1
Excellent post! As I always thought. Central Asia is such a vast place. BMAC is far removed from the Krasnoyarsk area.Originally Posted by Kipchak Håkan
I think you appealed to good points. Here is a good summary for the possible ethnic identities of the Andronovan cultural horizon:
“Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and Bactrian Margiana archaeological complexes of the 2nd millennium b.c. have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites so identified, are being used for nationalist purposes. There is, however, no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common [Indo-European] ancestor or that either is Indo-Iranian. Ethnicity and language are not easily linked with an archaeological signature, and the identity of the Indo-Iranians remains elusive. [...]. There are serious problems in determining the chronology of the Common Altaic protolanguage. The question is not whether an Altaic protolanguage existed but how shared linguistic material due to early contacts can be distinguished from that inherited from the supposed Common Altaic. Whatever the answer to this question, it is very unlikely that in the chronological range of Andronovo and the Bactrian Margiana complex a Common Altaic (still) existed. This means that the possible languages of the bearers of these archaeological cultures can only be Turkic or Mongolian (for several reasons I would exclude Manchu-Tunguzian and other supposed Altaic languages such as Korean or Japanese).[...]. Both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolian could, however, reflect a culture like the Andronovo. [.]. It is not surprising that the majority continue to hold the view that the bearers of the Andronovo culture spoke Indo-Iranian. Consensus is not, however, the hallmark of all responses. [...]. Renfrew favors an Indo-Iranian identity for the Andronovo, and he fully realizes that there is not a shred of evidence that identifies the Andronovo with the traditional homeland of the Indo-Iranian-speakers either on the Iranian Plateau or in South Asia. There is, however, clear evidence for a Bactrian Margiana presence on the Iranian Plateau (Amiet 1984, Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992) and in South Asia (Jarrige 1993, n.d.). [...]. Such diversity among the Andronovo appeals to me. Framing the question as what language the Andronovo spoke is, I believe, misdirected. The Andronovo was made up of many cultures subject to constant change; some may have spoken Indo-Iranian, others Proto-Turkic, and yet others Proto-Mongolian, and, pace Mallory, there may have been an occasional Finno-Ugric-speaker among the lot.”
Source: Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Harvard University, Current Anthropology Volume 43, Number 1, February 2002, © by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved 0011-3204/2002/4301-0003$3.00).
These implementations in turn would just confirm following passage from turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net:
“The theory of Indo-Iranian origins of Andronovians is poorly founded, and the arguments provided for it raise too many doubts. However, it may still hold a couple of appealing points, with some uncertainty still remaining. The main core of Andronovo corresponds to the Alakul culture in northern Kazakhstan, the location of the Alakul culture overlaps the calculated Proto-Bulgaro-Turkic area situated in the Tobol-Ishim-Irtysh demoregion by more than a half. [...] In any case, there is no reason to believe the Indo-Iranian hypothesis is in any way more appealing than the current proposal of the Bulgaro-Turkic identification. [...] the most western and most ancient parts of the early Andronovo, such as Sintashta-Petrovka, could still belong to the Indo-European stock, whereas the more eastern areas, such as Alakul, Fedorovo and possibly other settlements near the Irtysh could most likely be Bulgaro-Turkic in origin.”
Source: The Proto-Turkic Urheimat & The Early Migrations of Turkic Peoples (2012)
... and hence Klyosov's assessment:
"In conclusion, a brief pause on the Scythian issue. From the above, it is clear that the Scythian people - in fact, a collective term, were both Türkic-lingual, and “Iranian-lingual”, or more accurately, Aryan-lingual. They were both nomadic pastoralists (which is typical for the Türkic tribes), and farmers (which is often typical for the Aryans). They had both haplogroups R1a1, and R1b1. They lived in felt yurts (many of those who lived in them, were carriers of R1b1), and also in stationary buildings (many of those were farmers, R1a1). Unfortunately, neither the specialists in the Indo-European languages, nor the Turkists are willing to recognize the duality (at least) of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and many other steppe (and not only steppe) tribes of the 1st millennium BC and the beginning of our era. Moreover, these tribes definitely had other haplogroups, in the first place G, Q, N, C. The carriers of the haplogroup G in the Scythian and Sarmatian times likely were “Iranian-speaking”, and lived in the Iranian Plateau much earlier then the Aryan times. Then, of course, they were not “Indo-Europeans”. The carriers of the Q, N, and C were most likely Türkic-lingual. The sooner both sides, the “Iranists” and “Türkists” recognize these facts, or at this point only considerations, the sooner linguistics would be enriched by new findings and discoveries. Especially, if in addition they would adopt in their research arsenal the DNA genealogy. I dare to hope that this article would facilitate that."
The concept about Andronov cultures belonging to the carriers of the Türkic-lingual ethnos were also postulated earlier by Tchernikov (1957), Amanjolov (1971, 1975, 1980). Now the numbers of scholars expressing this position gradually grows: Askarov (1996, 2001, 2002, 2004), Hodjaev (2003), Iskhakov (2003).
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turk...ogenesisEn.htm
Furthermore, the Andronovo anthropological type made a basis for the anthropological Turanid type of Kazakhs, Karakalpaks, Bashkirs, Kirghizes, Altaians, partly Uzbeks, etc.
Reply With Quote
. That is, mixing with caucasoids and mongoloids was occurring in the 'deep' pre-historic era, like at the time of Botai. However, certain sect of keyboard warrior forumites have been known to exhibit much butt hurt over this notion.
Bookmarks