Talk:Andronovo culture

message: As this article is neither thematically Christocentric nor theological in tone or Worldview, the inclusive BCE convention has been standardized throughout as has been common in the revisionist bastion of the Ivory Tower for over 30 years.
Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "E" does not change anything by logic, only by some redefining of standard abbreviations. In BOTH  abbreviations, everybody may as well read "Christian", "current", or "common", each of which can be misunderstood by extremists. So what???HJJHolm (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC to BCE:  get with the [[Zeitgeist]]! 

message: The evidence available that relates Andronovo culture to Iranians (or even Indians),  is extreemly weak, yet it is often cited (especially among western scholars).  The article needs input from the opposing view.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The opposing view being the Turkic identification? The evidence for this one is even flimsier. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

text: "Views" are of no help ever. It needs facts or at least fully (!) referenced academic hypotheses.HJHolm (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is in particular true regarding the colported view "Most [sic!] researchers associate the Andronovo horizon with early Indo-Iranian languages, though it may have overlapped the early Uralic-speaking area at its northern fringe.[13=Beckwith 2009)], and later below referring to Mallory only. In the de.wiktionary, all archaeologists appear to be rather opposed to that view!!! And Andronovo is overwhelmingly R1a-Z93, we find nearly NOTHING of that in India (in contrast to Iran).HJJHolm (talk)
=== Rejecting homogeneous Indo-Iranian identification of Andronovo ===
In the comment field I recently read about the circumstance that due to the fact that sources which are partially questioning the Indo-Iranian identification of Andronovo are not regarded reliable by some users at all. In regard to the above mentioned occasion, I quote some supplementary data from academic circles.
- More on Archaeology and Language: Mario Alinei, Richard N. Frye: Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2003), pp. 109-110. Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. DOI: 10.1086/345686:
*"A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic, and (2) a convergence between a hippocentric geo-cultural scenario, on the one hand, and the continuity of the archaeological record, on the other ("The steppe tribes of horse-breeders and mobile pastoralists had already begun, in the Copper Age, to play the role which they were to continue to play for the next 5,000 to 5,500 years of human history" [Chernykh 1992:42-3]), pace Anthony and other scholars who continue to cultivate the myth of the hippocentrism of the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians. The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion."
- Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, pp.63-84:
*"Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot."
- C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, In: The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Edwin Bryant, Associate Professor of Early Indian Religions and Laurie Patton, Laurie Patton, Routledge 2013, pp.142-172:
*"Thus, there is an equally valid quest in searching for the homeland and subsequent migration of the Altaic languages (Turkish, Mongolian), Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian) - see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for a full listings of these language families and Elamo-Dravidian. Each of these three language families have their roots on the Eurasiatic steppes and/or in Central Asia. The fact that these language families, compared to Indo-European, are of far less interest to the archaeologist with regard to the study of homeland(s) and/or subsequent spread, may have a great deal to do with the fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European who address this topic in search of their own roots. [...] Although there is a consensus among archaeologists working on the steppes that the Andronovo culture is in the right place at the right time, and thus is to be considered Indo-Iranian, there is neither textual, ethnohistoric, nor archaeological evidence, individually or in combination, that offers a clinching argument for this consensus."
That's all for the beginning, I hope that these implementations were helpful. --Radosfrester talk to me 17:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

