indo–european origins: the linguistic evidence

INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS: THE LINGUISTICEVIDENCE

STUDENTS OF THE EARLY HISTORY OF EUROPE AND THE NEAR EAST MAY

be excused a certain irritation with the Indo-Europeans. Everyoneaccepts that an important group of peoples, speaking dialects of thesame language,1 did disperse from some region to the north of thecivilized world of the Near East and the Levant about the end of thethird millennium B.C., and the mipact of some of its offshoots onNear Eastern states is a matter of history. But after a century ofresearch there is still no agreement about the location of the regionout of which it dispersed or about the details and chronology of themigrations which brought peoples speaking Indo-European languagesto the lands which their descendants occupied in historical times.Nor do we seem close to an agreed solution of these problems.The most that can be said is that the area within which serious scholarswould now consider putting the "Indo-European homeland" hasbeen somewhat reduced. Scandinavia on the one hand, and India,Central Asia and most of Asia Minor on the other are no longerproposed.

It is hardly necessary to recapitulate the history of Indo-Europeanstudies here,2 but it may be as well to re-emphasise that the idea of anIndo-European "race", though it has justified itself as a workinghypothesis for the historian, does rest primarily on linguisticphenomena: similarities in inflexion, word-formation and vocabularybetween the Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Baltic and Slavonic languages,Greek and Albanian in Europe; and Armenian, the Iranian languagesand Sanskrit and its cognates and derivatives further east. Theonly plausible explanation of the currency of languages so similarover so large an area at the beginning of historical periods is thatthey derive from dialects of a fairly homogeneous prehistoric languagewhich had been disseminated by migrations out of a smaller region.The Indo-Europeans are hypothetical in so far as they are notmentioned or described in any contemporary or later ancientdocument, and no early literature in an Indo-European languagecontains a definite tradition about migration into the land in whichit was composed or written down. However, what is known ofthe movements of Indo-European peoples in early historical times,the Iranian conquest of Mesopotamia in the seventh and sixthcenturies, for example, does point to an area of origin somewhere

at Russian A

rchive on Decem

ber 27, 2013http://past.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

http://past.oxfordjournals.org/


INDO-EUROPEAN ORIGINS: THE LINGUISTIC EVIDENCE 17

to the north of the Near East and the Mediterranean region, andwhen an Indo-European language is known to have been in use inthose parts at an earlier date, it is reasonable to conclude that it hadbeen introduced from a northerly direction. In the absence ofcontemporary accounts and useful later traditions, the location ofthe "homeland", the region which the Indo-Europeans occupiedimmediately before their dispersal, and the course of their migrationsout of it can only be deduced from archaeological discoveries andlinguistic research other than study of early literature as historicalsource-material. Archaeology might seem to offer the most promisingapproach. Theoretically it should be possible to identify a culturewith approximately the characteristics to be attributed to that of theIndo-Europeans within the area in which their "homeland" musthave lain, and trace migrations out of it by the spread of characteristicartefacts, destruction or re-occupation of settlements in other culturalareas, and similar indications. In fact, the difficulty of equatingpeoples mentioned in documentary sources, or groups using aparticular language, with cultures postulated on archaeologicalgrounds, has become steadily more apparent, and leading archaeol-ogists are at pains to point it out. Only collaboration betweenlinguists and archaeologists is likely to bring a satisfactory solutionto the problem of Indo-European origins, but it may be best foreach discipline to investigate the problems in its own field thoroughlybefore synthesis with the results reached by the other is attempted.If archaeological research in a particular area is too much influencedby linguistic theories, or linguistic investigations by historical,a priori conclusions are apt to be drawn.

During the nineteenth century progress in Indo-European com-parative linguistics lay largely in recognition of the Indo-Europeancharacter of additional known languages, and utilisation of equationsinvolving words or morphemes3 in them to fill out or modify thereconstruction of Indo-European previously accepted. WhenArmenian and Albanian had been shown to be independent membersof the Indo-European language-family, it seemed that the canonwas closed and that Indo-European studies might reach anequilibrium. Since 1890 the position has been changed by thediscovery of a number of lost Indo-European languages, notablyHittite and Tocharian, both now known from extensive material,and by the decipherment of Greek documents of the Mycenaeanperiod and the so-called "Hittite hieroglyphs". It may be usefulto review the new material at this point.

The language generally termed "Tocharian" was rediscovered in

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



18 PAST AND PRESENT

documents brought back by Sven Hedin's expedition from ChineseTurkestan. It was apparently in use there about A.D. 700, in twodialects, referred to as "A" and "B" or "Agnean" and "Kuchean",and it is an independent member of the Indo-European family.It has not yet been used extensively in comparative studies. Thescript is complicated enough to be an obstacle to those who do notspecialise in it, it had clearly changed considerably since losingcontact with other Indo-European idioms, and the subject matter ofthe documents extant in it, mainly Buddhist and Hindu religioustexts and monastery accounts, is not particularly attractive to thosemainly interested in the ancient Near East or prehistoric Europe.Hittite was recovered when what proved to be the site of Hattusas,the capital of the preclassical state of Hatti, at Bogazkoy near Sungurluin central Turkey, was excavated by the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaftin 1906-1912. Large numbers of clay tablets were found there,mostly damaged or fragmentary, in a variety of cuneiform littledifferent from that used at Babylon under Hammurapi. Theypresented no serious problem of transcription, and two main groupswere soon recognized, one in Akkadian,4 which could be read atonce and identified the site, the other in the language which hascome to be known at "Hittite",6 clearly the principal native idiomin the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries B.C. when the extanttablets were written. Bedrich Hrozny saw that this had Indo-European characteristics, and he and others succeeded by the earlytwenties in translating it, to a degree to be expected in an ancientlanguage which had gone completely out of use.

