Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
FRONTLINE JOURNALS
16
The Formation of The Sintashta Culture and Its Influence on Other Bronze
Age Cultures
Marjona S. Burieva
Third-year student of the Archaeology program, Faculty of History, National University of Uzbekistan
A R T I C L E I N f
О
Article history:
Submission Date: 15 March 2025
Accepted Date: 11 April 2025
Published Date: 13 May 2025
VOLUME:
Vol.05 Issue05
Page No. 16-20
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/social-
A B S T R A C T
This article examines the social, economic, and technological development
processes of the Sintashta culture. This culture is distinguished by its
advancements in metallurgy, chariot technology, and the complex
production of ceramic goods. The influence of the Abashevo and Petrovka
cultures, as well as the role of interactions with other regions of Eastern
Europe, is explored in the formation of the Sintashta culture. The article
also highlights the pastoral and economic activities of Sintashta society
based on the analysis of archaeozoological materials. Furthermore,
archaeological findings and written sources are used to investigate the
influence of the Sintashta culture on the regions of Asia and Europe. The
research identifies the significant role of the Sintashta culture in the
development of Eurasian civilization.
Keywords:
Sintashta culture, chariots, metallurgy, archaeozoology,
Abashevo culture, Petrovka culture, Eurasia, ceramic artifacts.
INTRODUCTION
The Sintashta culture, which emerged in the early
second millennium BCE in the Southern Ural
region and adjacent areas, is considered one of the
major archaeological cultures of the Bronze Age.
Based on archaeological, genetic, and philological
evidence, many researchers recognize this culture
as the homeland of the Proto-Indo-Iranian
languages. The relevance of this article lies in its
analysis of the distinctive features of the Sintashta
culture,
including
its
ceramic
traditions,
necropolises, pastoral economy, and the cultural
significance of chariots.
The main objective of this study is to explore the
economic, social, and cultural characteristics of the
Sintashta culture through archaeological findings.
The article aims to systematize various
archaeological data related to the Sintashta culture
and, based on this, to draw general conclusions
about the main aspects of its formation and
development. In addition, it highlights the genetic
and cultural connections between Sintashta and its
subsequent cultural phases, such as the Petrovka
and Alakul cultures.
This article raises several important research
questions:
1. What were the key factors in the formation of
the Sintashta culture?
2. How did its economic activities
—
particularly
animal husbandry and pottery
—
develop?
3. What roles did necropolises and chariots play
within this culture?
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
ISSN: 2752-7018
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
FRONTLINE JOURNALS
17
4. To what extent did the Sintashta culture
influence other Bronze Age cultures?
The findings of this research contribute to the
development of new approaches in the study of
Bronze Age societies.
METHODS
The first information about the Sintashta culture
was discovered as a result of archaeological
excavations in the 1920s
–
30s. Later, in the second
half of the 20th century, Russian scholars such as
V.P. Shilov and G.B. Zdanovich studied the main
characteristics of this culture. Zdanovich focused
on the military-technological and social aspects of
the Sintashta culture, highlighting its distinction
through war chariots and fortified constructions
[1]. These works are of great importance in
identifying the specific stages of development of
the culture.
The military technologies and metallurgical
achievements of the Sintashta culture are
attracting international scholarly
attention.
However, its economic activities and social
structure remain topical areas of ongoing research.
In the field of architecture, the studies of N.B.
Soldatkin [2] are of particular significance.
According to the periodization proposed by E.N.
Chernykh [3], the sites in Eastern Kazakhstan
belong to the Late Bronze Age and are included
within the first (Seima) stage of the Eurasian
metallurgical province. However, this region
displays features that differ from the periodization
of Western Siberia. Especially, the uniqueness of
local ceramic wares and metal assemblages clearly
sets them apart from the influences of the
Abashevo, Sintashta, and Petrovka traditions.
The development of the Sintashta culture holds a
significant place in the evolution of nomadic
civilizations. Its role in the formation of the Altai
cultural center during the final quarter of the 3rd
millennium BCE can be evaluated as a result of
indigenous development.
The study employed several methods to
investigate the social and technological aspects of
the Sintashta culture, including systematization,
archaeozoological,
anthropological,
genetic,
cartographic, and comparative approaches.
Through
the
method
of
systematization,
excavation materials from Sintashta and related
cultural sites were analyzed. This process focused
particularly on identifying the morphological and
decorative features of ceramic vessels, especially
pots and jars. As a methodological basis, the
analytical frameworks of Pantelejakov and Drish
for pottery analysis were utilized. A total of 779
osteological materials from the Konoplyanka site
were examined, with attention given to the age and
pathological conditions of the animals.
To determine the genetic composition of the
Sintashta population, ancient DNA analysis results
were used. The genetic method revealed links with
steppe and Central European Neolithic groups and
helped clarify the social dynamics of the society.
