Talk:Kurgan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.
Russia Portal
Kurgan is part of the WikiProject Russian history, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian history. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Old talk

The burial mound practice was also very well known in North America, around the mid-west, esp. Ohio Valley starting around 3,000 years BP or more.

The famous mound builder culture, who they were, remains a great mystery.

We know that the later mound builders were certainly Native American, but the earliest builders of the "conical mounds" have not been satisfactorily identified. One of the most intriguing clues we have about the early mound builders was the gigantic proportions of their physicality often reported by early settlers and even the Smithsonian in several instances. These skeletons were in some cases between 7 and 8 feet of length, i.e. 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891 (published in 1894)(Kanawha County, West Virginia).

For more information about the mysterious mound builders in north America, visit: moundbuilders.org

I have the intention (I don't have the time right now, but say in a couple of days) to separate the Kurgan and Burial mound articles. Sure, Kurgan means burial mound, in Russian. In english, however, burial mound is the generic term, applicable to such mounds of any period, in any location, while Kurgan is restricted to Black Sea/Steppe barrows, and it only ever entered the english language because of the theories of Gimbutas'. The Kurgan article should therefore concentrate on the Kurgan hypothesis, while the burial mound article should compare the different kinds of barrows all over the world. dab 12:10, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Gimbutas overdid it

Wiglaf, you do realize that the "swept away" you removed was there to represent Gimbutas' increasingly extreme views, and was not the "article talking"? dab 13:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Russian word??

Kurgan (кургáн) is the Russian word (of Turkic origin) - what does it mean and why is it important enough to be in the lead first sentence? And isn't it Turkish not Turkic? I thought it was an English word (after all this is an en.wiki...) of Turkish origin. Or is it English word or Russian origin, and the Russian word is of Turkish orign? This is confusing and needs to be clarified. Note the word is also used in Polish (kurhan). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Polish dictionary of foreign terms lists the word kurhan as direct descendant of Ukrainian kurhan, which was derived of Russian kurgan, which in turn was borrowed from Turkish qurgan. I don't know if the English word shares the same fate though. Halibutt 01:15, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
Excuse us for recording the word's etymology. Feel free to ignore it if you don't want to know. If you do want to know about Turkic, why do you not just click on the link? dab (ᛏ) 05:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am afraid I can't. The lead atm is unclear and confusing. Wikipedia:Lead should state what the word means, and while it may and should containt etymological and such digressions, they are always just that - digressions. However, from reading Kurgan lead I get the impression that the most important think about this word is the fact that it is the Russian word of Turkic origin. I'd suggest rewriting the lead and moving the etymology reference to the second sentence. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:24, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is no more russian than english word;) It is turkic word, probably from tatar origin.

yes (sigh), but it apparently means "castle" in Tatar. This isn't our article about castles, it is the article about burial mounds in Scythia, and kurgan happens to be the word used to refer to them in Russian. I don't about Tatar and castles, but the reason our article is entitled kurgan is because that's the Russian term, used by Soviet archaeologists. dab (ᛏ) 15:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mallory's review of Telegin

dumped in the article without explanation (other than 'however') how this ties in with the other statements (elaborate, please!):

"The third section of the book surveys the anthropological literature concerning the Sredny Stog and Novodanylovka cultures. For the twenty Sredny Stog burials from Igren, we find the somewhat unusual situation of women outliving males on an average of 7.8 years (males - 35.8 years, females - 43.6); only one individual lived passed 55 years. In terms of the craniological analysis of physical characteristics the Sredny Stog females tend to exhibit a homogeneous Proto-Europoid type that is most similar to the earlier inhabitants of the region. The series of male crania, however, tend to vary more and indicate both more robust Proto-Europoid and more gracile southern European (or Mediterranean) components. The analysis of six Novodanilovka skulls from three sites suggests again the presence of both Proto-Europoid and Mediterranean types. The cranial evidence as a whole suggests a mingling of local Proto-Europoids (seen especially in the east) with more gracial south-east European types in the west, a pattern that might be explained by the flow of populations from the Balkan Neolithic (Tripolje) into the western Ukraine."
Although the origin of the "Mediterranean components" mentioned in this review should be considered with caution.

dab (ᛏ) 15:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judging dead people by appearance is not always accurate

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.


Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples

[edit] Kurgan as a place name

User Dbachmann twice reverted my edits regarding Kurgan as a placename in Russia. In the disamb line above the lead, I edited: "This article is about Bronze Age burial mounds and the Kurgan culture. See Kurgan Oblast for the Russian district of that name" to "... See Kurgan, Kurgan_Oblast for the Russian city of that name". People who are interested in the oblast will type in "Kurgan Oblast", which leads to this page. One can only get to the page in question when looking for the city/town of Kurgan (oh, and, BTW, an oblast is not a district, it's a province and is subdivided into several districts of its own).