Hittite was only one among a number of related Indo-Europeanidioms in use in Anatolia in the second millennium. The materialfrom Bogazkoy includes a few citations and mainly fragmentarytexts in two others, Luwian and Palaic,6 but they are too short andobscure to be of much use in comparative work. A third relatedidiom is the language of the "hieroglyphic Hittite" inscriptions,mostly monuments set up in the small Neo-Hittite states of N. Syria,S. Cappadocia and E. Cilicia which survived the destruction of theoriginal Hittite kingdom of central Anatolia in c. 1200 B.C. Consider-able progress has been made in deciphering these documents,first by combinatory study and recently with the help of the bilingualinscription found at Karatepe in Ceyhan province (Cilicia) in 1946.Translation of the hieroglyphic texts is still too uncertain for muchuse to be made of them for historical or comparative linguisticpurposes, but it is clear that the language in which those of theNeo-Hittite period are written is quite homogeneous, and that it is

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




related to Hittite, but not simply a later form of it.7 Lycian, knownfrom inscriptions of the late fifth and fourth centuries B.C., has pointsof similarity to Luwian, and may well derive from it. Lydian hassome comparable features, but it seems likely that the Indo-Europeanelement among the people who spoke it was only a small one.8

Some Indo-Europeanists regard Hittite and its close cognatesas not related to the languages recognized as Indo-European beforeits discovery as these are to each other, but as derived from thedialect of a group of Indo-European tribes which lost contact withthe majority before any general dispersal began. This questionwill be discussed later.

The Hittite, Luwian and Palaic texts come from levels to be datedc. 1425-1200 B.C., though a few of the Hittite are copies of royaledicts composed in the seventeenth and sixteenth centuries, and one,the "Anittas Text", is concerned with kings who ruled c. 1850 or1800.' The introduction into central Anatolia of the idiom fromwhich Hittite as we know it evolved can now be put back as far as1900 B.C. on philological evidence. Before the formation of theunited kingdom of Hatti, Assyrian traders maintained stationsbeside important native settlements in Cappadocia for a period oftwo or three generations c. 1850 B.C., and their commercial documents,in Akkadian, contain among other native names a number withIndo-European elements: (e.g. Taksanuman, whose stem taks-re-appears in Hittite in a verb meaning "to fit together", cognatewith Greek tekton and Sanskrit takian, "carpenter"10).

Besides Lycian and other possible members of the "Anatolian"group, three other languages of the classical period known from smallnumbers of inscriptions have been recognised as Indo-European:Phrygian, in use in central Anatolia after the fall of the Hittiteempire; Venetic, and Messapic, spoken respectively in Veneziaand south-eastern Italy in the last millennium B.C. Thracian, heldto be closely related to Phrygian, and Illyrian are known only fromnames and glosses, but apparently had a wide extension in classicaltimes.11 The recent decipherment and partial translation of"Minoan Linear B" documents from Knossos, Pylos and Mycenaeby M. Ventris and those who have followed up his work have provedconclusively what had previously been postulated on archaeologicaland philological grounds, that Greek had been introduced into thePeloponnese before 1500 B.C., and have given us Greek seven hundredyears older than the earliest alphabetic inscription, unfortunatelyinexactly represented owing to the limitations of the syllabaryemployed and the conventions of abbreviation which the scribes

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



2 0 PAST AND PRESENT

followed. The content of the tablets is rather disappointing, mainlyadministrative memoranda, but they have yielded some informationabout the organisation of Mycenaean communities.12 One shouldmention also the recognition of proto-Indic names in cuneiformtexts of the fourteenth and thirteenth centuries from Mesopotamiaand Hattusas, which has established that the Indie branch of theIndo-Iranians had reached Iran by c. 1500 B.C.,13 and recent work onMiddle Iranian languages, which is now being used to elucidateobscure passages in the Veda and the oldest parts of the Avesta.14

Apart from philological study of ancient texts, linguistic researchrelevant to the Indo-European problem has been mainly of five kinds:comparison of the vocabularies of historical Indo-European languagesto determine what words in them derive from Indo-European;general comparative study, to reconstruct its evolution into thehistorical language-groups16; study of borrowings from non-Indo-European languages; research on place-names and personal names;and comparison of the Indo-European group as a whole with otherlanguage-groups with which it may ultimately be related.16 Themost obvious contribution of recent philological17 research is thedirect proof it has provided that Indo-European peoples had enteredcentral Anatolia by c. 1900 B.C., and Iran and Greece by 1500, atthe latest. The second is information about the level of materialculture and social organization which various of them had reachedin periods by which they had not yet been influenced by any alienhigher civilization. The Vedic hymns, for example, give a reasonablyconsistent picture of the society of the Aryan invaders of northernIndia, and Tacitus' Germania of that of the Germans at the time oftheir first intensive contact with Rome. If allowance is made forforeign influence and cultural change between the Indo-Europeandispersal and the periods in which the relevant works were composedor recorded, deductions can be made about the society and culturallevel of the Indo-Europeans themselves. Reconstruction of thisclearly offers the best hope of correlation with an archaeologicallyattested culture. Comparative study of vocabulary contributesto it by determining what terms for implements, domestic animalsand social groupings, etc., in historical languages go back to Indo-European. It may also establish the inherited terminologyfor wild animals, plants and perhaps climatic conditions, and soindicate the environment in which the Indo-Europeans lived.General comparative study may show the position within the"homeland" of groups which spoke dialects of Indo-Europeanfrom which the historical language-groups evolved, and the order

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




in which they emigrated. Loans from non-Indo-European languages,and genetic relationship between Indo-European and other language-families, if established, should help to delimit the geographical areawithin which the "homeland" lay. Onomastic studies may provethe presence of an Indo-European element in a region in the absenceof more direct evidence, as the names in the "Cappadocian tablets"have done in the case of central Anatolia, or show the interactionof different Indo-European peoples, or the numerical or culturalimportance of non-Indo-European peoples settled in lands whichIndo-Europeans occupied, or with which they had contacts.

