Sanauli Chariots?

•  No precedence exists for the copper antennae tilt swords from mature harappan sites
•  No precedence exists for the cart burials
• Sanauli finds are efinitely a bullock-cart, round wheels too heavy to be pulled by horses. Word for bullock cart in Sanskrit is from Dravidian and replaced IE anas. 
• Daimabad late harappan finds definitely show it was a bullock cart.
• Sanauli burials are 100% a part of the OCP culture, OCP vases found there
• Also confirms Copper Hoards are part of OCP culture?
• Iconography of bulls found in the burials but no horses or horse bones, confirms they are bullock carts
• Parpola suggests BMAC influence/origin for the swords
• Corrects a lot of his grossly incorrect takes from The Roots of Hinduism. No longer believes that Catacomb is Proto Iranian. Does not believe Abashevo is Proto Indo Aryan, but that PIA was Fedorovo/Eastern Andronovo while Srubnaya was Proto Iranian.
• He points out that post-urban BMAC settlements are surrounded by Andronovo pastoralist campsites but south of this region, neither Andronovo pottery, nor its barrows are found. So logical assumption is Aryans adopted BMAC culture and continued their southward spread in the garb of this BMAC culture.
• Thinks a wave of Proto Indo Iranians came to India from the Petrovka culture, a Sintashta successor, and that these PII are responsible for the Sanauli finds (extremley implausible). Then these Indo Aryans introduced a magic/tantra based pre-Atharvavedic cult. 

https://journal.fi/store/article/view/98032

The Sejma-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon and the Spread of the Uralic Languages

 Ainash Childebayeva, Fabian Fricke, Sergej Kuzminykh, Wolfgang Haak:

The Genetic Perspective on the Sejma-Turbino Transcultural Phenomenon and the Spread of the Uralic Languages

The Sejma-Turbino (ST) “transcultural” phenomenon is associated with Bronze Age sites throughout Eurasia dating to the time period between the 22nd to 17th centuries BCE. ST objects are found across the Eurasian continent, spreading from Finland to Mongolia, and the cultural complex is characterized by metal objects that have a unique petal shaped side piece. The origin of the ST phenomenon has not been determined. However, based on the presence of metals, such as tin and copper in ST objects, Altay and Sayan mountains have been hypothesized. No ST associated settlements are known, and the only distinguishing characteristic of the culture is the presence of high-quality metal objects. The spread of Uralic protolanguage is hypothesized to have occurred through the ST network, which is suggested by the time of disintegration of Proto-Uralic.

Here, we are presenting genomic data from nine individuals, eight males and one female, from the ST associated site Rostovka located on the river Om, 15km away from Omsk, Russia, and excavated in 1966-1969. Elaborate artifacts found at the site made it famous among the archaeologists and the scientific community in general. The majority of the graves found at the Rostovka burial site contain bronze ST objects, as well as stone molds for casting bronze objects, stone spearheads and armory. Based on the genome-wide SNP data, we found that the Rostovka individuals vary widely with regards to their genetic profile, ranging between the ancestry maximized in North Siberians and the local Sintashta-associated individuals, mirroring the geographic spread of the ST phenomenon. The presence of the N-L392 Y-haplogroup in the sample further supports the link between ST and the spread of the Uralic languages. This is the first study to report genetic data for individuals associated with the ST trans-cultural phenomenon and its potential link to the spread of Uralic languages across the Eurasian forest steppe. 

See also, 

Drastic demographic events triggered the Uralic spread

The widespread Uralic family offers several advantages for tracing prehistory: a firm absolute chronological anchor point in an ancient contact episode with well-dated Indo-Iranian; other points of intersection or diagnostic non-intersection with early Indo-European (the Late Proto-Indo-European-speaking Yamnaya culture of the western steppe, the Afanasievo culture of the upper Yenisei, and the Fatyanovo culture of the middle Volga); lexical and morphological reconstruction sufficient to establish critical absences of sharings and contacts. We add information on climate, linguistic geography, typology, and cognate frequency distributions to reconstruct the Uralic origin and spread. We argue that the Uralic homeland was east of the Urals and initially out of contact with Indo-European. The spread was rapid and without widespread shared substratal effects. We reconstruct its cause as the interconnected reactions of early Uralic and Indo-European populations to a catastrophic climate change episode and interregionalization opportunities which advantaged riverine hunter-fishers over herders.

As well as, 

Radiocarbon Chronology of Complexes With Seima-Turbino Type Objects (Bronze Age) in Southwestern Siberia

Abstract

This paper discusses the chronology of burial grounds containing specific Seima-Turbino type bronze weaponry (spears, knives, and celts). The “transcultural” Seima-Turbino phenomenon relates to a wide distribution of specific objects found within the sites of different Bronze Age cultures in Eurasia, not immediately related to each other. The majority of the Seima-Turbino objects represent occasional findings, and they are rarely recovered from burial grounds. Here, we present a new set of 14C dates from cemeteries in western Siberia, including the key Asian site Rostovka, with the largest number of graves containing Seima-Turbino objects. Currently, the presented database is the most extensive for the Seima-Turbino complexes. The resulting radiocarbon (14C) chronology for the western Siberian sites (22nd–20th centuries cal BC) is older than the existing chronology based on typological analysis (16th–15th centuries BC) and some earlier 14C dates for the Seima-Turbino sites in eastern Europe. Another important aspect of this work is 14C dating of complexes within specific bronze objects—daggers with figured handles—which some researchers have related to the Seima-Turbino type objects. These items are mostly represented by occasional finds in Central Asia, however, in western Siberia these have been recovered from burials, too. The 14C dating attributes these daggers to the end of the 3rd millennium cal BC, suggesting their similar timing to the Seima-Turbino objects. Further research into freshwater reservoir offsets in the region is essential for a more reliable reconstruction of the chronology of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and the daggers with figured handles.

