Childebayeva et al. Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics

[tru]

Just because you deny something and don’t accept it doesn’t mean anything.

Don't exaggerate, Indo-Iranian comes from Europe because Sintashta comes from CWC but it originated in Sintashta/Andronovo. It's like the French language comes from Rome, but it originated in France.

It is precisely that sound changes occur gradually, so in Sintashta all the sound changes of the Indo-Iranian language were still far from happening. After all, it separated from the CWC just a few decades ago.

[tru]

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.

I don't see evidence that would support Sintashta being the "basis" for Seima-Turbino. The 'Eurasian metallurgical province', to which Sintashta belongs, differed from ST in terms of technology, typology, and metallurgical composition (re: materials from Siberia). 

An origin of ST in the Altai-Sayan region, as argued by Chernykh and Kuzminykh still seems most plausible, in my opinion. Wax-casting was already practiced here (absent in the early cultures of the 'EMP'), there are animals relegated to this region or farther east which appear as decorative motifs on ST artifacts, and current radiocarbon datings show that ST sites are generally older in Siberia.

Furthermore, Sintashta metallurgists typically used arsenic as an alloy, not tin. The necessary ores were available in abundance from the Southern Urals and extracted on a massive scale. Attempts made by Sintashta metallurgists to use tin are known, but they indicate that it was not a familiar ligature (Grigoriev, 2015). To the contrary, tin-bronze casting was custumary among Siberian ST groups, but arsenical-bronze was also utilized by those west of the Urals. 

'Mongolian Syndrome' as described by Chernykh, refers to a lack of ST proto-forms and related materials from his proposed homeland. Similar, from an archaeological perspective, to the lack of materials dating to the 13th century Mongolian plateau.

The 'neo-romantic' premise regarding armed-warriors on horseback disseminating ST materials across Eurasia, doesn't seem to be substantiated by aDNA. ST materials were clearly replicated and traded by many different cultures. Perhaps, this was triggered by the formation of the 'EMP'. Whatever the case may be, no one can deny that pioneering Steppe_MLBA groups were directly involved within the Seima-Turbino network.

Finally, despite being a couple centuries younger than the other C14 dated samples, the Yakutia_LNBA outlier (ROT002) does not differ typologically from most of the other burials at Rostovka. The grave also contained a spearhead, but it was placed after most of the infill had taken place. The Tatarka Hill samples do not belong to the Samus culture. They represent a hitherto innominate cultural formation, together with the Neftoprovod 1 & 2 sites; antecedent to the Krasnoyarsk culture/Samus-Kizhirovo layer at Tartarka Hill.

You are mistaken that in Sintashta there is only arsenic bronze, it also contains tin bronze, just in very small quantities (that’s why Sintashta is mLba), it was in very short supply because it was delivered only from Altai. It is precisely that Altai moved to the Late Bronze Age before Sintashta, because tin bronze was produced there.
The point is not that the Late Bronze Age arose in Altai, and not in Sintashta, but that it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this route - the Sintashta-Altai trading company for transporting tin bronze from Altai to Sintashta, and not that Sintashta was the producer of material assets of this phenomenon and invented them, which I never stated.  Therefore, your theses are rejected because they are not relevant to what was written.

Read carefully. It was not about the material values of ST, but about the path/distribution of ST - that’s what Sintashta was the basis for. In Rostovka, both eastern components and western components are equally found.

quotes
"The people buried with ST-objects have been described as metallurgists who developed
elaborate and distinct bronze objects, and possibly used river systems for transportation4.
Even though the horse plays a central role in the ST iconography, it remains unclear whether
people associated with the phenomenon were using horses for riding, traction or transport. It
has been hypothesized that the number of people associated with the ST phenomenon was
small, since there are very few sites with human remains linked to the phenomenon, and ST
metal artifacts are comparably few but geographically widespread. ST burials are very distinct
from those of the other North Eurasian cultures: individuals were buried mostly without pottery
and not in kurgans, both inhumations and cremations were common, and the grave goods
included bronze, stone, and bone weaponry, as well as bone armor. In cases where pottery is
present at ST-sites, it can be attributed to other local cultures, for example Koptyaki at the site
Shaitanskoe Ozero II7. The early history of the ST phenomenon is not well understood,
however, based on the presence of tin and copper in metal alloys of ST objects, the Altai and
Tian-Shan mountains have been proposed4,8."