The conclusions based on studies of these various types may nowbe examined. Central Europe with the Baltic lands to the north of it,the Danubian plain and the lands north of the Black Sea are theregions now seriously considered for identification with the"homeland".

Reconstruction of prehistoric culture and environment on thebasis of vocabulary comparisons has some obvious difficulties.The case which proves beyond doubt that those who spoke apostulated prehistoric language knew an object or concept, occurrenceof the same word with approximately the same sense in all derivativelanguage-groups, will be rare. When a word occurs only in amajority of the groups, or is found with different meanings, it ishard to assess the significance of its distribution objectively. Primafacie, it may seem that occurrence in languages known from earlyrecords, or from works assumed to have existed in substantially theirextant form from an early date, should be given most weight. Butrate of change in languages seems to vary considerably, at least overperiods of a few centuries.18 For example, it seems that when thelanguage of a conquering minority is adopted by a more numeroussubjugated population, its vocabulary will be modified by borrowingsfrom their language, particularly if the invaders have moved intoa natural environment alien to them, or the conquered are culturallymore advanced. This tendency may be responsible for much of thedifference in vocabulary between historical Indo-European languages.On the other hand, the dispersal of the Indo-Europeans might havetaken place by stages over several centuries, so that the tribes whichremained together longest acquired common words for objects andoperations which they learnt or developed after others had emigratedand lost contact with them. Only words which occur in a majorityof Indo-European language-groups, preferably including thosewhich are known from an early date and seem unlikely to haveundergone extensive change under foreign influence, can be safely

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




assigned to Indo-European of the period of unity. Occurrence inlanguages in use at the periphery of the region over which Indo-European languages were spoken in early historical times is anindication of antiquity, since the peripheral groups are likely torepresent dialects which were the first to be carried out of the"homeland". But we cannot be sure that the distribution of dialectsbefore the dispersal is accurately reflected in that of the historicallanguage-groups. Later waves of emigrants may have moved pastand beyond earlier ones. The course of the Gaulish migrations inthe fourth and third centuries B.C., for example, should warn us thatprehistoric migrations may have been complex.

The picture which O. Schrader drew of the material cultureand society of the Indo-Europeans has not been greatly modifiedby recent research. Tocharian is available only from a late period,and Hittite has been less useful than might have been expected.The scribes of Hattusas habitually wrote a number of commonwords with ideograms with the result that their pronunciation is lost.The unexceptionable deductions from vocabulary are that the Indo-Europeans were stock-breeders who had the ox at least and probablyalso the sheep and the pig as domestic animals, that they knew onemetal, either copper or bronze (Latin aes, Gothic aiz "bronze",Sanskrit ayas, "iron" with later change of meaning), and that theyhad a developed patriarchal tribal society." They evidently haddomestic oxen, as wheeled vehicles and so draft animals are impliedby the wide distribution of words for "wheel", "axle" and "nave"(Skt. cakram, O. English hweohl, Gk. kuklos; Lat. axis, Gk. dxon,Skt. akias; Skt. nabhis). If they kept cattle, they probably alsohad domestic sheep, and the dog had been tamed in pre-agriculturaltimes. Special words for male, female and young animals, evidencefor advanced stock-breeding, are not widely distributed, and arecommonest in the European groups, especially the Celtic, Italic andGermanic. The view that only these "western" Indo-Europeanpeoples became predominantly agricultural has however beenweakened by Benveniste's recent demonstration40 that Indo-Iranian,as well as western dialects, used sus with the sense "domestic pig",and had the word for "young pig" represented by Latin porcus.The various words for "goat", however, are each confined to twoor three groups, which suggests that the Indo-Europeans made theacquaintance of this animal after they had begun to split up.11 Theword for "horse" represented by Latin equus goes back to the periodof unity, but it is not clear whether the animal had been domesticated.Archaeologists now doubt whether the Indo-Europeans already had

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




the chariot, as distinct from heavier vehicles which could be drawnby oxen. There is no inherited word for it, or for any part of itwhich a cart would not have, and there is no philological proof thatany Indo-European people had it before c. 1450 B.C. Chariotsare mentioned and illustrated in "Linear B" documents from Knossosof about that date, and the skill with which the Hittites of the four-teenth and thirteenth centuries used them in war implies previousexperiment and development. The mention of them in the Hittitetext about the siege of Ursu, which appears to record historicalevents of the sixteenth century, may however be an anachronism."Stuart Piggott's opinion that the war-chariot was developed on theperiphery of the civilized Near East, probably in Iran, has much torecommend it. The Hittites of the New Kingdom evidently lookedfor expert advice on the training of chariot-horses to the Hurriansof northern Mesopotamia and Syria, some of whose rulers had proto-Indic names and presumably came from the highlands of Iran.A treatise on training chariot-horses by one Kikkulis of Mitanni(a leading Human state) has been found at Bogazkoy, and technicalterms in it contain Indie numerals, e.g. aika- "one" and panza-"five". The discovery of horse-bones in the early Hittite cemeterynear Bogazkoy, perhaps as early as the nineteenth century, suggeststhat the domestic horse may have been introduced into Anatolia bythe first Indo-European immigrants, but it is not clear what use theymade of the animal. No word for "ride" is common to a majorityof the Indo-European languages.23

It is the general opinion that the Indo-Europeans practised at leasta primitive form of agriculture. A number of words for cerealsand agricultural implements and operations are shared by all or mostof the the European groups, but only three, two words for "grain"or "barley" (those represented by Skt. yavas and Gk. zeiai, andGk. kti and German Gerste) and one for "straw" (Lat. palea,Skt. paldvas) occur both in languages of the western peoples whoKrahe and others think were the first to develop sedentary agriculture,and in Greek, Iranian or Indie. However, the weight of evidence hasshifted in favour of the view that all branches of the Indo-Europeanswere partly agricultural before the migrations began, and that theIndie and Iranian languages, Hittite and to a lesser extent Greek andArmenian lost orginal agricultural terms which survived in otherrelated languages. Benveniste's discovery that an Iranian language(Khotanese) has a form of the word represented by Latin porcussupports it, and Bloch considers that the stem of English sow andseed, generally regarded as exclusively western, survives in Sanskrit