text: Alinei, Otte, Häusler and Ballester – the whole citation cartel. Oh dear. Compared to the Paleolithic Continuity Theory and their Anglo-Saxon caveman logic (we don't know which languages culture X spoke so let's reject the consensus proposal that they spoke Proto-Y and speculate they spoke Proto-Z instead – uhm, when your whole point is that there is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence at best, how about not speculating at all?!), Erich von Däniken's fantasies appear almost credible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to question the credibility of the given sources, and especially no need to defame the authors as well. If there are reliable sources, we should integrate them into the text, this would surely enrich the article and confirm the ongoing research. --Radosfrester talk to me 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank You, Florian. The human (pre)history has ever been also a history of migrations, increasing with the improvements of transportation. In spite of Otte and Häusler. The book of Elena E. Kuz'mina (2007), The origin of the Indo-Iranians, edited by J. Mallory. Brill, Leiden, needs to be incorporated. ISBN: 978 90 04 16054 5.HJJHolm (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Best answer by Florian. No need to discuss anymore. --Zyma (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True, HJJHolm. Are you ready to give it a whirl? I would also like to point out that Alinei's circle is academically isolated and ignored. Nobody outside their circle takes them seriously. PCT is, as confirmed by Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Hypotheses, fringe science at best, and given how wildly out of tune it is with scientific principles (see Ringe), pseudoscience wouldn't be an inappropiate characterisation. See also Issyk kurgan#The Issyk inscription, where Radofrester incorporated the view of a scholar notorious for outrageous Turkocentric ideas who treats the lack of reactions from other (mainstream) scholars (hence, peer review) as confirmation and insinuates that those who oppose his conclusion do so because of ideology (Galileo gambit and BTW, nice psychological projection coming from a Turkocentrist), classic red flags of crackpot-style argument. If other scholars ignore you, that doesn't mean you win (per qui tacet consentire videtur); scholars just don't bother to reply to unsubstantiated hypotheses (per extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) because they're busy and their time is limited. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak Evidence of Iranian Connection. 

message: In the comment field I recently read about the circumstance that due to the fact that sources which are partially questioning the Indo-Iranian identification of Andronovo are not regarded reliable by some users at all. In regard to the above mentioned occasion, I quote some supplementary data from academic circles.
- More on Archaeology and Language: Mario Alinei, Richard N. Frye: Current Anthropology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (February 2003), pp. 109-110. Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. DOI: 10.1086/345686:
*"A migration-free theory that assumes the continuity of all European and Asiatic populations from Paleo-/Mesolithic times is gaining consensus not only among prehistorians (cf., e.g., Marcel Otte's and Alexander Hausler's work) but also, and especially, among linguists (Alinei 1996-2000 n.d.; Ballester n.d; Cavazza 2001; Costa 1998; Poghirc 1992). In this framework not only Andronovo but also the whole cultural sequence that precedes it, from Srednyi Stog to the Pit Grave, Catacomb Grave, and Timber Grave cultures (cf. Makkay's comment), can only be seen as expressions of an already developed Turkic branch of the Altaic population, originating in Central Asia in Paleolithic times. Among other advantages, this conclusion produces (1) a straightforward explanation of the numerous Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in Samoyed and other Uralic languages, as well as in Slavic, and (2) a convergence between a hippocentric geo-cultural scenario, on the one hand, and the continuity of the archaeological record, on the other ("The steppe tribes of horse-breeders and mobile pastoralists had already begun, in the Copper Age, to play the role which they were to continue to play for the next 5,000 to 5,500 years of human history" [Chernykh 1992:42-3]), pace Anthony and other scholars who continue to cultivate the myth of the hippocentrism of the Indo-Europeans and the Indo-Iranians. The origin of the Iranians, in turn, must be sought in Iran itself, and their role in the steppes should be seen as an aspect of a later expansion from the south (see Khlopin 1990:177). The Bactrian Margiana complex, in my opinion correctly interpreted by Lamberg-Karlovsky as opposed to Andronovo, may well be an important aspect of the Iranians' earliest northern expansion."
- Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, pp.63-84:
*"Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot."
- C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, In: The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. Edwin Bryant, Associate Professor of Early Indian Religions and Laurie Patton, Laurie Patton, Routledge 2013, pp.142-172:
*"Thus, there is an equally valid quest in searching for the homeland and subsequent migration of the Altaic languages (Turkish, Mongolian), Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian, Estonian) - see Gamkrelidze and Ivanov for a full listings of these language families and Elamo-Dravidian. Each of these three language families have their roots on the Eurasiatic steppes and/or in Central Asia. The fact that these language families, compared to Indo-European, are of far less interest to the archaeologist with regard to the study of homeland(s) and/or subsequent spread, may have a great deal to do with the fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European who address this topic in search of their own roots. [...] Although there is a consensus among archaeologists working on the steppes that the Andronovo culture is in the right place at the right time, and thus is to be considered Indo-Iranian, there is neither textual, ethnohistoric, nor archaeological evidence, individually or in combination, that offers a clinching argument for this consensus."
That's all for the beginning, I hope that these implementations were helpful. --Radosfrester talk to me 17:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Alinei, Otte, Häusler and Ballester – the whole citation cartel. Oh dear. Compared to the Paleolithic Continuity Theory and their Anglo-Saxon caveman logic (we don't know which languages culture X spoke so let's reject the consensus proposal that they spoke Proto-Y and speculate they spoke Proto-Z instead – uhm, when your whole point is that there is no direct evidence, only circumstantial evidence at best, how about not speculating at all?!), Erich von Däniken's fantasies appear almost credible. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to question the credibility of the given sources, and especially no need to defame the authors as well. If there are reliable sources, we should integrate them into the text, this would surely enrich the article and confirm the ongoing research. --Radosfrester talk to me 22:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank You, Florian. The human (pre)history has ever been also a history of migrations, increasing with the improvements of transportation. In spite of Otte and Häusler. The book of Elena E. Kuz'mina (2007), The origin of the Indo-Iranians, edited by J. Mallory. Brill, Leiden, needs to be incorporated. ISBN: 978 90 04 16054 5.HJJHolm (talk) 06:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Best answer by Florian. No need to discuss anymore. --Zyma (talk) 05:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: True, HJJHolm. Are you ready to give it a whirl? I would also like to point out that Alinei's circle is academically isolated and ignored. Nobody outside their circle takes them seriously. PCT is, as confirmed by Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses#Hypotheses, fringe science at best, and given how wildly out of tune it is with scientific principles (see Ringe), pseudoscience wouldn't be an inappropiate characterisation. See also Issyk kurgan#The Issyk inscription, where Radofrester incorporated the view of a scholar notorious for outrageous Turkocentric ideas who treats the lack of reactions from other (mainstream) scholars (hence, peer review) as confirmation and insinuates that those who oppose his conclusion do so because of ideology (Galileo gambit and BTW, nice psychological projection coming from a Turkocentrist), classic red flags of crackpot-style argument. If other scholars ignore you, that doesn't mean you win (per qui tacet consentire videtur); scholars just don't bother to reply to unsubstantiated hypotheses (per extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence) because they're busy and their time is limited. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rejecting homogeneous Indo-Iranian identification of Andronovo 

