Irene L. Good, Associate of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University 11 Divinity Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 t. (617) 495-5703; f. (617) 495-7535; igood@fas.harvard.edu

WHEN EAST MET WEST Interpretive Problems in Assessing Eurasian Contact and Exchange in Antiquity Irene Good

INHERENT PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION

The archaeology of Inner Eurasia is complex. This is due, in no small part, to the very

history of its study. Over the past century there has been myriad discussion of migrations,

peoples, ethnogeneses, interactions and transformations in material culture from East to

West and back again, starting with Ferdinand von Richthofen’s 1897 notion of the

Seidenstrasse; and encompassing both Euro-American as well as Russo-Asiatic political and

nationalistic agendas though the World Wars, the Cold War, and beyond. This panoply of

contrasting streams of intellectual and scientific pursuit has thus generated a patchwork of

Eurasian prehistories that have each been particularly susceptible to aberrant study.

Three separate but interrelated topics are at play, each in and of itself large and complex:

the languages question, the archaeological cultures question, and the lifeways/ecological

interactions question. These three topics have simultaneously summoned, and helped

fashion, the tools of inquiry from three separate fields: A) linguistics, examining ancient

languages and language families and their relationships; B) archaeology (both material

culture studies as well as palaeoenvironmental studies, each of which bear on our

2

interpretation of past lifeways, and C) population genetics, including genetics and human

morphological studies.

These three fields of inquiry have each developed separately and are distinct disciplines,

each with competing theoretical frameworks underlying their subjects; yet the borders

between them have been porous. The dangerous result of this relationship is that often a

working hypothesis in one subject area is imported into another as established fact. More

broadly, basic concepts in one discipline become transferred over into another, part and

parcel. This kind of crossover has been particularly prevalent within bioanthropology and

palaeolinguistics, particularly regarding ethnic groupings and ethnicity. For example, the

linguistic term proto-Indo-Iranian has come to mean, for some, a verifiable archaeological

culture; and to some others, a verifiable haplogroup. To still others, these disparate

associations are reified and become established as knowledge of the past. Although

interdisciplinary work is often very fruitful and interesting, a careless approach can be

hazardous.

Another problem is in interpreting a very large amount of archaeological data from the

fourth through the first millennia BC in Inner Asia. Sherratt (1995) commented in his

review of Chernykh’s comprehensive work on metallurgy in Eurasia, that even as the

former Soviet Union has dissolved, we are nonetheless more challenged than ever to allow

truly comprehensive and large-scale studies, as former Soviet administrative and funding

3

resources have become disbanded.1 Even so, we find interpretation is already particularly

vulnerable to subjectivities:

“Russian and Central Asian scholars working on the contemporary but very different Andronovo and BMAC complexes of the 2nd millennium BC have identified both as Indo-Iranian, and particular sites are being identified as such for nationalistic purposes. There is no compelling archaeological evidence that they had a common 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.” C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002.

There is a rather thick interpretive overlay of several ideology-based archaeologies; what

has been termed ‘history armed with the spade’- ultra Marxist deterministic types such as

Ravdonikas (1932),2 Arcichovsky (1927) or Brjusov (1928) that have laid down the

framework for later Soviet archaeological thought; (see Klejn 1993:342-4; see also Trigger

1989), from the early schema of ‘primordial society’ to the periodic rise in nationalistic (eg.

Gening 1982) and even supremist views (eg. Rybakov 1951). Soviet Russia was not alone in

this, of course; and China too has a legacy of ideological and nationalistic propagandism

(see Sleeboom 2003 for overview and analysis). There is also a ‘Near East’ bias among

many western archaeologists (particularly among those with art historical or classical

training). In an attempt to offer counterbalance, critique of western scholars such as V.

1. Such as Parzinger’s recent (2006) overview on Siberian prehistory. I thank my anonymous reviewer for calling my attention to this work. 2. I thank Karl Lamberg-Karlovsky for providing me with this and the Rybakov reference

4

Mair and J.P. Mallory (2000) has also emerged (eg. Thornton and Shurr 2004).3 Lamberg-

Karlovsky has suggested that Soviet scholarship in particular tended to loosely associate

ethnicity, language, genetics and culture (2002, 2005).

The problem of archaeological chauvinisms will not go away quickly. It is necessary and

timely, however, to begin to address the broader issue of cross-disciplinary disparities; to

view the archaeological record(s) with more precision and caution, and openly articulate

that the ethnic, linguistic and cultural spheres of human identity and experience are

intersecting but are not correlative. This fact is evident in the present day, and must be

conceptually reinforced in our ideas about past peoples; especially since ‘archaeological

cultures’ are even one step more abstracted, they are an ‘etic’ concept of an emic identity.

CURRENT ALTERNATIVES

Linguistic Approaches

Linguistic study of ancient language groups, removed from social history, has developed a

broad, stable knowledge base of phonetic and semantic trends and shifts through time.

The discipline is not an experimental science, but one that nonetheless relies on parity in

data and hypothesis. Archaeologists use linguistic data and linguists use archaeological data.

Thus, several uses and several approaches have developed over the last 150 years that have

each influenced the relationship between archaeology and language. From the vantage

point of archaeology, palaeolinguistics, i.e. the study of ancient languages and their change 3. though problematic; for example using anachronistic reference to modern inhabitants of the Tarim Basin, and arguing that ‘red haired mummies’ are due to sun-bleaching, etc.; also in reference to silk in western Europe (p. 93) they mistakenly construe that I argued for a Chinese origin of the material in question.

5

through time, has been an appealing but often precarious tool for fleshing out static culture

histories. However, historical archaeologists tend to look at ancient language, with texts in

hand, in quite a different way than do prehistorians, who work more inferentially.4 Inferring

language from inferred archaeological cultures is one step even more removed from the

concrete; one more step into the domain of abstract constructs. This can become

dangerous.

Ideologically motivated archaeological interpretations take advantage of ambiguities in the

archaeological record to ‘create’ linkages with language, and by extension ethnicity, in a

deliberate attempt to trump alternate interpretations.5 The subject of the uses of

archaeology in promoting nationalism and subjugation is a very current and widely

discussed topic but will not be addressed here (see, for example, Kohl and Fawcett 1996;

Jones 1997). I will simply and briefly contrast two linguistic prehistorians’ uses of linguistic

and archaeological data in culture-historical reconstructions, both active and prominent

scholars interested in the Indo-European question: Asko Parpola and Michael Witzel.

Comparing their approaches will illustrate a small part of a much more complex,

problematic and entrenched relationship between archaeology and language. Both Parpola

and Witzel are specialists in Sanskrit (Indo-Aryan), though they both also know Avestan

(IIr.). Both use archaeological evidence to strengthen their arguments, and in so doing tend

to simplify and take advantage of archaeological ambiguities; though in different ways and

with different outcomes. 4. See for example, the recent volume edited by Patton and Bryant (2005). 5. More deductive approaches are considered here as relatively deductive compared to those ideologically motivated; acknowledging

there is at least a little bias in all of us.

6

We can assume, based on philology, the order of separation of a proto-Indo-European

group split into western and eastern (centum and satem) branches first, then the eastern

branch (proto-Indo-Iranian, exemplified in historical texts of the Mittani, ca. 1500 BC)

then further split into Old Iranian and Indo-Aryan groups; Old Iranian being represented

by the Gathas and Avestan literature, and Indo-Aryan by the Rg Veda and later texts.

Within the Old Iranian group, there was then a further split into eastern and western

Iranian, though this is poorly understood at present. The western group, it is thought,

showed up in later historical texts as the Medes. The eastern group, of particular interest to

the archaeology of Central Asia, may have been the people of the BMAC according to

Parpola, though others see this group as Andronovo.

Some of Parpola’s current work focuses on finding direct 2700 year-old historical

connections that he sees between the Sakae of the first millennium BC and the present day

Kafiri people of Afghanistan (Parpola 2002). He incorporates anachronistic iconographic

evidence to argue historical connections and identities of peoples. Parpola also sees the

BMAC as unambiguous evidence for the pre-Vedic/early Vedic Indo-Aryans, citing the

compartmented seals and the architecture at Dashly 3, and strikes a parallel with the

architecture from Arkaim, (which belongs to a very different but contemporaneous

archaeological complex, as is nearly universally accepted by archaeologists). While he

believes Andronovo to be Indo-Aryan also, his scenario makes use of Mallory’s (1998)

‘Kulturkugel’ hypothesis to explain the transformation of a pre-Vedic indigenous

7

‘Turkmeno-Bactrian’ people, whom he hypothesizes to have become bilingual with the

influx of Steppe migrants and eventually adopted Vedic Aryan in the BMAC phase

(Parpola, personal communication 2006; also see 2001; 1988).

Parpola (2002) then argues for the identity of the Dashas,6 and ultimately an historical

connection between Indian and Iranian cosmologies with that of China by comparing

forms in a contemporary Tantric tankha (mandala), Han Period ‘TVC’ mirrors, BMAC

style compartmented seals and the architectural layout of both Arkaim and Dashly 3.

The idea of attempting to demonstrate an historical strand between the BMAC, Vedic and

Chinese cosmologies by finding meaningful connections in these variously applied motifs

is, at best, precarious. The features of this particular motif are composed of very very

simple elements. Circles, squares and quadrants are notoriously ubiquitous in art

worldwide. The particular motif, from the ‘TLV’ mirrors (a set of concentric circles with

quadrants divided by a ‘T’ shape), is also to be found in Turkoman carpets,7 19th century

Tibetan Buddhist tankhas and Native American medicine wheels. The motif might have

been anachronistically borrowed or independently constructed, but whether the semantic

context has been carried along with motif in these objects remains highly questionable.8

6. The “Dashas” were a ‘dark’ people described in the Rg Veda as enemy to the Aryans. 7. See Baker 1997, and Cammann 1975 for further discussion of the ‘science’ of analyzing carpet design, particularly in ascertaining anachronistic borrowings. 8. Though he sees evidence for an earlier Vedic antecedent of this cult (Parpola 2002:263-270).

8

Transferring meaning from large architectural principles to small portable objects, and of

this motif in particular, stems from work of the Asian art historian and scholar, Schuyler

Cammann, who years ago studied the symbolism of a group of Chinese mirrors, the so-

called Han ‘TLV ‘ type (Cammann 1948), and as noted by Parpola, also Brentjes 1981).

Significant, perhaps, is the possible connection of this Chinese motif with certain Chinese

and Mongolian board games (e.g. ‘Liubo’), which would not only mediate between smaller

and larger scales, but give the player the ‘birds eye view’ that is missing from the connection

between this design in mirrors and seals to that of the cosmologically formulated and

arranged space in royal or sacred architecture.9 As for the compartmented seals, too many

of them are not of that configuration (see Winkelmann et. al 2004; Baghestani 1997), so it

is doubtful that there is a specific meaning attached to the one shown in Parpola’s 2002

paper on p. 283 (which is actually the verso of a seal with a loop for attaching, not a

compartmented seal). The possible connection between Vedic and Iranian cosmologies

and material culture with later Chinese cosmology is more likely to have been due to

influence from the influx of Buddhism from India into Western China ca. 200 BC).