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




in sita, "furrow" and siram "seeding-plough'.24 The equation'Skt. pur, puras: Gk. pdlis suggests that the Indo-Iranians and theproto-Greeks were sufficiently sedentary for their component tribesto maintain places of refuge in their territories. The words mean"city", but the original sense was no doubt "stronghold", as inakrbpolis. If they do not necessarily imply permanent villages, theycertainly suggest farming of definite areas with periodic movementwithin them, as land was exhausted. It is not unlikely that theIndo-Iranians, having practised both agriculture and stock-raisingin the "homeland", came to depend mainly on the latter in the courseof their migrations to and across the Iranian plateau." Finally, itappears that the Greeks, the Hittites and eventually the Indie branchof the Indo-Iranians all settled in lands already populated byagriculturalists who probably had more effective techniques thantheir conquerors and were no doubt made to employ them for theirbenefit. In such circumstances, inherited Indo-European farmingterms would have been replaced by those of the natives. Peoplesmoving into central and western Europe, on the other hand, wouldhardly have encountered populations more advanced than themselves.

To turn to the organization of Indo-European society, its patriarchalnature is well established. Words for relations on the father's sideare common to most language groups, while those for maternal wereclearly developed or borrowed by individual dialects or derivativelanguages after the dispersal.96 Since there is evidence for matrilineardescent among the Lycians, it is noteworthy that the rules of success-ion laid down for the Hittite royal family by King Telipinus areparrilinear. The unusual arrangement by which the Hittite queen,though she gained her office as the king's consort, continued tohold it under his successor if she survived him, might however resultfrom a compromise with native Anatolian matriarchy.2' The casefor regarding the system of monarchy found in early Rome, Macedonand among Tacitus' Germans as an inheritance from Indo-Europeantimes has been strengthened by what is now known of Hittitemonarchy in the "Old Kingdom", c. 1680-1500 B.C. Both thecouncil of elders or leading nobles (the senatus at Rome, the gerousiaat Sparta) and a more numerous assembly are represented.Telipinus' proclamation against feuds in the royal family lays downthat a body called the pankus may put the king on trial before another,the tuliyas, if, after a warning, he persists in crimes against hisrelatives; and Hattusilis I, c. 1650-1620, left a death-bed testamentin which he appealed to the pankus to support the heir whom he hadfinally chosen." Pankus corresponds to Gk. pakkus, "thick", and

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




Skt. bahu "much", and presumably meant originally a "full assembly".The parallelism between early Hittite monarchy and the systemspreviously known among Indo-European peoples is important,because the dialect which Hittite represents was apparently one ofthe first to be carried outside the original continuum. It is moredoubtful whether feudal institutions and sharp division into socialclasses went back to Indo-European times. They are characteristicof several Indo-European peoples, e.g. the Hittites, the Vedic Indiansand the Germans, when we first know them, but circumstanceswould have favoured their development among some of these atleast. While the Indo-European tribes who became the dominantelement in these peoples were still migrating to the countries whichthey eventually occupied, strong leadership and military efficiencywould have been at a premium, and after their conquests they wouldhave tended to remain a dominant aristocracy for a time, feelingthemselves distinct from the mass of the population they ruled, asthe Dorian Greeks did for some centuries after their conquest of thePeloponnese. However, L. R. Palmer now claims that there aresufficient similarities of detail between the social system of MycenaeanPylos, as he reconstructs it on the basis of "Linear B" texts, and thoseof the Hittites and the early Germans, to prove their common origin.29

The general parallelism cannot be questioned, if one accepts hisinterpretation of the Pylian documents, but parallel developmentin comparable circumstances will explain much of the similarity.The feature common to the Mycenaean and Hittite systems whichhe finds particularly significant is the existence of villages with theirown lands beside lands held in fief from the crown. But invadersarriving in small numbers and taking over a heavily populatedcountry whose people lived in village communities would havetended to leave these in existence, appropriating some of their landsor imposing corve'e on them, and there is every indication that thisis what had happened in central Anatolia. There is no evidencethat the Indo-European migration which introduced Hittite was ona large scale.80 It is also worth recalling that feudal institutionswere not confined to Indo-European peoples and those obviouslyunder their influence in the second millennium B.C. Grants of landon condition of obligation to render military service were known inMesopotamian states and at Ugarit, and maintenance of a specialmilitary caste is a measure to be expected when a civilized state isunder constant threat of attack or raiding, as the Hittites were frommore barbarous peoples to the north. Similar factors, and perhapsalso the example of Near Eastern states, may have been at work in

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




the Mycenaean Peloponnese. Incidentally, the regular division offunction between king and "war-leader" which Palmer finds atPylos and among the Germans is not characteristic of the Hittitemonarchy. The king of Hatti, though he would delegate particularcommands to subordinates, acted as commander-in-chief as wellas high priest.81

To sum up, linguistic evidence does not indicate a very distinctiveculture for the Indo-Europeans. It implies a people organized intribes of moderate size, dependent partly on agriculture, partly onstock-raising, and using one metal, copper or bronze. There is nostrong indication that their agriculture was advanced enough tosupport permanent villages, but on the other hand they were certainlynot specialized nomads. The speed with which the Gauls and theCimbri, for example, could migrate in classical times does notcontradict this conclusion. Since they lived to some extent bystock-raising and their agriculture was probably not intensive, itmust have been easy for them to turn to a migratory existence inemergency. Recent research has weakened the case for assumingthat the Indo-Iranians, and perhaps other eastern groups, werenomadic in the period of linguistic unity. Cultures of the levelimplied for the Indo-Europeans seem to have been widespreadround the periphery of the region of settled agriculture in the secondhalf of the third millennium, when the Indo-European dispersal isgenerally thought to have begun, and the chances of associatingany one of them with the Indo-Europeans on grounds of materialequipment and size of settlement alone do not seem good.