Towards the end of the first subsection I edited "Several towns in Russia are called Kurgan, as well as one oblast <...>, named after its capital" to "Several places in Russia are called Kurgan, including one town, seat of its own oblast" (emphasis mine). First of all, of the 1092 towns and cities in Russia (not thousands, as user Dbachmann claims on my talk page - see the discussion) only one is called Kurgan. Second, the oblast is not called Kurgan at all, it's called Kurgan Oblast (Kurganskaya oblast). Let's reach a consensus on the talk page before you start an edit war, shall we? --apoivre 19:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

If more than two, then <noiwiki>

For other uses, see Kurgan (disambiguation).

</nowiki> must be used. Both of you should have knwon this by now, with your editing experience. mikka (t) 19:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

More than two of what? Care to elaborate? --apoivre 02:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I've edited this for links. As you will see, the number of red links is fewer. These remain:


  • Novotitarovskaya nomads: will become Novotitorovka culture, eastern shore of Azov, north of Kuban 3300-2700 BC.
  • Sarama culture -- Samara culture? When I get to it, 5th mill. BC, at Samara bend, related to Dnieper-Donets culture, cemetery at Sezzheye?
    • Almost definitely, especially if the article is based on some Gimbutas' work. mikka (t) 02:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

These I have no clue to.

  • Bukhtarma valley, Kazakhstan (Бухтарма, Bukhtarma river)
  • Ponura (Понура) River, in Kuban
  • Seroglasovka culture
-FourthAve 22:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks mikka. I've plumped out Samara culture (added Samara bend). Maykop culture has been redone. --FourthAve 05:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The Czech word for "kurgan" is "zuran." A few kilometers east of Brno, the second largest city in the Czech Republic, there's a famous burial mound called "Zuran." The Germanic Lombards and/or Heruli buried one or more members of their nobility there in the 5th century AD (if I remember correctly). Interestingly, in 1805 Napoleon Bonaparte used this hill as his "command center" during the most critical part of the famous "Battle of Austerlitz." (If you Google "zuran," you will find images of the burial mound in the context of the battle.) Does anyone here know if it was used as a burial mound earlier than the Lombards/Heruli by completely different peoples(s)? "Corded Ware," etc, etc? Thanks (TWG)Thomas Graves 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of "Iranian--alidoostzadeh 08:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC) supermacism"

My Iranian supermacist friends, you need to stop your debauchery and start understanding what you were told:

  • Gimbutas overdid it

"Gimbutas' increasingly extreme views" dab 13:19, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Russian word??

"the word is also used in Polish (kurhan). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Move IndoEuropean genesis theories to a proper location

WP does not have "only English" rule. If it existed, half of WP references would be incapacitated. Deleting references and contents under pretense of "only English" is vandalism. The reason that in "Ossetian Language" you were given a slack was that you asked for 2 mo time and promised to bring referenced material showing composition of the Ossetian language. The deadline is coming, and you need to perform or apologyze. Barefact 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Firsty I would watch my tone if I were you else you would get banned and would just be left with yor nonsense pan-turkist site. You need to stop bringing nonsense from your pan-turkist website. You need to stop vandalizing websites. As per the ossetian entry, you were soundly and fully defeated by the latest references and from Abaev himself who clearly proclaimed Ossetic is Iranian language. And what was your response?! Stalin made him do so?! and then after the breakup of USSR how come he still said it is Iranian just like Miller?! and how come his 4 volume monumental work contains full of Iranian words! and how come every updated encyclopedia contradicts your claim! You were caught red handed disfiguring Abaev's statement. [1]. Also you were caught redhanded disfiguring the word of Zosimus. [2]. You have poor record, with two articles of deletion[3][4] and also violating 3RR. So you need to stop bringing pan-turkist psuedo-theories in wikipedia. I would suggest pan-turkopedia for you. Wikipedia will reflect the latest scholarly references. --alidoostzadeh 01:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC


