cultural assimilation and the problem of ie

8/13/2019 Cultural Assimilation and the Problem of IE

1/114

The process of

Cultural Assimilation

And the problem of IE

Paintings in the Chauvet Cave, France (32,000-30,000 BP)

Some questions about IE and a common origin of language

The modern theory on the origin of languages considers language grouings around the concet

of common descent! For e"amle, the so-called #ndo-$uroean (#$) languages are regarded to


2/114

have originated from a core of languages originally so%en some&here in the stees of $urasia,

and that they sread as far as from #ndia to the 'tlantic coast of $uroe!

o&ever, this model seems to ignore the very nature of language! anguage has the roerty to

*e *orn, maintain itself, and sread, not &ith genetic means *ut mainly through the mechanism

of imitation! The &ords &hich comrise a language are memes, *asic information units, and the

mechanism *y &hich memes sread is mainly socio-sychological, *ased on the e"change of

information *et&een grous of eole, &hich may have a comletely different genetic origin!

#n fact, the #$ theory contradicts itself &ith the assumtion of common origin! #f Proto-#ndo-

$uroean (P#$) &as so%en throughout an e"anded area, some 3+00 years ago, *ecause of the

initial large distri*ution it &ould have differentiated so much in modern times that any originalsimilarities could not *e tracea*le! #n other &ords, the similarity itself *et&een #$ languages

emhasies the imortance of *orro&ing through the mechanism of imitation, &hile an ultra-

conservative mechanism for language is much more difficult to *e e"lained!

'art from any sort of nationalist asirations &hich oularied the #$ theory in the first lace,

the grouings &hich the theory offers are more li%e a logical modeling and classification, using

rules of &ord modification &hich are articularly a*stract and am*iguous, rather than *ased on

hysical reality! n the other hand, the similarities *et&een &ords of different languages can *e

e"lained more clearly *y means of linguistic e"change and restoration of cultural *alance

*et&een oulation grous, not necessarily ad.acent to each other!

The uniformity &hich aears in such a large scale and range of time can only *e e"lained *y a

tye of interaction &hich is not necessarily local! For e"amle, the similarity in /omance

languages is e"lained *y the /omaniation of these languages, in ermanic languages &ith a

sort of 1ermaniation, in the #ndo-#ranian languages &ith an 1'ryaniation, and so on! #n turn,

the atin language had *een largely ellenied, &hile the ree% language &as heavily

rientalied through contacts &ith the earlier cultures of $gyt, esootamia, inoan Crete,

and the &ider region of eastern editerranean! This rocess of homogeniation, in other &ords,


3/114

&as each time achieved &ith the *orro&ing of &ords and language standards from a lingua

franca of an isoglossic continuum!

4e might focus our attention on some original cradle some&here in the region of central

'natolia, northern 5yria, northern esootamia for the origin of the #$ linguistic continuum,

&ith a *road adatation of 5emitic &ords and language tyes (other&ise &e should accet

1arthenogenesis for #$)! o&ever, as &e have seen, this it is not even necessary! The

16ortherners, or 17landers, moving across the fringes of the civilied 5outh, (from &hich they

may have also genetically evolved) &ere *orro&ing constantly and consistently cultural and

linguistic elements! These elements need not *e restricted to &ords for ne& o*.ects of daily use!

They may &ell include a &ider range of &ords and notions &ith resect to gods, &orshi, social

organiation (e!g! the &ord 1vasileus (1%ing) in ree%,) science (&ords for letters and num*ers), roerty, as &ell as the very concets of e"istence (the ver*s to have, to *e, ersonal ronouns,

and so on)!

Perhas, such a hyothesis may seem far-fetched! But if &e *ear in mind that the first eole did

not aear in the Pontic 5tees, and that the first cultures gradually aeared in the 5outh (from

at least the 8th millennium B!C!$ in the Fertile Crescent), &e have a good first indication a*out

the region &ere civiliation &as *orn! 6evertheless, &e may consider the su*se9uent

involvement of the 16ortherners! But culture is al&ays transmitted from the advanced to the

more rimitive civiliation, and language is a cultural element! 5o, &hen are t&o or more

languages more closely related: 4hen t&o &ords sound similar to each other, or &hen these

cultures share the same meanings, even if &ords e"ressing these meanings dont sound the

same: #t may seem difficult to understand such a distinction *ecause &e are used to attri*uting

more imortance to 1race and genes! But it has al&ays *een ideas, *eliefs, and meanings &hich

formed the strongest *onds in societies! 5o even if &e consider a common language as a

fundamental er9uisite for our 1race against another, language itself connects or divides us &ith

its o&n cultural elements and messages, even if they may not seem or 1sound the same!


4/114

The ‘discovery’ of Ι

#n the ;


5/114

e>5he>#

t

F Hreti *hare *arad *eirean

n

herei fert

Iorta

fJres *iert *eria

4e F Hromos *hareṃ *arim *eirimid heroum

e

ferimus

Iortiamo

fJrons *Kren *eriame

Eou F Hrete *haro *arid *eirean

n

herete fertis

Iortate

fJre *Krt *eriate

They F Hronti *hareṃ *arand *eirid heroun ferunt

Iortano

fJrent *Kren *eria

LhttD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>#ndo-$uroeanMlanguagesN

's &e can see, the reconstruction is ro*lematic *ecause it is *ased on the ree% language

(unless ree% is the oldest #$ languageO) The French version comes from the atin one, &hich in

turn, most ro*a*ly, comes from the ree% one (in atinD fero, fers, fert, ferimus, fertis, ferunt)!

#ts really easier to regard Persian (or even Celtish) as earlier than P#$ *ecause in these languages

the ver* seems to *e in the less evolved form (this is even more o*vious in 5ans%rit or 'vestan)!

5o the #ndo-'ryan clade must *e older than P#$, and the $uroean clade younger! The most

ro*a*le ans&er to this ro*lem is that the reconstruction is &rong, for t&o good reasons! Firstly,

it sounds simler (younger) than some of the languages, and secondly *ecause it is non-

falsifia*leD there is no &ay to test if the reconstruction is right or &rong *ecause P#$ do not e"ist

anymore!

The problem of !eolithic continuity in Eurasia

#f #$ languages didnt e"ist in the 6eolithic, &e could trace their ancestors *y studying already

esta*lished cultures during that time! But the lac% of common P#$ &ords for agricultural

roducts seems to oint to the fact that the #$s invented agriculture indeendently! 5o it is

refera*le to ma%e a .ourney in time follo&ing the disersals of the first farmers and their

ossi*le genetic traces, rather than e"ecting language shift, during the 6eolithic!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languageshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_languages


6/114

!eolithic "evolution

a of the &orld sho&ing aro"imate centers of origin of agriculture and its sread in rehistoryD the Fertile

Crescent (;;,000 BP), the Eangte and Eello& /iver *asins (8,000 BP) and the 6e& uinea ighlands (8,000


7/114


8/114


9/114

4e see that there &as a tremendous gro&th of oulation in $uroe as early as the < th

millennium BC$, *ut it &as follo&ed *y a $uroean 6eolithic 1ar% 'ge, &hich lasted until the

arrival of Coer and Brone age ne&comers, ro*a*ly the #$s!

6' studies are helful in realiing migration atterns! ater E-6' *ased studies suggest a

mosaic of numerous small-scale, more regional oulation movements, relacements, and

su*se9uent e"ansions overlying revious ranges! /ather than a single, large-scale 1&ave of

advance from the 6ear $ast, there &ere distinct oulations movements emanating from

different arts of the 'egean and 6ear $ast, over a eriod stretching from the 6eolithic to the

Classical Period! verall, E-chromosome data seems to suort the 1Pioneer model, &here*y

heterogeneous grous of 6eolithic farmers colonied selected areas of southern $uroe via a

rimarily maritime route! 5u*se9uent e"ansion of agriculture &as facilitated *y the adotion ofits methods *y indigenous $uroeans, a rocess esecially rominent in the Bal%ans!

The data from mt6' is also interesting! The vast ma.ority of mt6' lineages (>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>6eolithicM$uroe

5o, did the overall oulation synthesis in 6eolithic $uroe form &hat ari.a im*utas referred

to as 1ld $uroe, *efore the arrival of the #$s: Their arrival is strongly related &ith the E-6'

halogrou /! 5ome researchers no& suggest that su*-halogrou /;* (the revalent halogrou

in 4est $uroe) could *e of 6eolithic origin! #f this is also the case for halogrou /;a

(revalent in $ast $uroe), then there &ill *e no sace left for an #$ invasion after the 6eolithic!

o&ever, some of the times concerning 6' lineages are still controversial!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Europe


10/114

#irst sea$farers

The ma sho&s the distri*ution of Cardium Pottery Culture! The earliest #mressed 4are sites,

dating to


11/114

*y the Terramare Culture! The latter is thought to have *een catalyed *y the invasion of the first

#talic #$s, in ;200 BC$!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>CardiumMPottery

lder than Printed Cardium Pottery is the 5es%lo civiliation (Thessaly, $astern reece)! #ts

oldest fragments lace the civiliations develoment as far *ac% as -


12/114

times, as early as the +th millennium BC$, then &as a*andoned for a time *efore the se9uence of

occuation from the $arly Brone 'ge (elladic eriod through the ycenaean)!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>erna

4hat is imortant to note here is that the ne& erna occuation, after the initial a*andonment of

the site, started in the middle of the 3rd millennium BC$, *efore the *egining of the ycenaean

civiliation! o&ever, there is no continuity *rea% in *et&een! This suggests that the

1ycenaeans &ere already in reece during this eriod, erhas ushing *ac% the initialiation

of the ycenaean civiliation a*out ;,000 years or so! #f this is true then the 1#talics may have

*een in #taly long *efore the suosed date of ;200 BC! (This date &as considered as true also

for the arrival of the first ree%s, *efore the deciherment of the ycenaean ta*lets &hich

sho&ed that the language &as already ree%)! 5o it seems that as research goes on, thehyothesis of the arrival of 1#$ *ecomes more and more 1marginal!