Evidence from vocabulary about the natural environment withwhich the Indo-Europeans were acquainted is rather more helpful.Here again Schrader's conclusions stand in the main, though it seemsless likely that the "homeland", in the sense of the area occupiedimmediately before the dispersal, extended as far east as the KirghizSteppe. The trees and fauna for which a majority of Indo-Europeangroups share words are proper to a temperate belt running northof the Mediterranean and Near Eastern countries and lying west ofthe Urals. Examples are the words which survive in Englishas birch, beech, oak, wolf, goose and wasp, and words for "willow"(Gk. {w)itea, Old High German wida) and "bear" (Gk. drktos,Lat. ursus). The food-grains for which there are common termscould have been grown within the region indicated by the wordsfor trees and wild fauna, though perhaps only with difficulty.Acquaintance with the honey-bee, implied by the wide distributionof words for "honey", seems to exclude any region east of the Urals.

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




Hittite has one of the two words for "honey", in the form melit.The two most recent attempts to locate the "homeland" more

precisely by considerations of natural environment favour northern-central Europe. W. Krogmann has re-examined the question•whether the Indo-Europeans knew the beech, and what this impliesgeographically.32 P. Thieme has brought in a new argument basedon the discovery that the stem *laks-, previously known only inGermanic, Baltic and Slavonic with the meaning "salmon", survivesin Tocharian with the sense of "fish" in general.33 Krogmannpoints out that the Indo-European word represented by beech,*bhmigos (with by-forms of different formation), occurs in the Iraniangroup in Kurdish buz, "elm", and so must be an original Indo-European word, not one which spread among dialects spoken inEurope after Indo-Iranian had lost contact with them. His argumentthat the Kurdish word and Greek pkdgos, "oak", had acquired theiraberrant meanings after proto-Greeks and Iranians had moved intoareas in which the beech does not grow is reasonable, since the"homeland" can hardly have included Greece or Iran. The newpoint which he makes in favour of locating it in Europe is that*bfougos can be explained as "the shining one", a term which describesthe European beech, Fagus sylvatica, alone. However, the des-cription apparently applies just as well to Fagus orientalis Lipsky,which occurs in the Dobnidja, the Crimea and the region betweenthe Black Sea and the Caspian. So the Indo-Europeans might haveknown a beech and called it *bhdugos if they lived in the southernUkraine.34

Thieme argues that the meaning "salmon" which *laks- has inthe northern European language-groups must be original, theTocharians having come to use the word with the sense "fish"in general as they migrated eastwards. He rejects the alternativeexplanation, that it was originally general in sense and acquired aspecialized meaning among those Indo-Europeans who moved intothe region drained by the Vistula, the Oder and the Elbe (to whichtrue salmon are limited in Europe), although such specialization inmeaning is exemplified, for example, in the English word deer(cf. German Tier, "animal" in general). In any case, his argumentdoes not prove that the "homeland" lay in northern Europe. Aspecies of salmo which grows as large as 92 cm. is found in theregion north of the Black Sea, and *laks- might originally havereferred to this, and only later, after northward migration, to the truesalmon." Moreover, there is some evidence that the proto-Tocharianswere at one time neighbours of the proto-Slavs, perhaps in north-eastern Europe.3*

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



28 PAST AND PRESENT

Taken in conjunction with the evidence for agriculture among theIndo-Europeans, these considerations seem to exclude real steppecountry, and territory beyond the limits of distribution of the beech,but to leave the issue unsettled as between central Europe, theDanubian region and the Ukraine.

Recent general comparative studies of the Indo-European languageshave led to different conclusions. Krahe and Porzig, who haveattempted comprehensive treatments, consider that there was anearly division into "western" and "eastern" groups, comprisingrespectively the Celtic, Italic and Germanic groups and also probablythe lost IUyrian; and the Baltic, Slavonic and Indo-Iranian withGreek and, less certainly, Hittite, Tocharian and Albanian.E. H. Sturtevant held that the first development was emigrationof the tribes ancestral to the Hittites and their near relatives inAnatolia. A. Meillet, G. Bonfante and others postulate successivemigrations out of the "homeland", but do not agree entirely whichhistorical peoples represent the earlier emigrants. Before thesevarious views can be evaluated, the methodology of comparison mustbe considered.87

In the early stages of Indo-European studies it was tacitly assumedthat the evolution of Indo-European into its historical derivativeswas a simple process of differentiation and re-differentiation (whencethe habit of representing the relationships between the historicallanguages as a family tree). The implication was that the Indo-Europeans dispersed rather quickly in a number of large groups oftribes while their language was still fairly homogeneous, and that thedifferent emigrant groups then developed distinct dialects, fromwhich secondary derivatives and the actual historical languages evolvedin the same way. At the end of the nineteenth century it wasgenerally held that there was an initial differentiation into two dialectsor groups of dialects, a western, ancestral to the Celtic, Italic andGermanic groups and Greek; and an eastern, represented by theIndie, Iranian, Baltic and Slavonic, and Armenian. The two groupswere called respectively the "centum" and the "satam", after thewords for "hundred" in Latin and Avestan which exemplify acharacteristic alternation of velar and palatal consonants (herec and s). Modern linguistic research has made it clear that theprocess of differentiation must have been much more complex.Studies of the dialects of modern languages spoken over continuousareas have shown that dialect peculiarities do not develop onlywhen there is lack of contact between groups of speakers, and thatwithin a "linguistic continuum" new features do not all develop