Guys, try to be civil to each other. Comment on the text not on contributors. Clauses like My Iranian supermacist friends or stop bringing nonsense from your pan-turkist website are certainly beyond the Pale (although indeed most personal websites are not WP:RS pan-turkist or not). You both are very knowledgeable fellows, try to be friendly or at least polite to each other. abakharev 06:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to be rude about his site. It is [5] and you can be the judge if it is a nonsense pan-turkist site or not. He claims everything from Sumerian to Scythian to Germanic tribes to many aspects of Slavic language as Turkish and claims that Turkish is the mother of all languages of the world. It is all there in his site! Can you tell me this makes sense or is it nonsense? Of course it doesn't. He also claimed 20% of Persian is Turkish! (whereas in actuality it is about 1% and it is Turkish that has much more Persian loanwords). It is frustrating to waste time to make sure wikipedia is not polluted by non-scholarly propoganda which is reflected in barefact's personal website: [6] (note the Turkic world part itself has an underlying political theme).[7] We believe that such words as beech, body, girl, beer, book, king were borrowed during the Hun – Old English period[8]. If people do not stand up infront of this sort of propoganda, then the quality of wikipedia articles will suffer considerably. --alidoostzadeh 07:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ali isn't an "Iranian supremacist", and it is extremely poor style to call him that. It is Barefact who keeps adding ill-researched material in horrible spelling. If he now on top of that begins attacking editors and indulging in logged-out revert wars, he is becoming an obstruction to the project, and if he doesn't wisen up and edit politely, informedly and grammatically, I suppose his accounts' days are numbered. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be trusting you that Ali doostzadeh is not Iranian supremacist, but his actions argue agains that. Just to list a few, like removal of Arizona State University evidence about continuity of Sayan-Altai kurgans with Scythian kurgans; like supremacist statement on the map about spread of Iranian languages that suppresses all other known indigenous languages, a la "Iranian uber alles" style, like unreferenced attacks and vandalism on referenced materials not in line with Iranian supremacistic POV, like removal of the genetical evidence, renmoval of classical ethnological descriptions, etc. Making kurgan cemeteries a battlefield for advancing Gimbutas Chalcolithic Aryan invasion model is extremely poor style. Militant removal of referenced material is extremely poor style, with all due respect. Barefact 20:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
You need to cite a valid reference for every line you insert instead of writing stories like you tried to do in the Scythians article. The only militant is you since you claim from A to Z to be Turks whereas every single reference and Encyclopedia simply rejects all your claims. This is in your webpage which has the wildest claims and contents imaginable, but its content is not accepted by any scholar of reputable authority. And Wikipedia is not a playground for different POV’s when your POV is non-scholarly. Also I recall you removed 14 references in Scythians article! So do not play the feel sorry for me card. Second you need to stop pushing the fact that Issyk inscription is proto-Turkish when it has not been deciphered by scholars at all. Indeed Proto-Turkish is not a written language and there is not an inscription from any proto-language. And absolutely NO, a Kazakh scholar following pan-turkism is not an acceptable source. For example Doefer and Golden who are two experts in Turkic history and languages clearly state that the Orkhon is the oldest remnent pice of Turkish. Every single reference and encyclopedia clearly states that the oldest remnant of Turkish is the Orkhon Inscriptions. You do not seem to understand the difference between academically trained reputable scholars who publish in peer-reviewed journals and local nationalist psuedo-scholars who are hired by states to write a fantastic non-existent history. We also have some pan-turkists in Iranian Azerbaijan claiming Turks have a 7000 years of history (which is in your website too) but such claims are not for Wikipedia. Once you stop inserting POV statements and mixing it up with actual sourced articles, then the article should be fine. Also writing 5-10 lines without sources is not acceptable and you should insert a valid reputable scholarly reference for any claims you make. I have demonstrated this in the first part of the Scythians article and during the year I will be working on that article. Also you need to fix up your grammar and spelling since it makes the actual article unreadable. One or two mistakes are fine, but too many mistakes and writing sentences without valid references behind them (or sometimes forged) is also not in the interest of Wikipedia. As per the Kurgan Indo-European theory, it is part of the scholarly literature so it is cited. It is one model of the PIE expansion. --alidoostzadeh 07:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


  • I'm strongly agree with Barefact. What these troopers are trying to do is clear, always pushing their version and accusing others who provides information based on reliable sources as ultra-nationalists or pan-turkists. Their impoliteness is obvious. Instead of proving their claims in the talk page, they always apply for page protection immediately after one of them reverts the page to their own favorite version. This behavior is so common in almost all turkic people related topics where these troopers are involved in. What they are doing is clearly revisionism based on persian/iranian propaganda. This can be clearly seen from the other related articles. Wikipedia is not a propaganda archive. To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. However, these troopers is either unaware or simply ignore the fundamental principle WP:AGF. E104421 14:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


