Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
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.
Posted by Dienekes at October 3, 2003 03:19 AM | PermaLinkDear Dienekes
I have read a lot of material out there suggesting that blonde-haired blue-eyed aryans (indo-iranians) suddenly dropped down from northern Europe or central Asia to settle Iran and India. Later they mixed with Semitic peoples and that is why Iranians today have a dark cmplexion. This is partially based on Hitler and De Gobineau's racist philosophy and I find no evidence for this. Even though, linguistically Iranians share a few words with European language this is not necessarilly indictive of a common lineage (Arabs in Lebanon speak Arabic but are genetically different from Saudi Arabians). It is known that in the early 1900's the British took over the oil industry in Iran, stealing oil and introducing some new words (in Farsi the words for energy and bad are the same as the English words). It should also be noted that the word Aryan was first found in Iran. First in the Zoroastrian Avesta and later on a inscription made by Darius. Climotolgy points to a gradual warming of the world, not cooling, about 15-10 thousand years ago. This would have made it more likely for the Aryans to have developed in a southern area and migrated north as before the warming central Asia was covered by ice. Increased rainfall in Iran also meant that the central salt deserts were once lakes. Here is and interesting excerpt from Zoroastrian mythology pointing to this "...In the second phase of the creation of the world, Ahura Mazda created the waters, and the waters flowed towards Farakhekrat Sea which covers one third of the world from the southern outskirts of Alborz." This could have been where the Aryan/ IndoIranian peoples first started and later migrated out as the lake dried up. Let us not forget that in the city of Susa up to 12 thousand years ago, while Central Asia was covered by ice, we have discovered pottery with advanced paintings. Now it is highly unlikely that a group of blonde-haired, blue-eyed peoples suddenly invaded and destroyed the local culture. Even if they did they would have been sunburnt bad and would have to rapidly adapt from cold to hot climates. In reality it is more likely that the aryans where tan skinned and dark eyed/haired (without any relation to Hitlers "supreme" race). I myself have green eyes and this already freaks a lot of people out considering I'm 100% Iranian. But in short the IndoIranian Aryans emerged from central Iran and migrated either across the Iranian plateau or into India where they mixed with Dravidians.
Posted by: Iranian at May 3, 2004 06:07 PMwhat do/did the dravidians look like? are they kind of more asian looking than indo-aryans?
was there a bit of ethnic pride in that post?
Posted by: Tom at July 13, 2004 05:06 AMMany people donot support AIT.They don't agree that Aryans came to India and Iran from SE Europe via Central Asia.Just like this article, many Indians believe that Aryans originated from Gangatic area in India and gradually spread westward and northward (OIT) .Iranians were the last to emmigrate from NW India.They forget that even the word 'Ganga' is not a Sanskrit word like Sindh or Sarasvati.Interestingaly,there is evidence that some Indo-Aryan speaking people lived in north Syria & Mesopotamia in during middle of 2nd m.BC.These people spoke a language which was very close to Rigvaidic language. But our OIT scholars think that Rigveda was composed some time in middle of 35th c.BC;whereas,these Indo-Aryan speaking middle-east people lived in middle of 2nd.m.BC. So the Rigvaidic language didnot change for complete 2000 yrs!Iranians left just afterwards but with changed language and religion!
Thanx
CPS