Talk:Sintashta culture/Archive 1

IP's debate
There is no proof they spoke "Indo Iranian" language. It is an occult lie and perversion. You could also say they spoke Turkic or Japanese, but there are no evidences for that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.70.183 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And you'd prefer to claim Turkic, right? Go to Jaakko Häkkinen's website. The many layers of deeply embedded Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, the earliest layers being even more archaic than reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian, are a highly suggestive argument for the identification of Sintashta as Indo-Iranian (in addition to all the other points, especially cultural similarity). These loanwords and their relevance have been known for a long time. There's much more to this identification than some arbitrary idea you can come up with on a whim like Turkic or Japanese, neither of which have any arguments in their favour. (Not to mention that 2000 BC is too early for either.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jaakko Hakkinen is not an Indo European language scholar. While there MAY be loanwords into Uralic and Finno Ugric from an Indo Aryan language, there is no conclusive evidence that this Sintashta culture had it as a ubiquitous language. It could simply have been a fringe component - a superstrate dominating over a completely different linguistic entity such as the Mitannian "Indo Aryan" over the Hurrian native group. Also the Scythian and Sarmatian languages have not been reconstructed at a satisfactory level, let alone the language of Sintashta, so I would suggest the article not getting ahead of itself and using more comprehensive information. Furthermore there is no SPECIAL cultural similarity other than the general Kurgan animal sacrifice and funeral customs which are found among various Indo Europeans, in antiquity as well as some recent contexts. Indeed it should be noted that Scythian is a rather vague term when it comes to cultural identity and could have included other central Asian elements as well like Altaic. There is no reason then for the Sintashta to be interpreted in a parochial cultural context as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grathmy (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Now it sounds somewhat better.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F030:C43:41C4:6D83 (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Tirgil34's endless sockpuppetry
You again?! How many times you try this tactic to invade and manipulate wiki articles with your delusional Turkish version of history?!--188.158.56.56 (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Querying reversion
Despite the explanation on my talk page, I don't actually understand why my edits to Sintashta culture were reverted. My intent was to clarify the claims of the origin of the people of the Sintashta culture, since I have read the source cited (Allentoft et al), and it did not simply claim that the Sintashta culture's population was derived directly from Corded Ware, but rather that it can be inferred to be at least partially derived from the Corded Ware population. While I know that there is some controversy about even that claim, it is at least what the article says. If you prefer a secondary source, we can also cite the analysis article in Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/06/nomadic-herders-left-strong-genetic-mark-europeans-and-asians

Mellsworthy (talk) 08:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, I also read the comment accompanying the reversion in the history. Still not clear to me why I was reverted from a factual standpoint, but, speculatively answering my own question, perhaps if I'd said on the in the edit comment that I thought the original reference to the source was actually incorrect, I wouldn't have been reverted? I thought about putting something useful there, but I didn't, and now I suppose I'm paying my penance for it!  Mellsworthy (talk) 09:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I think Iryna was just being cautious; I agree that your edits simply clarify what was said in the existing source, which wasn't particularly well explained before. I've reinstated your edits. Joe Roe (talk) 10:12, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies, . The genetics and anthropological articles have been given a run for their money of late. Having read through your changes more thoroughly, I agree with Joe Roe on his/her call. I do, nevertheless, urge caution when it comes to sacrificing readability for technicality. While it is unproductive to treat the average reader as if they were unable to extrapolate information readily on such subject areas, there's also been a predisposition towards an expectation that the reader really needs to wade through peripheral technical content that could be better and more succinctly expressed. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * All OK. I see that this article has been pounded by a Turkomaniac.  I'll put it on my watchlist to help out. Mellsworthy (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, I was too hasty. I made a snap decision as I couldn't access the full article, as well as being pressed for time IRL. While slightly more detailed edit summaries can be useful, particularly in terms of keeping a record for any editor to be able to follow, they're not a guarantee that a paranoid editor with far too many controversial articles on their watchlist won't make squealing noises to themselves and do a bit of a knee-jerk revert-like thingy (erhem, that would be me). It's best to take it to the article's talk page and challenge their reversion, as you did. My decision was erroneous (that is, I dun did bad), even if in good faith, so civil public shaming was a reasonable response. Happy editing, and please keep up the good work! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No science
"The Sintashta culture is regarded as the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages." This is an unproved and unprovable, thus unscientific, claim. The only correct way would be to cite the author of that claim, in particular to convey his arguments. Anything else is not tolerable. Notwithstanding that I myself tend to this view, I would never dare to state it in the manner written here.HJJHolm (talk) 06:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Further, the sentence "thought to represent an eastward migration of peoples from the Corded Ware culture." is pure phantasy, contradicts the descriptions further below, and has thus been cancelled.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:1595:1A:D400:E7BE (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  10:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, JJ, this is neither my style nor an argument.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F030:C43:41C4:6D83 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The Sintashta influence on Iran is limited. Earlier studies suggesting Sintashta admixture turned out to be Anatolian (as "2000BC Sintashta admixture was impossibly found in 5000BC Iranian Chalcoliths). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1030:2070:CC7D:311E:A6AE:6548 (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Moreover, it is extremely misleading to put the views of ONE paper in the passive voice as "it is thought", which pretends to be a generally accepted fact. This only is very poor substandard. HJJHolm (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)