Childebayeva et al. Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics

[CLTVTE]

Code:

Target: Ket
Distance: 9.8236% / 0.09823607 | R3P
67.0    Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
23.6    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
9.4    China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG

Target: Ket_o1
Distance: 4.1032% / 0.04103245 | R3P
64.6    Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
19.2    Russia_Vologda_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG:KAR001_noUDG.SG
11.6    Hungary_MN_ALPc_Tiszadob:I4199
4.6    Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT002

Target: Ket_o2
Distance: 5.1890% / 0.05188975 | R3P
57.2    Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
31.6    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
11.2    Russia_UstBelaya_Angara:I7335

ROT017 is the most Siberian individual in the paper, in G25:

Code:

Target: Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
Distance: 2.4838% / 0.02483847 | R3P
48.2    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG
31.2    Russia_Karasuk_o1.SG
20.6    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG

ROT017 or Karasuk also appear in some Samoyeds:

Code:

Target: Nenets
Distance: 3.7175% / 0.03717500 | R3P
60.4    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
20.2    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
14.0    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
5.4    Russia_EHG:UzOO77

Target: Nenets_Forest
Distance: 4.6593% / 0.04659292 | R3P
64.6    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
16.2    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
12.0    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
7.2    China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG

Target: Nenets_Tundra
Distance: 3.9621% / 0.03962060 | R3P
65.8    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
14.2    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE493_noUDG.SG
11.4    Russia_Karasuk_oRISE.SG:RISE496_noUDG.SG
8.6    Russia_MLBA_Sintashta_o1:I1007

Target: Selkup
Distance: 5.1681% / 0.05168145 | R3P
67.6    Russia_Rostovka_BA:ROT017
27.0    Russia_Krasnoyarsk_BA.SG:kra001_noUDG.SG
5.4    China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG:XHM75.SG

according to former AG member:

"Typological features of Tocharian show strong differences to other Indo-European languages, while being similar to Uralic languages, specifically to the Samoyedic branch. The Tocharian vowel system shows strong similarities to Yeniseian languages, and is structurally identical to the South Siberian system represented by Ket, while being different from the typical Indo-European vowel system. Another striking characteristic of Tocharian is agglutinative case marking and case functions, as well as the lack of dative case. Agglutinative case systems are widely found in Siberia and Eastern Asia, but the case functions, in particular the Tocharian perlative, best match Samoyedic and Yukaghir and comparable systems in South Siberia."

- Seima turbino culture migrated to china bronze age:

https://www.academia.edu/45055541/Seima_..._Silk_Road

-
"Abstract: "**tees" was the supreme god worshipped by the early ancient people wholived in the Delta of the Yellow River (DYR). All the people of Xia4, Shangl and Zhouldynasties worshipped him. There are many striking similarities between Old Chinese "*tees" andProto-Indo-European "*deus," based on the ancient documents. In addition, we have proof fromcomparative historical linguistics to verify that the two words share the same source. Evidencefrom historical records and linguistics comes to a common conclusion: the early civilization ofDYR received crucial influence from early Indo-European civilization."

Old Chinese “*tees” and Proto-Indo-European “*deus”: Similarity in Religious Ideas and a Common Source in Linguistics (sino-platonic.org)


- by Alexander Lubolsky

"Tocharian Loan Words in Old Chinese: Chariots, Chariot Gear, and Town Building",

The Ket language of the Yeniseian language family is a polysynthetic language, while polysynthetic grammar is not characteristic of both ancient Proto-Sinitic and Proto-Tibeto-Burman languages and modern Sinitic and Tibeto-Burman languages. Polysynthetic languages were not reported from East Asia and Northeast Asia, the Ainu language being an exception.
 
