C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky (ed.). Archaeological thought in America. 357 pages, 35 illustrations. 1989. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press; ISBN 0-521-35452-8 hardback £35 & $39.50 Quotes

Contemporary methodologies, linguistic or archaeological, for determining the spoken language of a remote archaeological culture are virtually nonexistent. Simplified notions of the congruence between an archaeological culture, an ethnic group, and a linguistic affiliation millennia before the existence of texts is mere speculation, often with a political agenda. Archaeology has a long way to go before its methodology allows one to establish which cultural markers, pottery, architecture, burials, etc., are the most reliable for designating ethnic identity.

I argue for a different interpretation entirely—that the bearers of any of the variants of the Andronovo culture and the Bactrian Margiana complex may have spoken Indo-Iranian but may just as readily have spoken a Dravidian and/or an Altaic language.

The almost complete absence of evidence of contact between the Bactrian Margiana complex and the cultures of the steppe is made the more enigmatic by the evidence of settlement surveys. Gubaev, Koshelenko, and Tosi (1998) have found numerous sites of the steppe cultures near Bactrian Margiana settlements. The evidence therefore suggests intentional avoidance. Clearly this situation, should it be correctly interpreted, requires theoretical insights that await elucidation.

The idea of a distant homeland and an expansive migration to Central Asia is difficult if not impossible to maintain, but the origin of the Bactrian Margiana complex remains a fundamental issue. Although some scholars advance the notion that it has indigenous roots, the fact remains that its material culture is not easily derived from the preceding Namazga IV culture. Its wide distribution, from southeastern Iran to Baluchistan and Afghanistan, suggests that its beginnings might lie in this direction—an area of enormous size and an archaeological terra nullius. In fact, the Bactrian Margiana complex of Central Asia may turn out to be its northernmost extension, while its heartland may lie in the vast areas of unexplored Baluchistan and Afghanistan.

The vast majority of the Bactrian Margiana seals contain motifs, styles, and even material that are entirely foreign to the repertoire of seals from Syro-Anatolia, Mesopotamia, the Gulf, and the Indus (Baghestani 1997). They are of a thoroughly distinctive type and are to be seen as indigenous to the Central Asian Bronze Age world and not as derivative from any other region. They have been found in the Indus civilization, on the Iranian Plateau, at Susa, and in the Gulf. Amiet (1984) and Potts (1994) have documented the wide distribution of Bactrian Margiana–complex materials, and it is in this context that the specific parallels to the Syro-Anatolian region are to be appreciated. The wide scatter of a limited number of artifacts does not privilege any area as a homeland for the complex. The very limited number of parallels between the Bactrian Margiana complex and Syro-Anatolia signifies the unsurprising fact that, at the end of the 3d and the beginning of the 2d millennium, interregional contacts in the Near East brought people from the Indus to Mesopotamia and from Egypt to the Aegean into contact.

(Ghirshman attempted to identify the arrival of the Indo-Aryans in the region of the Hurrians (northern Syria) by linking them with Habur Ware and black and grey wares, but this untenable argument was elegantly refuted by Kramer .)

One gets the impression that he has chosen the Syro-Anatolian region as the homeland of the Bactrian Margiana complex in order to situate it within the geographical region in which the first Indo-Aryan texts were recovered and thus strengthen his Indo-Aryan claim for it.

Architectural similarities are exceedingly generalized, and the parallels to time/space systematics are weak.

Unfortunately, there is scant evidence to support the notion of an extensive migration from Syro-Anatolia to Bactria and Margiana in the archaeological record.

Sarianidi (1998b) now accepts, albeit with misgivings, the higher chronology for the Bactrian Margiana complex advanced in the mid-1980s by a number of scholars. A series of radiocarbon dates collected by Fredrik Hiebert (1994) at Gonur offers unequivocal evidence for the dating of the complex to the last century of the 3d millennium and the first quarter of the 2d millennium.

The question of the nature and the extent of interaction between the Andronovo cultures of the steppe and the sedentary farmers of Bactria and Margiana is of fundamental importance. As noted, the two archaeological entities are distinctive in their material culture and synchronous, and both have been identified as Indo-Iranian.

Although ceramics from the Andronovo cultures of the steppe have been found at Togolok 1 and 21, Kelleli, Taip, Gonur, and Takhirbai, Sarianidi (1998b:42; 1990:63) is adamant in opposing any significant Andronovo influence on the Bactrian Margiana complex: “Pottery of the Andronovo type does not exceed 100 fragments in all of southern Turkmenistan.” As rigorous approaches to data retrieval were not practiced, this figure must be merely impressionistic.

Sarianidi (1990) advocates a late-2d-millennium chronology for the Bactrian Margiana complex, describes it as the result of a migration from southeastern Iran, and identifies it as Indo-Iranian,.. There is absolutely no doubt, as is amply documented by Pierre Amiet (1984), of the existence of Bactrian Margiana material remains at Susa, Shahdad, and Tepe Yahya, but there is every reason to doubt that these parallels indicate that the complex originated in southeastern Iran. The limited materials of this complex are intrusive in each of the sites on the Iranian Plateau as they are in sites of the Arabian peninsula (Potts 1994).

This heightened nationalism projects a mythical and majestic Slavic past in which the archaeology of Arkhaim plays no small part.

The wave of nationalism in Russia has given rise to numerous publications of highly dubious merit. Thus, a monograph published by the Library of Ethnography and sanctioned by the Russian Academy of Science, Kto Oni i Otkuda (Chesko 1998), claims the Arctic to be the original homeland of the Vedas and Russian the language with the closest affinity to Sanskrit.