Talk:Andronovo culture/Archive 1

Disputed?
In the last edit, the attribute "disputed" has vanished. Is its status not longer disputed? --Pjacobi 21:23, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)


 * The Dictionary of Archaeology source I used says it's authentic and the link that the original editor included seems to doesn't dispute it so without any evidence to the contrary I deleted away.


 * Maybe the author meant that certain aspects of the culture or its wider role are disputed and a quick Google seems to imply they are sometimes called in to explain the Ayran invasion theory of India. I like to avoid copying web sources though especially in examples such as that. adamsan 21:55, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Siberia
The only Andronovo village in Siberia I could find is not in the Enisei basin at all, but much further west (see coordinates). What gives? dab (&#5839;) 15:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Map
I've made a map to the best of my knowledge. It would be nice to show a colour gradient to represent expansion over time, but I don't have detailed sources about that. dab (&#5839;) 16:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Spokes
Evidently this's been superceded, but, I've heard Mesopotamia credited as inventor of spokes. Wrong? Trekphiler 07:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Map of the region
Hi. Is it possible to get a map of the region to place this in context? I can recognise the shape of the Caspian Sea, but I am sure most people do not. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like File:Russland topo.png? Or even File:Kazakhstan (orthographic projection).svg? Given that the article already gives the region as Siberia and Kazakhstan and links there, I think it is a bit unnecessary to pamper the reader that much. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense
"[...] and that prior to the thirteenth-seventh century BC, all Kazakh samples belonged to European lineages." Is this 137th? 13th to 7th? 37th? --66.192.183.5 (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Only the second possibility makes any sense at all, so I was bold and clarified it accordingly. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Andronovo vs. Sintashta
In, the introduction was changed in order to separate the Sintashta culture from the Andronovo horizon culture. As some detail was also removed, I give here the old version, so that it does not end up buried deep in the edit history. Not sure what to do with it, however. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Andronovo culture, or Sintashta-Petrovka culture is a collection of similar local Bronze Age cultures that flourished ca. 2300–1000 BCE in western Siberia and the west Asiatic steppe. It is probably better termed an archaeological complex or archaeological horizon. The name derives from the village of Andronovo (55.88333°N, 55.7°W), where in 1914, several graves were discovered, with skeletons in crouched positions, buried with richly decorated pottery.

At least four sub-cultures have been since distinguished, during which the culture expands towards the south and the east:
 * Sintashta-Petrovka-Arkaim (Southern Urals, northern Kazakhstan, 2200–1600 BCE)
 * the Sintashta fortification of ca. 1800 BCE in Chelyabinsk Oblast
 * the Petrovka settlement fortified settlement in Kazakhstan
 * the nearby Arkaim settlement dated to the 17th century
 * Alakul (2100–1400 BCE) between Oxus and Jaxartes, Kyzylkum desert
 * Alekseyevka (1300–1100 BCE "final Bronze") in eastern Kazakhstan, contacts with Namazga VI in Turkmenia
 * Fedorovo (1500–1300 BCE) in southern Siberia (earliest evidence of cremation and fire cult )
 * Beshkent-Vakhsh (1000–800 BCE)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015
Spelling errors need to be corrected. "Ten indiduals (should be individuals) of" "was determinted (should be determined) to" "two extractons (should be extractions) were" "determinted (should be determined) to" Sources: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/individual http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/determined?s=t http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extractions?s=t

76.18.236.68 (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

✅ Thanks for pointing those out - Arjayay (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

2014 source not related to the Andronovo culture
This study ( "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3977302/ ) isn't about the Andronovo culture. The ancient samples tested in the study is from Ukraine not western Siberia and from an earlier time period. Quote from the study: "Ancient DNA was retrieved from 63 out of 150 Eneolithic (ca. 6,500–5,000 y ago) and Bronze Age (ca. 5,000–4,000 y ago) samples from the Pontic–Caspian steppe, mainly from modern-day Ukraine". Look at the distance between Siberia and Ukraine on a map. The Andronovo culture existed east of the caspian sea. The distance between Ukraine's eastern edge and the caspian sea's eastern edge is a little over a 1000 km (measured with google maps). That is roughly the distance between New York and Indianapolis if you need a frame of reference.

The Eneolithic samples are also not in the correct timeframe to be related to the Andronovo culture, which existed circa 2000 bc to 900 bc, i.e 1000 years after the samples where taken. Same with many (or all?) of the bronze age samples since they were taken from samples that existed between 5000-4000 years ago.

What i'm saying is that the samples that were tested in that study is seperated from the Andronovo cultre both geographically and timewise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mithmacar2 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

HistoryOfIran
Stop reverting my edits. You are providing incomplete and vague information on a pretty complicated topic. Please read the whole paper instead of just the abstract. Only 3 aDNA samples were confirmed to have SNPs for blonde hair (the rest were inconclusive or had darker hair). Only 9 aDNA samples were purveyed from the site and 5 had blue/green eyes whilst 4 had brown eyes. It is extremely important to provide this information erst it seems as if the sample size was much more or the study was completely conclusive. It is intellectually dishonest.

