Wednesday, June 01, 2016

The Andronovo culture and AIT

Koenraad Elst goes over Elena Kuzmina's Origin of the Indo-Iranians and finds:
While this is undoubtedly an important book, and as far as I can judge, it is a classic of Andronovo archaeology, but it fails in its primary mission: to show that this culture was the staging-ground for an Aryan invasion of Iran and India. It only assumes that much, but doesn’t demonstrate it.

Comments (2)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I've only read bits and pieces of Kuzmina's book, but it seems to me that Elst and other proponents of OIT do not address her core arguments, which stem from cultural practices (discontinuity between IVF funerary rites and Vedic rites, which however are continuous with Andronovo rites and the much older steppe rites; the geographic character of linguistic change among IE languages (IA not at the root); nor the centrality of the horse cult to both Vedic and steppe societies, despite the fact that the horse is not native to India and was very peripheral in IVF.
1 reply · active 457 weeks ago
Turn it around the other way as Elst does:

"“Cremation dominates in the Urals; in central and northern Kazakhstan the cemeteries are bi-ritual; in eastern Kazakhstan and south Siberia, inhumation prevails.”

And at once, we notice something that will characterize many passages: though convinced of the Aryan invasion, she furnishes data that are compatible with, or even point to, an opposite Bactria-to-Urals migration. In this case, the Indo-Europeans, historically known to practise both types of disposal of the dead, but mainly cremation (though inhumation will be magnified in the eyes of the archaeologists as it leaves so many more traces), brought cremation with them along the Amu Darya to the Aral Lake area and on to the Urals. The native practice was predominantly inhumation, and it was preserved far from this trajectory, in areas where the Indo-Europeans didn’t come."

Post a new comment

Comments by