From a linguist’s vantage point, M. Witzel has a different approach to the old ‘Urheimat’

problem. Witzel’s study focuses on mythology, and reconstructing the probable homeland

of the ‘Aryans’, among other themes. Witzel (eg. 1999) examines linguistic substrates as

evidence for chronology, influence and direction of language/people changes through time.

9. In viewing an archaeological site plan (bird’s eye view) of the building in question at Dashly-3 what we see is not what was seen or conceptualized in the late third to early second millennium BC, but rather a building from the view on the ground. The false entry gates protected from siege, but did not necessarily have any parallel cosmological meaning as that of the ‘T’ shape on Han Chinese hand-held mirrors.

9

He shares the more popular view that the Sintashta-Petrovka culture is evidence for the

early Indo-Iranians, with the early light chariot and spoked wheel, and the region best

described as the ancestral homeland of the Indo-Aryans of the Rg Veda (Witzel 1999:7).10

He systematically accounts, through ancient texts, what he believes to be the probable

‘homeland’ of the Aryans (Indo-Aryan) (Witzel 2000). Witzel acknowledges the Indo-

Aryans to be a language group, but also argues they are hypothetically a coherent group of

people who had already become distinct from an Indo-Iranian population, as attested in

the earliest Vedic writing, the Rg Veda, ca. 1200 BC; and that as such, this ‘group’ will have

a cohesive material culture. This is a common assumption, and an oversimplification. He

uses an analogy of archaeological strata in linguistic transformations through time as

evidenced by different, datable sources, in what he calls linguistic ‘stratification’. By looking

at loan words he puts the borrowings in a chronological order according to the presence or

absence of archaic features, and thereby attempts to reconstruct the contact between

different peoples in (relative) time and across (an abstract) space (Witzel 2006).11

In another study, Witzel examines not toponyms per se, but rather mythological

descriptions of regions, which he then transfers onto a contemporary map of Eurasia.

However, in his discussion of evidence for an influx of northern Steppe ceramics (Witzel

2000:7), he cites the prevailing view of archaeologists (citing Hiebert and Shishlina 1998),

that areas ‘south of the BMAC’ were not directly ‘affected’ by the steppes. He refers to 10. Witzel acknowledges the culture as newly dated to ca. 2000 BC (see Kuznetsov 2006); these new (significantly earlier) dates imply synchronicity with the Potapovka culture of the Volga Basin Not insignificantly, this is the region thought by others, such as Anthony (2007; 1986), Raulwing (2000), and Mallory (1997), to be the Indo-European Urheimat. 11. This is actually a development from earlier approaches to the question of the PIE homeland by looking at specific diagnostic words such as ‘birch’ and ‘salmon’ and technology related words such as ‘wheel’ and chariot’ (see Mallory 1989; Parpola 1988; Anthony 1986; Goodenough 1970; Gimbutas 1970).

10

‘evidence’ for transformation seen in Seistan and Baluchistan ‘bronze age deposits’ (without

discussing any evidence in detail). He then goes on to explain that post 1900-1700 BC

there is continuity of settlement in the BMAC oases ‘down to the subsequent local cultures,

those of Takhirbay, Mollali and Vakhsh’; though at present this is not evident in the

archaeology of Bactria; neither the Mollali phase nor the Vakhsh culture is seen as

‘subsequent local culture’ but rather as a distinct break from earlier traditions.12 Moreover,

the origins of Vakhsh are not clearly understood at present.

Both Witzel and Parpola have simplified and used archaeological data, rather than

interpreting archaeological evidence, to strengthen linguistically- informed arguments for

hypothetical culture histories. Parpola relies on anachronistic parallels in specific material

finds to argue for an Indo-Aryan BMAC; Witzel uses archaeological cultures as bearers

and transmitters of language, harmonizing the ‘stratified’ relative chronology of his

historical linguistics with a different, and problematic, system of relative chronology in the

archaeological record of Eurasia.

12. A ‘distinct break’ meaning recognizable change in material culture. Mollali has been traditionally seen as a late phase of the Sapalli culture, a northeastern Bactrian culture and a late member of the BMAC; Mollali and Bustan being considered the last phase. However, nearly all of this chronology is based on variations in ceramic assemblage in burials without any reliance on stratigraphy or absolute dating methods (see most recently Vinogradova and Kuzmina, in press. Teufer (2005) also looks at ceramic differences from burials at Djarkutan and infers a signal for two sub-phases, one in each of the two phases LBA I and LBA II) of Djarkutan; but again without any radiocarbon analysis to support this hypothesized regional chronology. Mollali type finds are spread into the Surkhan Darya region along the Uzbek/Tajik border and eastward into the Vahksh Valley, with sketchy evidence there for contact with peoples of the steppes just to the north, although this is by no means well understood at present. Thus Mollali a) has movement and b) shows change through interaction with another culture. This is a very different scenario from the general and oversimplified ‘subsequent local culture’ that had ‘continuity of settlement’. This demonstrates the crux of the problem addressed here: that a large-scale overview of complex and ambiguous archaeological data necessarily oversimplifies and mutes it and makes it especially susceptible to mutability for fit into various linguistic or historical theories.

11

It is perhaps apparent why it has been possible for different scholars to go in such different

directions: some outline one scenario, others lay out another; each relies on the same sites,

artifacts, names, language groups and ‘cultures’ to describe different stories because the

points of reference are so easily transformed to meet the requirements of their given

scenario, as was well outlined by Lamberg-Karlovsky in his seminal paper on archaeology

and language regarding the Indo-Iranians (2002). Interpretations are idiosyncratic, in the

true sense of the word. The temptation, therefore, is to look towards more objective sets of

data.

PHYSICAL BIOLOGY APPROACHES

Craniometrics

At the other end of the palaeohistorical spectrum is the physical anthropological approach,

whereby through detailed craniometric measurements of compared sets of human remains,

assertions are made concerning the degree of affinity particular ancient peoples had with

each other, and with modern populations (see, for example, Hemphill and Mallory 2004).

This approach too has weak spots, principally because it is presented as objective yet is

much more subjective than it appears. Measurements of individuals are taken as

representative of a particular ‘ethnic’ group, though human variation belies conformity both

within and between groups of people; cranial markers are analogic and determined

subjectively, rather than using only truly quantifiable (i.e. binary polymorphic) factors that

are determined through phenotypic variation. This is not to completely dismiss this line of

evidence outright, but to keep it in perspective.

12

Genetics (mtDNA)

Examining genetic variability is more objective, though this too has limitations in helping

define and articulate the culture histories of prehistoric Eurasia, particularly in ascertaining

fine-tuned historical events such the peopling of a new area or a migration. Although

estimating events though genetic distance by the ‘molecular clock’ idea works well enough

for the long-range view, events within the past several millennia require much too fine-

tuned a scale to be as reliable as some purport (e.g. Wells 2006).

Mitochondrial DNA of modern populations has pointed to a specific set of bottlenecks

which may well indicate early substantive population movements and isolations from other

groups, from Western Asia to Central Asia and beyond. The important factors for the

interests of this paper are the culture-historic context and meaning of the population

isolations, and the periodicity and timeframe of the isolations. It is not yet possible,

however, to reliably derive these factors from the present evidence. It is with the utmost

care that we must parse between useful and useless data in both archaeological and human

population genetics sets of data to render a meaningful and accurate picture of the past.

Y Chromosomes

Mitochondria are passed down unchanged (except by mutation) from mother to offspring.

All humans have mtDNA. Y Chromosomal DNA, by contrast, is found only in the Y

chromosome, and is, by definition, male DNA passed down to males only. Thus the

13

mtDNA and the Y chromosome may produce quite different pictures due to sexual

asymmetry in lineages and in population movements. By incorporating data from both, a

more whole population history can be extrapolated. For example, comparison of both

mtDNA and Y chromosomal DNA in samples from the Parsi population of Pakistan

(Karachi) and India (Mumbai) showed substantial asymmetry. Male DNA was cohesive

and with Iranian haplogroup markers, while the mtDNA showed considerable admixture

with local population (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004).

Y chromosomal DNA of modern population networks are configured to show historical

population affinity which are derived from measuring clusters of haplotypes of mutations

visible in microsatellites which can be chronologically ordered indirectly, by documenting

TMRCA, or ‘time to most recent common ancestor’. Through this, however, some infer

directionality in population movements by means of differentiating groups from others by

‘defining’ mutations which distinguish a group from a parent group. This is done by using

one or more of a series of statistical packages that help define (either modeled on

population lineages or unmodeled but taking into account allele length and/or mutation

rates) and then estimate the time at which a genetic mutation occurred which distinguishes

a group from another. These distinguishing markers can thus be put in chronological

order which then can be imposed onto GIS and thus a general picture of population

‘movements’ in prehistory can be presented. New haplogroups are being discovered and

defined currently (see, for example, the National Geographic study: Wells 2006).

14

This data is of course of great value to understanding East-West interactions in prehistory;

however, there are a few important caveats that must be considered as well before we

consider this data useful. First, the time frame and accuracy of rate of mutation assumption

weakens as we move forward through history (for detailed work on this area see Spencer

and Howe 2004). Second, the interpretation of population haplogroups is based on strictly

genetic factors and does not address any aspect of human behaviour other than biological

reproduction. Third, by looking at modern language groups as initial defining populations

there is a certain amount of assumption built in that is reified or reinforced in the study as

presented; and that some haplogroups may be obscured, missed or exaggerated.

Furthermore, it is acknowledged that language groups and genetic haplogroups, in Central

and Western Asia as a rule, do not conform (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004:839-840). Finally,

DNA recombination can complicate the picture, and certain microsatellite ‘hotspots’ are

frequently subject to recombination which is only now being addressed (eg. Spencer et al.

2006). Some of these hotspots may indeed be on specific alleles used as haplogroup

markers.13 “Linguistic difference in these regions (the southwest and Central Asian corridor,

i.e. mainly Indo-European vs. Altaic) are not reflected in the patterns of mtDNA diversity.”

(Quintana-Murci et al. 2004:839). There are few exceptions to this, and one particular

exception is that of the Hunza of the NWF Province of Pakistan.

However, to actually determine ancient population movement through later period

phylogenetics is not a cut and dried case, as noted by authors Underhill et al. (2000). In 13. Most recently (November 2006) current understanding of human genetic variability has taken an exponential leap, with the discovery of parallel genes in no less than 10 % of the human genome. Though at first blush this seems to further complicate the study of ancient human DNA and population movements, this may actually help track specific marker genes in modern populations.

