Talk:Sintashta

Swastika
be careful with "Indo-European swastika". You cannot just equate pottery with languages. I agree it is likely the Sintashta people were Indo-Iranians, but that's just a hypothesis. And who can be sure the Vinca swastikas of the 5th millennium were not "Indo-European"? In the Gimbutas/Kurgan framework, they probably weren't. But we still have to stick to the facts. Swastika-like symbols appear on Sintashta pottery. The Sintashta culture is associated with Indo-Iranians. That doesn't make the swastika "Indo-European". The earliest evidence of the swaskika as a "holy" (rather than merely decorative) symbol dates to ca. 600 BC. In all probability, we are just looking at random ornaments here, without any poignant "Aryan holy symbol" connotations. dab (&#5839;) 07:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The "swastika" symbol is not visible at all in the pottery. Also, the symbol itself has acquired dangerous white supremacist overtones. Any reference to swastika or I-E or Indo-Iranian has to be verified,cross-checked and attested by archaeologists.Wild surmises cannot pass for hypothesis. Museofasia (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Museofasia 12:37pm, February24, 2008

Location
I removed dab's coordinates because they were pointing to a location in Kazakhstan, and all the sources seem to agree Sintashta is in Russia. Still, I'm finding it tricky to come up with better ones. According to this the site is on the right bank of the Sintashta river, between the villages of Rymniksky and Mirny in Bredinsky District, Chelyabinsk Oblast. But since neither Rymniksky, Mirny nor "Bredinsky District" is on Google Maps that's not much help. — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 11:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC) I shifted the location slightly south. I chose the 'Tsar' kurgan as it is the most visible feature. The actual settlement is under the riverbend at 52°29'01.0"N 60°11'17.9"E. Source: Figure 15.2 Anthony (2007). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.21.26 (talk) 12:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Proto Indo Iranian funeral rituals are dubious: Let's discuss
In the citation given for David W Anthony's book, there are no examples of convergences with Rig-Vedic Rituals. Anthony only remarks that there are startling parallels between the Sintashta funeral sacrifices and the sacrificial funerary rituals of the Rig Veda without giving any citations for this claim. This rather remote and obscure claim found on page 375 of the 2010 edition of his book needs to be given comprehensive scrutiny before being reported in Wikipedia. Anthony is a secondary source and for this reason cross-checking with the primary source which is given with English translation is expected with at least one example. I for one am quite curious because having surveyed the Rig-Vedic hymns related to funeral rituals, my understanding is that they exhibit a COMPLETE AND CONSPICUOUS LACK OF FUNERARY HORSE SACRIFICES AND INTERMENT WITH WEAPONS AND ARMOR - he defining features of a Sintashta kurgan burial of archaeological significance. Therefore if the connection is merely Anthony's impression or opinion, I suggest that the sourced content be nominated for deletion.Grathmy (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can't be based on your original research. If you disbelieve the claim, find a reliable source that contradicts it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point. I am not asking for Wikipedia to be based on any original research. Original research is based on personal interpretations of primary sources, which I am not attempting to do. I am questioning the factual accuracy of David Anthony's claims, and subsequently his book where they are found, based on objective reasoning(Note I am not INTERPRETING any of the Rigvedic material on my own). Let me give an example . On page 409, a little bit into Chapter 15 Anthony claims that "The horse sacrifice at a royal funeral is described in RV 1.162." Any variety of Western commentaries by prominent translators, actual Indologists and philologers from Arthur Berriedale Keith to Ralph TH Griffith may be consulted and you will see that none of them identify the hymn as describing or having anything to do with funerals. This can be immediately observed by reading the actual hymn, niether whose Sanskrit version nor English version describes any funeral. So it seems rather idiosyncratic of Anthony to be making this claim which has no precedent among any of the major nineteenth or twentieth century philologers who studied this hymn under much more scholarly scrutiny than he could ever imagine, without even considering the basic defect in the claim that can be observed by reading the actual text. The fact is that there is a conspicuous discrepancy between what Anthony is stating and the most basic salient facts ( the hymn itself, and if that doesn't satisfy you, actual assessments and commentaries by scholars who actually worked in the field). It seems that Anthony is the one expressing his "fringe interpretation" here. There are more conspicuous errors (incontrovertible, of course) but I don't have the time right now to elaborate. I am justified in questioning the factual accuracy of the author's claims here and ergo the reliability of the source itself and there is no controversy of perspective here. It is more than obvious that Anthony fabricated this funerary association of the hymn to horse sacrifice. I believe that further scrutiny needs to be given to the text but I also agree that the community of Wikipedians should not be so judgmental either. I am willing to compromise if the statement that there are clear affinities between Sintashta and the Rig Veda or Indo Iranian rituals is not presented as an indubitable fact but rather (as it should rightly be) the opinion of David W Anthony (and if you can give any citations and examples regarding any viewpoints of other scholars).Grathmy (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * when we provide blue links to terms like original research and reliable sources, we are pointing to Wikipedia policies, which you need to read and understand. Any criticism of the article you offer must be policy-based. So, please do your homework before raising issues here. If I understand you right, you would like to contest the Anthony's discussion of the analogies between Rigvedic rituals and Sintashta rituals. But you cannot do so based on your own views ("original research"). Instead, you need to find reliable sources that contest it and cite them. Wikipedians are not allowed to incorporate their original research into Wikipedia articles. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no subtlety here. In demonstrating that at least one of his claims is factually inaccurate, the main purpose of my statements is as an alert to those who are using this source and contributing encyclopedic content based on this source. I don't wish to refute the content of Anthony's claims as a part of the actual article. Trying to encourage caution and discretion in using sources especially one which contains such a noticeable discrepancy(again incontrovertible) is not original research of any sort. My efforts here should not be misconstrued as a formal attempt to add material to the article, but as a means to initiate discussion as to how the article may be improved. Future editing should be done responsibly. When using a source it is important to report what the source is ACTUALLY doing instead of making assertive POV statements which lose sight of the state of affairs. Making the claim (as if it were an uncontroversial fact) that Indo Iranian rituals and the Rig Veda have strong demonstrable affinities with the Sintashta culture is an irresponsible POV statement. On the other hand, stating that an archaeologist expresses a scholarly opinion or a viewpoint is much closer to what is actually being done in Anthony's book. If you had read my earlier post completely you would have seen that I was willing to compromise in the phrasing. The fact that I know that the horse sacrifice hymn has nothing to do with funerals (either in the Rig Veda or the current Hindu canon) is not relevant to the actual article content, although this is the mainstream attitude. Even though Anthony has made at least one inaccurate statement in his book, the book has many good points and it should be incorporated where it is necessary and relevant. I only believe that the phrasing with regards to this specific part of the article should be done to reflect an encyclopedic tone that is objective.Grathmy (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sintashta horses

 * ThisYoutube video says that the Sintashta developed a breed of horses that was so good that all modern domesticated horses are descended from it. Is there an independent reference for that? (See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9 and https://www.brownpundits.com/2021/10/20/the-sintashta-horses/ )Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)