message: "Archaeological investigations likewise suggest that in the steppe region of Central Asia and the Altai Mountains, the first food production began towards the end of the third millennium BC and that the peoples who first entered this region were Caucasoid of the Afanasevo culture who came from the Aral Sea area (Kelteminar culture)."
I don't see anything in the sole citation  given for this that supports these statements. Where does it say "Caucasoid", or that Afanasevo was the first culture to enter the Altai, or anything about Kelteminar? 
Another thing worth mentioning is that the Ismagulov link looks like a self published source. 
This section emphasizes the 'Caucasoidness' of of Andronovo, but some authors note "Mongoloid" features in some skulls.. However this is not to say that I am suggesting this citation should be added, because I'm sure this section will come under futher scrutiny soon. There has been increased discussion about the validity of relying on racial-taxonomical concepts in the appearance/anthropology sections of these types of articles, i.e. at Talk:Scythians. - Hunan201p (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical anthropology 

message: The sources cited are fine; however, it is not such simple to draw an exact start and end, depending on at least the still actual radiocarbon curves in  Svyatko, S.V. (2009). "New radiocarbon dates and a review of the chronology of prehistoric populations from the Minusinsk basin, Southern Siberia, Russia". Radiocarbon. 51 №1: 243–273. doi:10.1017/S0033822200033798. S2CID 129736828. Further, it MUST be made clear wether the sources include, e.g. at the beginning of Andronovo, the Sintashta, Petrovka, Fjoderovo, Krotovo, or Karagash II complexes. HJJHolm (talk) 05:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: "Keyser et al. (2009) published a study of the ancient Siberian cultures, the Andronovo culture, the Karasuk culture, the Tagar culture and the Tashtyk culture. Ten individuals of the Andronovo horizon in southern Siberia from 1400 BC to 1000 BC were surveyed." See the chronological difference? - I looked it up, and beware, ALL miscitations! K (Table 1) gives all Andronovo results correctly by "1800-1400 BC" which I now corrected here in the article.HJJHolm (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics & archaeology mistake