4hat is rather amaing is the fact that the 6eolithic /evolution in $uroe seems to have

follo&ed a maritime route, as seen in the case of the Cardium Pottery e"ansion all across the

editerranean coasts of $uroe! 4hat is even more amaing is the fact that Paleolithic a"es

&ere found on Crete, suggesting that seafaring e"isted in the editerranean more than a hundred

thousand years earlier than thought! any researchers have hyothesied that the early humans

of this time eriod &ere not caa*le of devising *oats or navigating across oen &ater! But the

ne& discoveries hint that these human ancestors &ere caa*le of much more sohisticated

*ehavior than their relatively simle stone tools &ould suggest!

httD>>ne&s!nationalgeograhic!com>ne&s>20;0>02>;002;@-crete-rimitive-humans-mariners-

seafarers-mediterranean-sea>

4hether the eole on Crete at this remote ast &ere omo 5aiens or *elonged to a revious

secies (omo eidel*ergensis for e"amle), is more or less secondary! 4hat is imortant is the

fact that humans seem to have *een a*le of seafaring much earlier than reviously thought! For

e"amle, o*sidian from ilos (an 'egean island) &as a commodity as early as ;3,000 years ago!

ilos natural glass used for raor shar 1stone tools &as transorted &ell *efore farming *egan,

and later there &as no early farming village in the 6ear $ast that didnt get o*sidian! The

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernahttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lernahttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/02/100217-crete-primitive-humans-mariners-seafarers-mediterranean-sea/


13/114

material &as transorted for thousands of miles! o&ever the mining of o*sidian did not lead to

the develoment of ermanent ha*itation or manufacturing on the island! #nstead, those in search

of o*sidian arrived *y *oat, *eaching it in a suita*le cove and cutting ieces of the volcanic glass

from the 9uarries!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>ilos

Furthermore, large fish *ones have also *een found, for e"amle in Franchti Cave, Peloonnese,

5outh reece, a characteristic of dee-sea fishing!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>FranchthiMCave

5o, if during the


14/114

The origin of ‘%urgans’

httD>>s;++2382;+!onlinehome!us>tur%ic>*tnM'rcheology>im*utas>im*utasurgansTo$uro

e$n!htm

The #$ theory &as in a large e"tent *ased on common *urial ractices! The related *urials

mounts are called %urgans! The &ord 1%urgan is a Tur%ish &orld *orro&ed from /ussian and it

means 1fortification (so its origin is not even #$)! urgans &ere *uilt in the $neolithic, Brone,

#ron, 'nti9uity and iddle 'ges, &ith old traditions still active in 5outhern 5i*eria and Central

'sia!

The urgan hyothesis ostulates that the Proto-#ndo-$uroeans &ere the *earers of the urgan

culture of the Blac% 5ea and the Caucasus and &est of the 7rals! The hyothesis &as introduced

*y ari.a im*utas in ;8+


15/114

RThe collase of ld $uroe coincides &ith the rocess of #ndo-$uroeaniation (i!e!

RurganiationS) of $uroe, a comlicated transformative rocess leading to a drastic cultural

change reminiscent of the con9uest of the 'merican continent! 'rcheological evidence,

suorted *y comarative #ndo-$uroean linguistics and mythology, suggests a clash of t&o

ideologies, social structures and economies eretrated *y trauma-inducing institutions! The

Proto- or $arly #ndo-$uroeans, &hom # have la*eled RurganS eole, arrived from the east,

from southern /ussia, on horse*ac%! Their first contact &ith the *orderland territories of ld

$uroe in the o&er nieer region and &est of the Blac% 5ea *egan around the middle of the

+th millennium BC! ' continuous flo& of influences and eole into east-central $uroe &as

initiated &hich lasted for t&o millenniaU

The urgan tradition reresents a star% contrast to the civiliation of ld $uroe &hich &as, inthe main, eaceful, sedentary, matrifocal, matrilineal, and se" egalitarian! The urgans &ere a

&arli%e, atriarchal, and hierarchical culture &ith distinctive *urial rites that included it graves

&ith tent- or hutli%e structures of &ood or stone, covered *y a lo& cairn or earthen mound! Their

economy &as essentially astoral &ith a rudimentary agriculture and seasonal, transient

settlements of semi-su*terranean housesU

The urgan tradition *ecame manifest in ld $uroean territories during three &aves of

infiltrationD # at c! ?,?00-?,300 BC, ## at c! 3,+00 BC, and ### soon after 3,000 BC! This

chronology does not reresent the evolution of a single grou *ut of a num*er of various stee

eoles &ho shared a common tradition, e"tending over *road temoral and sacial arameters!

urgan # eole &ere from the Volga steeW urgan ##, &ho &ere culturally more advanced,

develoed in the 6orth Pontic area *et&een the o&er niester and the Caucasus mountainsW

urgan ### eole &ere again from the Volga steeUS

5he also states that, RThe ta%eover in reece &as aarently analogous to that of east-central

$uroe &hich entailed a transformation of the *asic social structure and administrative system *y

the esta*lishment of a ruling class in hill forts! ' study of the hysical tyes of the oulation

sho&s that the urgan &arrior grous &ere not massive in num*ers and did not eradicate the


16/114

local inha*itants! They came in small migrating *ands and esta*lished themselves forcefully as a

small ruling elite!S

The ro*lem &ith the %urgan hyothesis is, first of all, that the name 1%urgan is Tur%ish, *ut the

Tur%ish eole are considered of 'ltaic, not #$ origin! Furthermore, the E-/;a (&hich is

considered as P#$) distri*ution, leaves 4est $uroe aside, &hich means that 4estern $uroeans

are not to *e considered #$!

The revious ma corresonds &ith the follo&ing thesisD

RThe ancient environmental records suggest that at various times over the last ;+,000 years,

ma.or changes in hunter-gatherer oulations are li%ely to have occurred over large areas due to

climatic changes! #t may *e that an initial &ave of re-coloniing hunter-gatherers carried this

grou of languages out of the #ce 'ge refuges into central $uroe and &estern 'sia, &ith thelater sread of farming and migrations of &arrior cultures resulting in a further linguistic

disersion!

The general hyothesis that ast climate changes strongly affected linguistic atterns can also

merge into more traditional e"lanationsW sudden climate change could have *een the rimary


17/114

cause of migrations of #ndo-$uroean sea%ing 6eolithic farmers or horse-riding &arriors! #f it

can *e assumed that technology &ords such as 1&heel and 1coer &ere initially resent at the

oint of divergence of #ndo-$uroean languages, then this dates the =,200 years ago climate

event as the time for migrations of farming grous or of horse-riding &arriors!

The cometing theories can *e maniulated *oth to sho& that they are incomati*le and to sho&

that they can *e comlimentary! 4hatever the truth might *e a*out #ndo-$uroenean languages,

the genetic evidence strongly indicates that the #ndo-$uroean sea%ing eoles of $uroe have

*een resent since their ancestors arrived from 'frica via south&est 'sia!S

httD>>&&&!human.ourney!us>indo$uroe2!html

The oint is that a *unch of &arli%e savages is not enough to e"lain language shift! Throughouthistory &e %no& that it is the advanced civiliation the one &ho gives its culture and language to

the less advanced! Bar*arians galloing on horses cannot do anything more than to finally settle

do&n and accet local rocesses! 4e %no& that the ittites (the first eole that left a &ritten

record of the suosed #$ language) &ere heavily rientalied *y the local attians! But if the

reconstructed languages of ancient 'natolia (u&ian for e"amle) sho& a strong Caucasian

affiliation (endings in li for e"amle are very common even in todays Caucasian ersonal and

lace names), the ittites didnt change much the character of the local civiliation! $ven if the

ree%s did it for a &hile, &e %no& that the contemorary language of 'sia inor is the Tur%ish

language! 4e &ont e"amine here the origin of the Tur%s, *ut &e may e"amine the origin of the

Tur%ish &ord 1%urgan, in other &ords 1tumulus!

' tumulus is a large megalithic construct found in certain early 6eolithic societies! They have

*een uncovered along the 'tlantic coastline in northern $uroe, in countries such as France,

5ain, Portugal and #reland! These megaliths have also *een found in southern 5candinavia,

rimarily in 5cania and Fal*ygden! #n enmar% there are numerous older megaliths, less

advanced that the versions else&here, thought to *e monuments mar%ing communal *urial

laces! The constructs redate the $gytian yramids, dating *ac% to circa


18/114


19/114

structure is 5tonehenge in $ngland, although many others are %no&n throughout the &orld!

