Talk:Sintashta culture: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:37, 15 July 2014 editFlorian Blaschke (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,783 edits reply← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:12, 3 November 2014 edit undoGrathmy (talk \| contribs)268 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 7:		Line 7:
	There is no proof they spoke "Indo Iranian" language. It is an occult lie and perversion. You could also say they spoke Turkic or Japanese, but there are no evidences for that claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->		There is no proof they spoke "Indo Iranian" language. It is an occult lie and perversion. You could also say they spoke Turkic or Japanese, but there are no evidences for that claim. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:And you'd prefer to claim Turkic, right? Go to Jaakko Häkkinen's website. The many layers of deeply embedded Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, the earliest layers being even more archaic than reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian, are a highly suggestive argument for the identification of Sintashta as Indo-Iranian (in addition to all the other points, especially cultural similarity). These loanwords and their relevance have been known for a long time. There's much more to this identification than some arbitrary idea you can come up with on a whim like Turkic or Japanese, neither of which have any arguments in their favour. (Not to mention that 2000 BC is too early for either.) --] (]) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)		:And you'd prefer to claim Turkic, right? Go to Jaakko Häkkinen's website. The many layers of deeply embedded Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, the earliest layers being even more archaic than reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian, are a highly suggestive argument for the identification of Sintashta as Indo-Iranian (in addition to all the other points, especially cultural similarity). These loanwords and their relevance have been known for a long time. There's much more to this identification than some arbitrary idea you can come up with on a whim like Turkic or Japanese, neither of which have any arguments in their favour. (Not to mention that 2000 BC is too early for either.) --] (]) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
			:Jaakko Hakkinen is not an Indo European language scholar. While there MAY be loanwords into Uralic and Finno Ugric from an Indo Aryan language, there is no conclusive evidence that this Sintashta culture had it as a ubiquitous language. It could simply have been a fringe component - a superstrate dominating over a completely different linguistic entity such as the Mitannian "Indo Aryan" over the Hurrian native group. Also the Scythian and Sarmatian languages have not been reconstructed at a satisfactory level, let alone the language of Sintashta, so I would suggest the article not getting ahead of itself and using more comprehensive information. Furthermore there is no SPECIAL cultural similarity other than the general Kurgan animal sacrifice and funeral customs which are found among various Indo Europeans, in antiquity as well as some recent contexts.

Revision as of 21:12, 3 November 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Sintashta culture is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography Low‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

There is no proof they spoke "Indo Iranian" language. It is an occult lie and perversion. You could also say they spoke Turkic or Japanese, but there are no evidences for that claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.70.183 (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And you'd prefer to claim Turkic, right? Go to Jaakko Häkkinen's website. The many layers of deeply embedded Indo-Iranian loanwords in Uralic, the earliest layers being even more archaic than reconstructed Proto-Indo-Iranian, are a highly suggestive argument for the identification of Sintashta as Indo-Iranian (in addition to all the other points, especially cultural similarity). These loanwords and their relevance have been known for a long time. There's much more to this identification than some arbitrary idea you can come up with on a whim like Turkic or Japanese, neither of which have any arguments in their favour. (Not to mention that 2000 BC is too early for either.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Jaakko Hakkinen is not an Indo European language scholar. While there MAY be loanwords into Uralic and Finno Ugric from an Indo Aryan language, there is no conclusive evidence that this Sintashta culture had it as a ubiquitous language. It could simply have been a fringe component - a superstrate dominating over a completely different linguistic entity such as the Mitannian "Indo Aryan" over the Hurrian native group. Also the Scythian and Sarmatian languages have not been reconstructed at a satisfactory level, let alone the language of Sintashta, so I would suggest the article not getting ahead of itself and using more comprehensive information. Furthermore there is no SPECIAL cultural similarity other than the general Kurgan animal sacrifice and funeral customs which are found among various Indo Europeans, in antiquity as well as some recent contexts.

Categories: