Sarianidi (1998b) now accepts, albeit with misgivings, the higher chronology for the Bactrian Margiana complex advanced in the mid-1980s by a number … - 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

Indus materials are found in Mesopotamia, but the reverse is extremely rare.

Russian scholars working in the Eurasiatic steppes are nearly unanimous in their belief that the Andronovo culture and its variant expressions are Indo-Iranian. Similarly, Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the Bactrian Margiana complex share the conviction that it is Indo-Iranian. The two cultures are contemporary but very different. Passages from the Avesta and the Rigveda are quoted by various researchers to support the Indo-Iranian identity of both, but these passages are sufficiently general as to permit the Plains Indians an Indo-Iranian identity. Ethnicity is permeable and multi-dimensional, and the “ethnic indicators” employed by Kuzmina can be used to identify the Arab, the Turk, and the Iranian, three completely distinctive ethnic and linguistic groups. Ethnicity and language are not so easily linked with an archaeological signature.

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.