$"cavation of some egalithic monuments (in Britain, #reland, 5candinavia, and France) has

revealed evidence of ritual activity, sometimes involving architecture, from the esolithic, i!e!,

redating the 6eolithic monuments *y centuries or millennia! Caveats alyD #n some cases, they

are so far removed in time from their successors that continuity is unli%elyW in other cases, the

early dates, or the e"act character of activity, are controversial!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>egalith

The oint here is that *oth 5tonehenge and the Pyramids &ere *uilt according to an old tradition,

most ro*a*ly of Paleolithic origin, &hich &as more li%ely invented indeendently in many

laces! But it also seems that there really had *een a cult associated &ith megalithic

constructions, either for religious or astronomical uroses (or *oth)! 's far as $uroe isconcerned, the sace and time distri*ution of megaliths sho&s a cultural trend moving from the

4est to the $ast! 't the time of the construction of the shaft graves in ancient ycenae, the

megalithic tradition should have sread all across $uroe and even further! 5o it may not *e

aroriate to consider the later %urgan graves as the initial oint to trace the origin of the 1#$

culture!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalithhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalith


20/114

Innovations in the Eneolithic and the &ron'e Age

httD>>&&&!euedia!com>euroe>neolithicMeuroeMma!shtml

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtmlhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml


21/114

(iddle &ron'e Age migrations

Various theories have *een roosed, &hich ostulate &aves of migration during the iddle

Brone 'ge in the 'ncient 6ear $ast! 4hile the turmoils that searate the ate Brone 'ge from

the $arly #ron 'ge are &ell documented, theories of migration during the iddle Brone 'ge

(20th century BC$) have little direct suort! 5ome suggestions connect these alleged 1mass

migrations &ith the coming of the ree%s, moving from their former settlements into south and

central Bal%ans dislacing the former non-ree% inha*itants of reece! thers ma%e reference to

a suosed migration of the ittites to their earliest %no&n home in Xltee during the same

eriod! o&ever, ne&er theories contradict the notion of suosed migration of the ittites,

suggesting that a Proto-#ndo-ittite language dates *ac% to the ? th or =th millennium BC$!

#n 'natolia, archaeological evidence sho&s that many cities sho& destruction during this time!

The great trading city of anesh (evel 2) &as also destroyed! From there in the hill country

*et&een alys the destruction layers from this time tell the same story! Further &est near the

ardanelles the t&o large mounds of orruoren and Tavsanli, &est of utahya, sho& the samesigns of *eing raed to the ground! The destruction even crossed into $uroe in &hat is no&

Bulgaria! The migration *rought an end to Bulgarias early Brone 'ge, &ith archaeological

evidence sho&ing that the Eunacite, 5alcuta, and $sero centers had a sudden mass desertion

during this time!


22/114

#n reece, from the ardanelles, the refugee invaders moved into the mainland, and the

Peloonnese sa& *urnt and a*andoned cities on ar &ith the much later orian invasion &hich

destroyed the ycenaean civiliation! 't this time, ;800 BC$, destruction layers can *e found at

many southern ree% sites, &hile many other sites are deserted! This destruction across reece

also coincided &ith the arrival of a ne& culture that had no connection &ith the $arly elladic

civiliation, &ho &ere the original inha*itants!

This invasion into reece &as related &ith the sread of 1inyan &are throughout reece

around ;800 BC! o&ever, this has *een disuted through e"cavations at erna sho&ing that

inyan &are had a redecessor! The advent of inyan &are coincides &ith domestic rocesses

reflective of the smooth transition from $arly to iddle Brone 'ge culture! Furthermore, it is

interesting to note that 6orthern reece escaed destruction, as &ell as southern 'natolia, &hichduring this time sho&ed no distur*ances!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>iddleMBroneM'geMmigrationsM('ncientM6earM$ast)

$ach time in history &hen &e have great movements of eole &e may e"ect a 1domino effect

created *y the successive dislacement of oulations! #f the ittites invaded (or e"anded in)

'natolia then its very ro*a*le that eole living in 4estern 'natolia (dislaced *y oulations

from Central 'natolia &here the ittites settled do&n) moved further to the 4est, either through

the Bosorus or through the 'egean, &ith some of them settling in reece! But if 6orthern

reece &as left untouched *y these movements of eole coming from the Bosorus and the

ardanelles, &hile in Bulgaria &e do see destruction, the ne& comers in Central and 5outhern

reece must have come *y sea! Furthermore, 5outh 'natolia seems untouched *y destruction!

4as ycia (5outh 'natolia) rotected *y the 'ssyrians or the $gytians of this eriod: o&ever,

the ne&est evidence suggests continuity, and that the ittites may have already *een in 'natolia!

But it is also interesting to 9uote some of the foundation myths of the ree%s reaching that

eriod! #t &as anaus, &ho suosedly settled in 'rgos (in the Peloonnese), coming from

$gytW Cadmos, &ho settled in The*es, Central reece, coming from PhoeniciaW the inyans,

&ho settled in rchomenos, Central reeceW and so on! 5o &hat is going on here may not *e a

mass migration *ut a o&er shift! 6e& rulers may have come in reece at this time, ceding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_migrations_(Ancient_Near_East)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Bronze_Age_migrations_(Ancient_Near_East)


23/114

o&er to the 1Pelasgians, the a*origines, and founding the ycenean civiliation! #n this case, it

is hard to imagine that they &ere the first ree% sea%ers! Because, one the one hand, they must

have *een .ust a fe& eole &ith their relatives, and, on the other hand, the laces &hich they are

suosed to have come from ($gyt or Phoenicia) can hardly *e considered #$! Furthermore, as

&eve seen, 6orthern reece doesnt sho& distur*ance at this time! 5o the 1ycenaeans,

couldnt have come from the 6orth! nce more, as in the 6eolithic, regional continuity seems to

*e a more ro*a*le scenario!

Chariots and horses

'ro"imate historical ma of the sread of the chariot, 2000+00 BC$

T&o of the o*.ects often lin%ed &ith the #$s are chariots and horses! The earliest fully develoed

true chariots %no&n are from the chariot *urials of the 'ndronovo (Tim*er-rave) sites of the

5intashta-Petrov%a $urasian culture in modern /ussia and aa%hstan from around 2000 BC$!

This culture is at least artially derived from the earlier Eamna culture (considered as the

rototye for the #$ homeland)! #t *uilt heavily fortified settlements, engaged in *rone

metallurgy on an industrial scale and racticed comle" *urial rituals reminiscent of rituals

%no&n from the /igveda and the 'vesta! The 5intashta- Petrov%a chariot *urials yield the earliest

so%e-&heeled true chariots!

The oldest testimony of chariot &arfare in the ancient 6ear $ast is the ld ittite 'nitta te"t

(;=th century BC$), &hich mentions ?0 teams of horses at the siege of 5alati&ara! 5ince the te"t


24/114

mentions teams rather than chariots, the e"istence of chariots in the ;=th century BC is uncertain!

The first certain attestation of chariots in the ittite emire dates to the late ;@th century BC$

(attusili #)! ' ittite horse- training te"t is attri*uted to i%%uli the itanni (;+th century

BC$)!

The chariot and horse &ere introduced to $gyt *y the y%sos invaders in the ;>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>4heel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheel


25/114

' num*er of hyotheses e"ist on many of the %ey issues regarding the domestication of the

horse! 'lthough horses aeared in Paleolithic cave art as early as 30,000 BC$, these &ere truly

&ild horses and &ere ro*a*ly hunted for meat! o& and &hen horses *ecame domesticated is

disuted! The clearest evidence of early use of the horse as a means of transort is from chariot

*urials dated c! 2000 BC$! o&ever, an increasing amount of evidence suorts the hyothesis

that horses &ere domesticated in the $urasian 5tees (ereiv%a centered in 7%raine)

aro"imately ?000-3+00 BC$! /ecent discoveries on Botai culture suggest that Botai culture

settlements in the '%mola Province of aa%hstan are the location of the earliest domestication

of the horse!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>omesticationMofMtheMhorse

#$ &ords for 1horse includeD

P#$ Ye%&o-, ree% (h)ios, atin e9uus, aulish eos, e9os, ld #rish ech, 4elsh Cornish

e*ol (a colt), Breton e*eul (a colt), othic aih&a-, ld $nglish eoh, ld 6orse .obr, ld 5a"on

ehu-, ld igh erman eha-, hieroglyhic ittite asu, asu&a, ycian es*edi (cavalry), Tocharian

' yu% (a horse), Tocharian B ya%&e, 5ans%rit ava-, itanni 'ryan asvasanni (a sta*leman),

'vestan asva- (a horse), ld Persian asa-, Thracian es*, esvas (a don%ey, a horse), Phrygian esb (a

don%ey), ld Baltic Yasbu-, ithuanian asbva (a mare), ld Prussian as&inan (mares mil%)!

httD>>indoeuro!*iland!com>ro.ect>honetics>&ord3!html

ere &e may note t&o things! First, concerning the &ord for 1&heel, &e see that the #$ root

Y% &e% &l-, means *oth 1vehicle and 1circle! This &ord is considered roof for the common origin

of the #$ languages *ecause it seems that P#$ used the same &ord for a 1&heeled vehicle!

o&ever, as &e .ust said, the &ord also means 1circle! But if a 1vehicle is erhas a later,

$neolithic, invention, the 1circle is a fundamental notion, &hich must have *een 1invented, or

conceived, *y humans in the early Prehistory! $ven the fact that 1#$ languages use the &ord for

1circle together &ith the &ords for 1&heel and 1vehicle, certainly e"resses continuity in these

notions! 4hy the #$s first aear at the time of &heeled vehicles and not at the time &hen the

notion of a circle &as conceived for the first time: But erhas it is more lausi*le to assume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horsehttp://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/phonetics/word3.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horsehttp://indoeuro.bizland.com/project/phonetics/word3.html


26/114

that the &heel &as an invention (in fact one of the greatest in human history) of some eole,

&ho gave the corresonding name to all the rest!

