Archaeology and language: the Indo-Iranians

Citation metadata

Type

journal article

Publication

Current Anthropology, vol. 43, no. 1, 63-88

Peer reviewed

Yes

Open DOI or stable record (opens in a new tab)

Records informed by this source

• geography assertion Iranian plateau, Afghanistan and Indus connection frame — geography assertion
  Evidence confidence: ◈ low
  informs · contextualizes · Regional archaeology-language synthesis

  Supports the non-geometric spatial description.

• entity Iranian plateau, Afghanistan and Indus connection frame
  Evidence confidence: ◈ moderate
  informs · critiques interpretation · Full article and responses

  Provides the core methodological caution against archaeological-language equivalence.

• date assertion Iranian plateau, Afghanistan and Indus connection frame — date assertion
  Evidence confidence: ◈ moderate
  informs · critiques interpretation · Full article and responses

  Provides the core methodological caution against archaeological-language equivalence.

• claim Ceramic, mortuary and metallurgical taxonomies in this package do not automatically identify ethnic, linguistic or political communities.
  Evidence confidence: ◈ high
  supports · critiques interpretation · Full article and published discussion

  Directly critiques one-to-one archaeological and linguistic identifications.

• claim Andronovo, BMAC, Bishkent, Vakhsh, Chust and Yaz assemblages cannot be equated directly with Indo-Iranian, Vedic or Iranian language communities.
  Evidence confidence: ◈ high
  supports · critiques interpretation · Archaeology and language argument

  Provides the principal methodological critique.

• claim Genetic ancestry components do not directly identify Indo-Iranian, Iranian, Vedic or any other language.
  Evidence confidence: ◈ high
  supports · critiques interpretation · Archaeology-language critique

  Provides the linguistic identification caution.