The cartographic distribution of Sintashta
settlements and necropolises was studied, with
special attention given to the relationships
between habitation areas and burial structures.
Additionally, scientific literature related to the
Sintashta
culture
—
including
archaeological
reports, historical sources, and anthropological
studies
—
was reviewed. This helped identify
cultural connections between the Sintashta culture
and other Bronze Age cultures.
The integration of these methods allowed for a
comprehensive analysis of the economic and social
aspects of the Sintashta culture.
DISCUSSION AND RESULTS
The geographic location and distribution of the
Sintashta culture plays an important role in
studying the interactions between its peoples and
other cultures. The Sintashta culture is mainly
widespread in the northern regions of Kazakhstan,
as well as along the Ural and Volga river basins.
Archaeological finds, especially graves and
underground structures, reflect the rich heritage of
this culture. Studying the regions where the
Sintashta culture is spread is of great importance
for determining its geographic boundaries and
analyzing its distribution.
Although the Sintashta culture contains local
substrata, its representatives were formed by
peoples who were foreign to the regions of Eastern
Europe and the Urals. Research shows that the
homeland of these tribes was the Syria-Anatolia
region, occupying the same area as the early
cultural centers of Iranian peoples in the Margiana
and Bactria regions. The emergence of the
Sintashta culture in the Urals dates back to the
18th century BCE (based on an uncalibrated
system). During this period, the Abashevo culture,
related to Sintashta, emerged in the area between
the Don River and the Ural Mountains. Later, by the
16th century BCE, the Sintashta and Abashevo
cultures formed the basis for the development of
the Timber-grave, Petrovka, and Alakul cultures.
These new cultural forms spread across a vast area
from the Dnieper River to Central Kazakhstan.
Some researchers include the Petrovka and Alakul
cultures as part of the Andronovo culture. Their
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
FRONTLINE JOURNALS
18
formation is closely linked to the process of the
steppe lands becoming more Iranianized.
However, the emergence of the Scythian and
Sarmatian tribes is noted not to be directly related
to these cultures [4].
The Sintashta culture (2100
–
1800 BCE), located to
the east of the Southern Ural Mountains, is
considered the homeland of the Proto-Indo-
Iranian languages based on archaeological,
philological, and genetic research. Scholars like
Anthony view this culture as a representative of
the Proto-Indo-Iranian phase and link it with
archaeological finds and genetic studies. Ancient
DNA analyses have determined the genetic
composition of the Sintashta population: 68%
steppe ancestry, 24% European Early Neolithic
ancestry, and 8% from Western Siberian hunter-
gatherers. This genetic profile distinguishes
Sintashta from the Yamnaya and Afanasevo
cultures, as they lack European Early Neolithic
ancestry. This suggests that the Sintashta
population was not formed by migration of
Yamnaya groups from the Pontic-Caspian steppe
but through the intermingling with European Early
Neolithic groups.
The Abashevo population, who migrated eastward,
is considered the founder of the Sintashta culture
[5].
During the research conducted by Vinogradov and
Alaeva in the Ustye region, the pottery collection
was analyzed. In classifying them, Vinogradov's
previous studies were used, distinguishing
Sintashta and Petrovka ceramics from each other.
Petrovka ceramics are sometimes referred to as
Early Alakul. The analysis was based on the
morphology of the vessel necks and the
characteristics of their decorations. Sintashta
pottery is more complex and has a variety of
decorative styles, while Petrovka vessels are
characterized by narrow neck shapes and smooth
surfaces under the edges. Excavations in the Ustye
region have revealed walls of Sintashta houses and
ceramic fragments from the Petrovka period. This
confirms that Sintashta pottery traditions existed
before the Petrovka period [6].
The burial structures and cemeteries of the
Sintashta culture have distinctive archaeological
characteristics. Almost all of the wall-related
cemeteries,
with
the
exception
of
the
Knyazhenskiy barrows [7], are directly associated
with settlements, indicating a close connection
between the lives of the inhabitants and their
burial traditions. For example, each settlement has
only one cemetery, but two cemeteries have been
identified at Arkaim: the Bolshoykaraganskiy and
Aleksandrovskiy IV. The locations and geomorphic
features of these burial structures are organized in
accordance with the settlements.
In the Zauralye region, the barrow tradition was
widespread during the Sintashta period, but the
situation was different in the Priuralye region. In
the Priuralye cemeteries, Sintashta-era burial sites
are often layered with multiple periods, indicating
that earlier cultural influences persisted in this
region [8]. The height and size of the earth
structures varied in accordance with the number
of cemeteries surrounding the settlements. The
surface structures were typically located in large,
collective cemeteries, confirming the presence of
communal burial practices.