15

regard to a specific affinity between Ethiopians and Sudanese, for example, their close

affinity with Mediterranean populations could reflect “either repeated genetic contact

between Arabia and Africa during the last 5000-6000 years or a Middle Eastern origin with

subsequent acquisition of African alleles on their way southwest with agricultural

expansions” (Underhill et al. 2000:361). In other words, genetic markers can show relative

affinity between populations (as defined by, you guessed it, genetic markers), but do not

demonstrate the nature or timing of affinity nor its historical causes.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF EURASIA AND THE ANDRONOVO PHENOMENON One of the most widely discussed yet poorly understood phenomena of inner Eurasian

prehistory is that of interaction. The nature, intensity and duration of interaction is less

attended to than the simple presence or absence of evidence documenting interaction

between different groups. This is a major reason why it has been and continues to be easy

for researchers from different vantage points to draw very different interpretations from the

same evidence. Developing a more sophisticated language of interaction and the various

components of its signature in the archaeologies of Eurasia, therefore, is imperative for

future study to progress.

In the current conceptualization of northern Eurasian Bronze Age archaeology, the term

‘Andronovo’ glosses over significant and distinctive variation in local archaeological

16

sequences.14 Moreover, among the several regional, discrete archaeological antecedent

cultures such as Afanasievo to the southeast, Srubnaya (Timber Grave) culture to the west,

and the earlier Yamnaya, it is unknown which, if any, was the principal contributor to what

later became Andronovo. The contrast between regional stylistic variations within a more

general unity of ceramic forms is not in conformity with any sort of unity in burial type, so

some kind of local–intraregional interface must be explained. This interaction evidenced in

northern Eurasian Bronze Age material culture can perhaps be understood in terms

parallel to the so-called ‘Intercultural Style’ phenomenon of the third millennium BC

Western Asia, where distinct local cultures also shared a common (and long-distance

traded) set of motifs (Kohl 1977; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1988; see also Winkelman 2004;

Good 2006).

So what exactly is ‘Andronovo’? ‘The name relates to a specific and defined set of material

cultural traits and features, with what has often been considered to be a consistent and

characteristic ceramic type (see figure 1). Because many scholars consider Andronovo to

represent a cohesive group of people in ethnic and language terms, it has been loosely

14. Of which some Russian scholars are also aware, as expressed in the term ‘общност’.

17

Figure 1. Examples of later ‘Andronovo’ ceramic vessels. Federovo (left) and Afanasievo (right). After Kuzmina 1994.

considered a culture. It has also been variously considered to be an archaeological horizon,

a culture complex, a set of related cultures, or a set of material culture traits reflecting

interaction between different groups. Thus basic questions of definition have remained

open to discussion and debate. It is perhaps fair to loosely conceptualize ‘Andronovo’ as

part phenomenon, part heuristic artifact, because it covers such a wide range of dates and

such a large area (comparable in scale to that of the Huari/Wari in the Peruvian Andes),

and is more apparent to those who ‘lump’ than it is to those who ‘split’. Below is a review

18

of the perspectives of principal scholars dealing with the phenomenon: Kuzmina,

Koryakova, Genning, Zdanovich, and Lamberg-Karlvosky.15

Kuzmina (1994) believes that Andronovo cultural remains represent the Indo-Aryans, who

constitute the origins of the Indo-Iranians. Her chronology is the 17th -9th centuries BC, in

the following sequence: the Petrovka culture is early Andronovo, ca. 17th -16th centuries BC,

with a western influence. It is a period of early bronze smelting. The well-known rich

princely chariot burials at Sintashta represent this culture. Kuzmina notes there is no

common root word in Indo-Aryan and Iranian for ‘horseman’.

The next phase is the Alekseyevo stage, ca. the 15th-13th centuries BC when the ubiquitous

‘steppe ceramics’ emerge, distributed from the Danube to the Altai; with parallels to the

Timber Grave (or Srubnaya) culture. At this stage there is development of stockbreeding

(cattle) and a pronounced increase in populations, expansion, and a transition from settled

to nomadic lifeways.

Koryakova (1995) begins on the Asiatic Steppe (the trans-Ural) from 2000 -1600 BC, or

the Middle Bronze Period. Within that period, the Arkaim, Sintashta-Petrovka (ca. 1900-

1800 BC) emerged. This was followed by the Late Bronze Age (1600-900 BC), and the

final or transitional period ca. 800-700 BC, and the Early Iron Age ca. 600-300 BC. She

sees the spread of ‘cultural transmission’ as being from West to East; from Pit Grave

15. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, there are others such as Jones-Bley, Itina, Avanesova and Margulan. The

author considers the above to be the most influential scholars on the subject of the Andronovo question.

19

(Yamma or Yamnaya) then of Abashevo cultures. This in turn ‘gave rise’ to the Potapovka

culture of the Don/Volga region and the Arkaim/Sintashta Culture in the southern Urals,

or Land of Towns (aka ‘Country of Towns’). Koryakova acknowledges the possibility of the

architectural pattern of the ‘Country of Towns’ being related to the round fortified

settlement of southeastern Europe and parts of Anatolia and the Aegean (Koryakova

1995:256; see Merpert 1995). The Sintashta-Arkaim culture collapsed around 17th-16th

centuries BC, with various explanations put forth (migration, climate/ecological change,

etc.) (Koyakova 1995:259). After this, ‘it’ was replaced by the “more standard, less

extravagant, but much more widespread Andronovo cultural zone.” (ibid.). “Sometimes it

is called the Andronovo archaeological family because of its multilinear evolution.” (ibid.).

At this point (ca. 1400-1200 BC), what is termed Andronovo was prominent along with

Srubnaya (Timber Grave Culture, to the west, i.e. west of the Urals), which in turn formed

the basis of the Scythian and Siberian ‘cultural unity’.

Koryakova believes the Sintashta/Arkaim culture moved into a “probably Ugric-speaking”

Tersek-Botai culture area; the long time spent there transformed the culture (Koryakova

1995:257). Some descendants went south, becoming Petrovka, then early Alakul’ and

Fjedorovo; and in another stream, Srubnaya. The cohesion in these great and expansive

‘families of traditions’ is in the ceramics. This is where we run into epistemological trouble.

Genning et al. (1992) state that the inhabitants of the southern Urals, (especially the

Sintashta complex and Arkhaim) are Aryans, or the Indo-Aryan branch of the Proto-Indo-

20

Europeans. Gening, Zdanovich and Gening base these conclusions on the chronology and

the “ethnical identification of archaeological sites.” (Gening, Zdanovich and Gening 1992).

Craniometrics do not in any way indicate a uniform genetic group of people even in the

early stage of cultural development (R. Lindstrom, personal comm. as cited in Zdanovich

and Zdanovich 2002:251). Zdanovich later termed this phenomenon ‘Country of Towns’

(1999; 2002). This refers to the pit grave cultures of the southern Ural steppe (Zdanovich

and Zdanovich 2002; Morgunova & Kravsov 1994). Within the Country of Towns, they see

regional distinction and variation in ceramics and material culture, but with a commonality.

Andronovo and Timber Grave (Potapovo phase) were unique, exemplified by the

concentric ringed structures of Arkaim and Sintashta (Zdanovich 1988:222).

Zdanovich does not make connections between Arkaim and the circular towns of

southeastern Europe but he does see evidence for interactions between the steppes to the

East and on the other side of the Black Sea. He does not see a western influence, as

described by Koryakova (although he states they are reminiscent of Barca in Slovakia) but a

southern influence; and also sees eastern (Chinese) metallurgical influences in the socketed

bronzes of the early second millennium BC Seima-Turbino-Samus’sk cultures to the north

in the forest-steppe).16 His is a perspective based primarily on connecting parallels in

technology and domesticated animals.

16. Which is now actually dated to the late third millennium BC. See Parzinger and Boroffka 2003). I thank my anonymous reviewer for bringing my attention to this.

21

Lamberg-Karlovsky (2002) states that Andronovo as a concept has not been consistently

articulated, and perhaps more importantly, that specialists have lacked an agreed upon

periodization (Lamberg-Karlovsky 2002:65; see Hanks et al. 2007 and for current

overview). He further points out that several current thinkers on the subject (eg. Yablonsky

2000); now object to the idea of a millennium-long culture covering over three million

square miles (see also Grigoryev 2007).

Thus we see epistemological issues of interpretation, and of limitations due to a lack of

chronological syncretism. What has also been lacking up until now is a clear break from

simplistic evolutionist and migrationist models.17 There is a need to view the archaeological

record of Bronze Age Eurasia as an expression of diverse, interacting local culture

histories, with visible synchronic changes in regional material culture in specific regions.

Moreover the notion of ‘nomad’ is grossly over-simplified and at times falsely

dichotomized into discreet populations of ‘settled’ vs. ‘nomadic’. This oversimplification is

particularly pronounced in the literature concerning Central Asia before the first

millennium BC (for discussion see Khazanov 1984; see also Good 1999; 2006b).

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF THE OXUS CIVILIZATION OR ‘BMAC’

The archaeology of the middle Amu Darya region has been vigorously studied for over

forty years and yet remains poorly known or understood. The more westerly Namazga

sequence has been used as the dominant framework of the long regional culture history 17. Although Anthony (1990) revived a stale and out-of-date migration model and began a lively debate on the American side in Eurasian steppe archaeology (eg. Chapman and Dolukhanov 1992), the Soviet-post-Soviet transition has not yet taken significant steps toward a more considered explanatory model of culture change.

22

from ca. 4000-1750 BC in an integral area of what was later known as the Silk Road.

Moreover the dating of the Namazga sequence has remained controversial from the

beginning (eg. see Dales 1972). As with the case of the Andronovo phenomenon, many

unclear and ambiguous parts of the archaeology within, around and beyond the Tedzen

Oasis have been used to promote various theories, from the problem of migration and

population movement to the development of the ‘Oxus Civilization’ without any real regard

to data. We must develop a better understanding of the nature of these earlier prehistoric

cultures and their relationships and interactions (see, for example, Amiet 1986; Jarrige

1988). Likewise, for the past thirty years archaeologists have been studying the so-called

Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, though it was initially known only from illicitly

excavated materials from Afghanistan (Frankfort 2005; Ligabue et. al 1989) and later from

a few well-published Soviet studies of sites in SE Uzbekistan such as Dashly, Djarkutan and

Sapalli (Sarianidi 1977; Massimov 1981).

The term ‘BMAC’ was coined by Viktor Sarianidi, one of the principal archaeologists

working in the more easterly Bactria region. Sarianidi saw the BMAC as having derivation

from and connections with the Iranian Khorasan region, and viewed the dates as mid to

late second millennium BC (see figure 2).18 By contrast, Masson (1988) viewed the

phenomenon quite differently, seeing a more northerly derivation and affinity (the Khopet

Dagh in Turkmenistan) and a considerably earlier date.

18. Sarianidi has more recently placed the beginning of BMAC to the late third millennium BC. See Sarianidi, 2002; 2005).