"Together with evidence from the available archaeological data, we argue that the individuals buried in the ROT most likely represent distinct genetic and possibly cultural backgrounds united by the ST metallurgical network.

At the individual level, there is some evidence of a correlation between the genetic ancestry of individuals examined and the cultural/regional attribution of their grave goods. For example, the bone body armor from Grave 34 (ROT016) has close parallels with similar objects found in Sintashta culture burial grounds, such as Sintashta itself or Stone Barn 5. The remaining grave goods show local attributes (rosette axes) or are typical of the eastern part of the ST phenomenon (hooked spearheads). Grave 8 (ROT004) clearly shows oriental typological attributes (hooked spearhead, pottery). Grave 24 (ROT011) shows a fairly Western typology based on a dagger blade of the NK-14 type, but in close proximity to it and clearly associated with it were found an Eastern object such as a hooked spearhead, and two local artifacts (a K-type hatchet -32 and spear tip KD-40). Other graves are rather unspecific due to a limited number of funerary goods, such as Grave 7 (ROT003) and 10 (ROT006), or have local attributes, such as Grave 5 (ROT002). Thus, from a typological point of view, the grave inventory represents as much a mixture of Western and Eastern elements as the genetic profiles of the buried individuals."

[qijia]

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.

I don't see evidence that would support Sintashta being the "basis" for Seima-Turbino. The 'Eurasian metallurgical province', to which Sintashta belongs, differed from ST in terms of technology, typology, and metallurgical composition (re: materials from Siberia). 

An origin of ST in the Altai-Sayan region, as argued by Chernykh and Kuzminykh still seems most plausible, in my opinion. Wax-casting was already practiced here (absent in the early cultures of the 'EMP'), there are animals relegated to this region or farther east which appear as decorative motifs on ST artifacts, and current radiocarbon datings show that ST sites are generally older in Siberia.

Furthermore, Sintashta metallurgists typically used arsenic as an alloy, not tin. The necessary ores were available in abundance from the Southern Urals and extracted on a massive scale. Attempts made by Sintashta metallurgists to use tin are known, but they indicate that it was not a familiar ligature (Grigoriev, 2015). To the contrary, tin-bronze casting was custumary among Siberian ST groups, but arsenical-bronze was also utilized by those west of the Urals. 

'Mongolian Syndrome' as described by Chernykh, refers to a lack of ST proto-forms and related materials from his proposed homeland. Similar, from an archaeological perspective, to the lack of materials dating to the 13th century Mongolian plateau.

The 'neo-romantic' premise regarding armed-warriors on horseback disseminating ST materials across Eurasia, doesn't seem to be substantiated by aDNA. ST materials were clearly replicated and traded by many different cultures. Perhaps, this was triggered by the formation of the 'EMP'. Whatever the case may be, no one can deny that pioneering Steppe_MLBA groups were directly involved within the Seima-Turbino network.

Finally, despite being a couple centuries younger than the other C14 dated samples, the Yakutia_LNBA outlier (ROT002) does not differ typologically from most of the other burials at Rostovka. The grave also contained a spearhead, but it was placed after most of the infill had taken place. The Tatarka Hill samples do not belong to the Samus culture. They represent a hitherto innominate cultural formation, together with the Neftoprovod 1 & 2 sites; antecedent to the Krasnoyarsk culture/Samus-Kizhirovo layer at Tartarka Hill.

If sintashta people migrated from west, why do you think they resided in south east of the Urals? 

Research area: map of the Sintashta-Petrovka archaeological sites

[Zelto]

You are mistaken that in Sintashta there is only arsenic bronze, it also contains tin bronze, just in very small quantities (that’s why Sintashta is mLba), it was in very short supply because it was delivered only from Altai. It is precisely that Altai moved to the Late Bronze Age before Sintashta, because tin bronze was produced there.
The point is not that the Late Bronze Age arose in Altai, and not in Sintashta, but that it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this route - the Sintashta-Altai trading company for transporting tin bronze from Altai to Sintashta, and not that Sintashta was the producer of material assets of this phenomenon and invented them, which I never stated.  Therefore, your theses are rejected because they are not relevant to what was written.

