Indo-Iranian Origins
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002
Archaeology and Language
The Indo-Iranians
by C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky
Conclusions
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 multidimensional, 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.
Furthermore, archaeology offers virtually no evidence for Bactrian
Margiana influence on the steppe and only scant evidence for an
Andronovo presence in the Bactrian Margiana area. There is certainly
no evidence to support the notion that the two had a common
ancestor. There is simply no compelling archaeological evidence for
(or, for that matter, against) the notion that either is Indo-
Iranian.
Indo-Iranian is a linguistic construct with two branches, one of
which went to Iran and the other to northern India. The time of
their arrival in these new homelands is typically taken to be the 2d
millennium B.C. Not a single artifact of Andronovo type has been
identified in Iran or in northern India, but there is ample evidence
for the presence of Bactrian Margiana materials on the Iranian
Plateau and in Baluchistan (e.g., at Susa, Shahdad, Yahya, Khurab,
Sibri, Miri Qalat, Deh Morasi Ghundai, Nousharo [for a review see
Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovky 1992]). It is impossible, however, to
trace the continuity of these materials into the 1st millennium and
relate them to the known cultures of Iranian-speakersthe Medes or
the Achaemenids (or their presumed Iron Age ancestors [see Ghirshman
1977, Young 1967]). The only intrusive archaeological culture of the
2d millennium that directly influences Iran and northern India is
the Bactrian Margiana archaeological complex, but it cannot be
linked to the development of later 2d- and 1st-millennium
archaeological cultures on the Iranian Plateau.
The identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. When they are
identified in the archaeological record it is by allegation rather
than demonstration. It is interesting that the archaeological (and
linguistic) literature has focused entirely upon the Indo-Iranians,
overlooking the other major linguistic families believed to have
been inhabiting the same regionsthe Altaic, the Ugric, and the
Dravidian. Each of these has roots in the Eurasiatic steppes or
Central Asia. The fact that these language families are of far less
interest to the archaeologist may have a great deal to do with the
fact that it is primarily speakers of Indo-European in search of
their own roots who have addressed this problem.
In an interesting "Afterword" to Sarianidi's Margiana and
Protozoroastrianism, J. P. Mallory asks, "How do we reconcile
deriving the Indo-Iranians from two regions [the steppes and the
Central Asian oases] so different with respect to environment,
subsistence and cultural behavior?" (1998a:181). He offers three
models, each of interest, none supported by archaeological evidence,
one of which is that the Bactrian Margiana complex was Indo-Iranian
and came to dominate the steppe lands, serving as the inspiration
for the emergence of fortified settlements such as Sintashta in the
southern Urals. Thus, an external source is provided for the
development of the "country of towns" and with it a linguistic
affiliation. Mallory admits that this model is unlikely. His
conclusion is that the nucleus of Indo-Iranian linguistic
developments formed in the steppes and, through some form of
symbiosis in Bactria-Margiana, pushed southward to form the ancient
languages of Iran and India (p. 184). It is, however, that "form of
symbiosis" that is so utterly elusive!
Linguists too often assign languages to archaeological cultures,
while archaeologists are often too quick to assign their sherds a
language. Denis Sinor (1999:396), a distinguished linguist and
historian of Central Asia, takes a position that more might
consider: "I find it impossible to attribute with any degree of
certainty any given language to any given prehistoric civilization."
The works I have mentioned in this piece offer archaeological data
of great interest and importance, and all their authors identify the
archaeological cultures with which they are working as Indo-Iranian.
Linguists cannot associate an archaeological culture with words,
syntax, and grammar, and archaeologists cannot make their sherds
utter words. We need a third arbiter, which may or may not offer
some degree of resolution to the relationships between
archaeological culture and language. Perhaps that arbiter will be in
our genes. To date only a few mitochondrial and Y-chromosome studies
of Eurasian populations have been undertaken (Voevoda et al. 2000).
Eliza Khusnutdinova and her team at the Uta Research Center are
conducting pioneering DNA studies in the Volga-Urals region of
Russia. In the context of a renewed fashion of relating archaeology,
culture, and language it is well to remember that neither sherds nor
genes are destined to speak specific languages, nor does a given
language require a specific ceramic type or genetic structure.
Link (requires access)
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CA/journal/issues/v43n1/021004/02100
4.html