23

Figure 2. Partial chronology of Bronze Age Southern Turkmenistan, based on the Namazga sequence with various calibrated dates from different sites. Discrepancies still exist in regional chronologies of different scholars, due to different opinions about parallels in cultural sequences, and to sometimes poor C14 sampling (see Lamberg-Karlovsky’s 2002 comments regarding Sarianidi’s recant of dates).

Hiebert worked at Gonur and Gonur North in Margiana, and assimilated both new

calibrated radiocarbon dates as well as a seriation of ceramics to help find parity with the

regional cultural phases (Hiebert 1994; see also Edens 1996 for review). Part of Hiebert’s

contribution was to see evidence, increasing through time, of ‘interaction’ between the oasis

settlement at Gonur and the steppes, as evidenced by textile impressed and incised

ceramics typical of the Tagazagyab culture from due north in Khoresmia. This evidence

helped to form Kohl’s (2002) recent suggestion that the ‘Steppe’ or ‘Andronovo’

populations interacted with the oasis settlements in Margiana and were eventually

24

transformed into the BMAC. This idea is gaining traction, as is the related Kulturkugel

hypothesis of Mallory (1998). This trend of trying to explain the emergence of the BMAC

by invoking a vague notion of ‘interaction’ along with a vague set of index criteria such as

textile impressed sherds as indicating ‘Steppe’ peoples19 is a perfect example of what Carol

Kramer had famously cautioned against (1977).

Evidence for interaction between the settled and steppe peoples during the 2nd millennium

BC has been a subject keenly debated and discussed in recent years (see for example

Hiebert and Shislina 1998). However, there is another aspect of interaction that is only now

being considered: that of the highland interface (Good 2005; 2006b; 2007; see also Witzel

2003 in specific reference to the Hindu Kush; Stacul 1987; Barger 1939). Indeed, one only

need to consider the mineralogical requirements of smelting to realize how important the

incorporation of a highland landscape became in early metal using societies. The recent

discovery of early tin extraction in the Zerevshan is testament to this (see Borroffka et. al

2004; Parzinger and Borroffka 2003; also Kaniuth 2007). Further south, in the deeply cut

fertile river valleys of southern Tajikistan are traces of what has been interpreted as a so-

called ‘steppe bronze’ culture, interacting with the BMAC during the Mollali phase

(Vinogradova 2004; Vinogradova and Kuzmina 1994).

19. Which steppe? When? What culture- the now defunct Andronovo? Why can’t it be from Baluchistan?

25

ANDRONOVO, BMAC, INDO-EUROPEANS AND THE ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE PROBLEM The main point of the previous section has been to illustrate how a problematic concept

(‘Andronovo’) has been used, almost indiscriminately, over the last several decades to

explain another problem; namely that of archaeological traces of the PIE–speaking

communities as archaeological entities. This second problem is also conceptual (trying to

force conformation of two separate types of data), but is more than that: the assumptions

about linguistic, ethnic, cultural, and historical connections are often left out of the

discussion. This second area is a very important problem, but will not be addressed in the

present forum to the extent it deserves, but will be treated in a future paper. For the

present purpose, we will confine the discussion to how various economically similar groups

(regardless of whether we are ‘lumping’ or ‘splitting’), in the second millennium BC

Eurasian Steppes have been interacting, moving, communicating and transporting both

material and non-material culture. We are at a disadvantage when we try to reconstruct

ideological frameworks, and we fail when we assume their distribution means a distribution

of people and languages. However, we can address parallels in ideological frameworks and

concomitant ritual behaviour in the form of burial and sacred architecture and specialized

ritual objects, for example the so-called stone ‘purses’ and grooved columns distributed

from Sarazm (Isakov 1991; 1996) to Shahr-i Sokhta (Tosi 1983) and beyond (see for

example Winkelmann 1998; Borroffka and Sava 1999). The tendency is to loosely

interpret, with vague sets of criteria, the distribution of materials, sometimes removed from

their context, as indices of population movements and ‘interactions’.

26

Many scholars see the BMAC complex as Indo-Iranian; though others are convinced that

evidence points to ‘Andronovo. The methodology used by scholars such as Kuzmina and

Anthony is a sort of applied ‘ethnic’ analysis, whereby the traits are found in the

archaeological record and assessed to match known aspects of cultural traits found in

‘Indo-Iranians’. This method is, however, not universally accepted, for example the use of

horse sacrifice in timber-lined graves is also found in Bronze Age China. Moreover, if there

are horses, one also hastens to assume nomadism. Here we find ourselves moving into the

third thorny issue; that of nomadism, pastoralism and mixed agrarian societies. The

theoretical and ethnographic models and archaeologically interpreted material are both

lacking sufficient detail to further clarify our image of the past and our understanding of

ancient interactions and cultural developments; it is for this reason, perhaps above all else,

that we see little advancement in creating meaningful interface between linguistic,

archaeological (and mytho-historical) and physical/genetic data.

So, to reset our view, the thematic interests lie in the study of evidence for interactions,

linguistic, genetic, and material cultural; and to reinforce the model of constant change, to

force a re-focus on refinement of chronology, to wane the older notions of cultural or

ethnic origins; of urheimats and ancestors, beyond what is knowable in only the very

simple, abstract sense. Indeed as Kohl recently stated:

“There is no single Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European ‘homeland’ but just an ever unfolding historical process of development in which peoples not only continuously transform themselves, including their basic livelihoods, and sometimes move

27

and enter new areas, but also continuously borrow and assimilate the technical innovations and cultural developments of other peoples with whom they always come into contact.”

P. Kohl (2002)

Below are two case studies (lapis lazuli and silk, respectively), which illustrate how even

materials science has been misused in the search for evidence of long distance interactions.

I argue that, if used carefully, these types of analytical study can indeed be used to

determine ancient sources of rare substances and by extension long distant contact between

East and West. This type of analysis can, above all other types of data, aid in our

interpretation of interactions. It is hoped that through careful and more thorough materials

studies, integrated with regional surveys, we can begin to build better models, and pose

more relevant archaeological questions based on a more precise understanding of the

nature of rare substances and the extent of their use in antiquity.

28

PART II. CASE STUDIES- SILK, LAPIS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF HIGHLAND VERTICAL TRANSHUMANCE CASE STUDY I: LAPIS LAZULI

Lapis vs Sodalite? Where is this questioned?

“A possible point of confusion here may be the widespread occurrence in

Iran of another bluish stone called lazurite. This more common stone could

be easily mistaken for lapis. Further investigation is needed to determine

how much of what we are presently calling lapis lazuli on early sites is

actually lapis lazuli.’

Thomas W. Beale 1973.

Beale mistook the difference of lapis from lazurite- he might have meant lazulite,

azurite, or sodalite; but the point he made is clear and highly relevant: namely that

the stone we assume to be rare, from a specific source in northeastern Afghanistan,

may well be another, equally rare but more widely distributed mineral, namely

sodalite. This mineral occurs worldwide, and in fact is found within the lapis mines

as well as regions in Southeast Asia, Siberia, the Russian Far East, the Urals region,

Kazakhstan and Kyrgizstan. Sodalite is related to lapis as it, like lazurite, is in the

feldspathoid group.20 The possibility of sodalite rather than lapis being a source of

20. according to the Struntz grouping

29

some of the blue stone that was so important to ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt

must be addressed more closely.

Lapis lazuli refers to a mineral complex made up of lazurite, which gives lapis its

blue hue, and other minerals including calcite and sulfite. Lazurite is a feldspathoid

mineral belonging to the sodalite group, along with haüyne and nosean. It is of

varied composition. Other relevant minerals are lazulite, azurite and sodalite, each

of which also produce a blue colour; but the most prominent stone used is lapis

lazuli. It can sometimes occur with silver or iron pyrites veining within the stone. It

is distinctive because of its mineral context: it is often found formed in calcite.

The unique geological conditions required for the formation of lapis have only

fairly recently been discovered; though the fact that its occurrence is quite rare has

been known for millennia. Lapis forms only when there is contact between biogenic

sedimentary rock (calcareous) as well as igneous rock components combined in a

metamorphosis condition, i.e. in an active mountain-building belt such as that

found in the Hindu Kush-Pamir orogenic zone (Kulke 1976; von Rosen 1988:10-

11).

The lapis mines of Afghanistan (see figure 3) resulted from contact between

Oligocene granodiorites and mesoarchaean gneiss (biotite, garnet, calc-silicate,

marble quartzite and amphibolite). There are several mines, however, in the Pamirs

30

Figure 3. Map of geological formations in Hindu Kush orogenic zone. Note the distinct bedrock in the Kol-i Lal vs. Sar-e Sang deposits. Adapted from Doebrich and Wahl, 2006.

further to the north; for example the Koh-e Lal mine in Tajikistan, which is

orogenically related though is likely to have a distinctive elemental signature (see

figure 4). Related geological structures in the Chagai Hills in Pakistan,21 the southern

shore of Lake Baikal in Siberia, the Shugnan Range of the western Pamir in

Tajikistan, and southwestern Badakshan in northern Afghanistan each carry veins

of lapis lazuli; there is also a possible source in Iran. However for the present

purpose, it is sufficient to simply call into question the assumptions made about

lapis and its distribution in antiquity, and to point to new methods of analyzing the

components of lapis that make possible the sourcing of ancient stone. 21. Although the existence of a Chagai deposit has recently come into question (see R. Law 2007).

31

Figure 4. Discriminant Analysis of Lapis Lazuli from Various Quarries (adapted from Kasztovszky and Zölföldi 2003. Reproduced with permission, all rights reserved).

LAPIS FROM BADAKHSHAN, OR FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE?

The current state of the question

Knowing the source (and confirming that this is knowable) will help us better understand

the historical realities of prehistoric interactions (e.g. see Tosi 1974). Only consistent,

systematic and coordinated study of evidence for sourcing lapis will allow progress in

answering this important question. Studies have been conducted on the particular

mineralogical fingerprints of each location, in order to trace the source of the mineral; lapis

in particular is difficult to assess due to the relatively heterogenous nature of the stone as

described above.

32

Herrmann had once concluded (1983) that there was not enough evidence to determine

very much about exchange routes from studying lapis lazuli, after recanting an earlier claim

that there was a discernable pattern of shift from a northerly route from Tepe Gawra to a

southerly one (1968). This may well be correct, though it is still not certain how lapis

moved nor whence. M. Casanova conducted a series of seminal studies, along with G.

Herrmann and A. Delmas (Casanova 1989; 1993; 1998; 1999; Delmas and Casanova

1990), in which samples from mines as well as archaeological lapis were tested, and

concluded that some materials did in fact come from Badakhshan, and some also came

from a source in the Chagai Hills in western Baluchistan. This conclusion was based on

comparison of two elements, barium and strontium, between samples. By applying atomic

absorption to the lapis samples, trace element analysis revealed that barium and strontium

levels differed distinctly in samples from different mines, thereby marking a testable

signature for sources of ancient lapis. This important discovery has indeed helped to clarify

ancient lapis sources and the implications of its exchange. The heterogeneous nature of

lapis has left several scholars unconvinced that determining sources for lapis will ever be

possible (eg. Potts 1993). However, the mineralogical heterogeneity may actually be

advantageous for distinguishing particular sources when examining certain trace elements

via mass spectrometry.