    • if you would tell us what you want instead of raving at some diffuse "Iranian troopers", we might be getting somewhere. Parts of your edit were good, other parts were offtopic rambling. People decided to revert you rather than sift out the reasonable bits. If you introduce your changes step by step, you will see which are accepted and which aren't. I have no problem with discussing the etymology or spread of the word. You should not, however, speak of "kurgan cultures" or "kurgan peoples", because "kurgan culture" is reserved for the Yamna culture (in spite of the obvious fact that other cultures had tumuli too). This article is about the term, and about Pontic-Caspian kurgans in particular, discussion of the type of site belongs on tumulus. dab (𒁳) 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • We might be getting somewhere if we first stop that miltant warring, and I hope that will happen with the help of balanced admins. To start with, we need to respect facts stated by outstanding scientists analyzing the etymology ( i.g. Mario Alinei and "The word kurgan ‘funerary mound’ is diffused in the whole of South-Eastern Europe (Ru. kurgán, ORu. kurganu, Ukr. kurhán, BRu. kurhan, Pol. kurhan, kurchan, kuran ‘mound’; Rumanian gurgan, dial. Hung. korhány), is Turkic Tatar: OTc. kurgan ‘fortification’, Tat., Osm., Kum. kurgan, Kirg. and Jagat. korgan, Karakirg. korgon, all from Turkotat. kurgamak ‘fortify’, kurmak ‘erect’. Its distribution area in Eastern Europe corresponds closely to the spread area of the Pit Grave or Kurgan Culture in South-Eastern Europe[2])". Kurgan is not a Russian word any more than "Computer" is a Russian word, it is a borrowing into various Eastern European languages including Polish, Ukranian, Russian etc. To emphasize its "Rusiness" is an obscurantic deception. Kurgans existed millennia before emergence of Rus and a millenium before the emergence of Russia.
      • Secondly, the Pit Grave Culture needs and has its own article, and Article named "Kurgans" should address the various, and extreamely intersting aspects of kurgan cemeteries: architecture, pictures, geography, rituals, sculpture, people who constructed them and people who inherited them, and so on. A gallery would be very appropriate. The countries that inherited kurgans are now realizing what a great treasure they received, and even in Russia they are starting respecting them first as national monuments the destruction of which must be stopped, and secondly as cemetaries attesting to the valuable history of the territories. If there are offtopic sections needing improvement, that would not be controvercial, but only beneficial. The objections are against vandalic removal of referenced material with clearly racist connotations. Barefact 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


Of course E104421 would agree with barefact. But the fact is the oldest Turkish inscription is the Orkhon inscription according to every Encyclopedia there is right now and according to every book written about Turks. Your issue reminds of another Turkish scholars who tried to claim Parthian writings are Turkish while they are not. There is no way a Kazakh/Turkish nationalist scholars writing will be put in Wikipedia unless it is backedup by reliable scholars of Turkic history and culture (Golden, Doefer and etc.). That is not too much to ask is it? And no you can't mix up an article with quoting some reliable sources then also quoting some unreliable sources. The absurdity of the claim becomes apparent when someone attributes a certain inscription to a proto-language.! Fact is no proto-language has any inscription and it seems this very simple fact is not clearly understood by some people. Such a method will not work and as I suggested any sentence that should be added to such disputed article should first be brought in the talk-page. As for trying to help Wikipedia, I would say most of Barefact's edits are not shared by the scholarly community and that is why he tried to excise more than 14 reliable Western Academic sources about Scythians. I have no problem with real academics who write journal articles, but when you use Turkish or Kazakh psuedo-academics (and note I do not use Iranian academics unless they have published in major peer-reviewed journals), then you are actually hurting the quality of Wikipedia articles. For example Prof. Faruq Sumer of Turkey is generally accepted as a relible source and he does not make wild claims about every ancient civilizations being Turkish. Or the late Professor. Zeki Valad Toqan. What constitutes reliability of a scholar is to first of all they should have majored in the topic of their discussion and second they should have published in reliable and high quality peer-reviewed Western journals. So the isssue is not about Turkish vs Arabic vs Iranian scholars, but the issue here is the credibility of nationalistic psuedo-scholars which can prop off from anywhere although Turkey has more of it than other countries since it was one of Ataturk's policy to support historical revisionism. [9] (see the article Turks teach new Theories). --alidoostzadeh 05:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
relax Ali -- some of E's edits were alright, others weren't; if he is willing to discuss them we can sort it out like adults. It isn't true, incidencially, that "no proto-language has any inscription", since the "proto" status is a function of later developments and not a quality of the language itself (thus, Latin is in fact "proto-Romance"). It is true that no proto-Turkic inscription is known. It is not inconceivable that some inscription of the 1st to 3rd century should come to light that can be identified as proto-Turkic, the plain fact is just that no such inscription happens to be known. Orkhon is to late to be proto-Turkic by about half a millennium. dab (𒁳) 11:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the observation "It isn't true, incidencially, that...". However, this "It isn't true" reasoning, without a trace of reference, was and is used repeatedly in the editing war like some gospel of superknowledge and wisdom. As far as the existence of Issyk insctription, it is very well known, and it is very well shown in the Rolle book. And its decipherment has a verifyable reference from a highly qualified academical source, anybody who followed the editing war for deletion of the scientific reference could have seen it both in the "Talk", and in the article. The author lectured, among other places, in the University of California and in European universities, including on the subject of Issyk insctription among other paleographical lectures. Denigration of the author was done repeatedly and without any references addressing his works. Barefact 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Again do not make up stuff. The following page which is a Kazakh nationalist page (not realitable) implicitly firt says scholars consider the inscription as Iranian. And no you can't just throw out a name like pokemon cards. Cite the author, full name, page number, name of the book, ISBN and I will double check it (assuming the author is qualified Western Professor) and then it can be inserted. Right now the current Encyclopedia Britannica says that Orkhon is the oldest Turkish inscription and you do a search "Orkhon oldest turkic".. and you will get many hits on google. Since you were caught making up references you need to provide references correctly and then it will be double checked and then you have a point. Also I point out that Scythians are all caucasians whereas all the original Turks from Kazakhs to Yakuts to Ghirghiz are mongloid. Either way bring references corretly and if you have trouble citing then look at other Wikipedia articles. --alidoostzadeh 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You were cought red-handed vandalizing many articles under a zillion of pretenses, and frequently without any pretenses at all. WP does not require Western Professors, English-language sources, or page numbers, these are your whimsical excuses to advance your racist agenda under fitly guises. You know well that you were told that these requirements would devoid WP of half of its contents. All the materials I posted are conscientiously referenced precisely to prevent these kind of deceitful accusations. You better follow the advices of admins and cool down and try to be civil. Barefact 05:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
you are completely mistaken. Wikipedia does, indeed "require Western Professors, English-language sources, and page numbers". The professors need not be "Western", but the sources should preferably be in English (as in [[:en:]]), and page-numbers and bibliographic details are non-negotiable. I don't see your problem. The Orkhon inscriptions are perfectly notable as the oldest Turkish inscriptions, but that doesn't make them Proto-Turkic, and you have shown no source that calls them that. They are too late by more than half a millennium to be Proto-Turkic. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for response and clarification. The professors need not be "Western", thank you. The sources should 'preferably' be in English, it means preferably, not mandatory, thank you again. And bibliographic details are non-negotiable, thank you. The fourth, page numbers, I could not find as a mandatory requirement, though they are definitely helpful and polite, but not a mandatory requirement, as is illustrated in the Scythians by references [5], [8], [10], [13], [19] etc. and gazillion times in gazillion of articles accross WP. I would not start an editing war just for page numbers, if I need them I would find a peaceful means to avoid degrading myself. In Kosrow Kurgan case, the demand for page numbers was a transparen ruse to wear out an opponent, preceeded by a series of other similar ruses and accusations, and in the tactics of that particular group followed by consequent vandalic delitions. Naturally, I have all the page numbers for all my references, and would gladly post them if I had commitment from Kosrow and his troopers to stop vandalizing referenced materials. Sorry for my horrible spelling, if any. Barefact 19:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Again you have not shown any sources. You claim Professor Rolle but Renate Rolle [10] has clearly said Scythians are Iranians and does not anywhere claim proto-Turkic for the issyk inscription. So please stop the falsfication just like you falsified the Abaev quotes about Ossetian not being Iranian whereas Abaev has clearly stated ti is Iranian. --alidoostzadeh 20:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Note J. Harmatta in History of Civilizations of Central Asia. By Ahmad Hasan Dani, G.F. Etemadi, János Harmatta, Baij Nath Puri calls the Inscription as Iranian. [11]. Now this is an exact neutral source and I'll ask dab to added in. This is also an example of brining a material from a major scholar who has authority with full reference and citing it.--alidoostzadeh 20:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