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




over co-extensive areas. "Linguistic geography" (or "areallinguistics"), the comparison of dialects or related languages on thebasis of distributions of characteristic and alternative features(isoglosses) has also established certain probabilities about the processof differentiation within a continuum, e.g. that dialects in peripheralareas and those difficult of access tend to change comparativelyslowly.38 There are important corollaries for Indo-European studies.First, Indo-European can never have been spoken without variationover the whole of the region in which it was in use. Consequentlysome of the differences between historical groups are likely to reflectdivergent developments in different parts of the "homeland".Secondly, study of the isoglosses among the historical groups in thelight of what has been observed in the case of modern languages mayindicate the relative position within the "homeland" of the ancestraldialects, and the order in which they left it. There are, however,serious difficulties involved in applying the methods of linguisticgeography to the reconstruction of Indo-European, and insufficientallowance seems to have been made for them. In the first place,the Indo-European languages, when we first know them, no longerconstitute a continuum, and every one of them is likely to have beeninfluenced to some extent by one or more languages of a differenttype, which in most cases no longer survive. Archaism in anIndo-European language (e.g. Icelandic) may result from itsisolation at a comparatively late date, and not indicate peripheralposition in the original continuum or early departure from it. Whena historical language or group seems notably divergent from others,the possibility that this is due to non-Indo-European influence mustbe considered. The influence of a substrate may also have producedsimilar tendencies in two or more Indo-European languages if thepeoples who spoke them conquered or came into contact with thesame alien people.39 In comparing languages in use at widelydifferent times and in non-contiguous areas one can hardly attachequal importance to isoglosses of all kinds. Words will spreadrelatively easily, even through languages or dialects that differconsiderably, particularly if they are terms for objects of trade ornew inventions or ideas. New features of inflexion, grammar orpronunciation, on the other hand, are less likely to be borrowed.Occurrence of a feature in one or more closely related languagescannot be held to imply closer relationship between them than withothers of the same family (i.e. closer or more prolonged contactin an earner period) if the feature can be explained as an archaism.Languages which have lost contact with each other may well preserve

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



30 PAST AND PRESENT

the same primitive feature fortuitously and independently. Norcan loss of a feature in some languages, while it survives in others,prove close relationship among the former. A large number ofshared archaisms, or absence of many features found in other cognateidioms, may be considered to establish a certain probability of formerclose contact between languages. But the only satisfactory proofis isoglosses which imply innovation, a change in a feature preservedin cognates, which is unlikely to have occurred independently inlanguages not in contact.40 If these considerations are accepted,reliable reconstruction of Indo-European will not be expected frommechanical and statistical study of isoglosses. The significanceof each one has to be assessed with allowance, e.g., for possibleexternal influence, and subjective interpretation cannot entirelybe avoided.

"Indo-European" has so far been referred to for the sake of brevityas a "language" which implies that its dialects were mutuallyused by a group of tribes or peoples of diverse origins and languageswho had come to inhabit adjacent areas and were in process oflinguistic and, probably, cultural assimilation.41 However, they havenot shown that numerous specific differences among the Indo-European languages are best explained on the "Sprachbund"hypothesis, and in any case their theory will be of little practicalvalue to the historian unless one or more of the reconstructed com-ponents of Indo-European can be associated with extant non-Indo-European languages.

The first attempt to reconstruct the dialects of Indo-Europeanby the methods of linguistic geography was made by A. Meillet,before Tocharian or Hittite material was available.42 He found thatisoglosses ran on the whole between language-groups which werein use in neighbouring areas in historical times, but considered thatthere was evidence for specially close relationship between Celticand Italic, as well as between Indie and Iranian. The division into"centum" and "satam" groups he thought valid. He concluded thatthe historical distribution of the Indo-European languages was likelyto reflect that of the original dialects within the "homeland", andthat the dispersion had taken place by steady spread of large groupsof tribes outwards in several directions, rather than by sudden,sporadic drives. Tocharian and still more Hittite evidence calledfor modification of these views. The new languages were found toshare with Celtic and Italic certain features which had previouslyappeared to be characteristic of them alone, notably medio-passive("middle") or passive verbal forms in -r or -r- (e.g. Latin ducuntur,

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




"they are led"; cf. Hittite artari, "he stands", and contrast Greekluontai, "they are freed"), and the use of forms of the stems *k"i-and *kwo- as relative pronouns (cf. Lat. qui, Hitt. kuis, "who").The occurrence of these features in the new languages weakenedMeillet's case for assuming that the Celtic and Italic groups werederived from a single dialect, since they could no longer be con-sidered innovations alien to all other groups. They now had to beexplained either as innovations common to a number of originallyadjacent dialects, or as primitive features which had survived inperipheral dialects, probably the first to leave the "homeland",while "central" or "residual" dialects developed those which corres-pond to them in, e.g., Greek. Meillet proposed the latter explanationin 1932.43

Meanwhile E. H. Sturtevant had formed his more radical theory,according to which "proto-Anatolian", the dialect from whichHittite, Luwian and their close cognates evolved, was carried out ofthe original continuum before the remaining dialects had becomeappreciably divergent, after which they stayed in contact for sometime longer, developing new features in common. He proposed toterm the original language, from which proto-Anatolian split off,"Indo-Hittite", and only the residual groups of dialects "Indo-European". He held that the combination of archaism and extremesimplicity in inflexional categories, including lack of any specialfeminine grammatical forms, which Hittite showed in comparisonwith Greek and Sanskrit meant that it represented Indo-Europeanat an early stage of evolution (i.e. "Indo-Hittite").44 Since Latin,Celtic and Tocharian also have relatively simple systems of tenses,and even Latin, known at a comparatively early date, lacks several ofthe special feminine noun and adjective types of Greek and Sanskrit,it is tempting to suggest that Hittite represented Indo-Europeanat a very primitive stage of development, Latin, Celtic and Tocharianat an intermediate, and Greek and Indo-Iranian, with the Germanic,Baltic and Slavonic groups, at the most advanced reached before thedispersion. The deduction is dangerous, however, because it isdifficult to assess how rapidly the "peripheral" languages had changedsince losing contact with others. Hittite may well have lost manyfeatures present in proto-Anatolian by the sixteenth century. Itappears to have been considerably influenced by Hattic, the non-Indo-European language which it replaced in Hattusas and thevicinity, and it is noteworthy that Armenian, the only other Indo-European language which lacks feminine grammatical forms whenfirst known, had by then been in use for some centuries in a region

