What utter baloney. How does a hypothesis about Steppe dwellers in Central Asia, invented in the mid 20th century by a feminist "belong [in] the realm of 19th-century European nationalism"? The only nationalism is to be found in your edits. You are evidently the same Turkic nationalist who creates endless new identities to promote the same old same old. Paul B (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a scholar said, "In short, the first IE specialists – imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century - chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and colonizers, who would have conquered the allegedly "pre-IE" Neolithic Europe in the Copper Age, and brought their 'superior' civilization to it. (...). At the same time, while the concept of the Arian super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse-riding invaders, another myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior race, the German father-founders of IE studies saw the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race, and chose the Germanic area as the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-Europeans. 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). Interestingly, also the central idea of the NDT, namely that the inventors of farming were the Indo-Europeans, rather than the 'real' Middle-Eastern, Sumerian and/or Semitic, people, is yet another vein of this often unwitting ethnocentrism that runs through the history of research on IE origins." --Ragdeenorc (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This comment just indicates your ignorance. The theory you refer to is not the Kurgan hypothesis, and the Germanic area had nothing to do with horse domestication, did it? So your whole claim is based on a total misundersatanding of the history of theories of I-E origins. You are describing the Corded Ware theory of Gustaf Kossinna, which has no relevance whatever to the language of so-called Kurgan peoples of Steppe culture. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DNA genealogy indicates a migration of R1a peoples eastward from Europe to the Russian Plain between 4800 and 4600 ybp, a direction opposite to that suggested by the Kurgan theory. Just sayin'. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 00:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the Kurgan theory distorts the whole pattern of what happened in Europe and the Russian Plain between 5000 and 3000 ybp. In fact, the IE speakers (R1a) arrived in the Balkans and further in Europe between the 10th - 8th millennia bp. Gimbutas’ theory is in error when it proposes the formation of territorial, nomadic, pastoral populations speaking PIE languages (collectively named the Kurgan culture), in the 7th millennium bp in the area of the Dnepr and Don basins, the middle and lower Volga basin, the Caucasus and the Ural mountains. In fact, there were no PIEs (R1a) at those times in those territories. The Kurgan theory apparently has inverted the roles of the NIE (R1b) and the IE (R1a). The Kurgan theory is in error in ascribing kurgans, nomadism, and the domestication of horses to speakers of IE who lived around 7000 ybp. Instead, these cultural features should be ascribed to NIEs (R1b) who migrated westward. Gimbutas claims that IE speakers migrated to Europe three times--first, between 6400 and 6300 ybp; second, around 5500 ybp (from the area North of the Black Sea); third, between 5000 and 4800 ybp (allegedly from the Volga steppes). These claims are unsupportable. There were no IEs (R1a) in the Volga steppes between 5000 and 4800 ybp or earlier; they arrived between 4600 and 4300 ybp. Had they been in the steppes, they would have been moving from Europe eastward. --Ragdeenorc (talk) 02:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Solarra. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ♥ Solarra ♥♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀03:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've informed Florian Baschke too; he made the same amount of reverts as you did, so I expect the same threat for both of you. Please learn from this, and use the talkpage next time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Dear Ragdeenorc, thank you for your good words. The abundance of "fringe theories" in respect to the Kurgan theory shows that the matter is far from settled, and drugging you through the "fringe theories" conflict resolution is rather a sign of the weakness of its advocates. It was shown by genetic dating that M.Gumbutas confused two migration flows in opposite directions and separated by a full millennia, both crossing the Eastern Europe, but originating and terminating in the opposite ends of the Eurasia (e.g. A. Klyosov, G.Tomezzoli, DNA Genealogy and Linguistics. Ancient Europe// Advances in Anthropology, 2013. Vol.3, No.2, pp. 101-111, and all prior related publications). The genetic analysis was first published in 2010, and the material accumulated since then invariably reinforces the genetic tracing and dating. M.Gumbutas could not have known that, she did not use biological data in her reconstruction. Her problem was not in the data she had available, the data was perfectly solid, but in the ideologically biased interpretation. Your efforts for unbiased contents will bear fruits. The alleged consensus is very far from consensus, that why the abundance of objections and a plethora of the "fringe theories". The Kurgan Theory is here to stay, with cardinal corrections, and without nationalistic vigor. Regards, Barefact (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