Alexander Lubotsky is an Indo-Europeanist, and he acknowledged in his article that “looking at the Old Chinese vocabulary through a glasses of an Indo-Europeanist involves various methodological dangers.” Moreover, Lubotsky acknowledged in his article that he was going to dismiss the Tibetan evidence: if a Sinitic (Old Chinese) word had a relative in the Tibetan languages (that is, the common word could be reconstructed for Proto-Sino-Tibetan), Lubotsky still treated a word as a possible loan from the late Tocharian branch of Indo-European into a Sinitic language. Such an approach reminds of the situation, which would appear, if one had a goal “To find Tocharian loans in Sinitic”, set for him in advance. Consequently, an example of a strange situation is a suggestion by Lubotsky that Old Chinese 里 /lǐ/ or /*rǝɁ/ “village”, which is usually considered to derive from Proto-Sino-Tibetan /*rwǝ/ “town, village”, related to Tibetan /ra-ba/ “fence” and Tai (Tai-Kadai) /rua/ “fence”, might have been a loan from Tocharian /ri, riye/ “town”, for which Lubotsky had to search for a hypothetical relative in the isolated Thracian word  /bria/ “town”, which Lubotski had to read as /u̯ria/ in order to claim similarity to Tocharian /riye, ri/ “town”, which would otherwise be similarly isolated within Indo-European, whereas another Indo-Europeanist read the Thracian word as /bria/ (cf. “The Thracian term bria does not seem to be preserved in any modern form, excepting PN Nesembdr in Bulgaria which arguably reflects the old Mesembria” in “Thracian Terms for 'Township' and 'Fortress', and Related Place-Names[/color]”; in this article, the word /bria/ is considered to be of non-Indo-European origin).
 
The transparent indigenous East Asian origin for Sino-Tibetan and Tai-Kadai words for “village”, “town”, “fence”, implying the enclosure of the settled area, becomes clear, if one recalls that, in China, settlements were enclosed since the Early Neolithic period into Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic: ditches were digged in Jiahu (ca. 9000 years ago) of the Huai River basin  and Xiaojingshan (Houli culture of Shandong); earth walls surrounded settlements, reported from the Yangshao culture of the Huanghe river basin and cultures of the Yangtze river basin; earlier costly stony platforms, elevated for the defence purposes as well, simplified into the construction of cheaper stony walls by 5500 years ago in the Hongshan culture.
 
The Old Chinese word 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers” did not have the meaning of “deity” in the very beginning, being semantically related to the idea of an important ancestor, who was worthy of making sacrifices to him, which reminds of the ancestor worship. Unlike this, Proto-Indo-European *dyḗus “daylight-sky-god” is based upon the concept of the beneficial daylight (*dyeu from *dei- “to shine, be bright”) as opposed to the darkness of night.
 

The words, related to Old Chinese 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers”, which is related to another Old Chinese word 禘 dêkh “a kind of great sacrifice”, were independently used to denote supernatural beings in Tibeto-Burman languages, which gives to their root of derivation the level of the presence in the Sino-Tibetan proto-language. Consequently, despite somewhat similar sounding, Old Chinese 帝 dì “sage king, mythological ruler, ancestor, honorific for deceased fathers” is not so similar semantically to Proto-Indo-European *dyḗus “daylight-sky-god”, which is based upon the concept of the beneficial daylight (*dyeu from *dei- “to shine, be bright”) as opposed to the darkness of night.

 
It is considered in China that the Chinese word for “honey” originated from the indigenous Proto-Sinitic word *m-lig.

(…) the Chinese word for “honey” originated from the indigenous Proto-Sinitic word *m-lig, which is in line with the formation of some other Proto-Sinitic words for food products of the same consistency. The keeping of the native Chinese bee species Apis cerana cerana sinensis was the most widespread in the past, while the western bee species Apis mellifera was only introduced to China in 1896: http://www.insect.org.cn/EN/Y2005/V48/I3/401#1

 
 
Other achievements in ancient China were already mentioned in this topic:
 

Unlike the “Seima-Turbino” phenomenon, which could only conveniently serve as the northern “dead-end” offshoot, the ancient Tocharian population was paid much more attention to in the western world for the potential of its hypothetical interactions with early China. However, today it is already known from archaeology that oldest towns in China are either contemporaneous with the dates for the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture or even older than the early Tocharian Afanasievo culture, which did not have towns. Moreover, today it is already known that the domestication of indigenous varieties of cattle in China started as early as ca.10700 years ago; there are also genetic data on the indigenous horse breeds in China; the oldest Austronesian-related dog, available from ancient DNA of Southern China was dated to 7000 years ago, which is also considerably older than the Tocharian Afanasievo culture. Moreover, the earliest bronze implement in China is older than the new dates for the Seimo-Turbino phenomenon and its design is based upon the indigenous Chinese Neolithic stone implements, used for the same purpose in China; earlier cases of artifacts, made of other metals, than bronze, are also available from Chinese archaeological sites; the oldest chariot pits in China were either contemporaneous with the Sintashta culture or even older than the Sintashta culture.

