Central Asia has either too many languages and too few archaeological cultures or too few languages and too many archaeological cultures to permit an… - 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

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.

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.

Perhaps it is my lack of belief in relating the Sintashta-Petrovka with the Rig-veda, separated as they are by 1,000 years and almost as many miles, or in the alleged homogeneity of the Andronovo that Anthony finds “inaccuracies” in my article.