Rolle is not a linguist, she only reflects the opinions of other scholars. This is a problem with your references, they are tertiary reflections of not linguistic experts. The pinhead source of all these reflections is Miller and Abaev, as is correctly denoted in the BE, and sometimes indicated by more conscientious authors. Miller is non-provable and non-refutable: the tombstone source of his word list does not exist any more, his tombstones were dated by the 19th c methods and not modern methods, they were from the 2nd-1st c. BC Olbia cemetery that at his time was deemed to belong to Scythians but now is known to be Dacian. In the last 125 years not a single "Scythian" word was added to his list from the Olbian excavations. But with Abaev it is different. His "Ossetian Language and Folklore" was never translated and remains available only in Russian. Abaev stated that no property of Ossetian language is Iranian, we already covered this many times, and you deleted the citation page many times. But Abaev also proclaimed Ossetian an Iranian language, citing 4 (four) words as a proof, we also already covered this many times. Even analyzed Swadesh list of Ossetian language does not exist. As a result, the whole Scytho-Iranian concept rests on a foundation so narrow that only the enthusiasm of its proponents supports it. And that includes the "evidence" of Rolle you are citing. Regards. Barefact 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Again you are not a scholar so you can't make judgments. First of all you cited Rolle and now that it is found that she accepts scythians as Iranian, you are making 180 degree turn! Secondly Hermatta is perfectly acceptable reference as he has hundreds of articles in respectable journals. Third Ossetic Swadesh list exists as mentioned by Ilya Yakubovich. If you have a problem contact him and do not bother wikipedia. Fourth Abaev clearly states Ossetic is Iranian even in his "Ossetian language and folklore" and he has a section on "caucasian influence on Ossetian" but before that he discusses the iranianness of Ossetian. Fifth there is no disagreement about Iranianness of Ossetic in any source. Sixth the source by Prof Janos Hermatta is considered scholarly source as he is an expert on Scythian matters and has written books on Samartians. Prof. Janos Hermatta considers the Issyk inscription to be Iranian and he is well known scholar. But as per your claim, Rolle never said Issyk is proto-Turkic. --alidoostzadeh 03:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would thought that you have noticed that I did not argue about Rollie statement, in one place she, a non-linguist, made a linguistic statement reflecting the opinions of other scholars. She is not defining it or justifying it, and even does not mention the reasons for this opinion. My compliments on reading Rolle. You must also noted that almost nowhere in the book she can ethnologically compare Scythians with Iranians. But you must also noted that almost everywhere in the book she ethnologically compared Scythians with Türkic and Mongolian peoples. This peculiar blindness made you to note one brief statement and miss the entire contents of the book. I will skip on the rest of your response, including your admittance of the abscence of analyzed Swadesh list. I do not think that you are sending every reader of WP to dig for himself for a scientific proof and "contact him and do not bother wikipedia". If you insist that Swadesh list exist, you must provide references, this is a WP rule and it is not negotiable, see dab's message above. Otherwise it is just another indicator of your bogus racistic "editing". I suggest that we find acceptable compromises and stop wars of editing and wars of words. Let the facts rule. Regards. Barefact 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well fact is that Issik is non-Turkish and all scholars consider Scythians Ossetians as Iranian and you were caught red-handed distorting the words of Abaev. As per Swadesh list, my responsibility is just to quote a scholar (Ilya Yakubovich). That's it. It is your responsibility to refute him! (and not in wikipedia but in an academic journal although with your English I doub it). As per Rolle's statement, it doesn't matter if whe is a linguist or non-linguist, she is echoing the opinions of linguists. And yes there are still Iranian nomads although not in central asia, because the majority of Iranian groups settled down and created civilizations way before nomadic mongols and turks. That is why from the Islamic era the amount of Iranian texts is many more fold than Turkic. As per the pre-Islamic era, wheras Turkish does not have a single writing, there are hundreds of texts in Pahlavi, Parthian, Soghdian, Avesta..The settlement patterns of nomads is something that eventually happens and for Turks/Mongols it happened in a much later time. That is why Soghdians and Khwarizmians created high culture. And yes since I have the backing of all academic journals and references, you will get nowhere in Wikipedia with your pan-turkist bogus theories that Sumerian is Turkish and Scythian is Turkish and Ossetian is non-Iranian and the whole world speaks Turkish (exactly from your website quoting Diker's book). And no it is not considered racist to standup to your vandalism. Note user dab totally dismissed your pan-turkist source in claiming Issik as proto-Turkish which you consistently tried to push without any success. That argument is over and you lost and you will need to delete [12] as your scholar who claims Sumerian is proto-Turkish is not reliable for Wikipedia. And this was your own statement: 'As far as the existence of Issyk insctription, it is very well known, and it is very well shown in the Rolle book. And its decipherment has a verifyable reference from a highly qualified academical source,'. Note Rolle does not call it Turkish and as per your highly qualified academic source it lead us to a guy that claimed Sumerian is proto-Turkish!! and the user dab also totally rejected it like any sane person would. Whereas I have now brought an indeed highly qualified academic source. As per racist and all the childish name calling (your own words which you used) that is what you are. Let the facts rule. Regards. --alidoostzadeh 19:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