[qijia]

Y-DNA results for Rostovka site
ROT002  N1a1a1a1a L392  1938-1700 calBC
ROT003  R1a1a1 M417  4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic context
ROT004  Q1b M346  2202-1983 calBC
ROT006  R1b1a1a M73  4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic context
ROT011  C2a L1373  2054-1174 calBC
ROT015  C2a1a4 F9992  2133-1919 calBC
ROT016  R1a1a1b Z645  2137-1919 calBC
ROT017  Q1b1 L53  4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic context


Elite samples were R1a. Coverage seems to be rather low so likely R1a-Z93+. RO003 was seemingly full Steppe MLBA-like and ROT016 mixed Steppe-MLBA/WSHG-type.

relationship between seima turbino and sintashita:

seima turbino :


okunevo:



Arkaim in sintahsta culture:




seima turbino


"In the Sintashta burial ground near Mount Berezovaya, four burials with Seima-Turbino inventory were found, made according to the Seima-Turbino burial rites. At least two of the discussed complexes (Burial 4 and Burial 8) can be confidently associated with the migration of the population from Western Siberia to the Southern Urals"

- According to grigoryev, 

"...settlements with round plan, ceramics with roller, bone plate armours, developed metallurgy and domesticanimals.during xvi-xv centuries artefacts closely related to seyma tradition became typical for hoards in pannonia, france and england. thus, these bronzes distribution marks the moving of celts.a new wave of newcomers left f’odorovo culture sites. some include usually this culture, together withalakul culture, in andronovo culture."

noble chin?





“But assuming the information in the journal from 1833 is correct, Hilda passed away any time between 55BC to 400AD and was of Celtic origin. "Believed to have been more than 60 years old when she died, Hilda is depicted as toothless although she still displays many features recognisable today. A female’s life expectancy at this time was roughly 31 years but it is now thought that living longer during the Iron Age is indicative of a privileged background."

[tru]

There is no culture of Seima-Turbino, none at all. This is a transcultural trade phenomenon. It is over of all cultures, is in the territory of all local cultures and contains representatives of all local cultures.

ROT003 XY R1a1a1-M417 R1a1a ca. 4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic context this is Sintashtа

ROT016 XY R1a1a1b-Z645 U5a1+@16192 2137-1919 calBC (± 2σ)* this is a descendant of a mixed race of a local Siberian woman and a Sintashta man, buried together with Siberian bone armor, the same as that found in the burial grounds of Sintashta

ROT004 XY Q1b-M346 H1 2202-1983 calBC (± 2σ)* this is a local Western Siberian, inherits WSHG, probably from either Elunino or Krotovo culture

ROT017 XY Q1b1-L53 H101 ca. 2200-1850 BC>, stratigraphic context, this is a local Western Siberian close to the Selkups and Khanty, probably from either Elunino or Krotovo culture

ROT006 XY R1b1a1a-M73 A10 ca. 4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic contex, this is a local Western Siberian a la Botai-Tariman

ROT011 XY C2a-L1373 C4 2054-1174 calBC (± 2σ)* this is an East Asian from Altai, close to the Afanasievo and Tarim-Botai people

ROT015 XY C2a1a4-F9992 C1e 2133-1919 calBC (± 2σ)* this is an East Asian from Altai, practically an Okunеvo

ROT013 XX - R1b1 ca. 4150-3800 BP, stratigraphic context this is a West Siberian, close to the Botai (mtDNA like the Tarim mummies)

ROT002 XY N1a1a1a1a-L392 G2a1 1938-1700 calBC (± 2σ)* this is the Samus culture (N1a1a1a1a Russia_Samus_Tatarka_BA), although it may not even belong to Seimo-Turbino, it does not have the attributes of Seimo-Turbino.




We see that it is not for nothing that this phenomenon is called transcultural. It contains individuals from all local cultures: Sintashta, Elunino/Krotovo, Botai (Tarim), Samus (later or after this phenomenon), and probably from Okunevo and Glazovo. The basis was Sintashta, which moved to Мining Altai for tin bronzes, which were only there. People from all local cultures joined in this trade. As soon as the Andronovo culture reached Altai, Sintashta disappeared and the Sema-Turbino trade phenomenon disappeared.