's far as the &ord for 1horse is concerned, &e face again the same dilemma! For e"amle, the

&ord 1ios in ree% is very ro*lematic! 6o other &ords in ree% contain a dou*le , e"cet

&ords roduced *y the &ord 1ios! #n fact, the dou*le consonant imlies a foreign origin of the

&ord (since there isnt a ree% etymology of the &ord)! 5o most li%ely it is a loan into the ree%

language, and from ree% it assed to atin, and so on! This assumtion can *e further *ased on

the fact that many 1#$ languages contain another, more common, &ord for 1horse! #t is horse in

$nglish, alogo in modern ree%, cavallo in #talian, ferd in erman, loshadb in /ussian, %on in

Polish, ar%lys in ithuanian, ghora in #ndian! The &ord seems to have *een reserved in Persian

(as*)! This sho&s that, in all ro*a*ility, it is a loan &ord! The original &ord, therefore, couldhave *een #ranian *ut all others use a different &ord! #t seems that the horse 1asva, or 1esvos is

the rototye &ord that the first horse tamers used! 5o it refers to a secial *reed of horse, not the

common one, *ut the 1racing or 1&arrior horse!

5o *oth the 1% &e% &lo- &heel and the 1e% &o- horse may not P#$ *ut loan &ords! The #$ languages

have their o&n &ord for horses, *efore the 1e% &os, the &arrior-horse, &as introduced to them *y

another culture! 'lso, the fact that they all use the same &ord *oth for the &heel and the circle,

this certainly means that it is a loan &ord! ther&ise &e should suose that 1P#$ e"isted even

at the time &hen humans first conceived the notion of a 1circle!


27/114

The ‘&ron'e "oad’

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>BroneM'ge

#t is very hard to imagine that eole grased the notion of a circle at the time &hen the first

&heel &as invented! But they could have identified the notion of a circle &ith the real o*.ect, the

&heel! But *oth &heels and horses as a means of transortation are t&o of the greatest

discoveries of all times, such as ottery and agriculture! 'nd &ords or notions reresenting great

inventions and innovations tend to *ecome glo*al! 5o they are not the *est e"amles for a

1common origin!

The discovery of *rone &as such a great innovation! Brone initiated a ne& age &hich *ares its

name (the Brone 'ge)! 5tone use, in the revious eriod, had *een &idesread all around the

glo*e, so &e consider that stone technology &as invented indeendently, and this is &hy

different eoles have their o&n &ord for 1stone! The same ro*a*ly is also true for *rone

technology! The &ord 1metal is common *oth in $nglish and in ree% (1metallo), *utmetallurgy in general &ould have *een an art racticed *y different eole in different &ays!

o&ever, Brone gave *irth to a ne& era! Vessels &ere no& made *oth of clay and of *rone, the

first coins &ere cut, shis and &agons used arts made of *rone, and *rone &eaons or items

relaced stone a"es or *one needles!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Agehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age


28/114


29/114

The am*er route

's early as 2+00 BC, $rge*irge (the mountainous *order *et&een ermany and the Cech

/eu*lic) had *egun e"orting tin, using the &ell-esta*lished Baltic am*er trade route to suly

5candinavia as &ell as the editerranean &ith tin! Prehistoric commercial routes *et&een

6orthern and 5outhern $uroe &ere defined *y the am*er trade! The 'm*er /oad &as an ancient

trade route for the transfer of am*er from coastal areas of the 6orth 5ea and the Baltic 5ea to the

editerranean 5ea overland *y &ay of the Vistula and nieer rivers!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>'m*erM/oad

By 2000 BC, the e"traction of tin in $ngland, France, 5ain, and Portugal had *egun and tin &as

traded to the editerranean soradically from all these sources! $vidence of tin trade in the

editerranean can *e seen in a num*er of Brone 'ge shi&rec%s containing tin ingots such as

the 7lu*urun off the coast of Tur%ey dated ;300 BC &hich carried over 300 coer *ars

&eighing ;0 tons, and aro"imately ?0 tin *ars &eighing ; ton!

6ear $astern develoment of *rone technology sread across Central 'sia *y &ay of the

$urasian 5tees, and &ith it came the %no&ledge and technology for tin rosection and

e"traction! By 2000 to ;+00 BC 7*e%istan, 'fghanistan, and Ta.i%istan aear to have

e"loited their sources of tin, carrying the resources east and &est along the 5il% /oad crossing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Roadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Road


30/114

Central 'sia! This trade lin% li%ely follo&ed an e"isting trade route of lais lauli, a highly ried

semi-recious *lue gemstone, and chlorite vessels decorated &ith tur9uoise from Central 'sia

that have *een found as far &est as $gyt and that date to the same eriod!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>TinMsourcesMandMtradeMinMancientMtimes

httD>>&&&!archatlas!org>Trade>Trade!h

'nother recious item, ais lauli, &as *eing mined long *efore *rone in the 5ar-i 5ang minesand in other mines in the Bada%hshan rovince in northeast 'fghanistan as early as the @th

millennium BC, ais *eads have *een found at neolithic *urials in ehrgarh, the Caucasus, and

even as far from 'fghanistan as auritania! #t &as used for the eye*ro&s on the funeral mas% of

ing Tutan%hamun (;3?;;323 BC)!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>aisMlauli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancient_timeshttp://www.archatlas.org/Trade/Trade.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_lazulihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_in_ancient_timeshttp://www.archatlas.org/Trade/Trade.phphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapis_lazuli


31/114

*sidian ancient trade routes

$ven older is the o*sidian trade route! *sidian, a *lac% volcanic glass, &as first recognied *y

Colin /enfre& and his colleagues !$! i"on and !/! Cann in the ;8>&&&!archatlas!org>*sidian/outes>*sidian/outes!h

http://www.archatlas.org/ObsidianRoutes/ObsidianRoutes.phphttp://www.archatlas.org/ObsidianRoutes/ObsidianRoutes.php


32/114

The 5il% /oad

From the 2nd millennium BC nehrite .ade &as *eing traded from mines in the region of Ear%and

and hotan to China! 5ignificantly, these mines &ere not very far from the lais lauli and sinel

(1Balas /u*y) mines in Bada%hshan and, although searated *y the formida*le Pamir

ountains, routes across them &ere, aarently, in use from very early times!

The Tarim mummies (related to the #$ Tocharians), have *een found in the Tarim Basin, in the

area of oulan located along the 5il% /oad 200 %ilometres (;2? miles) east of Eingan, dating to

as early as ;>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>5il%M/oad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Roadhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road


33/114

An )Anatolian*+ isogloss in the ,rd millennium &CE

'ro"imate e"tent of the Corded 4are horion &ith ad.acent 3rd millennium cultures

's &e have already seen (in the case of the ree% island of ilos) o*sidian &as also transorted

via sea routes! The trade routes of o*sidian and lais lauli redate the advent of metallurgy! But

most li%ely these routes &ere used (and &ere also e"anded) for coer, tin and *rone trade!Therefore, during the 3rd millennium BC$ (or a*out 3200 BC$ &hen the Brone 'ge *egins), &e

should e"ect a vast net&or% of trade routes, from 6orth&est $uroe and the #*erian Peninsula

to 5outheast $uroe, and from 'natolia and the iddle $ast to #ndia, as far as China!

The first e"ansion of the #$s coincides &ith the $arly Brone 'ge! This should not *e

considered coincidental! Peole follo&ed the trade routes, e"changed roducts, found .o*s, and

adoted ne& cultural ideas! 4hat is imortant to note here is that across main trade routes thereis al&ays a lingua franca (lets say an 1international language) formed for the need of

communication *et&een eole sea%ing different languages! This common language can *e the

language of one grou (the more advanced), or an amalgam containing elements from many

different languages! 5o &e may consider a clustering of grous of eole, along the 1Brone

/oad, &ith some language of their o&n, sharing this language &ith the languages of other


34/114

grous! This &ay, the clustering *ecomes *igger and *igger, until &e have larger grous of

eole sharing a 1unified language! This can hardly *e considered as a 1common origin of these

grous! /ather, it is an assimilation rocess, an acculturation aradigm, regardless of genetic

identity! ene distri*ution may *e found to *e analogous to language distri*ution, *ut the

oosite is not necessarily trueD ' common language sometimes means a common genetic

heritage, *ut al&ays a common cultural identity!