Twenty-two
ancient
settlements,
including
Konoplyanka, have been identified in the southern
Ural region [9]. These settlements and cemeteries
reveal the extensive geographic distribution of the
Sintashta culture and its complex social structure.
The Konoplyanka settlement is an important
source for studying the distinctive aspects of
livestock farming in the Sintashta culture.
Research in this area was carried out within the
framework of a multidisciplinary project dedicated
to the Bronze Age monuments in the Karygali-Ayat
River Valley by Russian and German scholars.
Excavations conducted in 2012
–
2013 resulted in
significant progress in reconstructing livestock
farming based on the archaeological and
zooarchaeological materials collected [10]. These
studies allow for the identification of the economic
significance of different livestock species, the use
of pathological analysis methods, and the
delineation of the economic zones designated for
livestock farming. This research is key to gaining a
complete understanding of livestock farming
practices in the Sintashta culture. However, certain
aspects, such as pathological analyses and
economic reconstructions, still require deeper
study.
The osteological collection found at the
Konoplyanka settlement consists of a total of 779
bones, which play a significant role in studying
livestock practices in the Sintashta culture. These
materials were processed in the Paleoecology
Laboratory of the Institute of Plants and Animals at
the Ural Academy of Sciences, following widely
accepted methods. The eruption sequence of the
molar teeth and the degree of epiphyseal fusion
were used as the main criteria to determine the
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
FRONTLINE JOURNALS
19
slaughter age of the livestock [11]. The
measurements of the found bones were taken
based on A. Drish's methodology, providing
essential data for reconstructing the livestock
practices of the Sintashta population [12]. These
analyses offer a broader understanding of the
various forms of livestock farming and the
methods of animal exploitation in the Sintashta
culture.
The monuments of the Sintashta culture are
presented in two main types: fortified settlements
and necropolises. Although these monuments are
located in the steppe zone of northern South Ural,
the fortified settlements have been better studied
in the Middle Ural Plateau region. The
necropolises, however, have been found outside
this region, along the eastern and southwestern
directions. Some monuments in the Middle Ural
forests and steppe are associated with the
Abashevo culture [13], showing significant
similarities with Sintashta monuments. These
similarities can be interpreted in two ways: first, as
a result of synchrony [14]; second, as evidence that
Sintashta traditions originated from the Abashevo
culture.
Among the archaeological finds, the wheel traces
and the remains of necklaces are of significant
importance, as they have been found in the burial
complexes of the Sintashta culture in South Ural
and the Petrovka culture in Northern Kazakhstan.
These finds are rare due to the rapid decay of
wooden materials. However, there is evidence of
the widespread use of two-wheeled chariots,
particularly reflected in petroglyphs from
Kazakhstan and nearby regions [15]. Although
chariot remains dating back to the Bronze Age are
rarely found in these areas, this does not indicate
their absence. The petroglyphs in Kazakhstan
depict war chariots drawn by two horses, and the
burial of horses in pairs in Bronze Age cemeteries
shows that these animals were used as "chariot
horses."
In the Avestan texts, a region referred to as the
"land of good chariots" (Xvanirata) is mentioned.
This area is located between the rivers Ranha
(Sirdaryo) and Vahva-Datya (Amudaryo). One of
the distinctive traditions of the Aryans was their
focus on war chariots. This tradition was even
reflected in their burial rituals. The remains of war
chariots found in one of the Sintashta cemeteries in
the Chelyabinsk region confirm this idea.
According to the well-known archaeologist V.F.
Gening, the Sintashta cultural complex can be
considered to correspond to the traditions of the
Aryan (Proto-Indo-Iranian) peoples before their
migration to Iran and India [16].
The analysis of pottery samples belonging to the
Sintashta culture revealed a complex system of
classification. The 72 pottery samples analyzed
were divided into two main categories: cauldrons
(37 pieces) and jars (35 pieces). Further division
was carried out using classification criteria.
Despite the significant morphological differences
in the shapes of cauldrons, which made it easy to
categorize them, their ornaments were diverse,
complicating the classification. Jars, on the other
hand, were morphologically similar and were
divided into four groups based on distinct
ornamentation patterns. Thus, four types of
cauldrons and four types of jars in Sintashta
pottery were identified [17].
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study provides new information about the
industry, social, and technological development of
the Sintashta culture. The Sintashta culture is
distinguished by its military technologies,
especially chariots. Archaeological materials,
including the remains of chariots, indicate the
presence of social stratification. High-level
technological achievements are observed in
metallurgy and pottery. The complexity of
Sintashta ceramics, in terms of ornamentation and
shape, demonstrates both technical and aesthetic
development.