I'm not mistaken, that's what I had said above. There are indeed examples of Sintashta metallurgists attempting to use tin as an alloy, however it's presence led to a discrepancy between forging technology and composition of the metal; that resulted in "fast peening" and "red brittleness" (Degtyareva, 2010; Grigoriev, 2015). Sintashta metallurgists were not yet familiar with the use of tin and it is commonly speculated that it was only introduced through contact with Seima-Turbino.

ST was a trade network which involved many different cultures, including Sintashta. However, I don't see evidence to suggest that it was "organized" by Sintashta, or that it's primary purpose was to supply Sintashta with tin from the Altai. Keep in mind that the majority of ST sites are located to the north of Sintashta, in the Circum-Ural region (Turbino, Kaninskaya and Satyga), or far to the west along the Volga-Oka (Seima, Reshnoe and Yurino), areas where tin is hard to come by. Only Rostovka is located on the trade route between Sintashta and Altai. Even so, tin would have had far more utility among the cultures who adopted Seima-Turbino metallurgy, who's metallurgists were already accustomed to tin-bronze casting.

[Jaska]

Just because you deny something and don’t accept it doesn’t mean anything.

Don't exaggerate, Indo-Iranian comes from Europe because Sintashta comes from CWC but it originated in Sintashta/Andronovo. It's like the French language comes from Rome, but it originated in France.

It is precisely that sound changes occur gradually, so in Sintashta all the sound changes of the Indo-Iranian language were still far from happening. After all, it separated from the CWC just a few decades ago.

1) Sintashta represents Late Proto-Indo-Iranian; after that there occurred two separate Indo-Iranian branches: Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian. Kuz'mina and everybody else agree with this. Therefore, all the common Indo-Iranian changes occurred before and during the Sintashta Culture - not after it. After it only occurred later sound changes, specific to each Indo-Iranian branch.

2) Early and Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian developments occurred west from Sintashta: in Europe. The chronological layering of the Indo-Iranian sound changes you can find here in page 56:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910/86381

1.    Early Proto-Indo-Iranian:
1.1. Interconsonantal *h > *i
1.2. Brugmann’s Law: *o > *ō in open syllables
1.3. Laryngeal coloring: *e+h2 > *a+h2, *e+h3 > *o+h3
1.4.  *l > *r

2.    Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian:
2.1.  Satemization: *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵh > *ć, *ʒ́, *ʒ́h, while *kw, *gw, *gwh merge into *k, *g, *gh
2.2. The ruki-rule: *s > *š next to r, u, K, i (also the secondary *i and *r)
2.3. Palatalization of the velar stops before the remaining *e: *k, *g, *gh > *č, *ǯ, *ǯh

3.    Late Proto-Indo-Iranian:
3.1.  The  merger  of  non-high  vowels  and  syllabic  nasals:  *a,  *e,  *o,  *m̥, *n̥ > *a
3.2. The merger of remaining laryngeals into *H. 

4. PIr: The depalatalization of affricates *ć, *ʒ́ > *ts, *dz

[tru]

You are mistaken that in Sintashta there is only arsenic bronze, it also contains tin bronze, just in very small quantities (that’s why Sintashta is mLba), it was in very short supply because it was delivered only from Altai. It is precisely that Altai moved to the Late Bronze Age before Sintashta, because tin bronze was produced there.
The point is not that the Late Bronze Age arose in Altai, and not in Sintashta, but that it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of this route - the Sintashta-Altai trading company for transporting tin bronze from Altai to Sintashta, and not that Sintashta was the producer of material assets of this phenomenon and invented them, which I never stated.  Therefore, your theses are rejected because they are not relevant to what was written.

I'm not mistaken, that's what I had said above. Sintashta metallurgists were not yet familiar with the use of tin and it is commonly speculated that it was only introduced through contact with Seima-Turbino.
ST was a trade network which involved many different cultures, including Sintashta. However, I don't see evidence to suggest that it was "organized" by Sintashta, or that it's primary purpose was to supply Sintashta with tin from the Altai. Keep in mind that the majority of ST sites are located to the north of Sintashta, in the Circum-Ural region (Turbino, Kaninskaya and Satyga), or far to the west along the Volga-Oka (Seima, Reshnoe and Yurino), areas where tin is hard to come by. Only Rostovka is located on the trade route between Sintashta and Altai. Even so, tin would have had far more utility among the cultures who adopted Seima-Turbino metallurgy, who's metallurgists were already accustomed to tin-bronze casting.