5o &here did the first #$s come from: uring the ? th millennium BC$, all $urasia &as inha*ited

from the 4est to the $ast, and from the 6orth to the 5outh! The current model for the origin of

the #$s suggests an initial clustering of (#$) tri*es living in the Pontic 5tees! But &hen these

tri*es disersed, they should have moved along the trade routes of the time! Furthermore, &e

may e"ect that this e"ansion too% time! For e"amle, it &ould ta%e ;000-2000 years ntil theemergence of the ycenaean civiliation (&hich is considered Proto-ree%!) This time san is

enormous, ta%ing into account the fact that &hen 1rimitive tri*es of eole come in contact

&ith advanced civiliations they tend to assimilate the advanced culture, literally drain it! 5ee,

for e"amle, the case of the ittites- they identified themselves &ith the name of their

redecessors (attians)! 'nother e"amle is the first ermanic tri*es &hich invaded /ome!

Clovis and the Francs a*sor*ed the /oman civiliation in such an e"tent that they finally

changed their language into atin! 'nd so on!

5o ho& do &e e"ect the Pontic tri*es not *eing su*.ected to the rocess of acculturation, as they

suosedly entered the civilied and &idely oulated Bal%ans, 'sia inor and the

editerranean, 6orth esootamia and #ndia, not to mention the megalithic cultures of 6orth

and 4est $uroe (5tonehenge &as not *uilt *y 1#$s)! $ventually, &hen &e find 1stri%ing

similarities in a grou of languages, &e should first susect that these similarities are related to a

1formal voca*ulary, shared *y many eole in a large area! This doesnt mean that clusters of

languages (&hich could also have a common genetic origin) dont occur! But these language

grous form themselves gradually, and then interact &ith other language grous to form *igger

clusters! 'lso, these grous have to interact across a road, a trade route, a &ell-%no&n ath &hich

ma%es migrations ossi*le!


35/114

There is a &ell-%no&n e"amle of such a mass migration! #t is called the 5eima-Tur*ino

henomenon! 5eima-Tur*ino refers to *urial sites dating around ;+00 BC found across northern

$urasia, from Finland to ongolia! The *uried &ere nomadic &arriors and metal-&or%ers,

travelling on horse*ac% or t&o-&heeled chariots! These nomads originated from the 'ltai

ountains! #t is con.ectured that changes in climate in this region around 2000 BC and the

ensuing ecological, economic and olitical changes triggered a raid and massive migration

&est&ard into northeast $uroe, east&ard into China and south&ard into Vietnam and Thailand

across a frontier of some ?,000 miles! This migration too% lace in .ust five to si" generations

and led to eoles from Finland in the &est to Thailand in the east emloying the same metal

&or%ing technology and, in some areas, horse *reeding and riding! #t is further con.ectured that

the same migrations sread the 7ralic grou of languages across $uroe and 'siaD some 38

languages of this grou are still e"tant, including ungarian, Finnish, $stonian and aish!o&ever, recent genetic testings of sites in south 5i*eria and aa%hstan ('ndronovo horion)

&ould rather suort a sreading of the *rone technology via #ndo-$uroean migrations

east&ards, as this technology &as &ell %no&n for 9uite a &hile in &estern regions!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>5eima-Tur*inoMPhenomenon

5o this grou %et their o&n language &ithout relacing the languages in areas they invaded! But

&hy the #$s, in their turn, &ere so successful: Pro*a*ly, *ecause they %ne& not only ho& to use

ne& technologies (horses, chariots, advanced *rone &eaons), *ut also ho& to imose and

maintain o&er! 'nd the latter asect came from assimilated %no&ledge of the advanced cultures

of the 15outh!

But &ho &ere these civiliations, and &hat &as their status: #n the 3 rd millennium BC$, &orld

oulation is estimated to have dou*led in the course of the millennium, to some 30 million

eole! The revious millennium had seen the emergence of advanced, ur*anied civiliations,

ne& *rone metallurgy e"tending the roductivity of agricultural &or%, and highly develoed

&ays of communication in the form of &riting! #n the 3rd millennium BC, the gro&th of these

riches, *oth intellectually and hysically, *ecame a source of contention on a olitical stage, and

rulers sought the accumulation of more &ealth and more o&er! 'long &ith this came the first

aearances of mega architecture, imerialism, organied a*solutism and internal revolution!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_Phenomenon


36/114

The civiliations of 5umer and '%%ad in esootamia *ecame a collection of volatile city-states

in &hich &arfare &as common! 7ninterruted conflicts drained all availa*le resources, energies

and oulations! #n the ld ingdom of $gyt, the $gytian yramids &ere constructed and

&ould remain the tallest and largest human constructions for thousands of years! 'lso in $gyt,

haraohs *egan to osture themselves as living gods made of an essence different from that of

other human *eings! $ven in $uroe, &hich &as still largely neolithic during the same eriod of

time, the *uilders of megaliths &ere constructing giant monuments of their o&n! #n the 6ear $ast

and the ccident during the 3rd millennium BC, limits &ere *eing ushed *y architects and

rulers!

The significant ate 6eolithic and $arly Brone 'ge Cycladic culture (3200-2000 BC$) is *est%no&n for its schematic flat female idols carved out of the islandsb ure &hite mar*le centuries

*efore the great iddle Brone 'ge (1inoan) culture arose in Crete, to the south! ' distinctive

6eolithic culture amalgamating 'natolian and mainland ree% elements arose in the &estern

'egean *efore ?000 BC, *ased on emmer &heat and &ild-tye *arley, shee and goats, igs, and

tuna that &ere aarently seared from small *oats! $"cavated sites sho&ed signs of coer-

&or%ing! $ach of the small Cycladic islands could suort no more than a fe& thousand eole,

though ate Cycladic *oat models sho& that fifty oarsmen could *e assem*led from the scattered

communities! 4hen the highly organied alace-culture of Crete arose, the islands faded into

insignificance, &ith the e"cetion of elos, &hich retained its archaic reutation as a sanctuary

through the eriod of Classical ree% civiliation!


37/114

'n ancient enteconter (fifty-oared shi)

The inoans (2@00-;+00 BC$) &ere traders, and their cultural contacts reached far *eyond the

island of Crete (and the 'egean islands)- to $gyts ld ingdom, to coer-*earing Cyrus,

Canaan, and the evantine coasts *eyond, and to 'natolia! #n late 2008, inoan-style frescoes

and other inoan-style artifacts &ere discovered during e"cavations of the Canaanite alace at

Tel a*ri, #srael, leading archaeologists to conclude that the inoan influence &as the strongest

foreign influence on that Caananite city state! Certain locations &ithin Crete emhasie it as an

1out&ard loo%ing society!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>3rdMmillenniumMBC

The connection *et&een inoans and the Canaanites suggests a &ell- esta*lished sea trade, and

that, in all ro*a*ility, the Canaanites learned sea-faring from the inoans, long *efore the

aearance of the Phoenicians! The inoans can hardly *e considered #$s (although some

suggest an 'natolian #$ connection)! But, in any case, the oint is that during the 3 rd millennium

BC$ there &as an esta*lished sea trade, made *y long-distance sea vessels (if not yet enteconters) across the $astern 'egean, and even further all across the editerranean (ho& else

could tin ore reach the iddle $ast and $gyt from 4est $uroe and 5ain:)!

5ome eole *elieve that the first #$ languages &ere so%en in 'natolia ('sia inor)! This is

related to the 'natolian yothesis! o&ever, the oint is thisD $ven if there &as a core of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BChttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3rd_millennium_BC


38/114

languages, later to *ecome the 1#$ languages, outside 'natolia, this region, together &ith

5outheast $uroe, the Bal%ans, reece and the $ast 'egean, &as in direct contact &ith the first

great civiliations- the $gytians, the 5umerians and 'ssyrians, the inoans and the 1'egeans-

'natolians! 'ncient 'natolia &as the 1*ig mar%et *et&een the 1civilied 5outh and the

1rimitive 6orth! 5o this must have *een, in general, the lace &here the cultures of the 5outh

and of the 6orth &ere meeting, a*sor*ing and e"changing material and cultural roducts! Thus

ancient 'natolia in the 3rd millennium BC$ could *e identified as the lace of an 1'natolian

isogloss, a lingua franca, &hich &as used for trading uroses! This language &ould include

terms for agriculture, shiing, sciences, astronomy, numerals (later on the alha*et sread from

'natolia through the Phoenicians), gods, notions a*out religion, o&er and roerty! Therefore,

the 1#$ languages, even if they didnt originate in 'natolia, they &ere in close contact &ith the

region, they &ere in a constant e"change of material and cultural asects, and they follo&ed thetrade routes all across $urasia, as civiliation sread across the editerranean and the Persian

gulf! #t &as along this routes, and than%s to &hich, that the #$ languages sread, and &ere, in all

li%elihood, formed!