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



32 PAST AND PRESENT

adjacent to that in which Hittite had formerly been spoken.However, the hypothesis that the dialects ancestral to Hittite, Celtic,Italic and Tocharian were the first to depart from the "homeland",leaving those from which the other major historical groups evolvedin contact for some time afterwards, does explain satisfactorily theincidence among the historical groups of some considerablegrammatical differences. Difficulties implicit in Meillet's otherobservations, and the results reached by Bonfante in his dialectologicalstudies46, are not serious objections. Meillet classed Indie amongbis peripheral groups on the grounds that it shares with Italicpreservation of final -m (which changed to -n in all other groups;cf. Lat. iugum, Skt. yugam, Gk. zugori), and a number of archaicwords, principally religious terms. These similarities may howeverbe reconciled with the view that Indo-Iranian was "residual" ifone assumes that its original position was peripheral. Like proto-Italic, it would not have shared the general change of *-m to *-n, butwhile remaining archaic in this respect after the departure of otherperipheral dialects, would then have shared other innovations withGreek and other dialects which remained in the "homeland". It islegitimate to postulate late separation of Indo-Iranian on historicalgrounds, since Indie names do not appear in cuneiform sources beforec. 1500 B.C. and circumstances would probably have favouredsurvival of old religious vocabulary in Latin and Sanskrit. Bothlanguages are known from early sources. Italy appears to have beenlightly populated until the proto-Latins entered it, and the Aryas(the Indo-European invaders of India) do not seem to have movedthrough heavily populated territory until they reached the Indusvalley itself, by which time their social system may well have becomeresistant to change. Bonfante, who classes Hittite as "central",seems in fact only to have shown that it shares three minor isoglosseswith Greek and Armenian. There is no difficulty in assuming thatthe peripheral area in which proto-Anatolian evolved was adjacentto the more centrally placed ones in which proto-Greek and proto-Armenian developed.

The conclusions reached by Krahe and Porzig are more difficultto reconcile with those just examined. Both authors base theirdeductions on extensive and careful studies of isoglosses throughoutthe Indo-European family, and it is impossible to do justice to themin a short summary. In general, they may be criticised for payingtoo little attention to the well-known major differences in morphology(inflexion and formation of grammatical categories) between thehistorical groups. The majority of the isoglosses which they list

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




are matters of vocabulary or minor points of word-formation. Porzig,moreover, ignores or fails to note that certain isoglosses to which heattaches importance extend to Hittite.46 The two authors agree inpostulating an early separation of the Indo-Europeans into easternand western groups, the former speaking the dialects ancestral toGreek, Armenian, Indo-Iranian, Baltic and Slavonic, the latter thosefrom which Celtic, Italic and Germanic developed. They associateHittite, Tocharian and Albanian less confidently with the easterngroup, and think that Illyrian lay between the two, geographicallyand linguistically, and recognize that the division between them mightseem less sharp if it, Thracian and Phrygian had survived. Theyconsider that the eastern group of peoples dispersed relatively early,while the ancestors of the Celts, the Germans and the Italici (theIndo-European invaders of Italy) remained in contact in Europeuntil a later time, well into the second millennium at least, anddeveloped a common culture. Porzig's treatment of his "eastern"languages raises no difficulty for the explanation of the similaritiesbetween Hittite, Tocharian, Italic and Celtic which has been discussedabove. The isoglosses which he notes between Greek, Thraco-Phrygian, Armenian, Iranian and Indie on the one hand, and Indie,Iranian, Baltic and Slavonic on the other, are in line with the con-clusions reached in most recent studies, and are consistent withtreating all these groups as "residual". One may postulate a belt ofdialects, (proto-Greek to proto-Indo-Iranian), running north of theBalkans and the Black Sea in the period immediately before theappearance of the Greeks in Greeks itself, with the early 3alts andSlavs living to the north of it. This is borne out by the isoglossesbetween Greek, Armenian and Iranian only, by borrowings in themand Indie from languages of the Near East, and by evidence invocabulary for Iranian cultural influence on the Slavs.47 As alreadynoted, the special characteristics of Hittite are consonant with itshaving occupied an outlying position adjacent to proto-Greek andproto-Armenian. The few plausible isoglosses involving Tocharianare consistentwith an original peripheral situation adjacent to Baltic orSlavonic, i.e. in the north-east of the Indo-European area. Thesimilarities which it shares with Greek may be archaisms, or reflectthose of a belt of dialects running between Porzig's "eastern" and"western" groups (Gliederung, pp. 182-7).