[qijia]

It is not important whether seima turbino is a culture or phenomenon or whatever. The most important thing is it produced PIE culture migrating to west and East. looks like it was a messenger of altai/ lake baikal culture.:

Model-of-the-proposed-spread-of-socketed-axes-from-east-to-west-At-present-radiocarbon.png (850×601) (researchgate.net)

[ "The related Proto-West-Uralic *vaśara ("axe, mace", (later) "hammer"; whence Ukonvasara, "Ukko's hammer") is an early loanword from the Proto-Indo-Aryan *vaj’ra-"]

urn:cambridge.org:id:binary-alt:20170920130655-32242-mediumThumb-S0003598X17001776_fig3g.jpg (350×255)

"The two earliest mirrors from Gamatai (Qijia culture site) and Tianshanbeilu can be dated to around the early second millennium bce, and although there are no earlier examples from Central Asia or the Eurasian Steppe, it is clear that both reflect the crystallization of broader processes involved in the spread of bronze metallurgy across Eurasia. The distinctive star design on the Gamatai mirror is strikingly similar to designs on Seima-Turbino metalwork, suggesting that the mirror arrived in Qinghai from northern Central Asia via indirect trade networks or mobile craftspeople and traders. The Tianshanbeilu mirror, though dated to approximately the same period, appears in a very different context, as the mirror may have been made locally using metallurgical techniques brought from the steppe. The two mirrors thus potentially represent two separate processes within different socio-cultural contexts."



Die Sonnenscheibe von Moordorf, nordic bronze age:



"...settlements with round plan, ceramics with roller, bone plate armours, developed metallurgy and domesticanimals.during xvi-xv centuries artefacts closely related to seyma tradition became typical for hoards in pannonia, france and england. thus, these bronzes distribution marks the moving of celts."

Hallstatt:



- seima turbino also had two patterns of triangle ( sun or horse) and snake diamond which seems to originate in Botai:

Typical-Seima-Turbino-hollow-core-cast-implements-a-deep-socketed-adze-axe-from-Rostovka.png (699×658) (researchgate.net)

pjimage-2022-02-26T085041.901.jpg (770×431) (moneycontrol.com) 


- "Schematic comparison of the ordering of the classical planets (arranged in a circle) and the sequence of days in the week (forming a {7/3} heptagram within the circle)."



" Circular diagrams showing the division of the day and of the week, from a Carolingian ms. (Clm 14456 fol. 71r) of St. Emmeram Abbey. The week is divided into seven days, and each day into 24 hours, 96 puncta (quarter-hours), 240 minuta (tenths of an hour) and 960"

CLM_14456_71r_detail.jpg (1312×730) (wikimedia.org)

- The Greek goddess Hecate portrayed in triplicate:



okunevo and altai :

images (227×222) (gstatic.com)

03bfe35a1b897afbdd3ae4d395a75bae.jpg (617×480) (pinimg.com)


- Is there any R1a or R1b ancient culture at east europe to produce a real PIE culture ?

[Jaska]

It is not important whether seima turbino is a culture or phenomenon or whatever. The most important thing is it produced PIE culture migrating to west and East. looks like it was a messenger of altai/ lake baikal culture.

Could you tell, why you associate it with the "PIE culture"?

The basis was Sintashta, which moved to Мining Altai for tin bronzes, which were only there. People from all local cultures joined in this trade. As soon as the Andronovo culture reached Altai, Sintashta disappeared and the Sema-Turbino trade phenomenon disappeared.

However, the distribution of the Seima-Turbino items is more northern: it mainly goes around and avoids the regions of the Sintashta and Abashevo Cultures. Therefore it rather seems to be a rival for these cultures, so it probably was not initiated or at least dominated by the Sintashta people. Moreover, genetically Sintashta-like individuals are a small minority in Rostovka.

[tru]

2 out of 8 were Sintashta residents, this is more than any other in proportion. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of those remaining have the Sintashta admixture. Seima-Turbino trade phenomenon appeared with the arrival of Sintashta, and disappeared with the disappearance of Sintashta. The Andronovo culture did not need traders walking around Siberia. It itself occupied Altai. Of course, it was not the Sintashta people who discovered this route from the Urals to Altai across Siberia, it was the local Siberians who did it, but it was much more dangerous to travel in the steppe than in Siberia, but it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this trade phenomenon, they came from Central Europe here to the East of the Urals precisely to to have access to bronze, precisely in search of bronze, and first of all they were drawn to tin bronze, which was only in Altai. This trade route was a temporary solution until the Andronovo culture spread east to Мining Altai. Just as Sintashta came to the Urals for bronze from Central Europe, so Andronovo came to Altai from Sintashta for tin bronze.