'fter the collase of the Brone 'ge (;200 BC$), the ittites &ere lost, the u&ians %et on

inha*iting 'natolia in laces such as ycia and ydia, the ree%s emerged more o&erful than

ever, $gyt and 'ssyria regained o&er, and Persia &as to *ecome the great suero&er of the

classical times! Continuity &ith the revious eriod is remar%a*le! $ven the ittites &ere not lost

if they &ere u&ians in the first lace! The so- called invasion of the 1sea eole, &hich aear

at the time of the Brone 'ge collase, may or may not have *een resonsi*le for this collase!

6evertheless, the aforementioned continuity suggests either that the collase &as caused *y

internal conflicts, or that the 1sea eole, invaded, ravaged, and left! anguages in most cases

had already formed a long time *efore, so that if any 1sea eoles decided to stay in the

1con9uered territories, they &ould adot the native language!

A memetic origin of language


39/114

' meme is Ran idea, *ehavior, or style that sreads from erson to erson &ithin a culture!S '

meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, sym*ols, or ractices that can *e transmitted from

one mind to another through &riting, seech, gestures, rituals, or other imita*le henomena!

5uorters of the concet regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-relicate,

mutate, and resond to selective ressures!

The &ord meme &as coined *y /ichard a&%ins in 1The 5elfish ene, as a concet for

discussion of evolutionary rinciles in e"laining the sread of ideas and cultural henomena!

$"amles of memes given in the *oo% included melodies, catch-hrases, fashion, and the

technology of *uilding arches!

Proonents theorie that memes may evolve *y natural selection in a manner analogous to that of *iological evolution! emes do this through the rocesses of variation, mutation, cometition,

and inheritance, each of &hich influence a memes reroductive success! emes sread through

the *ehavior that they generate in their hosts! ' field of study called memetics arose in the ;880s

to e"lore the concets and transmission of memes in terms of an evolutionary model!

httD>>en!&i%iedia!org>&i%i>eme

Therefore, language should *e treated as a meme, not as a gene! The mechanism through &hich

language evolves is imitation! 4e learn a language *y imitating its sea%ers and *y *eing taught

*y them the roerties of that language! 4e %no& that throughout history rimitive civiliations

imitate the advanced ones! f course, &ho is 1rimitive and &ho is 1advanced is relative, *ut

the oint is that it is great ideas &hat finally con9uers the &ord, neither the genes nor the *rains

of the eole! #t is &ithin this conte"t of meme *ehavior that &e must treat human social *eing

and language in articular!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme


40/114

(odern relative gene research


41/114

The t&o revious mas sho& the .ourney of man%ind, according to the ut of 'frica hyothesis!

E-6' is related to male, &hile mt6' is related to female lineages! #t is *elieved that

similarities in languages corresond to similarities in genes! This may *e true *ut the oosite

can *e hardly true! 'cculturation e"ceeds genes and e"ands so much as to cover linguistically

oulations that may have never *een in direct, or e"eriencing significant, genetic contact!

o&ever, &e &ill e"ose here some mas related to searate human E-6' halogrous, &hich

may reveal ossi*le cultural and linguistic connections!


42/114

alogrou # (30,000- 2+,000 BP) is rimarily a $uroean halogrou, and is considered a

uni9ue indigenous $uroean halogrou! #t reresents a*out a fifth of the oulation of $uroe!

#t can *e found in the ma.ority of current $uroean oulations &ith ma"imum in 6orth

(su*clade #;) and 5outh $ast (su*clade #2) $uroe!

$uroean refuges during the last glacial ma"imum (), a*out 20,000 years agoD The

5olutrean (*ro&n), and $igravettian (urle) cultures!

#t is *elieved that during the , halogou # &as divided in 6orth and 5outh $uroe, so that

su*lades #; in 5candinavia and #2 in 5outheastern $uroe diversified *y isolation! o&ever, it is

not %no&n &hich halogrou the 5olutrians *elonged to! #n any case, this distri*ution sho&s an

aro"imate 5outh&est- 6ortheast division of $uroe! 'fter the , the $uroean oulationshould have reunited, or %et searated *y ne&comers from the $ast!


43/114

alogrou (30,000-;?,000 EBP)

5o far there is availa*le archaic E-6' from the culture of inear Pottery (B) in ermany,

and from the culture of Cardium Pottery in #taly, in the south-&est of France and in southeastern

5ain! 'll these sites have yielded 2a eole, &hich is currently a o&erful element that

agriculture has emerged and sread *y eole of this halogrou! The greater genetic diversity of

halogrou is located *et&een the evant and the Caucasus, a good indicator for the region of

origin of this halogrou! #t is *elieved that early 6eolithic farmers sread from the evant 4est

to 'natolia and $uroe, as &ell as $ast to esootamia and 5outh 'sia, and 5outh to the

'ra*ian Peninsula and 6orth-6orth $ast 'frica! The taming of the shee, goats and co&s is

considered to have ta%en lace in the mountainous region of eastern 'natolia, including the

Caucasus and the Aagros mountains!

Today 2a su*grou is located mainly in the mountain areas of $uroe! This may *e *ecause

the Caucasians farmers searched for a hilly terrain similar to that of their original homeland,suita*le for goats! But it is much more li%ely that the 2a farmers sought refuge in the mountains

to avoid intruders from the Brone 'ge, as &ere the #$ $uroeans!


44/114

alogrou

alogrou aears at the same time as halogrou # (30,000 EBP)! #ts concentrations sho& a

further division *et&een The 16orth and the 15outh! The su*clade ; can *e descri*ed as

1'ra*ic, or 1iddle-$astern, &hile the su*clade 2 can *e descri*ed as 1editerranean-'egean, and is related to the indigenous oulations of 'natolia and the 'egean 5ea!

alogrou &as ro*a*ly transferred from the iddle $ast to $uroe *y immigrants during the

Brone 'ge!


45/114


46/114


47/114

use of olished *attle a"es, the t&o most rominent features of the Corded 4are culture! The

e"ansion of /;* eole into ld $uroe &as slo&er, *ut roved inevita*le! #n 2=00 BC$, *y

the time the Corded 4are had already reached 5candinavia, the Brone 'ge /;* cultures had

*arely moved into the Pannonian stee! They esta*lished ma.or settlements in the reat

ungarian Plain, the most similar ha*itat to their ancestral Pontic 5tees! 'round 2+00 BC$,

the &estern *ranch of #ndo-$uroean /;* &ere oised for their ne"t ma.or e"ansion into

modern ermany and 4estern $uroe! By that time, the /;* immigrants had *lended to a great

e"tent &ith the indigenous esolithic and 6eolithic oulations of the anu*ian *asin!

#t is dou*tful that the Bell Bea%er culture (2=00-;800 BC$) in 4estern $uroe &as already #ndo-

$uroean *ecause its attri*utes are in erfect continuity &ith the native egalithic cultures!

uring the same eriod Brone 'ge stee cultures sread from ermany to&ards #*eria, Franceand Britain! #t is more li%ely that the *ea%ers and horses found across 4estern $uroe during that

eriod &ere the result of trade &ith neigh*oring #ndo-$uroean cultures, including the first &ave

of /;* into Central $uroe! #t is e9ually ossi*le that the Bea%er eole &ere /;* merchants or

e"lorers &ho travelled across 4estern $uroe and *rought *ac% tales of riches oorly defended

*y 5tone 'ge eole and &aiting to *e con9uered *y the more advanced #ndo-$uroeans, &ith

their *rone &eaons and horses! 4hat is undenia*le is that the follo&ing 7netice (2300-;&&&!euedia!com>euroe>neolithicMeuroeMma!shtmlN

The revious analysis is very clarifying, concerning migrations of eole! o&ever, these are

routes of gene flo&, not culture! The reason &hy it is suosed that this gene flo& &as also

accomanied *y ne& languages (the first #$ languages of $uroe) is the simultaneous change in

the &ay of living! The ro*lem, ho&ever, is &ho really changed his &ay of living! #f the 4est

re- #$ inha*itants of $uroe &ere an isolated oulation, then the #$ ne&comers should have

already adoted ne& &ays of living, though contact &ith the regions 5outh of the Caucasus, &ere

the civilied &orld &as to *e found at this time! 5o the #$s should have *rought &ith them an

1'natolian, advanced lifestyle! ther&ise, &e cannot imagine &hy the original inha*itants of

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtmlhttp://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml


48/114


49/114

did language first aear: id ucy indulge in early social chit-chat: id omo ha*ilis give

names to their tools and inventions: id omo erectus tell stories round their fires:

6o one %no&s for sure! 4ords do not leave fossils, and e"tinct languages cannot *e *rought

*ac%! There are, ho&ever, a fe& clues! 5ome archaeologists *elieve that &e can deduce much

a*out hominid language a*ilities from their artefacts and *urial ractices! nly ;00 000 years

ago there occurred the 7er Paleolithic /evolution, a time of sudden (in archaeological terms)

diversification of hominid activity! For t&o million years or more the only hominid artefacts had

*een simle stone tools, the stone fla%es ro*a*ly used as choers and scraers *y ! ha*ilis,

and hand-a"es made *y ! erectus! #t &as not until the 7er Paleolithic that ! saiens *egan to

leave *ehind evidence of deli*erate *urial of the dead, simle ainting and *ody adornment,

trading over long distances, increasing sies of settlements and an e"tension of tool-ma%ing fromstones to *one, clay, antlers and other materials! The vie& that this dramatic change coincides

&ith the sudden origins of fully develoed language is, according to /ichard ea%ey, common

among archaeologists! o&ever, it is *ased only on seculation! ften our o&n thin%ing is so

*ound *y the language &e learned as children it is almost imossi*le for us to seculate

accurately a*out &hat can and cannot *e done in the &ay of art, tool-ma%ing or trading, &ith

&hat level of language a*ilityU

Perhas the *est &e can conclude for no& is that language did not aear suddenly, as some

linguists have suggested! The evolutionary changes &hich ma%e modern language ossi*le

aear to *e strung out over a long eriod of hominid history! 'lmost certainly ucy &as

incaa*le of seech, and ! erectus could not have had much of a conversation around the fire!

