Talk:Yamna culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Ukraine. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] 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?
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