More recent study of trace elements in lazurite promises to help increase the accuracy of

sourcing through another physical test, Prompt Gamma Activation Analysis (PGAA). This

type of analysis has been applied to the study of lapis lazuli for its potential in discerning

33

source areas (see figure 5). One advantage of this technique is that it can examine

independent trace elements, which may more effectively eliminate the problem of

heterogeneity in the matrix of lapis lazuli stone (Zöldföldi and Kasztovszky 2003).

Moreover it can be used completely non-destructively. This will encourage more museum

objects to be tested, which will help to develop a more accurate and refined view of early

lapis availability and concomitant contact and exchange. This type of study promises to

produce important insights into early resource use and interaction in prehistory.

Figure 5. View of lapis lazuli mine at Sar-i Sang, Badakhshan. Photo credit: Luke Powell. Reproduced with permission, all rights reserved.

On the question of Iranian lapis, there are two points that need to be stressed. First, there

are most certainly at least two sources of lapis present in Iran, one from Khamseh (Zanjan),

and the other from mount Rudbar Alamut (near Tafrish, also in Zanjan). These are well

34

documented mines,22 though their antiquity has not been investigated. However, the earliest

known lapis found in the ancient Near East comes from Zagheh (grave 15, level VIII) on

the Qazvin Plain in ca. 6000 BC (Shahmirzadi 1988; Abdi 2000) very close to the

Khamseh mines.

The Significance of Lapis in Ritual and Belief

Lapis lazuli has consistently reflected significance in ritual contexts in Mesopotamia and in

Egypt. It was considered to be a powerful apotropaic substance and a healing stone in

Babylonian magical texts, particularly when worn around the neck or strung onto a thread

as an amulet.23 This is attested from textual evidence (see, for discussion, Reiner 1995) as

well as archaeological and art historical study (see Winter 1995). Lapis lazuli significantly

shaped conceptual notions of truth within the Mesopotamian world, where it was used

within sacred contexts. The physical nature of this stone, for the Early Dynastic Sumerians

in particular (the most valued being luminous, dark and blue), represented the sacred, the

sky and masculinity. It was often paired with red carnelian in burial contexts, reflecting both

masculine and feminine (see figure 6). This red-blue pairing is also found in burials of

bronze and early iron age peoples in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang, as red and blue cords

were used to bind the hands of mummified bodies (see Good 2005; for further literature

on the Tarim Basin mummies see Mallory and Mair 2000; Barber 1999; Mair 1998). This

red/blue male/female connection may reflect a shared colour symbolism with a deep

history. 22. National Geoscience Database of Iran. 23. Particularly if the thread is dyed red, interestingly; see Good 2005 for possible connections between this and ritual practice in Xinjiang.

35

Figure 6. Lapis and carnelian diadem from the grave of Puabi, Ur. University of Pennsylvania Museum Collections # B16705. (Reproduced with permission, all rights reserved).

The relevance of colour symbolism and the ritual use of lapis lazuli for the present study is

that of the impact of this particular hard-to-find substance and its role in long distance

exchange: we can begin to trace the spread of cosmological belief and ritual practice from

across the Iranian Plateau, and Central Asia into and out of Mesopotamia, from the third

millennium through the second, and begin to see movement in the archaeological record

not so much as a spread of people per se, but as a spread of ideas. The potency of this

stone in ritual and magic, coupled with its scarcity, would have certainly encouraged a

migration of practice (see Francfort 1994; 2005).

36

CASE STUDY II: SILK- EVIDENCE, PRESUMPTIONS, ETYMOLOGIES Silk is a luxurious fiber, unique in the natural world in its qualities of smoothness, strength

and luminosity. The use of silk is known to be a Chinese innovation. In China the silkmoth

was domesticated. According to tradition, knowledge of silk and its procurement was very

carefully kept within China until the Western Han Dynasty ca. 221 BC; yet several

archaeological occurrences of silk preceding this date by several centuries have been found

far beyond China’s borders. One of the more spectacular and oft-cited examples of pre-

Han silk well outside of China is from a late Hallstatt (ca. 7th century BC) elite burial in

Germany known as the Hohmichele (Hundt 1971). Another well-known example in

Europe is from Kerameikos, tangible evidence of the so-called silks of the Island of Cos in

fifth century BC Greece (see Braun 1987; Richter 1929; see Good 1995 for full review of

evidence). Silk has also been reported from much earlier; as evidenced by remains from a

burial from Sapalli Tepe, dating to the mid-second millennium BC (Askarov 1973).24

When these important archaeological discoveries were made, they were readily assumed to

be of Chinese origin, and questions soon turned to trade routes and speculation about

European contact and influence with China. This assumption has, in fact, significantly

shaped our ideas about contact and exchange in Eurasian prehistory, and is perpetuated in

literature discussing the topic of long distance exchange (see, for example, Christian 1998;

von Falkenhausen 2000). However, the true nature and extent of ancient sericulture has

24. The work of Schmidt (2004) has also been brought to my attention by my anonymous reviewer, for which I am very grateful. This article reports second millennium B.C. non-Chinese silk in Germany.

37

been overlooked, thereby inhibiting an accurate account of long distance contact and

exchanges in prehistoric Eurasia. In assessing the significance of this early evidence for silk,

a clearly critical factor to be considered is the use of wild silks, which in fact preceded the

domestication of silkworms. There are several economically viable wild silkworm species,

some of which are not indigenous to China, but to South Asia, for example

SATURNIIDAE Antheraea assamensis, and A. mylitta.

There is an important species from another family of moths and butterflies which produces

a workable silk, whose present natural range is in the Mediterranean, known as

LASIOCAMPIDAE Pachypasa otus, which was, in fact, the silk identified at Kerameikos

and at the Hohmichele mound (Good and Kim, 1993) (see figures 7, 8). By examining the

amino acids of the principal silk protein, fibroin, along with observing the morphology of

fibers through scanning electron microscopy, we obtained a reliable and precise

identification of silk. It is also possible, through amino acid analysis, to more securely

determine the species of silkmoth from which the silk derived, thereby assessing whether

or not it is of Chinese, Indian or Mediterranean origin.

Archaeological silk fragments can be subjected to not only compositional amino acid

analysis but also to amino acid sequencing, an even more precise tool for identifying

38

silkmoth species,25 enabling distinction between various ancient wild and domestic silk

types, elucidating whether silk was, for example, a Chinese import or indigenous product.

Figure 7. Above: Cross-section of three threads from a textile recovered from a ca. 7th century BCE grave at Kerameikos, Greece. Note paired, lobed fibers. Photomicrograph by I. Good Below: a scanning electron micrograph of modern specimen of Pachypasa otus silk fibroin brins, encased in sericin gum. Note lobed shape of brins. Specimen procured from collections of the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences. Photomicrograph by J. Hather and I. Good, taken at the Institute of Archaeology, London.

25. Compositional analysis gives the mole percent values for amino acids present. This is informative and distinctive between species,ut of limited heuristic value when dealing with highly degraded proteins. The sequencing technique allows for segments of the amino acid chains to be ‘fingerprinted’, this allowing for an even more secure species determination.

39

Figure 8. Amino acids of fibroin, the main protein in silk filaments, from various archaeological specimens of silk. 1.Kerameikos; 2. A carbonized sample from Gordion; 3. Han Chinese silk from Hubei; 4. From the Hohmichele Mound. Note peaks for glycine (G) and alanine (A), characteristic of silk. (from Good and Kim 1994).

This information is also critical for understanding the development of Indian silks in

particular, both reeled and spun, as the use of mukta silks may have either developed

indigenously, or out of taboo against the Chinese method of degumming. Through this

type of study, it is hoped that a better understanding of the early technology and

distribution of this important material will emerge, and an appreciation of the critical role

40

played in its development by prehistoric peoples of Eurasia (for recent work see Good, in

prep).

Silk Traces in Texts

Vedic, Avestan early Classical Sanskrit and Middle Persian documents contain hints of

early knowledge of silk in India, Iran and Central Asia. The ancient Hindu Laws of Manu,

a manual of conduct, prescribes the treatment and wearing of certain silks (Manu v. 120;

Kane 1941). These instructions indirectly attest to knowledge of the technology of boiling

cocoons. These texts were written in pre-Han times, in the later first millennium BC. The

“mukhta” (muga; munga)26 silks were used in order to avoid the destruction of life involved

with the procurement of de-gummed silk. The Gautama Dharmasutra explicitly discusses

the rule against the sale of silk, which may date as early as the 5th century BC (Olivelle

1999).

This very important delineation between ‘mukhta’ and ‘tussah’ may lead us to understand

the beginnings of silk use, and of knowledge of what are traditionally considered to be

Chinese methods of degumming (and reeling) silk. Furthermore, the etymology of all

words relating to silk and silkworms in these early texts is of a non-Chinese etymology (i.e.

not sere-) (Balkrishna 1925; McGregor 1993). Although no specific term ‘silk’ has been

discovered in the Gathas or the Younger Avestan texts, there are several investigative

avenues to follow for ascertaining the Old Iranian derivation for silk, which is also non-

26. The etymology of ‘mukta’ is confusing. It may be derived from the Sanskrit word for "released" or "freed"; (V. Mair, personal communication). Others point to "Muga" or "moonga" meaning ‘amber-coloured’ (Peigler 1994:152).

41

Chinese (Bailey 1931, 1979; Mayrhofer 1996; Hassandoust 1964).27 For example, there is

a Middle Persian term ‘kirm-i abreshom’ for silkworm. This hints at a possible early

indication of Iranian knowledge of silk’s source. These various clues to an early knowledge

of silk outside of China have not yet been systematically investigated.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF CENTRAL ASIA A New Interface We have seen in this short review some of the ambiguities, temptations and evidentiary

contradictions inherent in the study of Central Asian prehistory, and of the innate historical

complexities of its study. It is hoped that these contradictions can be ameliorated somewhat

as new research begins to fill the lacunae, and that those lacunae can be more clearly

acknowledged. Outlined below are what I believe to be fruitful directions to take for future

productive archaeological research in Central Asia, much of which is already beginning to

take place (see Vinogradova 2004; Kohl 2006; Parzinger 2006). In keeping with the theme

of the current symposium and of this paper, the goal is a better understanding of long

distance exchange and its impact on Eurasian culture histories.