instead of fighting here, how about evolving the Issyk kurgan article? Yes, the Issyk inscription is undeciphered, probably Scythian. Speculations that it may be Proto-Turkic may still be mentioned, no harm in that. Issyk is in the very east of Scythia, and there is nothing to preclude that some early Turks became culturally assimilated to the Scythians by the 4th century BC. dab (𒁳) 10:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry, I've linked to Issyk kurgan without noting protection; since this was a perfectly trivial edit, I won't self-revert, but if you feel I was abusing admin buttons, come to my talkpage, and I'll undo the edit. dab (𒁳) 12:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Actually the Issyk Silver inscription has been deciphered by Harmatta (very well known and has written the most complete book on Samartians). I have put the source on your talk-page as well as in the article. I do not think an author who in the same book claims Sumerian is proto-Turkish is a valid source. If any reliable western scholar (and I emphasize here because this Kazakh scholar who claims sumerian is proto-Turkish is nod a valid source) and turkologist has claimed it may be proto-Turkish, then it is a valid source. If barefact can not show one scholar who has written in English to make such a claim, then the claim itself is invalid. Specially in the light that every major reference has clearly stated that Orkhon is the oldest Turkic inscription. I have already shown the dubious character of the Amanjolov who claims Sumerian is proto-Turkish (and if Sumerian than of course Issyk and thousands of other inscriptions as well). Any books and manuscripts by such a scholar has no place in Wikipedia as claiming sumerian to be proto-Turkish is a proof nationalist and biased conduct. --alidoostzadeh 12:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
quite, quite, the Amanjolov source is nonsense of course. We get a lot of this sort of stuff, just have a look at Talk:Armenia if you dare :) dab (𒁳) 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Amanjolov: This is your POV, and it can be respected if you respect others. I would not mind having Hermatta interpretation along with Amanjolov's. What you can't do is badmouth an outstanding scholar because his works contradict your dogmas, and employ vandalism to enforce your POV. From WP:POV: "What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POV's). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy. Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)" I expect the editors, and the admins, follow these reasonable definition.