[tru]

An interesting point: not a single evidence of any conflict was found between Sintashta and Seimo-Turbino; ​​on the contrary, the Sintashta people constantly used Seima-Turbino things and weapons. Moreover, there was not a single skirmish between the Sintashta people and Seimo-Turbino, no traces were found at all. But with Abashevo it’s the other way around, there Seimo-Turbino was constantly at war with Abashevj. The explanation is simple, the Abashevo people simply robbed the Seimo-Turbino traders, without agreeing on the price for the goods, they simply tried to take them away by force, the Abashevo people were poor, so there were constant battles between them.

[qijia]

2 out of 8 were Sintashta residents, this is more than any other in proportion. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of those remaining have the Sintashta admixture. Seima-Turbino trade phenomenon appeared with the arrival of Sintashta, and disappeared with the disappearance of Sintashta. The Andronovo culture did not need traders walking around Siberia. It itself occupied Altai. Of course, it was not the Sintashta people who discovered this route from the Urals to Altai across Siberia, it was the local Siberians who did it, but it was much more dangerous to travel in the steppe than in Siberia, but it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this trade phenomenon, they came from Central Europe here to the East of the Urals precisely to to have access to bronze, precisely in search of bronze, and first of all they were drawn to tin bronze, which was only in Altai. This trade route was a temporary solution until the Andronovo culture spread east to Мining Altai. Just as Sintashta came to the Urals for bronze from Central Europe, so Andronovo came to Altai from Sintashta for tin bronze.

However, seima turbino's impact continued:

"The presence of the Seima-Turbino phase is also evidenced by a find of ananthropomorhic figurine, which finds parallels in Rostovka and Galich hoard (Stefanov, 2004)." Supplementary Information p138 below:

Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages | bioRxiv

baikal:


3. karzak, 7. sweden, 11. italy :


India:

[qijia]

An interesting point: not a single evidence of any conflict was found between Sintashta and Seimo-Turbino; on the contrary, the Sintashta people constantly used Seima-Turbino things and weapons. Moreover, there was not a single skirmish between the Sintashta people and Seimo-Turbino, no traces were found at all. But with Abashevo it’s the other way around, there Seimo-Turbino was constantly at war with Abashevj. The explanation is simple, the Abashevo people simply robbed the Seimo-Turbino traders,  without agreeing on the price for the goods, they simply tried to take them away by force, the Abashevo people were poor, so there were constant battles between them.

It is only you to read the map. I already said it several times before and always ask why?
 
seima-turbino-phenomenon-parpola.jpg (800×502) (indo-european.eu)

I already posted comment of former AG member zelto:

"I was recently gifted Evgenij N. Chernykh's most recent book Nomadic Cultures in the Mega-Structure of the Eurasian World (2017). The scope of this book is massive but I have just finished reading his chapter focusing on Seima-Turbino. Because Chernykh has been a premier archeologist on this subject for over thirty years, I decided to share what I've read.

- The first clear example of an aggressive east-west migration "forerunners of Genghis Khan". 

- Chance finds in an expanse of up to 4 million km², from the Baltic/Lower Dniester to Central China. There is an inexplicably small number of finds throughout this area. Finds are primarily weapons, flint spearheads, metal jewelry, sculptures and in larger assemblages, nephrite "bracelets" or disks.

- ST "cemeteries" rarely contain burial pits, and when they do, they often don't contain human remains. When human remains are present, they are usually burned beyond usefulness to anthropologists. "Memorial sanctuary" or "altar" is sometimes used to denote similar sites. 

- "Transcultural Phenomenon" is used because Seima-Turbino assemblages appear across cultural boundaries and within synchronous cultural landscapes

- Why have no proto-types of ST artifacts been found in this area? Chernykh attributes this to the "Mongolian syndrome". The early ST groups may not have deposited their goods in a way that preserved them over time. Similar to the 13th century Mongols, who left little archeological trace. ST could have altered their belief system after encountering other populations."