Interactions

A new focus on interactions will require building more refined models for understanding

variability in the archaeological record that can be clearly interpreted as change (see below

for control over chronology) induced by outside influences, distinguishing between

27. The root ‘raish’ for silk in Farsi, ‘resham’, means to pull apart.

42

‘migrations’ and ‘invasions’, colonizations, economic engagements and adopting new social

practices or new belief systems. The current state of archaeology is such that this complex

social phenomenon, interaction, is not usually very carefully attended to, but rather

cursorily summoned as an explanation.

Creating models of change, based on different types of interaction with variation in scale,

time frame and impact on lifeways and material culture, will provide tools for better

viewing, interpreting and explaining the complex archaeology of Central Asia. This

modeling is requisite for a more ‘high-resolution’ archaeology. At present we see the

vestiges of Soviet-style archaeology re-iterating the presence or absence of a few cultural

‘traits’ to determine whether or not archaeological remains are ‘Indo-Aryan’; which has

been all too tempting for interdisciplinary-minded linguists to adopt in their approach to

the question. In my view, a more productive way of evaluating the mesh between linguistic

information and archaeological data is to view not ethnic ‘peoples’, nor even language

groups per se but simply groups of people who followed, developed and practiced a

common cosmological system along with its particular set of ritual behaviours, which would

be manifested distinctly in material culture discoverable by archaeology.

It is time to ask more sophisticated questions and seek their answers from new

archaeological research and new study of earlier work in Central Asia. Although difficult

and challenging, the fosterage of useful, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary study in this

region and time period is necessary and timely as it forces us to open up and fill in lacunae

43

rather than avoiding, circumnavigating or taking advantage of them. We need to do this in

order to progress in our understanding of the past in this important part of the world. As

indicated by the brief outline here, there are very basic questions that to date remain

unresolved. Utilizing a cross-disciplinary approach to the study of change will develop more

parity between archaeological, art historical approaches to material culture, and to physical

anthropological and linguistic approaches to studying past peoples. However, this approach

must be spearheaded by archaeology.

Economies and Environments

Questions of interaction can and must be addressed in a more informed perspective

through reconstruction of prehistoric economies and palaeoenvironments; with studies in

greater detail and with greater and better disclosed evidence. Only then will we be better

equipped to interpret ‘influence’, ‘interaction’ and ‘migration’; and to distinguish between

different levels and scales of interaction. A welcome new approach to addressing the

pervasive problem of oversimplification has been taken by Frachetti (2005) who sees the

opportunity to elucidate on detailed studies of land use and interaction based on local

landscape studies rather than relying on proxy evidence from older Soviet archaeologies

and ‘fit’ them into current models of cultural interaction and development. Hiebert has

also taken this approach with his work at Gonur and at Anau in Turkmenistan (1994;

2004). New work by Russian scholars Koryakova (2007) and Kircho (1994; 2007) is also

proving to be interdisciplinary and productive, and is helping to build new models of

44

interaction (see, for example, the collected papers edited by Boyle, Renfrew and Levine

2002).

GIS applications are now becoming de rigeur, with important projects such as survey of the

Mughab Delta in Turkmenistan (Cerasetti 2004), in the Zerevshan (Rondelli and

Mantellini 2005), the Tarim Basin in Xinjiang and in Afghanistan (Padua 2005a, b; Stride

and Padwa 2005); Northern Tajikistan (Stride 2006) and the important initiative of M. Tosi

and the joint Uzbek Italian mission in Uzbekistan.28 These new studies are promising to

help us better understand environments, lifeways, economies and interactions, but they are

only part of the process. Anchoring down regional chronologies is of utmost importance in

allowing a more comprehensive understanding of synchronicities and the cultural dynamics

of Asian prehistory. Understanding regional ceramic seriations, a staple in American,

European as well as Russian archaeological methodology, is still poorly served in many

parts of Central Asia, principally due to poor quality line drawings and limited publication,

most often due to a lack of funding. It is far easier to simply vaguely associate any sherd

that has incisions or textile impressions as being from ‘the steppes’, when all we have at our

disposal are simple line drawings.

Refining and Connecting Chronologies

We are now at a crossroads in Central Asian archaeology. We have at our disposal many

sophisticated tools, from molecular to satellite, yet we will only be able to fully engage and

28. http://www3.unibo.it/archeologia/ricerca/scavi/caauzbekistan/uzbe.htm

45

address the problems which fascinate us if we begin to seriously reframe questions,

continue to develop more appropriate models and, perhaps most urgently, tackle the issue

of chronology head-on. Following in the footsteps of Dyson at Hasanlu (1965) and Hiebert

at Gonur and Anau (1994; 2004) and the important research carried out through the

Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (see for example Görsdorf et al. 1998); a new joint

project is being undertaken by the Peabody Museum at Harvard University and the Tajik

Academy of Sciences, in order to clarify some of the sequence in the eastern part of

Bactria. We are working along the southern edge of the country, along the middle-upper

reaches of the Amu Darya (the ancient Oxus) up to the Vaksh/Panj confluence to elucidate

on this poorly understood region and to give parity to the investigations on the Afghan side

done by the French in the 1970-80’s (Gardin 1979); to be able to better understand land

use and resource procurement along with interaction to help understand the dynamic

interplay between people and the landscapes of Central Asia, and the role of resources in

the development of complexity. We look forward to making a progress report in the near

future.

46

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdi, K. 2000. Review. Mesopotamia and the East: an Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400-2000 BC by Timothy Potts. Journal of Near Eastern Studies vol 59 (4) :227-284. Amiet, P. 1986. L’Age des Echanges des Inter-Iraniens 3500-1700 av. JC. Paris: Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1985. Anthony, D. 2007. The horse, the wheel and language. How Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern world (Princeton: Oxford University Press. 1986. The ‘Kurgan Culture’, Indo-European Origins, and the Domestication of the Horse: a Reconsideration. Current Anthropology 27:291-313. Arcichovsky, A.V. 1927. Sociologicheskoe znachenie evoljucii zemledelcheskikh orudij. Trudy sociologicheskoj sekcii RANION 1:123-35. Askarov, A. 1978. Drevezemledl’cheskaya kul’tura epokhi bronzy juga Uzbekistana. Tashkent. 1973. Sapallitepe. Tashkent. (unpublished translation by H. Michael). Baghestani, S. 1997. Metallene Compartimentsiegel aus Ost-Iran, Zentralasien und Nord-China (Gebundene Ausgabe) Rahden/Westfalia: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Bailey, H. W. 1931. Three Pahlavi notes. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland: 424-426. Baker, P. 1997. Twentieth-Century Myth-Making: Persian Tribal Rugs. Journal of Design History 10 (4)363-374. Barber, E. 1999. The Mummies of Urumchi. New York: Norton. Barger, E.

47

1939. Exploration of Ancient Sites in Northern Afghanistan. The Geographical Journal 92 (5)377-91. Beale, T. W. 1973. Early trade in Highland Iran: a View from a Source Area. World Archaeology 5 (2)133-48. Borrofka, N., J. Cierny, J. Lutz, H. Parzinger, E. Pernicka and G. Weisberger 2002. Bronze Age Tin from Central Asia: Preliminary Notes. P. 135-159 in: K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine, editors, Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Monograph, Cambridge University Press. Boroffka, N. and E. Sava 1999. Zu den steinernen „Zeptern/Stössel-Zeptern“, „Miniatursäulen“ und „Phalli“ der Bronzezeit Eurasiens. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 30, 1998. pp. 17-113. Boyle, K., C. Renfrew and M. Levine, (eds.) 2002. Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Monograph, Cambridge University Press. Braun, T., Esq. 1987. The Earliest Silk in Europe. unpublished ms. Merton College, Oxford. Brentjes, B. 1981. The Mitannians and the Peacock. Pp. 145-8 in: International Conference on Ethnic Problems of the Ancient History of Central Asia (second Millennium BC) 1977. Dushanbe, Tajik SSR. Brjusov, A.Ja., 1928. Vosstanovienie obshchestvenno-economicheskij formacij v kulturakh neolitich eskogo tipa). Trudy sekcii teorii I metodologii RANION 2: 9-90. Cammann, S. 1975. The Systematic Study of Oriental Rugs: Techniques and Patterns. Journal of the American Oriental Society vol 95 (2) 248-260. 1948. The ‘TLV’ pattern on Cosmic Mirrors of the Han Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society vol 68 (4) 159-167. Carpelan, C. and A. Parpola 2001. Emergence, Contacts and Dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological Perspective. Pp. 55-150 in: Early Contacts between Uralic

48

and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations. Helsinki : Suomalais-Ugrilasisen Seuran Toimituksia. Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ugrienne. 242. Casanova, M. 1999. Le Lapis-lazuli dans l'Orient ancien. pp. 189-210 in: Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l'Antiquité à l'Islam. Actes du colloque établie par A. Caubet. Paris 1995. Louvre conférences et colloques. Paris: Documentation Française. 1998. Le Lapis Lazuli dans l'Orient Ancien : gisements, production, circulation, des origines au début du second millénaire avant JC. Ph.D. thesis. University of Paris. 1994. Lapis Lazuli Beads In Susa and Central Asia: a Preliminary Study. in A. Parpola and P. Koskikallio, eds., South Asian Archaeology 1993. Helsinki: Annales Academiae Scientarum Fennicae, series B, vol 271,. 1992. The Sources of Lapis Lazuli found in Iran. Pp. 49-56 in: JF Jarrige, ed. South Asian Archaeology (1989). Monographs in World Archaeology 14. Madison, Wisc. 1989. The Lapis Lazuli Sources in the Ancient East. South Asian Archaeology 1987. Cerasetti, B. 2004. Reasoning With GIS: Tracing the Silk Road and the Defensive Systems of the Murghab Delta (Turkmenistan). Silkroad Foundation Newsletter vol. 2 (2). URL: http://www.silk-road.com/toc/newsletter.html Chernykh, E. 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: the early metal age. New York: Cambridge University Press. trans. S. Wright. Christian, D. 1998. A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia London: Blackwell Press. Dales, G. 1972. Review: Central Asia Before the Achaemenids. V.M. Masson and V.I. Sarianidi. The Art Bulletin. Vol. 57 (4):571-571. Delmas, A. B., Casanova, M. 1990. The lapis lazuli sources in the ancient East. pp. 493-505 in: South Asian Archaeology 1987. ed. M. Taddei. ( Serie Orientale Roma, 66). Rome. Doebrich, J. and R. Wahl. 2006. The Geologic and Mineral Resource Map of Afghanistan. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Geological Society, Philadelphia.