Abh9850 (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Andronovo site described as being in the wrong political entity
In the Discovery section we have "The name derives from the village of Andronovo [ru], Krasnoyarsk Krai (55°53′N 55°42′E)." The coordinates seem correct, but "Krasnoyarsk Krai" -- which is much further east in Siberia -- must be wrong. The coordinates give a location in the Republic of Bashkortostan. HesperusWild (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Andronovo culture's origin
It was a Turkic culture that settled in Turkestan like Anav culture(Began in B.C. 10000 or B.C. 7000s). IranicSakaOrigin2 (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Aha. Now we all know.;-/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4CFB:57E4:D7B0:C665 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Afanasievo vs. Abashevo
Under the Geographical Extent section, the third sentence refers to an overlap, in the Southern Ural Mountains, with the '...older Afanasevo culture...'. But my, albeit limited, understanding was that the Afanasevo culture was much further east, c. 2000km east, in and around the Altai Mountains. (Ref: Cunliffe, B. (2015): By Steppe, Desert and Ocean, the Birth of Eurasia. OUP). I wonder if the more relevant earlier culture in and around the southern Ural Mountains might be the Abashevo culture which is mentioned later in this section.Kenr28 (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct. And ended when Andronovo began.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E596:AFB4:CED6:1189 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC): Correct. And ended when Andronovo began.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E596:AFB4:CED6:1189 (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Genetics style
While we all owe a lot of thanks to the author of all these genetic contributions, these need considerable stylistic revisions, in particular in citing the sources. A style like "In a June 2015 study published in Nature" is neither appropriate in wikipedia nor any scientific article. The author and year belong into the text, the rest into the references!No reader is interested in the month! Thank you.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:4CFB:57E4:D7B0:C665 (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Obviously not willing to learn ... HJHolm (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Transcription
I changed the mistaken "Fedorovo" (culture) into the correct "Fjodorovo" transcription, now correctly linked. HJJHolm (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Fedorovo" is WP:COMMONNAME, and you messed up the link.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   09:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Which does not mean it were correct. Simply look up here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_(Cyrillic): " Recent recommendations (2006) from the Russian Language Institute are to use ⟨ё⟩ in proper nouns to avoid an incorrect pronunciation.[5]". Now got it? HJHolm (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

One Sided Article
--I propose to cancel this primitive edit war of primitive Turkic nationalists.HJHolm (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC) This article is certainly biased, totally eurocentrist and seems full of the Indo-European nationalists. Article needs to objective admins and third side users. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And now some of etnocentrist users starting an edit war. This article completly sided and someones (admins) must be take care it. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your sources are unreliable, non-expert, and non-scholary
Your sources are not RS. They are pseudo-history stuffs by non-expert authors. Stop this nonsense edit warring and POV-pushing. --Zyma (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Without clear names and scientific sources Zyma just does himself what he is accusing of others, in a remarkably primitve way... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.93.130.124 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Who do you say the sources are not reliable huh? I just only added published sources. I understand what you're trying. It's obviously etnocentrism. Please keep yourself these nonsense ideas.Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS. I warned you several times. It seems that you are a blocked user with a history of abusing of multiple accounts. Admins will decide about you, because you are not here to contribute. Using multiple accounts and IPs won't assist you to insert your POVs. --Zyma (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * You're still doing a personel attack. I'am saying twice. I was never blocked and I'am not using multiple account. These arguments show up your despair. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Respect to Wikipedia rules and talk about your edits! This is not a forum or battleground. Instead of talking about me, talk about your unreliable changes and obvious POVs. Your sources are not reliable. They are pseudo-history and they are not based on experts' works. --Zyma (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Calm down tiger. Yes wikipedia is not a forum and this artcile is not belong your father. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Laughable and ridiculous comments by you. Do you use Google Translator? Again, why you try to insert your POVs on Andronovo culture and Afanasevo culture? Any reason? --Zyma (talk) 20:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What a desperate comment :) now you are starting a demagogy? Again, the sources are I added published. Plaese stop repeat that. I don't need an any "reason" like you. Wikipedia must be objective and you and your kind an etnocentrist users must be stopped. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Last note: Talk about your edits. Simple and clear. --Zyma (talk) 20:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay. You don't want to participate. I told you. Your source is not RS (non-expert and non-scholary) and it can't be used on WP and WP articles like this article. You're against the WP:RS and your activities are WP:NOTHERE. Admins will decide about you. --Zyma (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My source is an encyclopedia(the Turks) published and made by many scholars and academics. You are still saying same arguments. The source "reliability" is not tied you. Stop insist the same point. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The only way out of this talk at cross purposes, is to give the concrete, full source: Even an encyclopedia has a date, and its articles (at least, should) have the author's name, and his position in some appendix. So, follow this rule or keep out of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 07:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)