[Jaska]

2 out of 8 were Sintashta residents, this is more than any other in proportion. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of those remaining have the Sintashta admixture. Seima-Turbino trade phenomenon appeared with the arrival of Sintashta, and disappeared with the disappearance of Sintashta. The Andronovo culture did not need traders walking around Siberia. It itself occupied Altai. Of course, it was not the Sintashta people who discovered this route from the Urals to Altai across Siberia, it was the local Siberians who did it, but it was much more dangerous to travel in the steppe than in Siberia, but it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this trade phenomenon, they came from Central Europe here to the East of the Urals precisely to to have access to bronze, precisely in search of bronze, and first of all they were drawn to tin bronze, which was only in Altai. This trade route was a temporary solution until the Andronovo culture spread east to Мining Altai. Just as Sintashta came to the Urals for bronze from Central Europe, so Andronovo came to Altai from Sintashta for tin bronze.

1. The Sintashta ancestry is not the dominating ancestry in the Rostovka samples: WSHG ancestry is. Many of them can be modeled well even without the Sintashta ancestry, see the qpAdm results on page 13.

2. Is there any evidence supporting your claims that "Seima-Turbino trade phenomenon appeared with the arrival of Sintashta, and disappeared with the disappearance of Sintashta" and "it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this trade phenomenon"? You cannot just decide that it was so. 

3. Sintashta people did not come directly from Central Europe nor did they initially aim for the tin bronze. Apparently the route was Middle Dnieper --> Fatyanovo --> Abashevo --> Sintashta. Tin bronze existed only during the later end of this continuum, when these people (well argumented to have been Proto-Indo-Iranians) were already living in the Ural Region.

[Queequeg]

...the Sintashta people constantly used Seima-Turbino things and weapons.

The technical and even artistic tradition, for example related to the use of nephrite i.e. jade was anyway different, wich probably wasn't the case if ST was based on Sintashta traditions.

[Parastais]

Weren’t there quite a number of Uralic prestige terms borrowings from Indo-Iranians?
If so ST could have been a network with II lingua franca. IF those loanwords could be dated contemporary to ST..

[tru]

...the Sintashta people constantly used Seima-Turbino things and weapons.

The technical and even artistic tradition, for example related to the use of nephrite i.e. jade was anyway different, wich probably wasn't the case if ST was based on Sintashta traditions.

Who said that it was based on Sintashta traditions? This was not said at all. On the contrary, it was said that it is a transcultural phenomenon, that is, not based on someone's traditions, but a company above traditions. It used traditions from the West (Urals) and the East (Altai) equally; they were mixed in the same way, because the carriers of this phenomenon were from different parts of Siberia, trading company for the delivery of tin bronze from Altai to Sintashta.

[Anglesqueville]

Weren’t there quite a number of Uralic prestige terms borrowings from Indo-Iranians?
If so ST could have been a network with II lingua franca. IF those loanwords could be dated contemporary to ST..

There are some proto-Finnic words borrowed from proto-Indo-Iranian. They are for the most part undebatable and transparent:
*taivas, borrowed from Proto-Indo-Iranian *daywás, SKY
*vasara, from Proto-Finno-Permic *waśara  from Proto-Indo-Iranian *wáȷ́ras. HAMMER. Hence Ukonvasara, the Finnish Thor Hammer.
*sata from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ćatám HUNDRED
etc. Look at the Wikipedia pages. Many of these words are for important, often religious, referents. Even "poro", REINDEER could be ultimately an II loanword.

[qijia]

...the Sintashta people constantly used Seima-Turbino things and weapons.

The technical and even artistic tradition, for example related to the use of nephrite i.e. jade was anyway different, wich probably wasn't the case if ST was based on Sintashta traditions.

Jade is the core culture of north eastern eurasia to be connected to america. Circle means sun (triangle/ horse) and snake (spiral/ diamond) which are also core symbols of seima turbino, migrating china as a royal culture. Then seima turbino produced ring pommel daggers, which spread whole eurasia and become whole legendary nomads' ring pommel swords.:

Разные цвета нефрита (elementy.ru)

.


[ first one is in erlitou culture: so called Xia dynasty at china), 2nd in tarim basin Quijia, 3rd in tianshan Xinjiang and 4th Rostovka( 1st one : circle and diamond pattern) in Seima turbino]
p

coin money at china:


The Huns (circle, triangle and diamond pattern ):



okunevo sunhead



Mayan rain god