49

Dyson, R. 1965. Problems of Protohistoric Iran as Seen from Hasanlu. Journal of Near Eastern Studies vol. 24(3):197-217. Fansa, M. and S. Burmeister (eds.) 2004. Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation.Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa. Wissenschaftliche Begleitschrift zur Sonderausstellung „Rad und Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vorderen Orient und Europa“ vom 28. März bis 11. Juni 2004 im Landesmuseum für Natur und Mensch, Oldenburg. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft 40 (Mainz am Rhein). Frankfort, H. P. 2005. La Civilization de l’Oxus et des Indo-Iraniens et Indoaryens en Asie Centrale. Pp. 253-332 in: Aryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale. Eds. G. Fussman, J. Kellens, H.P. Francfort X. Tremblay. Paris: College de France Institut de Civilization Indienne, Série in-8º fs. 72. 1994. The Central Asian Dimension of the Symbolic System in Bacria and Margiana. Antiquity 68:406-18. Fussman, G., J. Kellens, H.-P. Francfort and X. Tremblay, (editors). 2005. Āryas, Aryens et Iraniens en Asie Centrale. Paris: Collège de France. Publications de l´Institut de Civilisation Indienne, Série in-8º fs. 72. Gardin, J. C. 1998. Prospections Archéologiques en Bactrianne Orientale (1974-1978). Vol. 3. Description des sites et notes de synthese. Memoires de la Mission Archaeologique Francaise en Asie Centrale tome IX. Gening, V.F. 1982. O Cherki po istorii sovetskoj arkeologii (U istokov formirovanija marsistskikhteoreticheskikh osnov sovetskoj arkheologii. 20-e pervaja polovina 30-kh godov). Kiev: Naukova Dumka. Gening, V.F., G.B. Zdanovich and V.V. Gening 1992. Sintashta: Arkeologiskiye pamjaniki arijskich plemen uralo-kazakstanskich steppi. Moscow: Russian Academy of Sciences. Good, Irene, (ms in prep). New Evidence for the Extent of Sericulture in Antiquity. American Philosophical Society Monograph. 2007. Sourcing Beauty: Exploring Inner Asia’s High Altitude Frontier (paper read at the meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin, TX. Symposium entitled ‘Inter-regional Interaction in Neolithic and Bronze Age China: A Multidisciplinary Approach’

50

chaired by Y.T. Li). 2006. Textiles as Medium of Exchange in Third Millennium B.C.E. Western Asia. Chapter seven in: Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World. V. Mair, ed. University of Hawaii Press. 2006b. New Views of the Tarim Mummies of Xinjiang. Lecture delivered at the East Asian Archaeology Seminar Series, Harvard University (May 2006). 2005. A Social Archaeology of Cloth. Paper read at the 2005 meetings of the Archaeological Institute of America in Montreal. 1999. The Ecology of Exchange: Textiles from Shahr-i Sokhta, Eastern Iran. Ph.D. thesis, University of Pennsylvania. University microfilms. 1995. On the Question of Silk in Pre-Han Eurasia Antiquity 69:945-958. Good, I. and E. J. Kim 1993. Final Research Report on the Silk Project ms on file, University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Research supported by the University of Pennsylvania Research Foundation). Görsdorf J, H. Parzinger, A. Nagler, N. Leont'ev. 1998. Neue 14C-Datierungen für die Sibirische Steppe und ihre Konsequenzen für die regionale Bronzezeitchronologie. Eurasia Antiqua 4:73-80. Grigoryev, S.A. 2007. The Sintashta Culture and Some Questions of Indo-Europeans Origins. Stable URL: http://csc.ac.ru/news/1998_2/2-11-1.pdf A. Gubaev, G. Koshelenko & M. Tosi (eds.), 1998. The archaeological map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary reports 1990-1995. Istituto per l´Africa e l´Oriente. Centro scavi i ricerche archeologiche. Reports and Memoirs, Series Minor 3 (Roma). Hanks, B., A. V. Epimakhov and A. C. Renfrew 2007. Towards a Refined Chronology for the Bronze Age of the southern Urals, Russia. Antiquity 81:353-367. Hassandoust, M. 1964. An Etymological Dictionary of Persian Language vol. I. Tehran: Iranian Academy of Persian Language and Literature.

51

Hemphill, B. and J. P. Mallory 2004. Horse-Mounted Invaders from the Russo-Kazakh Steppe or Agricultural Colonists from Western Asia? A Craniometric Investigation of the Bronze Age settlement of Xinjiang. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 124:199-222. Herrmann, G. 1968. Lapis Lazuli: the Early Phases of its Trade. Iraq 30 (1):21-57. Herrmann, G., and P. R. S. Moorey 1983. Lapis Lazuli B. Archaeologische. Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archaeologie. Hiebert, F. T. 2004. A Central Asian Village at the Dawn of Civilization, Excavations at Anau, Turkmenistan. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Press. 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age Oasis Civilization in Central Asia. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 42. Cambridge, MA. Hiebert, F. and N. Shishlina 1998. Between the Steppe and the Sown. Bronze and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia. V. Mair, editor, Journal of Indo-European Studies and the U. Pennsylvania Museum Publications. Hundt, H. J. 1971. On Prehistoric Textile Finds, in Jahrbuch RGZM vol. 16, Mainz. Trans. from the German by V. Muller, 1990. Isakov, A,. I. 1996. Sarazm: An Agricultural Center of Ancient Sogdiana. The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia- Studies from the Former Soviet Union. Bulletin of the Asia Institute New Series 8. pp. 1-12. 1991. Sarazm. (k voprosu stanovleniia rannezemledel’cheskoi kul’tury Zeravshanskoi doliny) (raskopki 1977-1983). Tashkent: Donish. Jarrige, J. F. 1988. Les Styles de Geoksyur et de Quetta et la Question des Rapports entre les Régions au Nord et au Sud de l’Hindu Kush a fin du 4e et au debut du 3e millénaires. Pp. 95-115 in: L’Asie Centrale et ses Rapports avec les Civilizations Orientales, des Origines a l’Age du

52

Fer. Actes du Colloques Franco-Sovietique. Memoires de la Mission Archaeologique Francaise en Asie Centrale. tome I. Jettmar, K. 1959. Ethnological Research in Dardistan. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 105 (1):79-97. Kane, P. 1941. History of the Dharmasastra (Ancient and Medieval Religious and Civil Law). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. vol. II part I. Kaniuth, K. 2007. The Metallurgy of the Late Bronze Age Sapalli Culture (Southern Uzbekistan) and its Implications for the ‘Tin Question’. Iranica Antiqua XLII (23-40). Kircho, L. B. 1983. Kul’turnaya evolutsiya v epokhu formirovaniya rannegorodskoi tsivilizatsii (po materialam raskopok Altyn-depe. Samarkand: 2nd US-USSR symposium Arkheologiya Srednei Azii I. Blizhnego Vostoka. 1993. Some Features of Building Complexes of the Late Aeneolithic Period at Altyn Tepe. South Asian Archaeology 1993. A. Parpola & P. Koskikallio, eds. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. (1994). 2007. New Interpretations of Ak Tepe. Paper delivered at the first international conference on Middle Asian Intercultural Space, July 3-6, Ravenna. Khazanov, A. M. 1984. Nomads and the Outside World. trans. By J. Crookenden. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Klejn, L. 1993. To Separate a Centaur: On the Relationship of Archaeology and History in Soviet Tradition. Antiquity 67:339-348. Kohl, P. 2006. The Making of Bronze Age Civilization in Eurasia. World Archaeology series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Archaeological Transformations: Crossing the Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge. Iranica Antiqua vol. 37:151-190.

53

1992. Central Asia (Western Turkestan): Neolithic to the Early Iron Age. Pp. 179-194. In: Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. Third Edition, Robert Ehrich, editor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1984. Central Asia. Palaeolithic Beginnings to the Iron Age. Paris: Rechereche sur les Civilizations. CNRS. 1977. Seeds of Upheaval. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Kohl, P. and C. Fawcett 1996. Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Koryakova, L. 1994. Central Asia in the Bronze Age: Sedentary and Nomadic Cultures. Antiquity 68:355-72. Koryakova, L. and A. V. Epimakhov 2007. The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Cambridge World Archaeology Series, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kramer, C. 1985. Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology vol 14 (77-102). 1977. Pots and People. Pp. 91-112 in: Highlands and Lowlands: Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. Edited by Louis Levine and T. Cuyler Young. Biblioteca Mesopotamica 7. Malibu: Udena Publications. Krishna, B. 1925. The Beginnings of the Silk Industry in India. Journal of Indian History April, 1925. pp. 42-53. Kulke, H. 1976. Die Lapis-lazuli-Lagerstätte Sare Sang (Badakhshan): Geologie, Entstehung, Kulturgeschichte und Bergbau. In: Afghanistan Journal, 3, H. 2, pp. 43-56 Kuzmina, E. 2007. The Prehistory of the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (Edited by Victor Mair). 1994. Where did the Indo-Aryans Come From? Material Culture of the Andronovo Tribes and the Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Moscow: Vostochnaia Lit-ra. (in Russian).

54

Kuznetsov, P. F. 2006. The Emergence of Bronze Age Chariots in Eastern Europe. Antiquity 80:638-45. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2005. Archaeology and Language: the case of the Bronze Age Indo-Iranians. Pp. 63-88 in: E. Bryan and L. Patton, (eds.) The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference. London: Routledge. 2003. Civilization, State, or Tribes? Bactria and Margiana in the Bronze Age. The Review of Archæology 24.1, pp. 11-19. 2002. Archaeology and Language: the Indo-Iranians. Current Anthropology vol. 43(1). 1988. The Intercultural Style Carved Vessels. Iranica Antiqua 23:45-95. Law, R. 2007. Myths and Realities of Lapis Lazuli. Paper read at the 2007 Congress of the European Association of South Asian Archaeologists, Ravenna. Ligabue, G. and S. Salvatori, (eds.) 1989. Bactria–an ancient oasis in the Sands of Afghanistan. Rome: Erizzo Editrice. Mair, V. 1998. Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia a joint publication of the Journal of Indo-European Studies and the U. Pennsylvania Museum Publications. Mallory, J. 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth. London: Thames and Hudson. 1998. A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia: pp. 175-201 in: Mair, op cit.. Mallory, J. P. and V. Mair 2000. The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. London: Thames and Hudson. Masson, V. M. 1988. Altyn Tepe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvanina Museum Press (trans. H. Michael). Mayrhofer, M.

