Talk:Fatyanovo–Balanovo culture

Distribution graph

The attached distribution graph in Russian does neither cite any sources or dates, and thus does not meet the least wiki standards. HJJHolm (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

finnic against uralic

Finnic is a bad term for uralic speaker, it is a oldgermanic word. Better is uralic People or Pre-Saami or so. The westfinnic coast stay to this time under northern culture influence. They gave this land the name "Finnland". The romanian historic had not understand that Finnic people are Northgermans and Saami are Uralic People. They called the uralic peoples as Finns. A new study say, the volosov-culture was east-uralic speakers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.44 (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to tell us the name of the study at least, or the author.

I agree that "Finnic" is far too specific. I have changed it back to "Finno-Permic". However, "Uralic" would probably the best option. Petri Kallio and Jaakko Häkkinen others have argued that Proto-Uralic may well have been spoken as late as 2000 BC (in the Kama basin, in fact, which would allow an equation with the Volosovo culture). Even if Proto-Uralic were as old as Proto-Indo-European (which seems to have diverged before 3000 BC), the individual branches do not appear very old, only about 2000 years at most. Therefore projecting them back into the Early Bronze Age is not advisable. Proto-Permian has been dated into the late 1st millennium AD; it makes little sense to speak about Proto-Permian or even Pre-Proto-Permian in the 3rd millennium BC. Even for East Uralic as a distinct entity that appears a bit early. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Burials under barrows?

I found no attstation for barrows in the Fat'yanovo Culture in Anthony (2007). On the contrary, on page 380 he only describes "flat-grave cemeteries". If no better source is given this probably mistaken word will be cancelled.HJJHolm (talk) 07:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Chronology

The "cited" Saag (2020) gives other dates, "So far, only 14 radiocarbon dates have been published for Fatyanovo Culture, placing it to 2,750–2,500 (2,300) cal BC [21. = Krenke, N. A. Радиоуглеродная хронология фатьяновской культуры. Российская Археология 110–116 (2019) doi:10.31857/S086960630004830-2.]" - Note that the dates (reinforced by me) disagree. Please, correct. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:847C:A851:2FD:D19F (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The now (september 2020) inserted new dates are obviously taken from Saag 2020 which, however, only cover those containing skeletons usable for their genetic study! This does not necessarily cover the whole extension of the culture!!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:5457:FF24:28BA:3969 (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

Not mixed with Volosovo? Volosovo had at least one example of R1a-Z93 in I20762_I20784.HJHolm (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@HJHolm: I20762_I20784 is unclear weather it is Fatyanovo or Volosovo. --95.24.70.23 (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Further, Fatyanove, being rich in R1a(Z93) CANNOT come from the West.HJJHolm (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@HJHolm: Which West? Why? --95.24.61.2 (talk) 11:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Bias fatyanovo edit

This study has table 20 and table 22 and a direct quote on pigment yet you only go by table 2 as if table 20 doesn't clearly show three blondes, and five blue eyed which is an or a third just like the quote and the new Harvard study shows five of 13 sintashta were blonde 68.1.191.4 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Indo-Iranian

Maybe it's mentioned somewhere else in the article, and I missed it, but I checked in the language section and there is nothing written about the Indo-Iranian connection to the Fatyanovo-Balanovo CW group. Personally it seems bizarre that this is not mentioned given what appears to be the overwhelming breadth of the evidence pointing to the FBC as the origin of the Indo-Iranian branching-off. I recall there being something mentioned in this section at one point, but for whatever reason it appears to have been removed. 69.193.9.242 (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, it was mentioned in the lede section with high visibility but without a reliable source. I have removed the sentence as unsourced. –Austronesier (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)