Talk:Sintashta culture

This part is pure fantasy
This part is pure concoction and misinterpretation of indian vedic texts and has not been verified by any archaeologist, can you please quote any archaeological work done in this sintashta culture which supports this theory of indo iranian culture?

as far as im aware the biggest authority on vedic texts are the the indian hindu scholars themselves, but none are quoted which can show that vedic texts match with this sintashta culture. There is also no discussion on how sintashta archaeological items and vedic archaeological discoveries can relate these two cultures

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameezraja001 (talk • contribs) 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There are four references, from three sources; read them. NB: regarding the 'blnd of two culturs, see indo-european.eu. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  17:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Checked Kuz'mina; she does not argue that Shintashta was a blend of Indo-Euroepans and Finno-Ugric people. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:48, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear JJ, please do not misunderstand me. The topic is still very much debated and thus every argument needs to be very exact and seen in connection with the many other and newest sources. The discussion continues and it is very (!!!) difficult to combine archaeological, linguistic, and genetic results. Momentarily, I would not dare to draw a final conclusion. Thus, be careful. Please.HJJHolm (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, if citing only ONE source in the text, it is not allowed to tell the audience that it were commonly believed, and, at least, the LATEST source has to be cited. So I switch to Anthony for the moment.HJJHolm (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

äh - which part???

Genetics
I added the sum of all presently availabel Y-dna, recorded in Quiles 2021 by their ID, this way avoiding double counts!HJJHolm (talk) 08:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I added the oldest genetic attestation to the dating debate in the intro, noting that this could well lie after (!) the start of the "culture ". I wonder why the thorough datings in Anthony 2007 are ignored here.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:C0D1:3655:8C48:1A34 (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that many letters can denote both Y- and mt-dna. It is insufficient do leave it to the reader to follow the link which most times makes it clear. Thank you for further updates!HJJHolm (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Skull Description
Using words such as “Caucasoid” to describe skulls seems odd, as it is pseudoscientific racial classification. 172.92.176.93 (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation style
Before you began editing this article it used sfn-style citations more or less consistently. It is now an untidy mix of styles, with many references duplicated. Please stick to the original citation style when introducing new references. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Some references are difficult to be converted to snf, I think because Russians have no much academic journal "validated" in Western world. On the other hand, Sintashta culture belongs to two regions, Cis and Trans Urals. Until recently only Trans-Urals sites had been radiocarbon-dated, just those informed by Lidner paper, but those of Russian Tkachev showed Sintashta culture began earlier in Cis-Urals, around 2200 BC.--Carlos Eduardo Aramayo B. (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the publication is from a journal, you just need author(s), article title, journal, volume (and issue, if applicable), page number, plus optional additional identifiers (such as url, doi); if it is from a book with various papers, you need author(s), chapter title, editor(s), location, publisher, page number again plus optional identifiers. Russian publications don't differ in any way from "Western world" publications in this respect and are perfectly convertible to snf. It just needs the extra effort of parametrizing the citations.
 * I just noted the odd style of putting verbatim quotes into notes. Wouldn't it be easier to integrate them into snf-style? Then we would have room for "real" notes, i.e. peripheral text that is potentially worth mentioning but disrupts the reading flow, e.g. the haplogroup cruft that tears apart the core information flow between "Narasimhan 2019 analyzed the remains of several individuals associated with the Sintashta culture" and "The authors of the study found the Sintashta people to be closely genetically related to the people of the Corded Ware culture, the Srubnaya culture, the Potapovka culture, and the Andronovo culture". Btw, the focus of Narashiman et al. (2019) is not on haplogroups, and not only on simplistic 1-to-1 matches of populations. The devote more space to 20% "outliers" in the sample group that did not cluster with other steppe indivduals, with interesting results:
 * It's sad that core findings of archeogenetic research like this are often left out. –Austronesier (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's sad that core findings of archeogenetic research like this are often left out. –Austronesier (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Rather preserve the references just for that, refefences, while using notes for both quotes and additional info. In that way, the reflist is concise, while it's clear that all kinds of additional info can be found in the notes. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * When quotes are added to support the Wikitext, they basically become part of the verification of our content. Content is always made verifiable primarily by means of citations, with quotes as an optional addition to facilitate verification. So it's Wikitext, citation, then optional quote. –Austronesier (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Indo-European" migration map
The freshly colored "Indo-European" migrations map mistakenly conceals that it is the personal interpretation of Joshua Jonathan (from his better original map) and nothing else, who therefore has to be cited in the first place in the legend. Above all, it is very daring to claim that these alleged Indo-European migratory movements would inevitably result from the sources cited at the end. Only then we can discuss about it, which would be a very, very long story which will not end in years.HJJHolm (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

New articles from Alexander Lubotsky
Here are two recent articles from Alexander Lubotsky, concerning the connection between the archaeological remains within the Sintashta Culture and the Indo-Iranian language: 1. https://www.academia.edu/106979217/Fire_and_Water_The_Bronze_Age_of_the_Southern_Urals_and_the_Rigveda_with_Andrey_Epimakhov_ (with Andrey Epimakhov) 2. https://www.academia.edu/106978888/Indo_European_and_Indo_Iranian_Wagon_Terminology_and_the_Date_of_the_Indo_Iranian_Split Jaakko Häkkinen (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Indo-Iranic"
This is the article about the Sintashta culture. It is highly relevant for this article to elaborate on the proposed identity of the bearers of the Sintashta culture with the speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian. This is one of the best established aspects in the linguistic archaeology of early Indo-European prehistory (many archaeological cultures can be identified as early Indo-European, but none can be pinned down with such precision to an established Indo-European subgroup). However, what is of less (if any) importance here is the fact that Indo-Iranian is also called "Indo-Iranic" by some scholars. Mentioning this trivia in the lede of this article is undue, distracting, and adding sources only for the purpose of citing attestations for the usage of this alternative term is not how WP:V works. And putting it into bold text is an obvious violation of MOS:BOLD, apart from being quite out of proportion (we don't even have Indo-Iranian in bold font).

The only non-distracting mention for "Indo-Iranic" I can imagine for the lede of this article is to put into a footnote after "Indo-Iranian" which reads "also called Indo-Iranic" without any sources (they obviously belong in the article Indo-Iranian languages, if needed). Austronesier (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I put it in brackets for a reason. A mere mention does not distract anyone. An argument could be made if it were repeated each time. A mere mention with relevant citations to support it is all that is needed. It has been here for time enough without any issues. The Sintashta people were indeed the Proto-Indo-Iranic aka Aryan people.--Persian Lad (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)