Armenia: I did not get your sarcasm, it must be too deep for me. But the observations seem reasonable, if Armenians share a lot of their genetic code with Iranians and Azeris, their language should have Urartian layer, because Urartians endowed them and others with their Caucasian genes.
Sumeria: Sumerian endoethnonym was "Kangar", you should know it if you believe you are qualified to bring up the subject.
Armenia, Sumeria, websites etc: This kind of off-theme argumentation intends to distract and distort the subject, which is racist-driven vandalism and infringement on WP rules in dispute about contents and biases in Kurgan article. Once again, I ask dab to restore what he deemed "good portions", and that would limit dissent to "not good" portions. Thanks, Barefact 06:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The Issyk Kurgan has its own article.. Hermatta is world class scholar well known.(google search is sufficient to prove this and he has hundreds of articles in respected journals). Amanjalov is a pan-turkist scholar and his opinion is a pan-turkist opinion. As per Sumerians and Turks, please don't bring up any non-scholarly opinions here as Sumerian is universally classified today as a isolate. Wikipedia is not a palce for opinions that are original research, it is a place for scholarly opinions which is defined by recognized experts in the particular field who have published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic. You need to read the wikipedia policy on original research. That is why the user dab also dismissed your amanjolov source as any reliable admin is supposed to. It is simply baseless. Also your new article fails to satisfy wikipedia format and it suffers from poor grammer and composition. That is not a big deal though as long as it does not go against scholarly opinion. Also please cite your sources properly when it is an actual scholarly source like Frye. Just citing name and page number is not good enough. The book should also be cited. And do not play folk etymology or else the Sumerians refer to the city Arata and Herodotus calls Persians aratai. READ WIKIPEDIA'S POLICY ON ORIGINAL RESEARCH AND YOU WILL SEE WHY MOST OF YOUR ARTICLES SO FAR HAVE FAILED TO MEET WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARD. --alidoostzadeh 06:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR I will quote Wikipedia's policy on OR. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article. So when you say Ossetian is not part of the Iranian languages you are committing OR in clear violation of Wikipedia policy since no scholar has ever claimed such an opinion. So the current scholarly opinion which is based on articles published in peer reviewed journals is what counts. Not your opinion or Amanjolov's opinion or my opinion and etc. --alidoostzadeh 07:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • alidoostzadeh, will you please supply reference for your many times repeated stipulation to Harmatta's reading of the Issyk Inscription. I have searched every available work by Harmatta, and could not find it. Your help with reference will be appreciated, even though your failure to do it right from the beginning tends to point to a bad faith. Barefact 22:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Dbachmann has already seen it and so your alone here trying to make it sound you represent a lot of people! And I really doubt you have searched every work of Harmatta because he has more than 300+ articles and books. Y If you do not have the source, that is not my fault. I can easily email you a picture if you send me an email although I do not have to, since Dbachman has seen it. --alidoostzadeh 00:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, too bad your style with many words and no substance. Just give the reference, please, not only for me, but for other users. In WP, it is your obligation, before you go to militant editing war. It there a reason Dbachmann should have the blessing of the reference, and the community should not? Are you trying to be funny? Anyway, I appreciate your responsiveness. Barefact 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Listen Dbachman has seen the reference and your not the representative of any community so stop making yourself a spokemans! As far as everyone else in Wikipedia is concerned basically you lack sources. And I have brought the name of the book, page number and etc before. (Harmatta, Janos. History of Civilization of Central Asia. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass (1999), ISBN 8120814088, p. 421). If you have a problem with not finding this reference, then it is your problem and not wikipedians community problem. As you know, your just yourself and not the representative of Wikipedia. So stop being funny with your "racistic" (nice word) statements. So far the only person that is complaining is you and no one else. And in order to answer your complaint, I am willing to send you the two relavent pages via email. I will not upload it as it is copy-right. But I am actually helping you more since if you can not find the source, then I can simply email you the relavent pages. If you can not accept the offer and if you can not find the source, then it is not my problem! Since I can not give the book physically to you! --alidoostzadeh 06:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Issyk Inscriptin decipherment in Harmatta, Janos. History of Civilization of Central Asia. Volume 2, Motilal Banarsidass (1999), ISBN 8120814088, p. 421. Check your email, please. Barefact 07:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay sent. --alidoostzadeh 08:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I made an attempt to organize a gallery to show more pictures, especially most famous pictures. There are some more especially prominent kurgans that deserve to be included in the "Kurgans" article. I would appreciate critique and suggestions. Barefact 00:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the T reference

if this is a reference :) the same method may be aplied to show that Pizza is a Vietnamese word, i bet 1:10 we can find it in Vietnam languge dictionary

(of Turkic origin,< ref >TDK Dictionary : Kurgan [ http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF05A79F75456518CA&Kelime=kurgan ]</ref> korugan "shelter"

the link will give

  • 1 . İlk Çağda mezar üzerine toprak yığılarak yapılan küçük tepe.
  • 2 . Tepe biçiminde mezar, höyük

There is no word of old turic origin or etymological explanation, just bounced reference in hope that the english Wikipedian wil not understnd the entry or will not dare to check it. shm :( (who aded this ?)

