone argues that Latin and the Celtic languages are not part of IE). There may even be an argument that R2 (and not only R1) is part of the origins of IE. Please note that I am only discussing the genetics part of the article. Best JS (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
The Samara culture had horse burials and existed in the 5th millennium BCE. With all this being fact, may I ask why they are included as a Kurgan (and therefore Indo European) culture? The word h₁ékwos, "horse", is a later formation in PIE. The oldest vocabulary had athematic stems (e.g. Latin lex from leg-s), the thematic stems (e.g. Latin corv-u-s, "raven") belong to a later generation of PIE words. Simple roots are older than roots which have been lengthened with an extra (mostly gender-specific) vowel -a or -o; the development of the latter category, with its own declension, had also been completed before the disintegration of PIE. The Indo Europeans did not have horses in the 5th millennium, they were introduced to horses much, much later, probably in the late 4th millenium BCE. Thus, the Samara Culture belongs to an entirely different stock. Also, the Dnieper–Donets culture, being late Cro-Magnon, would have nothing to do with any Indo European (Kurgan) cultures at all. The Indo Europeans were not Cro-Magnon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idielive (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell the only context in which this article mentions the Samara culture is that it was one of the cultures Gimbutas included in her concept of a Kurgan culture, which is true (if not particularly clearly referenced). If I recall correctly she included it alongside the Sredny Stog culture precisely because of that early evidence for a "horse cult" alongside early kurgans, which at the time she was writing could be interpreted as evidence for indigenous (pre-)domestication of the horse by PIE speakers. Remember that Gimbutas conceived of this 30+ years ago so she was working with now outdated archaeological and linguistic evidence (for example, we no longer think it's likely that the horses in Samara burials were domesticated). The concept of a unified "Kurgan culture" is not something that archaeologists talk about any more, and the modern conception of a steppe origin of IE is quite different from Gimbutas' kurgan hypothesis. This article could probably do to make that clearer.
- The Dnieper-Donets culture was contemporary with the Samara and Sredny Stog cultures and included for similar reasons (Gimbutas was an enthusiastic lumper). I don't know what you mean when you say they were "Cro-Magnon". Cro-Magnon really just means modern human, although it's usually only used in the context of the European Upper Palaeolithic to distinguish them from Neanderthals. All the groups we're talking about were modern humans. – Joe (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I know that the Cro-magnons were modern humans, I was only trying to say that the Indo Europeans were not of their race, and I highly doubt there was any connection between the two groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idielive (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Etymology of Kurgan
- You seem to have a point; see Kurgan. Yet, your comment "it has nothing to do with Russians" is nonsense, of course; it's usage for a burial mound comes from Russian. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)