And what are you trying to object to if you repeat what I write word for word? Maybe you should first read what I wrote before arguing? You clearly confirmed that Sintashta had tin bronzes, but at the same time you managed to revive this.

In fact, you are not arguing with anything, you are simply repeating your theses, what you don’t understand, what you don’t like, without even reading what is written in the message to which you are responding both before and after it. Frankly speaking, it’s clear that you haven’t read a single message or even seen a map, and that’s a fact.

Once again, I have repeated it many times but you refuse to read. The evidence is direct - 2 out of 8 samples of Rostovka Sintashta, the remaining 6 were from different non-local cultures, plus one local. ST arose with the emergence of Sintashta and disappeared with the disappearance of Sintashta. The Sintashta people organized the trade route, and not the production of tin bronzes itself, and didn't open the way. ST is a trade phenomenon, not that tin bronze was produced in Altai, but there was none in the Urals, there is no tin in the Urals, ST is not a phenomenon of metallurgy, ST is a phenomenon of a transcultural trading network. If these things were concentrated in one place, then these things would be just ordinary Late Bronze Age culture and would not interest anyone.

Sintashta residents did not need ST crafts, they only needed tin, there was a forge in every Sintashta house and every Sintashta resident was a blacksmith. In this they were very different from the Abashevo residents, the Abashevo residents had blacksmiths from captured the Catacomb residents, and it is possible that this was the reason for the emergence of the Pepkinsky burial ground, the local Catacomb blacksmiths demanded tin to produce tin bronze, but the Abashevo residents could not agree with the Seima-Turbino on the price for tin and died in a battle against the Seima-Turbino residents, the instigators of which were apparently the Сatacomb blacksmiths, so the Abashevites and the catacomb blacksmiths, some of whom were not local at all, were buried together. There are practically no tin bronzes in Abashevo, but there are many Seima-Turbino burial grounds with cenotaphs; it’s just that the Seima-Turbino people died in battles with the Abashevo people.

The fact that it was the Sintashta people who were the organizers of the Seima-Turbino network is evidenced by that the very names of the Irtysh and Ob rivers are Proto-Indo-Iranian.

Therefore you are mistaken. I hope you at least read this.

[tru]

Just because you deny something and don’t accept it doesn’t mean anything.
Don't exaggerate, Indo-Iranian comes from Europe because Sintashta comes from CWC but it originated in Sintashta/Andronovo. It's like the French language comes from Rome, but it originated in France.
It is precisely that sound changes occur gradually, so in Sintashta all the sound changes of the Indo-Iranian language were still far from happening. After all, it separated from the CWC just a few decades ago.

1) Sintashta represents Late Proto-Indo-Iranian; after that there occurred two separate Indo-Iranian branches: Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian. Kuz'mina and everybody else agree with this. Therefore, all the common Indo-Iranian changes occurred before and during the Sintashta Culture - not after it. After it only occurred later sound changes, specific to each Indo-Iranian branch.
2) Early and Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian developments occurred west from Sintashta: in Europe. The chronological layering of the Indo-Iranian sound changes you can find here in page 56:
https://journal.fi/fuf/article/view/120910/86381
1.    Early Proto-Indo-Iranian:
1.1. Interconsonantal *h > *i
1.2. Brugmann’s Law: *o > *ō in open syllables
1.3. Laryngeal coloring: *e+h2 > *a+h2, *e+h3 > *o+h3
1.4.  *l > *r
2.    Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian:
2.1.  Satemization: *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵh > *ć, *ʒ́, *ʒ́h, while *kw, *gw, *gwh merge into *k, *g, *gh
2.2. The ruki-rule: *s > *š next to r, u, K, i (also the secondary *i and *r)
2.3. Palatalization of the velar stops before the remaining *e: *k, *g, *gh > *č, *ǯ, *ǯh
3.    Late Proto-Indo-Iranian:
3.1.  The  merger  of  non-high  vowels  and  syllabic  nasals:  *a,  *e,  *o,  *m̥, *n̥ > *a
3.2. The merger of remaining laryngeals into *H. 
4. PIr: The depalatalization of affricates *ć, *ʒ́ > *ts, *dz

1) You do not know the banal facts that Proto-Indo-Iranian broke up not into two branches, but into three branches: Iranian, Indo-Dardic and Nuristan. That is, you showed that you know nothing.