55

1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarishen, II. Heidelberg: Carl Winter - Universitätsverlag. McGregor, R. S. 1993. The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morgunova, N.L. and A. Yu Kravsov 1994. The Memorials of the Ancient Yama Culture on the Ilek River. SIF Nauka, Ekaterinburg. (in Russian). Olivelle, P. 1999. Introduction. Dharmasutras- the Law Codes of Ancient India. World's Classics Series. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Parzinger, H. 2006. Die frühen Völker Eurasiens. Vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter. München: Gerda Henkel Stiftung. Parzinger, H. and N. Boroffka. 2003. Das Zinn der Bronzezeit in Mittelasien I. Die siedlungsarchäologischen Forschungen im Umfeld der Zinnlagerstätten. Archäologie in Iran und Turan 5 (Mainz am Rhein). P’iankova, L. T. 1996. Bronze Age Cultures of the Steppe and Highlands in Central Asia. In: Between Lapis and Jade. Ancient Cultures of Central Asia. New York: Sharpe Publishing. 1989. Drevnie skotovody juzhnogo Tadzhikistana (po materialam mogil’nika epokhi bronzy ‘Tigrovaja Balka’). Dushanbe: Donish. 1982. Southwestern Tajikistan in the Bronze Age. International Association for the Study of Ancient Civilizations of Central Asia Bulletin I: 34-46. Padwa, M. 2005a. Evolving the Archaeological Mapping of Afghanistan. Silk Road Foundation Newsletter vol. 2 (2). http://www.silkroad.com/newsletter/vol2num2/Evolving.html 2005b. Archaeological GIS and Oasis Geography of the Tarim Basin. Silk Road Foundation Newsletter vol. 2 (2). http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol2num2/oasis.html Padwa, M. and S. Stride 2005. Archaeological GIS in Central Asia. Silk Road Foundation Newsletter vol 2 (2). http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol2num2/GIS.html Parpola, A.

56

2005. The Nasayas, the Chariot and Proto-Aryan Religion. 50th International Conference of Eastern Studies, Kansai Session. Vol. 50. 2002. Pre-Proto-Iranians of Afghanistan as Initiators of Saka Tantrism: On the Scythian/Saka Affiliation of the Dashas, Nuristanis and Magadhans. Iranica Antiqua 37:233-324. Parzinger, H. 2006. Die frühen Völker Eurasiens. Vom Neolithikum bis zum Mittelalter. München: Beck Verlag. Patton, L. and E. Bryant 2005. The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History. London and New York: Routledge. Peigler, R. 1993. Wild Silk Moths of the World. American Entomologist 39(3):151-161. Potts, T. F. 1993. Patterns of Trade in Third-Millennium BC Mesopotamia and Iran. World Archaeology 24(3) Ancient Trade: New Perspectives. Pp.379-402. Quintana-Murci, C. R., R. S.Wells, D. M. Behar, H. Sayar, R. Scozzari, C. Rengo, N. Al-Zahery, O. Semino, A. S. Santachiara-Benerecetti, A. Coppa, Q. Ayub, A. Mohyuddin, C. Tyler-Smith, S. Qasim Mehdi, A. Torroni, and K. McElreavey 2004. Where East Meets West: The Complex DNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor. American Journal of Human Genetics 74 (5)827-45. Raulwing, P. 2000. Horses, Chariots and Indo-Europeans: Foundations and methods of chariotry research from the viewpoint of comparative Indo-European linguistics. Archaeolingua, Series minor 13. Budapest. Ravdonikas, V. 1932. Arkheologiya na sluzhbe u imperializma. Soobshcheniya Gosudarstvenoi Aksdemii Istorii Materiali Kultury no. 3-4. Reiner, E. 1995. Astral Magic in Babylonia. Transactions of the American Philosphical Society, new series 85 no. 4. Richter, G. M. 1929. Silk in Greece. American Journal of Archaeology 33:27-33. Rondelli, B. and S. Mantellini

57

2005. Methods and Perspectives for Ancient Settlement Studies in the Middle Zerevshan Valley. Silk Road Foundation Newsletter vol. 2 (2). http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol2num2/Zeravshan.html Rybakov, B. 1951. Istoriya Kul’tury drevnei Rusi. Nauka, Moscow. Sarianidi, V. I. 2005. Goňurdepe. City of Kings and Gods (Aşgabat). 2002. Margush. Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old Delta of the Murghab River (Aşgabat). 1984. Neolithisch-kupferzeitliche Seidlungen in der Geokjur-Oase, Süd Turkmenistan. (nach den arbeiten von I.N.Khlopin und V. Sarianidi dargestellt von H. Muller-Karpe. Munichen: Beck. 1977. Drevnie zemledel’cy Afghanistana. Nauka, Moskow. 1971. The Lapis Lazuli route in the ancient East. In: Archaeology XXIV:12-15. Schmidt, J. P. 2004. Gehüllt in Seide aus China? Archäologie in Deutschland No. 2. Shahmirzadi, S. M. 1988. ‘Status’ in the Neolithic Village as displayed in the burial customs with emphasis on Zagdeh. Iranian Journal of Archaeology and History 4. (in Farsi). 1977: Tepe Zagheh: A sixth Millennium BC village in the Qazvin Plain of the Central Iranian Plateau. Doctoral thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Sherratt, A. 1995. Review of Chernykh, E., Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Ages. in Antiquity p. 458-9. Sleeboom, M. 2003. Academic Nationalism in China and Japan: Framed in Concepts of Nature, Culture and the Universal. New York: Routledge Press. Spencer, M. and C. Howe 2004. Authenticity of Ancient-DNA Results: a Statistical Approach. American Journal of Human Genetics 75:240-250.

58

Stacul, G. 1987. Prehistoric and Protohistoric Swat, Pakistan (c300-1400 BC.) Rome: IsMEO. Reports and Memoires Vol. 20. Stark, S. 2006. Archaeological Prospections in the Argly Valley System (Northern Tajikistan) 2006. http://www.orientarch.uni-halle.de/sfb586/c5/2006/index.htm Thornton, C. and T. Schurr 2004. Genes, Language and Culture: an example from the Tarim Basin. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23 (1): 83- 106. Tosi, M., editor. 1983. Prehistoric Sistan. Roma: IsMEO.

1974. The lapis lazuli trade across the Iranian plateau in the 3rd millennium B.C. In: Gururâjamañjarikâ. Studi in onore di Giuseppe Tucci. Vol. I, pp. 3-22. Napoli: Istituto Universitario Orientale. Tosi, M. IAMU joint project 2005. http://www3.unibo.it/archeologia/ricerca/scavi/caauzbekistan/uzbe.htm Trigger, B. 1989. A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Underhill, P. A., P. Shen, A. Lin, L. Ji, G. Passarino, W. H. Yang, E. Kauffman, B. Bonné-Tamir, J. Bertranpetit, P. Francalacci, M. Ibrahim, T. Jenkins, J. R. Kidd, S. Qasim Mehdi, M. T. Seielstad, R. S. Wells, A. Piazza, R. W. Davis, M. W. Feldman, L. Cavalli-Sforza & P. J. Oefner 2000. Y-Chromosome Sequence Variation and the History of Human Populations. Nature Genetics 26:358-61. Vinogradova, N. M. 2004. Yugo-zapadnyi Tadzhiikistan v epokhu pozdnego Bronzovogo veka. Moscow: Ran. 2001. Südtadzhikistan in der Spätbronze- und Früheisenzeit. Pp. 199-219 in: Migration und Culturtransfer. Der Wandel vorder-und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbrach vom 2. Zum 1 vorchristlichen Jahrtausand. Berlin: Akten des Internationalen Kolloquiums, 23, vol. 6. 1996. Kangurt Tut: The Ancient Burial Ground in Southern Tajikistan. International Association for the Study of Ancient Civilizations of Central Asia Bulletin 20:171-194.

59

1994. The Farming Settlement at Kangurt Tut (South Tajikistan) in the Late Bronze Age Archaeologische Mitteilungen Aus Iran 27:29-47. Vinogradova, N. M. and E. E. Kuz’mina 1996. Contacts between the Steppe and Agricultural Tribes of Central Asia in thev Bronze Age. Pp. 29-54 in: F. T. Hiebert and N. DiCosmo, editors, Between Lapis and Jade: Ancient Cultures of Central Asia. , New York: Sharpe Books. Von Falkenhausen, L. 2000. Die Seiden mit Chinesischen insschriften. Ch. V. 58-81 in: Die Textilen Aus Palmyra neue und alte funde. Damaszener forshungen band 8. Mainz: Verlag Philip von Zabern. Von Rosen, I. 1990. Lapis lazuli in archaeological contexts. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Vörlag. 1988. Lapis Lazuli in Geological Contexts and Ancient Texts. Göteborg: Paul Åströms Vörlag. Wells, S. 2006. National Geographic Society Genographic Project. https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html Winkelmann, S. 2004. Deciphering the Intercultural Style? Paper read at the 2003 EASAA meetings in Paris. Winkelmann, S., P. Amiet and G. Rossi Osmanda 2004. Seals of the Oasis. From the Ligabue Collection. Vicenza: Il Punto Edizione. 1997. Gedanken zur Herkunft und Verbreitung iransicher und mittelasiatischer ´Gewichte`. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 129, 1997. Winter, I. 1995. The Aesthetic Value of Lapis Lazuli in Mesopotamia. Pp. 43-58 in: Cornaline et pierres précieuses. La Méditerranée, de l'Antiquité à l'Islam. Actes du colloque établie par A. Caubet. Paris 1995. Louvre conférences et colloques. Paris: Documentation Française. Witzel, M. 2006. Central Asian Roots and Acculturaion on South Asia: Linguistic and Archaeoloogical Evidence from Western Central Asia, the Hindukush and Northwestern South Asia for

60

Early Indo-Aryan Language and Religion. Pp. 61-186 in: Indus Civilization: Text and Context. T. Osada, editor. New Delhi: Manohar Publishing. 2003. Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia. Sino-Platonic Papers 129. 2000. The Homeland of the Aryans. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf Yablonsky, L. 2000. The ‘Scythian Triad’ and ‘Scythian world’ in: Kurgan, Ritual Site and Settlements: Eurasian Bronze and Iron Age. Ed. J. Kimball-Davis, E. Murphy, L. Koryakova and L. Yoblonsky. BAR International series 348. Zdanovich, G. 2002. The ‘Country of Towns’of Southern Trans-Ural and Some Aspects of Steppe Assimilation in the Bronze Age. Pp. in: K. Boyle, C. Renfrew and M. Levine, editors, Ancient Interactions: East and West in Eurasia. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Monograph. 1999. Country of Towns. In: Late Prehistoric Exploitation of the Eurasian Steppe. Ed. M. Levine, Y. Rassmakin, A.Kislenko and N. Tatarintseva. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Monograph. Zdanovich G. 1988. Bronzovy vek Uralo-Kazakhstanskikh stepey. Sverdlovsk: FAN. Zdanovich, G. and D. Zdanovich 1995. Rossiya i Vostok: problemy vzaimodeistviya. Chelyabinsk: Chelyabinsk University Press. Zerjal, T., R. S. Wells, N. Yuldasheva, R. Ruzibakiev, C. Tyler-Smith 2002. A Genetic Landscape Re-Shaped by Recent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia. American Journal of Human Genetics 61:466-82. Zöldföldi, J. and Zs. Kasztovszky 2003. Non-destructive prompt-gamma activation analysis (PGAA) in provenance study of lapis lazuli, Proceedings of the Int. Conference on Archäometrie und Denkmalpflenge, Berlin: Universitate Berlin. (eds. O. Hahn, C. Goedicke, R. Fuchs, I. Horn) pp. 194-196.