Nasz 07:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

what is your point? It is undisputed that the word is Turkic. The OED has:

Russ. 'kur'gan barrow, tumulus; of Tartar origin. A prehistoric sepulchral tumulus or barrow in Russia and Tartary.

dab (𒁳) 08:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I may make some spellllling errrors. But what do you not understand ? Nasz 10:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
It took a while to work out and stabilize balanced contents. Now, why not to bring the suggestions up for discussion first, and abstain from destructive editing and removal of references. If the link is misleading, nobody would object to its its removal. Barefact 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Translate the words. (Im not the native in this language) What it mean in english ? It just explain, in the language, what is the word for kurgan. Isn't it ? Nasz 01:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Nasz, please do not be concerned about your language, language is only a tool to communicate between peoples, and we are communicating OK. Now, WP, like any other encyclopedic compendium, routinely provides etymology, and in some cases the etymology becomes a controversial topic. Etymology is not just a translation, but a peak into the history of the word, which in many cases is important historical evidence. If your objections are of general nature, and you want to delete all etymologies from all articles in the WP, Kurgans is a bad place to start, precisely because of the controversy. And if you think specifically that the etymology is overloaded in the Kurgan article, I tend to agree. The reason is that its etymology was disputed, and the version that you see is a result of a balanced resolution. The main cause is that the word "kurgan" etymologically is as Russian as Pizza is Vietnamese, and WP statement was grossly misleading, but because of the underlying misleading MW reference, it could not be just removed without violating WP rules. To balance the deceptive definition, a scholarly source was added that corrected the misstatement. WP ended up with an extensive, overloaded etymology.
As you suggested, the detailed etymology could have been moved to a separate section. However, the move has to be fair, you can't suggest to move the right to the bottom and leave the wrong on the top. That was the reason I rv'ed your version. If we were to drop the Russian reference, and just plainly state the primary Turkic etymology, that would be a brief, simple and accurate description. The borrower languages, including Russian, can be listed in a separate detailed etymological section, as you suggested. Barefact 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I acknowledge that I left Russian in top. It was wrong. I next approach I moved it too to the separate section. Not living any, as we see not completely agreed entries in intro. But why you object the second edition? I agree about the language as the tool spreading like wind. I think there is great think about the old relation and I like to explore it even more. So I think separated section for etymology is ok. Otherwise the congested inro, which should, as I believe have a controversial entries but the only one on which every one (scholar or large groups even if not scholarly) agree.
  • B ..if you think specifically that the etymology is overloaded in the Kurgan article, I tend to agree..
  • N I do not object it to be loaded 2,10 or more times. I only dont like to have not clear entries in intro.
  • B ...etymologically is as Russian as Pizza is Vietnamese..
  • N It may be but it was not proven... I just pointed that the reference inserted -elegetly: to show the etymology, do not elaborate on etymology. It was just an dictionary antry explaining what the word Kurgan mean in the dictionary language. Did i was mistaken? What was the words given in the divctionary in en and the other language? Lets read it word by word if you think it was good etymological reference. (but i dont think we have to do it, there was nothing about etymology)
  • B: If your objections are of general nature, and you want to delete all etymologies from all articles in the WP, Kurgans.
  • N: no! I want them even more, but reflecting all possible aspects, no single sentence - there is no definitive authority in etymology, if somebody think there is, hi/she - is just |restricted|. That why I suggest move the etymos to a sep. section. Also if lets say the word A is a form of A1 in another language, what forms are there, how numerous are flexial references. Is a single or possibly compound word, what are the semantic connotations what is the IPA sounding, what was in oldest attested sources, what are the variants of word if known language rules are applied retrospectively... &c. Also interesting is what the particular language words for semantic equivalent meaning are.
I seeing great similarities between languages, even the ad hock created new word(which is extreme example) is related to other words due to the fact that it creator knew at least one language. All languages are related some more other distinctly the only problem is to find the traces which every day are more obscure as progress of communication globalize. The glimpse of linguistic is sometime like whether, each step however the rules are known is slightly unpredictable and we can say the next year the sun will rise we can say what weather will cover the sky.
Nasz 02:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannabis seeds

My understanding is that cannabis seeds have been found in some tombs, while Polosmak's "Ice Maiden" only contained coriander seeds, first thought to have been cannabis seeds like the ones found in other tombs. Can anyone confirm which finds verified cannabis seeds? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)