2) Jaakko Häkkinen is not an authority, he knows nothing on this topic, he is a deceiver in order to prove that the Finns are the original population of Europe. You cannot refer to a deceiver and a layman. The sequence of changes was completely different. and he simply brought in a story he invented to falsify the results of the Finns’ stay in Europe.

Here are the correct scientific steps:

0. Satem stage + Greek-Aryan linguistic community
0.1. *kw, *gw, *gwh merge into *k, *g, *gh 
0.2 The ruki-rule: *s > *š' next to r, u, K, i (it law is still valid in Sanskrit, even for external sandhis)
0.3. Laryngeal coloring: *e+h2 > *a+h2, *e+h3 > *o+h3
0.4. Interconsonantal *h1 > *е',  *h2 > *a', *h3 > *o' (as in Proto-Greek)


1.    Early Proto-Indo-Iranian:
1.1. Satemization: *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵh > *ć, *ʒ́, *ʒ́h 
1.2. Brugmann’s Law: *o > *ō in open syllables
1.3. *е', a', o' > i .

2.    Middle Proto-Indo-Iranian:
2.3. Palatalization of the velar stops before the remaining *e: *k, *g, *gh > *č/ š , *ǯ/ž, *ǯh/žh

3.    Late Proto-Indo-Iranian:
3.1.  The  merger  of  non-high  vowels  and  syllabic  nasals:  *a,  *e,  *o,  *m̥, *n̥ > *a
3.2.  *l > *r (Indo-Aryan still sometimes retains l)

1 and 2, the second stage occurred almost simultaneously.

And you don’t know what characterizes the Andronovo Aryan, it is precisely characterized by the fact that there is no third stage yet. That is, vowels are still distinguishable in words. And accordingly, the names of the rivers Irtysh and Ob are Proto-Indo-Iranian/Andronovo Aryan.

[Jaska]

I won’t allow it, I know linguistics better than you. Therefore, this is your linguistic ignorance. I don't have gaps in knowledge, you do.

Please show me linguistic articles you have written, so we can assess your knowledge. I already gave you one of mine.

1) You do not know the banal facts that Proto-Indo-Iranian broke up not into two branches, but into three branches: Iranian, Indo-Dardic and Nuristan. That is, you showed that you know nothing.

Strawman. I know well that some consider Nuristani the third branch, but some do not. It is a controversial issue. Iranian and Indic are the undisputed branches of Indo-Iranian.

"The so-called Nuristani languages are spoken just between Eastern Iranian and NW Indo-Aryan in the Hindukush region. They are only attested in modern times and represent a group of transitional languages between Indo-Aryan and Iranian, rather difficult to classify due to the lack of ancient data. In some features, they agree with Iranian, in others with Indo-Aryan, but they clearly differ from both since early times"
"The most recent discussion is by Werba 2016, who argued that Nuristanic forms a subgroup with Indo-Aryan; but even if he was right to stress that similarities to Iranian do not require a common stage, the differences from Indo-Aryan are strong enough that for all practical purposes, Nuristanic has to be treated as an independent third branch (see Figure 14.1). It did not participate in most early innovations of either Iranian or Indo-Aryan."
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/ind...EC10E389C9

We cannot conclusively exclude the possibility that Nuristani branched off directly from Proto-Indo-Iranian and not from the early stages of one of the undisputed branches.

2) Jaakko Häkkinen is not an authority, he knows nothing on this topic, he is a deceiver in order to prove that the Finns are the original population of Europe. You cannot refer to a deceiver and a layman. The sequence of changes was completely different. and he simply brought in a story he invented to falsify the results of the Finns’ stay in Europe.

Your understanding on the topic is totally incorrect: you clearly have not read my articles, otherwise you could not have misunderstood so badly. I have never supported the view that the Finns are the original population of Europe. How on Earth you could even compose such a far-fetched strawman? I was in the front making the Uralic expansion later than was believed earlier.

Your view on satemization is incorrect: it was not among the earliest changes in Indo-Iranian or Balto-Slavic, and neither was the Ruki rule. Please read the sources I refer in the article I linked above.