Uralic loans, BMAC substratum and agricultural terms of Indo-Iranian

Some important papers that discuss the three different possible loaning events of Indo-Iranian. It's well known that Indo-Iranian (henceforth, Aryan) had a limited agricultural vocabulary, and skipped many of the agriculture-related semantic shifts that characterize PIE > Proto-European as the livestock breeding Yamnaya shifted to a more farming culture after contact with the European Neolithic. Fatyanovo-Balanovo, the pre-Proto-Aryan culture, mostly survived of foraging and livestock breeding, with very little to no macrofossil evidence for any kind of agriculture, though some slash and burn has been suggested based on circumstantial evidence. This means it's important to pay close attention to the agricultural vocabulary of Aryan, since this would mostly have picked up from one of the many farming oriented Turan Neolithic societies in Central Asia, or later from the Harappans or Elamites. We also know that it's pretty likely that the Proto-Aryans (Abashevo? Sintashta-Petrovka?) were in direct contact with the Proto-Uralics (Sejma-Turbino Metallurgists?) and there is clear evidence of borrowings from Proto-Aryan into Uralic, though the reverse is less studied, and even lesser studied are possible Proto-Iranic and Proto-Indic borrowings in Uralic, as well as parallel borrowings by different branches of Uralic. Regardless, the Uralic borrowings are certain, and merit a review paper of their own.

The three kinds of loaning events in Aryan likely are

1) Into/from Uralic?
2) From BMAC/Turanian Neolithic?
3) From Dravidian/Language X into Indo-Aryan & Elamite > West Iranian?

The first one offers the best overview on the Uralic situation.

Indo-Iranian borrowings in Uralic : Critical overview of sound substitutions and distribution criterion

This dissertation discusses the Indo-Iranian loanwords in the Uralic languages. The loanwords that have been suggested in earlier research are critically analyzed and commented based on modern views of Uralic and Indo-Iranian historical phonology and etymology. The etymologies are analyzed on the basis of the general methods of loanword research: arguments of phonology, distribution and semantics are taken into account. In addition to the analyzis of older etymological proposals, also some new etymologies are presented. Also the research history of the topic is discussed. The aim of this study is to establish rules for the sound substitutions and bring new light to the relative chronology of the loanwords. Because the phoneme systems of Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Iranian and later Iranian languages were very different from those of Proto-Uralic and its daughter languages, the phonemes of the Indo-Iranian donor languages have been substituted in various ways in the Uralic languages. Differences reflect both conditional developments (different substitutions in different environments) and chronological differences, and it is often difficult to distinguish between the two.

 The second paper by Alexander Lubtosky reviews the substratum (collection of possible non-Indo-European origin words) in Aryan and lists out likely/unlikely inherited vocab, as well as the basic laws for establishing non-IE words in Aryan, and possible Wanderworts.

The Indo-Iranian substratum

In my paper, I shall apply this methodology to the Indo-Iranian lexicon in search of loan words which have entered Proto-Indo-Iranian before its split into two branches. As a basis for my study I use the list, gleaned from Mayrhofer's EWAia, of all Sanskrit etyma which have Iranian correspondences, but lack clear cognates outside Indo-Iranian. The complete list of some 120 Indo-Iranian isolates is presented in the Appendix. The words of this list are by default characterized by the first of the above-mentioned criteria, viz. limited geographical distribution, but this in itself is not very significant because thelack of an Indo-European etymology can be accidental: either all other branches have lost the etymon preserved in Indo-Iranian, or we have not yet found the correct etymology. Only if aword has other features of a borrowing, must we seriously consider its being of foreign origin.The analysis of phonological, morphological and semantic peculiarities of our corpus will be presented in the following sections, but first I would like to make two remarks.

I use the term substratum for any donor language, without implying sociological differences in its status, so that substratum may refer to an adstratum or even superstratum. It's possible that Proto-Indo-Iranian borrowed words from more than one language and had thusmore than one substratum.Another point concerns dialect differentiation. In general, we can speak of language unity as long as the language is capable of carrying out common innovations, but this does not pre-clude profound differences among the dialects. In the case of Indo-Iranian, there may have been early differentiation between the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches, especially if we assume that the Iranian loss of aspiration in voiced aspirated stops was a dialectal feature which Iranianshared with Balto-Slavic and Germanic (cf. Kortlandt 1978: 115). Nevertheless, Proto-Indo-Iranian for a long time remained a dialectal unity, possibly even up to the moment when the Indo-Aryans crossed the Hindukush mountain range and lost contact with the Iranians

The last paper is really a chapter by Martin Kümmel for the book 'Language Dispersals Beyond Farming' and so specifically takes a look at the agriculture related vocabulary of Aryan.

Agricultural terms in Indo-Iranian

The article investigates the agricultural lexicon of Indo-Iranian, especially its earlier records, and what it may tell us about the spread of farming. After some general remarks on “Neolithic” vocabulary, a short overview of the animal husbandry terminology shows that this field of vocabulary was evidently well established in Proto-Indo-Iranian, with many cognate terms. Words for cattle, horses, sheep and goats are well developed and mostly inherited, while evidence for pigs is more limited, ad the words for donkey and camel look like common loans. A more extensive discussion of plant terminology reveals that while some generic terms for grain are inherited, more specific words for different kinds of cereals show few inherited terms and/or irregular variation, and the same is even clearer for pulses and some other vegetables. The terminology for agricultural terminology is largely different from that of most European branches of Indo- European. The conclusion is that the cultural background behind these linguistic data points to spreading of a mainly pastoralist culture in the case of Indo-Iranian.