Finely controlled seech and fully modern language is unli%ely to have aeared until at least the

time of archaic ! saiens, little more than ;00 000 years ago! That said, the *igger 9uestions

remain unans&ered! 4e cannot tell &hether the larger *rain gradually made language ossi*le,

or the *eginnings of language gradually forced the increase in *rain sie! 4e only %no& that the

t&o evolved together!S

' 1roto-language may have *een so%en since the 7er Paleolithic, *ut a fully develoed

language, &ith rich voca*ulary and comle" grammar, can only have aeared after the


50/114

aearance of the first organied societies, &ith evolved notions a*out roerty (and overtyO),

freedom and slavery, social status and hierarchy, the urose of life and the meaning of death,

god and the suernatural!

anguage is the human &ay of information conservation (reroduction and transmission)! 4hen

&e communicate, &e constantly and, mostly unconsciously, reroduce and transmit memes

(ideas), &hich reresent, much more than ersonal feelings, *eliefs, ideologies, and social status!

5o that the *elief in a 1common origin, &hich is fundamentally *ased on common language,

reresents a unifying cultural entity, far *eyond sace, time and *lood!

The spread of language as meme transmission

Blac%more goes on to give us some clues a*out the evolution of languageD

R#n his *oo% The anguage #nstinct, 5teven Pin%er e"licitly alies evolutionary thin%ing to the

develoment of languages, loo%ing at heredity, variation and the effects of isolation in allo&ing

sets of variations to accumulate! o&ever, he does not use the idea of a selfish relicator to

understand language revolution and not does he e"lain &hy language evolved in the first lace!

Perhas the ans&er seems too o*vious - that it &as *iologically adative! But, as &e shall see,

this is not necessarily the right ans&er, and memetics can rovide ne& t&ists to the argument!

'n e"amle is the sread of inventions! Pro*a*ly the most imortant of all binventionsb in human

history &as that of farming! 'lthough there are still many arguments over the details,

archaeologists generally agree that *efore a*out ;0,000 years ago all humans lived *y hunting

and gathering! ating from around that time, finds in the iddle $ast include grains that are

larger, and shee and cattle that are smaller than their &ild relatives and resuma*ly

domesticated! Farming then sread in a great &ave, reaching laces li%e #reland and 5candinavia *y a*out ?+00 years ago! ust ho& many times food roduction arose indeendently is not

%no&n for sure although ro*a*ly at least five times and ossi*le many more!

#n fact, it seems that farming did not ma%e life easier, nor did it imrove nutrition, or reduce

disease! The British science &riter Colin Tudge descri*es farming as 1the end of $den! /ather


51/114

than *eing easier, the life of early farmers &as utter misery! $arly $gytian s%eletons tell a story

of a terri*le life! Their toes and *ac%s are deformed *y the &ay eole had to grind corn to ma%e

*readW they sho& signs of ric%ets and of terri*le a*scesses in their .a&s! Pro*a*ly fe& lived

*eyond the age of thirty! 5tories in the ld Testament descri*e the arduous &or% of farmers and,

after all, 'dam &as thro&n out of $den and told b#n the s&eat of thy face shalt though eat *readb!

By contrast, modern hunter-gatherers have *een estimated to send only a*out fifteen hours a

&ee% hunting and have lenty of time for leisure! This is desite the fact that they have *een

ushed into marginal environments far oorer than those in &hich our ancient ancestors ro*a*ly

lived! 4hy &ould eole the &orld over have given u an easier life in favor of a life of toil and

drudgery:

Tudge assumes that agriculture arose *ecause it &as favored *y natural selection and thereforeloo%s for a genetic advantage! e suggests that *ecause farming roduces more food from a

given area of land, farmers &ill roduce more children &ho &ill encroach on neigh*oring hunter-

gatherers lands and so destroy their &ay of life! For this reason, once farming arrives no one has

the lu"ury of saying R# &ant to %ee the old &ay of life!S o&ever, &e %no& from the s%eletons

of early farmers that they &ere malnourished and sic%ly! 5o &as there really a genetic advantage:

emetics allo&s us to as% a different 9uestion! That is, &hy farming ractices &ere successful as

memes: #n other &ords, ho& did these articular memes get themselves coied: The ans&ers

might include their *enefits to human hainess or to human genes, *ut are not confined to those

ossi*ilities! emes can sread for other reasons too, including less *enign ones! They might

sread *ecause they aear to rovide advantages even &hen they do not, *ecause they are

esecially easily imitated *y human *rains, *ecause they change the selective environment to the

detriment of cometing memes, and so on! 4ith a memes eye vie& &e as% not ho& inventions

*enefit human hainess or human genes, *ut ho& they *enefit themselves!

Turning to more modern technology, from the invention of the &heel to the design of cars, there

is lenty of evidence that innovations evolve in the sense that they arise from &hat &ent *efore!

#n The $volution of Technology, eorge Basalla develos an evolutionary account of the &ay in

&hich hammers, steam engines, truc%s and transistors have come a*out! Playing do&n the


52/114

imortance of heroic inventors he emhasies the gradual rocess of change through imitation

and variation! For e"amle, many features of &ooden *uildings &ere reroduced in stone *y the

ree%s, the first iron *ridge *uilt in the late ;@@0s &as modelled on &ood&or%ing ractices, and

even the hum*le lastic *uc%et often still sho&s signs of its origins in metal! Transistors &ere

only gradually miniaturised and radio signals very gradually transmitted further and further!

httD>>&&&!%eeandshare!com>doc>?;30;?=>*lac%more-meme-machine-df-.une-;2-20;2-;-+


53/114

acculturation, in the conte"t of meme flo& and imitation! For e"amle, eole imitate others as

a means of e"ressing no*ility, and higher social status! Therefore, similarities *et&een &ords

for 1o&er in different languages mean a 1universally acceted sym*olic voca*ulary of the

corresonding &ords!

4hat is also imortant to realie is that most of this voca*ulary asses in our language and in our

minds unfiltered, sontaneously! 4hen the ree%s, for e"amle and according to the myth, sa&

horse-riders for the first time, they called them 1centaurs, *ecause they *elieved that they &ere

creatures, half men- half horses! The centurions of the /oman $mire in turn had %et this

tradition of 1divine horse-riders, and the &ord has *ecome a synonym for e"treme o&er! This

rocess of inference suorts and amlifies imitation, as 5cott 'tran e"lainsD

Rn the memeticist vie& there is no true imitation &ithout relication, and no true relication

&ithout imitation! The %ey oint a*out imitation is not that it triggers or elicits or roduces or

reroduces information! /ather, it *oth causes relication as &ell as rovides the information to

*e relicated! The rocess of imitation causes relication *y including, as art of the information

it rovides, instructions for coying the information! This entails that the information carried *y

a relicator &ill al&ays contain instructions for coying the instructions! The *uilding lan

incororates the *uilder!

To illustrate the oint, a&%ins offers a thought e"eriment that comares t&o games involving

reresentation of a Chinese .un%! #n the first game, a child is sho&n a icture of a Chinese .un%

and as%ed to dra& it! ' second child is then sho&n the dra&ing *ut not the original icture, and is

as%ed to ma%e her o&n dra&ing of it! ' third child is as%ed to ma%e a dra&ing from the second

dra&ing, and so on do&n the line! By the time several uns%illed dra&ings are comleted, the last

dra&ing in the series &ill ro*a*ly differ so much from the first that it &ould *e unrecognia*le

as a Chinese .un%! There is too much 1mutation and drift to sustain the design!

#n the second game, the first child is taught, *y (&ordless) demonstration to ma%e a model of

Chinese .un% &ith origami, the art of aer folding! The first child then demonstrates to a second

child ho& to ma%e an origami .un%! 's the s%ill asses do&n the line, its a good *et that an


54/114

indeendent .udge &ill recognie later roductions as more or less faithful versions of the

original model!