And you don’t know what characterizes the Andronovo Aryan, it is precisely characterized by the fact that there is no third stage yet. That is, vowels are still distinguishable in words. And accordingly, the names of the rivers Irtysh and Ob are Proto-Indo-Iranian/Andronovo Aryan.

Andronovo Aryan must be later than Late Proto-Indo-Iranian, and the vowel merger occurred already towards Late Proto-Indo-Iranian.

Please tell us your Indo-Iranian etymologies for the rivers Irtysh and Ob.

[Anglesqueville]

Be careful, the tone used on this thread tends to become downright unpleasant. Please note that this thread is now under monitoring.

[CowboyHG]

How can S-T 'come from the Altai' when all the preconditions are lacking there ? A good comparison would be the Wessex culture in BA England, which had accelerated Bronze/Tin developments, but its origin obviously lies with the Beaker immigrants, not the preceding Brittish Neolithics, and then that which they produced was just traded retrograde back into continental Europe
I do think the S-T theory of Chernykh has become a sattire in light of current evidence and its veil still hangs over academics works

Lost-Caste waxing was fairly commonplace by the Bronze Age, e.g. one can find it in Poliochni 3000 BC Aegean -Anatolia

[qijia]

How can S-T  'come from the Altai'  when all the preconditions are lacking there ? A good comparison would be the Wessex culture in BA England, which had accelerated Bronze/Tin developments, but its origin obviously lies with the Beaker immigrants, not the preceding Brittish Neolithics, and then that which they produced was just traded retrograde back into continental Europe
I do think the S-T theory of Chernykh has become a sattire in light of current evidence and its veil still hangs over academics works

Lost-Caste waxing was fairly commonplace by the Bronze Age, e.g. one can find it in Poliochni 3000 BC Aegean -Anatolia

Do you mean this?

https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our-work/br...ard-dorset

[CowboyHG]

Sintashta-Petrovka is the first phase of the Andronovo culture. This is not the classical phase of the Andronovo culture. I call the classical Andronovo culture simply Andronovo, it’s shorter and more traditional, it was used before the discovery of Sintashta. Since Abashevo and Sintashta arose almost simultaneously and practically from the same population of people, they have R1a-Z94 in common, probably only the subclades are different.

What is the thought on Lugovskaya and Pozdnyakvska cultures of the LBA ? Are they southern Forest  variants of Srubnaja ? 
What is your view of Netted Ware complex ? Could it have spread from karelia / northeast Baltic to Volga ?

[Jaska]

Sintashta-Petrovka is the first phase of the Andronovo culture. This is not the classical phase of the Andronovo culture. I call the classical Andronovo culture simply Andronovo, it’s shorter and more traditional, it was used before the discovery of Sintashta. Since Abashevo and Sintashta arose almost simultaneously and practically from the same population of people, they have R1a-Z94 in common, probably only the subclades are different.

What is the thought on Lugovskaya and Pozdnyakvska cultures of the LBA ? Are they southern Forest  variants of Srubnaja ? 
What is your view of Netted Ware complex ? Could it have spread from karelia / northeast Baltic to Volga ?

To my knowledge, no archaeologist has ever proposed that the Netted Ware Culture could have spread from Karelia to the Volga Region. It is considered to have been born as a merger of several earlier cultures in the Upper Volga Region, and its western extent is clearly secondary. 

Here is an illuminating article on the so-called Andronovo Complex by Stanislav Grigoriev - it was not even a uniform culture per se:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/1...-0123/html

[CowboyHG]

Sintashta-Petrovka is the first phase of the Andronovo culture. This is not the classical phase of the Andronovo culture. I call the classical Andronovo culture simply Andronovo, it’s shorter and more traditional, it was used before the discovery of Sintashta. Since Abashevo and Sintashta arose almost simultaneously and practically from the same population of people, they have R1a-Z94 in common, probably only the subclades are different.

What is the thought on Lugovskaya and Pozdnyakvska cultures of the LBA ? Are they southern Forest  variants of Srubnaja ? 
What is your view of Netted Ware complex ? Could it have spread from karelia / northeast Baltic to Volga ?

To my knowledge, no archaeologist has ever proposed that the Netted Ware Culture could have spread from Karelia to the Volga Region. It is considered to have been born as a merger of several earlier cultures in the Upper Volga Region, and its western extent is clearly secondary. 