Animal husbandry was the primary economic
sector of the Sintashta culture, with particular
attention paid to the breeding of large cattle and
horses. Archaeozoological analyses show that
animals were bred in forms adapted to the local
climate, which could be related to the unique
ecological conditions of the region.
The Sintashta culture actively interacted with
other cultures in the Southern Ural and Northern
Kazakhstan regions, confirming the importance of
cultural exchange.
Recommendations:
Further research on the military technologies of
the Sintashta culture and their social roles within
society is needed.
Detailed analysis of technological advancements in
metallurgy and pottery is essential to identify the
leading techniques that developed in these fields.
A more in-depth study of the economic significance
of animal husbandry, particularly focusing on the
breeding methods of animals adapted to the local
climate, is important.
Further investigation of the cultural interactions
between the Sintashta culture and others will
Frontline Social Sciences and History Journal
FRONTLINE JOURNALS
20
enhance
understanding
of
cross-cultural
exchanges.
To further study the social structure of the
Sintashta culture, it is necessary to expand
anthropological
and
genetic
research.
By
broadening the geographic scope of studies on
culture-related monuments, the boundaries of its
distribution and influence should be identified.
Through collaboration between archaeology,
anthropology, biology, zoology, and history, it will
be possible to determine the impact of the
Sintashta culture on other cultures and the
innovations it adopted from them. To ensure the
Sintashta culture gains worldwide attention, it is
essential to strengthen international scientific
cooperation and promote the results in the media.
The findings of this research will enrich the
knowledge of the Sintashta culture and create a
solid foundation for future studies.
REFERENSES
1.
Зданович, Д. Г. Княженские курганы: точка
на археологической карте // Аркаим –
Синташта: древнее наследие Южного Урала
/ Под ред. Д. Г. Здановича. Челябинск, 2010.
Ч. 1. С. 162–
178.
2.
Солдаткин, Н. В. Жилая архитектура
укрепленных поселений синташтинско
-
петровского типа: обзор источников //
Научный диалог. –
2018.
–
№ 1. –
С. 209–
220.
3.
Chernikh, E. N., Kuzminikh, S. V. Drevnjaja
metallurgija Severnoy Evrazii. M., 1989.
4.
Черных, Е. Н. Металлургические провинции
и периодизация эпохи раннего металла на
территории СССР // СА. 1978. № 4. С. 71.
5.
Cunliffe, B. By Desert, Steppe, & Ocean: The
birth of Eurasia. Oxford, Oxford University
Press. 2015. Pp. 131-132.
6.
Chechushkov, I. V. Bronze age human
communities in the Southern Urals steppe:
Sintashta-petrovka social and subsistence
organization. University of Pittsburgh, 2018. P.
20.
7.
Зданович, Д. Г. Княженские курганы: точка
на археологической карте // Аркаим –
Синташта: древнее наследие Южного Урала
/ Под ред. Д. Г. Здановича. Челябинск, 2010.
Ч. 1. С. 162–
178.
8.
Богданов, С. В. Эпоха меди степного
Приуралья. Екатеринбург: Изд
-
во УрО РАН,
2004. 287 с.
9.
Солдаткин, Н. В. Жилая архитектура
укрепленных поселений синташтинско
-
петровского типа: обзор источников //
Научный диалог. –
2018.
–
№ 1. –
С. 210.
10.
Koryakova, L., Krause, R. General remarks of
multidisciplinary research in the Kamennyi
Ambar microregion on the fi rst phase of the
project // Multidisciplinary investigations of
the Bronze Age settlements in the Southern
Trans-Urals (Russia). Bonn: Verl. Dr. Rudolf
Habelt GmbH, 2013. P. 1.
11.
Silver, I. The ageing of domestic animals //
Science in Archaeology: A survey of progress
and research. London: Thames and Hudson,
1969. P. 283
–
302.
12.
Driesch, A. A guide to the measurement of
animal bones from archaeological sites.
Cambridge, Mass.: Peadiv Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, 1976. 137 p.
13.
Горбунов, В. С. Абашевская культура
Южного Приуралья. Уфа: Изд
-
во БГПИ,
1986. 96 с.
14.
Епимахов, A. B. Бронзовый век Южного
Урала:
экономическая
и
социальная
эволюция // Уральский исторический
вестник. 2010. № 2. С. 31–
37.
15.
Новоженов, В. А. Чудо коммуникации и
древнейший колесный транспорт Евразии.
Алматы: KIT Publishing, 2012. 500 с.
16.
Хайдаров, Ш., Одегов, В. В. Следы арийской
цивилизации в Прикамье. Пермь: Поницаа,
2006. 486 с.
17.
Пантелеева, С. Е. Комплекс синташтинской
керамики
укрепленного
поселения
каменный Амбар: типологический анализ
// Вестник археологии, антропологии и
этнографии. 2013. № 4 (23). С. 24–
25.