#f, in the first game, the child also learned *y demonstration to dra& the .un%, later roductions

might *e as recognia*le as in the second game! 'nd if, in the second game, the child &ere given

no demonstration of the art of aer folding *ut simly sho&n a finished roduct, then later

roductions &ould li%ely *e as unrecognia*le as in the first game!S

6o& &e realie that more imortant than comaring 1cognates (similar &ords) in different

languages is to understand &hat the similarities reresent, *y inference of the syntactic structureD

R6otice that for language you o*viously need a very rich rior inferential structure, includingmuch *uilt-in information content, to *e a*le to infer the same rule from stri%ingly different

*ehaviors, or different rules from remar%a*ly similar *ehaviors! For e"amle, (;) Rohn %issed

aryS has nearly the same underlying syntactic structure as (2) RThe dog *it the cat!S Both are

transitive sentences &ith ractically identical hrase structure! By contrast, (3) Rohn aeared to

Peter to do the .o*S has a very different underlying syntactic structure than (?) Rohn aealed to

Peter to do the .o*!S 5entence (3) involves a recursive structure of t&o em*edded sentences &ith

su*.ect-control (ohn aeared to Peter -I ohn does the .o*), &hereas sentence (?) involves a

recursive structure of t&o em*edded sentences &ith o*.ect-control (ohn aealed to Peter -I

Peter does the .o*)! 4hat Rself-normaliingS instruction could ossi*ly *e read off these

RhenotyicS surface forms that &ould .ustify including (;) and (2) under the same RgenotyicS

rule *ut (3) and (?) under different tyes: The language learners tas% is not to imitate and

induceW it is to use the surface form of sentences to test the alica*ility of ree"isting and

o*servationally Rinvisi*leS syntactic structures, such as transitive hrase structure and su*.ect-

controlled versus o*.ect-controlled em*eddings!S

httD>>sitema%er!umich!edu>satran>files>humanMnatureM0;!df

# am not a secialist on the su*.ect, *ut # %no&, for e"amle, that there has *een a syntactic shift

in the ree% language regarding the su*.ect-o*.ect-ver* order, &hich in modern ree% is su*.ect-

ver*-o*.ect! This has to do not only &ith a change in the reroduction of the language, *ut also

http://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/human_nature_01.pdfhttp://sitemaker.umich.edu/satran/files/human_nature_01.pdf


55/114

&ith a change in the code of ho& to reroduce it! This may *e considered a fundamental change,

caused either *y contact &ith a different language, or *y rocesses &ithin the conte"t of the same

language! 4hat # &ant to note here is the imortance of such changes &hen &e comare different

languages! Ta%e the &ord 1vehicle for e"amle, &hich is reconstructed as 1% &e% &lo in P#$! The

imortance of the correlation is not that it sounds li%e 1circle in $nglish or 1cyclos in ree%, *ut

that it also means 1&heel in *oth languages! This means that desite any ossi*le *orro&ing of

the sound of the &ord, *oth languages sho& the same attern of unfolding the meaning of the

&ord! They *oth identified a 1&heel &ith a 1circle!

The conquest of altruism

They say that eole are altruistic in order to rotect their genes! But the reason &e are %ind and

generous to others is not .ust to ma%e money, feed ourselves, or allure the oosite se"! 4e do it

*ecause &e feel that, finally, its *etter to *e li%ed than *eing disli%ed! #n fact, all our social

*ehavior revolves around the center of *alance of this diole! 'nd this is &hy, throughout

history, the victor al&ays sho&s generosity to the defeated!

#n Blac%mores &ords,

R7ntil no& there have *een only t&o ma.or choices in accounting for altruism! The first is to say

that all aarent altruism actually (even if remotely) comes *ac% to advantage to the genes! n

this vie& there is no 1true altruism at all- or rather, &hat loo%s li%e true altruism is .ust the

mista%es that natural selection has not managed to eradicate! That is the socio*iological

e"lanation! The second has *een to try to rescue btrueb altruism and roose some %ind of e"tra

something in human *eings- a true morality, an indeendent moral conscience, a siritual

essence or a religious nature that someho& overcomes selfishness and the dictates of our genesW a

vie& that finds little favor &ith most scientists &ho &ant to understand ho& human *ehavior&or%s &ithout invo%ing magic!

emetics rovides a third ossi*ility! 4ith a second relicator acting on human minds and

*rains the ossi*ilities are e"anded! 4e should e"ect to find *ehavior that is in the interests of

the memes, as &ell as *ehavior serving the genes! agic is no longer re9uired to see &hy


56/114

humans should differ from all other animals, nor &hy they should sho& far more cooerative and

altruistic *ehaviorU

The essential memetic oint is this- if eole are altruistic they *ecome oular, *ecause they are

oular they are coied, and *ecause they are coied their memes sread more &idely than the

memes of not-so-altruistic eole, including the altruistic memes themselves! This rovides a

mechanism for sreading altruistic *ehavior!S

Blac%more gives an e"amle ho& altruistic *ehavior revailsD

R#magine t&o early hunters &ho go out &ith *o&s and arro&s, leather 9uivers, and s%in clothing,

and *oth come *ac% &ith meat! ne, let us call him ev, shares his meat &idely &ithsurrounding eole! e does this *ecause %in selection and recirocal altruism have given him

genes for at least some altruistic *ehavior! ean&hile av %ees his meat to himself and his o&n

family, *ecause his genes have made him some&hat less generous! 4hich *ehaviors are more

li%ely to get coied: evbs of course! e sees more eole, these eole li%e him, and they tend

to coy him! 5o his style of 9uiver, his %ind of clothing and his &ays of *ehaving are more li%ely

to *e assed on than avbs - including the altruistic *ehaviour itself! #n this &ay ev is the early

e9uivalent of the meme-fountain, and he sreads memes *ecause of his altruistic *ehavior!S

This means much more than a simle *iological 1founder effect! #n this case a *iologically

&ea%er erson may revail *ecause he>she is more gentle and %ind &ith others, sho&ing a

*ehavior &hich may also lead to survival and reroductive advantage &ithin the conte"t of

natural selectionD

R# have already argued that the *est imitators, or the ossessors of the *est memes, &ill have a

survival advantage, as &ill the eole &ho mate &ith them! 5o the strategy bmate-&ith-the-*est-

imitatorb sreads! #n ractice, this means mating &ith those eole &ho have the most

fashiona*le (and not .ust the most useful) memes, and &e can no& see that altruism is one of the

factors that determined &hich memes come to *e fashiona*leU 5o, not only might genes for

altruism *e favored *ut, *y the 9uir%s of history, other genes might *e affected! For e"amle, let


57/114

us suose that there &as some genetic comonents to evs choice of *lue feathers (differences

in color vision, for e"amle)! Blue-feathered arro&s *ecame oular *ecause they first aeared

on ev, and ev &as a generous erson! 6o& eole not only coy the feathers, *ut they

referentially mate &ith eole &ho have the fashiona*le *lue-feathered arro&s! Thus, the genes

for referring *lue feathers may no& have an advantage, and, if the fashion &ere maintained for

enough generations, gene fre9uencies might start to change!S

Finally, &ho &ins is altruism itself! 4e are altruists *ecause &e are comelled to *e nice, so that

&e reroduce the meme of altruism! But &hat a*out the 1selfish gene: 4e say, Rive this to meW

#ts is mine!S But &hat &e really receive is al&ays an act of altruism on *ehalf of the donor! But

&hat are the imlications as far as language is concerned: anguage consists not only of 1&ords

for survival! anguage is mainly a mechanism to sread, lets say, fashion! Certainly &e musthave a &ord for 1hel, *ut &hat history teach us is that our favorite stories and myths tell a*out

the final 1glory of man%ind!

5o lets no& come to the ro*lem of the foundation of language! 4hy all con9uered civiliations

tend to imitate the language of the con9ueror: #s it .ust *ecause they need it in order to find .o*s:

#nitially yes! But as &ealth accumulates, the oorest eole *egin to imitate the fashions of the

richer! 6ot only they try to dress li%e the uer class, *ut also they *egin to read te"ts in 1formal

languages, li%e the Bi*le in atin or omer in ree%! any &ords of our modern voca*ulary

concerning 1higher notions are nothing more than a fashiona*le &ay to intellectually e"ress

ourselves! 4hen, for e"amle, &e say that the universe is 1ma.estic, &e use a French &ord that

&as used to identify social no*ility (in turn a atin &ord)! The &hole ac%age of the #$ theory of

languages could *e nothing more than a fashion, serving the need of a common 1no*le origin! #n

fact this is the meaning of 1common in this conte"t! 'nd altruism defines the trend to use such

1glorious &ords, as to identify similarities! #t is &ithin this conte"t that &e should treat cognates

among languages! The &ord Ye9&os, for e"amle, is a &ord of a no*le *reed of horse! 's soon as

some eole used horses not as an everyday commodity *ut as a sym*ol of o&er, they used the

corresonding name to identify not the animal, *ut the sym*ol! 4e have already seen that the

ree% &riting of the &ord 1ios, sea%s out that is a loan! 5o it is not the semantic henotye

*ut the altruistic fashion of language that con9uered the &ord!


58/114

The phenomenon of acculturation

'cculturation e"lains the rocess of cultural and sychological change that results follo&ingmeeting *et&een cultures! The effects of acculturation can *e seen at multile levels in *oth

interacting cultures! 't the grou level, acculturation often results in changes to culture, customs,

and social institutions! 6oticea*le grou level effects of acculturation often include changes in

food, clothing, and language! 't the individual level, differences in the &ay individuals

acc

cultural assimilation and the problem of ie

Documents