Here is an illuminating article on the so-called Andronovo Complex by Stanislav Grigoriev - it was not even a uniform culture per se:
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/1...-0123/html

Yes , east -to-west is a commonly espoused view. However MA Yushkova has suggested that the earliest NWC emerged around Ladoga, with C14 dates in the early-mid 2nd millenium BCe, whilst the Volga-Kama reigon has more to do with post-Srubnaja cultures (i.e. Ponzdnyakovo & Lugovaska).

The emerging aDNA supports it too, some of the Estonian samples are in fact asscoiated with SW Netted Ware, and the are neither related to Volosovo, nor Fatyanovo, nor anything more eastern / Siberian. The disappearance of Fatyanovo-related R1a-Z93 and rise of R1a-Z280 lineages in the Boreal zone strongly implies a replacement from West to East. I think Netted Ware could fit the bill. This is whilst neo-Siberians from the east concurrently expanded to the West. I.e. a dual population replacement.,

As for Grigoriev, his theories are problematic, he proposed that Sintashta, and indeed everything from IE to Thracians, came from the Middle East. Although his outline of Andronovo is informative, I read it with a dollop of salt.  
In any case, the Lugovska & Pozdnyakovska complexes arent part of Andronovo, because they are west of Urals. Hence my question of whether they are viewed as a sort of post- & para-Srubnaja cultures

[Jaska]

Absolutely everyone, without exception, defines them as the third branch,

So you did not read my quote from Kümmel? There was just that kind of exception which you claim that does not exist.

Kümmel and other specialists do not claim that they know the true status of the Nuristani group. So, how could you know it for certain?

Could you please stop building strawmen about my opinions and attacking against me? It is not accepted in this forum, as I have learned myself.

I know very well that satemization is not only one change, and I agree with the Indo-Iranian specialists that it was not chronologically the first change(s) in the Indo-Iranian branch (nor in the Balto-Slavic branch). If you want to disprove the well-grounded view of the specialists, you should show some new evidence. Can you do that? Give us valid scientific sources which demonstrate that there was a primary satem-branch and disprove the well-grounded specialist view that there was not. Naturally, genetic evidence is irrelevant for language: shared paternal haplogroups cannot prove for satem-proto-language.

Nowadays the division between the satem-languages and centum-languages is not seen as clade-defining but contact-induced (satemization) or even typologically expected parallel developments (centumization), and there are branches which represent neither type: Anatolian, Armenian, and Albanian (we can call them 3A's). See the recent Cambridge handbook "The Indo-European Language Family":
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the...050F112A52

The Ruki rule is not impossible to consider as contact-induced - actually nothing is. Everything can be borrowed. See f.ex. Thomason 2001: Language Contact. When it is not among the earliest changes in any Indo-European branch, either you accept that it spread via contacts or you assume that it was born independently in different branches. Naturally, the former explanation seems more probable, if you consider that kind of change very rare.

I wrote: "Andronovo Aryan must be later than Late Proto-Indo-Iranian, and the vowel merger occurred already towards Late Proto-Indo-Iranian." This is so, because Late Proto-Indo-Iranian within the Sintashta Culture precedes the so-called Andronovo Complex and because the vowel merger occurred already before Late Proto-Indo-Iranian. Therefore, it is anachronistic to claim that Early Proto-Indo-Iranian vowels could have been preserved in Andronovo Aryan.

Avesta: Ardvī Sūrā < PII. *Erdvī Šūrā > *PFU. Ert(v)iš > Old Turkic : Ertis' > Kyrgyz: Эртиш > Tatar : İrteş > Russian: Irtysh.

PII. *op "water" > *PFU. ob/Tajik: ob

- There were no *e or *o in Late Proto-Indo-Iranian, so you are assuming Early Proto-Indo-Iranian borrowings.
- There is no evidence that these names ever were present in any early Uralic stage. It is theoretically possible that Turkic speakers could have borrowed such names from some later Indo-Iranian language, but hardly from Early Proto-Indo-Iranian.
- There is a great gap between the assumed first IIr and Turkic name: the phonological match is very poor.
- There was no *op even in Early PIIr, because the Late PIIr *āp comes from LPIE *h2ep, see Mallory & Adams 2006: 125.
https://smerdaleos.wordpress.com/wp-cont...-adams.pdf