Sintashta CARTS. Definitely NOT CHARIOTS:
- as per chariot-experts Littauer & Crouwel 1996, reviewing Anthony 1995 and prior (Gening etc)
- from Kuznetsov 2006 it's apparent there's no new "chariot" finds in Sintashta
- if no chariots, how can Sintashta be Indo-Iranian source?

Steppe AIT proponents invoke Littauer & Crouwel, leading specialists in chariotry & other ancient vehicles, to use their chariot definition to dismiss Sanauli as carts.
But Littauer & Crouwel classed the Sintashta evidence as expressly non-chariots. Not fit for warfare or racing!

Vehicle evidence exclusively IMPRINTS/STAINS: no physical remains to carbon-date.
Dating was of remains of OTHER stuff: horse bones (Anthony), other grave materials (Kuznetsov 2006).
These c-dated to 2000-1800 BCE.*

* But by 1800 BCE, Near East already had TRUE chariots.

"The recent calibrated radiocarbon dating to c. 2000-1800 BC of light, horse-drawn vehicles from Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero, in northern Kazakhstan just east of the Urals, has revived the claim that the chariot originated in the steppe area rather than somewhere in the Near East"

"Let us consider what is actually known of the Sintashta & Krivoe Ozero vehicles. At Sintashta, there remained only the imprints of the lower parts of the wheels in their slots in the floor of the burial chamber; Krivoe Ozero also preserved imprints of parts of the axle & naves"

So that's ALL the actual evidence for "chariots" on the steppe.
The REST was drawn/made up: whole chariots reconstructed around mere wheel, axle & nave imprints.
The 2 chariot experts didn't sound convinced by the reconstructions, so then considered just the evidence:

"The present RECONSTRUCTIONS of the Sintashta and Krivoe Ozero vehicles above the axle level raise many doubts and questions, but one cannot argue about something FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (FIGURE 4)." +

+ "It is from the wheeltrack measurements and the dimensions and positions of the wheels alone that we may legitimately draw conclusions" +

+ "and these are alone sufficient to establish that the Sintashta-Petrovka vehicles would not be manoeuvrable enough for use either in warfare or in racing."

"...these dimensions would render the vehicle impractical at speed and limit its manoeuvrability. These cannot yet be true chariots."
From: Littauer, M. A., & Crouwel, J. H. (1996). The origin of the true chariot. Antiquity, 70(270), 934–939. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00084192

In 1994 Littauer had commented on Anthony's Sintashta vehicle finds to NYT: "A spoked wheel is not necessarily a chariot, only a light cart on the way to becoming chariots."
The evidence from Sintashta remained no more than to conclude carts.

Littauer & Crouwel 1996 summarised Izbitser's work on development of steppe vehicles (1993): "no early tradition of fast transport by two-wheeler existed on the steppe".
And about the steppe's 4 wheelers:

"What also seems to emerge from Dr Izbitser's work is that many of the 4-wheeled vehicles buried with seated passengers would have been more suitable for processions and for burial rites than for workaday use. These must have been ceremonial, status-conferring vehicles."

What basis then for steppe PIE proponents to have argued Sintashta STARTED OUT with full blown true chariots of own invention; with no history of development on the steppe?
(Though they turned out to not to be true chariots,
and the evidence can guarantee no more than carts)

OLDER, NON-STEPPE cultures showed DEVELOPMENT of precursors in wheel types & chariot forms:
-solid disk wheel chariot
-crossbar-wheel chariot on cylinder seal of Tepe Hissar IIIb in Iran. Dated "need not be later than 2350 BCE" (Moorey 1969). It's well before Sintashta existed.

Warrior horsemen are supposed to be a key feature IE introduced to Iran. But:
- Jiroft culture 3rd mill BCE Iran already had sculpture of warrior horseman: https://tinyurl.com/lancer-jiroft 
- Sintashta 2100-1800 BCE (and only argued to have had chariots, not yet warrior horsemen anyway)

Anthony's key finds:
- "Vedic Dadhyanch" steppe horse-head burial cancelled: mixed layers. Retracted in footnote 17 of Ch15 of Anthony's "The Horse..." 2010 reprint
- horse domestication in Dereivka caught for mixed layers. Retracted 2000s
- "chariots" in Sintashta dismissed 1996

"Chariots" were key evidence for Sintashta as I-Ir homeland.
But evidence conclusive they WEREN'T chariots.
So unless goalpost gets shifted, how can culture that did NOT have chariots be I-Ir homeland, when AIT argued possession of true chariot as a defining I-Ir feature?

How did imprints of merely partial 2 spoked wheels, axle, nave even get sold as full-blown chariots?
And why, after they were shown to not belong to chariots? For 2.5 decades.

For IVC toy wheeled vehicles, everyone still assumed vehicles weren't used in IVC in real life, until preserved wheel tracks were found.
But for Sintashta, partial spoke wheel imprints (that could be of 4 centuries later grave goods layer) become True Chariots & 1st in the world!

Beware that people online, unaware Sintashta only had imprints & stains, wrongly present pics such as the following of Chinese dynasties' horse-chariot burials from centuries later as Sintashtan chariots:
https://tinyurl.com/shang-chariot 
https://tinyurl.com/zhou-chariots 

Thread tweeted on request.

Thread not important (can screenshot).

Rather, save & Read the short paper yourself:
http://tinyurl.com/Littauer-Crouwel1996

Beware its (Useful) site keeps shifting. Remember Domain name, find its new location, search for Any paper's DOI (e.g. doi:10.1017/s0003598x00084192) or title/author.

Save screenshot of Moorey 1969 if only for crossbar wheel date on 1st page http://cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-prehistoric-society/article/abs/earliest-near-eastern-spoked-wheels-and-their-chronology/59B5B775856754692DAD21F1AF178FB9

Another important paper to save and read for yourself:

Finkelberg 2000 convincingly concludes Linear A script & so Minoan language was Anatolian (IE):
https://www.academia.edu/24273902/The_Language_of_Linear_A_Greek_Semitic_or_Anatolian
Save related useful book "Greeks and Pre-Greeks" by same author:
http://tinyurl.com/greeks-and-pre-greeks

Import
Steppe proponents push preferred assumption that Minoan was non-IE. Concluded victory when Minoan aDNA had no steppe, but the mostly Minoan-like Mycenean (Greeks) had some.

So they dislike Finkelberg's findings & act like they don't exist or dismissive.
But not dismissed!

MOST important lessons:
-let none intimidate you into thinking the matter's settled
-look into all esp key claims--esp for a steppe homeland--for yourself in primary sources,
e.g. what was Sintashta's material evidence?
-find how experts reviewed any evidence

You'll find Holes.

Don't need degrees in archeology or genetics.

Just google skills, reading, common sense &
a healthy Distrust that makes you look up every key claim they ever made.

Give native view the benefit of every doubt, not them. Because they Do run away with everything when you let them.

I'm taking credit for this one line:
"Citizen verification. Let's all do it. They'll hate us. It's what we live for."