The similarities which he and Krahe have noted among the Celtic,Italic and Germanic languages raise more serious difficulties for anyhypothesis which regards the two former as peripheral. Germanicis considered "central" or "residual" by all who think that earlier

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



34 PAST AND PRESENT

and later waves of emigration can be distinguished. Moreover, thelargest number of isoglosses extends over Germanic and Italic only,which is surprising, since Latin seems the most archaic among theCeltic and Italic languages. It is noteworthy that no isogloss eitherbetween all three groups or between Germanic and Italic onlyinvolves a major grammatical innovation. The phonetic develop-ments shared by all three, and some of the common items ofvocabulary, certainly indicate contiguity with the "homeland",Italic sharing with Germanic one development, the treatment ofIndo-European vocalic / and r, which Celtic does not. The otherisoglosses between Italic and Germanic are in vocabulary, word-formation, uses of words shared by other groups, and lessergrammatical developments.48 One may expect their number to berelatively high, since many other Indo-European groups arerepresented by much scantier or later material, but when all allowancehas been made they must be considered to indicate close prehistoriccontact between the Germanic and Italic peoples, in a Europeanenvironment. The similarities between Germanic and Celtic only,on the other hand, reflect later contact in western Europe, beginningat the earliest late in the first half of the last millennium B.C. Italicconsequently presents a difficult problem. On the one hand, thereare indications that it left the "homeland" early; on the other, evidencefor prehistoric contact with Germanic, which has "residual" features.Two explanations seem possible. Either the Italici broke awayearly, and then, after an interval, in which they were out of contactwith the Germans, came to occupy territory adjacent to theirs. Orelse Italic retained its peripheral, archaic characteristics for severalcenturies during which it was in contact with Germanic, and probablyalso Illyrian, which were themselves open to influences from otherdialects of the "residual" area. Krahe takes the former view (Spracheund Vorzeit, pp. 78-9, 96, 134). An objection to the latter is thatGreek, which shares them, was introduced into northern Greeceby c. 1900; and that the movement of the proto-Latins into Italyis not generally put as early as that. However, no rules can belaid down about how long particular features may survive in peripheraldialects. A further apparent difficulty, if accepted etymologies arecorrect, is that Celtic, which one would expect to have moved furtherfrom the original continuum than Italic had when it was still incontact with Germanic, has two "residual" features (the relative*yo- and feminine present active participial forms) which Italiclacks. However, both the Celts and the Italici seem to have dis-persed in two waves, and the tribes which formed the later, the

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




"P-Celts" ("Brythons") and the ancestors of the Oscans andUmbrians, apparently remained in contact after the earlier, the"Q-Celts" ("Goidels") and the proto-Latins, had moved outwards.The presence of "central" features in Welsh, Gaulish, Oscan andUmbrian is explicable on this hypothesis.49

The linguistic data suggest the following reconstruction. First ofall, at an early stage in the Indo-European dispersal, the Celts movedfurther out of the "homeland" than the Italici, but remained incontact with them. The Italici were also in close contact with theGermans. After this, first the proto-Latins, then the Q-Celtsmoved outwards from the Italic and Celtic areas, leaving the P-Celtsand the Osco-Umbrians in contact for a further period, in whichthey shared such common developments as the change of originallabio-velar *ka>- top-, and were to some extent influenced by "central"dialects. Finally, the Osco-Umbrian migration into Italy probablypreceded the movement of the P-Celts to the west. Celts stilloccupied Bohemia and Pannonia in the last century B.C., and Porzigfinds evidence for a period of contact between Celtic and Illyrian,itself in touch with "eastern" dialects, c. iooo B.C. (Gliederung, p. 70).

It is doubtful how much importance should be attached to the"centum" — "satam" division in reconstructing the dialectologyof Indo-European. If the "centum" languages, where they differfrom the "satam", are considered just to preserve features whichhave changed in them, the problem is simplified. We may assumethat the changes took place in a certain number of "residual" dialectsafter proto-Anatolian and perhaps others had "branched off".If we accept the view of many German scholars, that "centum" and"satam" languages show different modifications of the originalIndo-European sound-system, we must presumably postulatean initial differentiation of the Indo-European dialects into aneastern "satam" group and a western "centum", to which proto-Anatolian and proto-Tocharian will have to be assigned.60 It wouldstill be reasonable to postulate early departure of these two dialectsfrom the "homeland", but the case for bringing the Hittites and theLuwians into Anatolia from the north-west, across the Bosphorus,would have been strengthened.

The remaining linguistic evidence relevant to the question ofIndo-European origins is concerned with place-names, loans fromnon-Indo-European languages and possible relationship of theIndo-European language-family with others. Krahe considers thatthe distribution of classes of river-names supports the theory thatthe Indo-Europeans dispersed from central or northern Europe,

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



36 PAST AND PRESENT

dividing early into western and eastern groups {pp. cit., pp. 48-66).He finds that certain types, with stems or formative extensions whichcan be explained as Indo-European, are widespread in northern,north-western and central Europe, with Italy, but absent furthereast and in Spain; also that no earlier stratum can be discerned in theRhineland, the rest of Germany north of the Alps and the Balticcountries. It seems rather hazardous to deduce from this that the"homeland" lay in northern Europe. As in the case of agriculturalterms, Greek, Hittite, Armenian and the Iranian and Indie languageswould have been liable to lose inherited names for rivers or methodsof forming them. All but Iranian were introduced into countrieswith fairly dense native populations, and the rivers of Greece andIran are less impressive physical features than those of central andwestern Europe. On the other hand, the pre-Indo-Europeanpopulation of northern Europe may well have been so scanty thatIndo-European immigrants did not take over place-names from it.51

There are very few words in Indo-European languages which canbe explained as representing known words in Near Eastern orMediterranean languages. Only one, that represented by Skt.loha-, "copper" or "iron", and Lat. raudus, "piece of brass" is sowidely distributed among the historical groups that it is likely to goback to Indo-European, and the correspondence between the extantforms and Sumerian urud, "copper", which it supposedly represents,is not close. The presence of such cultural loan-words inIndo-European would in any case not prove any very close propinquityto Mesopotamia, since they might have been transmitted consider-able distances along trade-routes with the commodities or objeas towhich they referred. Other words for which a Near Eastern origincan be suggested (apart from those in Hittite), are confined to Greek,Armenian, Iranian and Indie. The most satisfactory comparisonis that of Gk. pelekus and Skt. parasus, "axe", with Akkadian pilaqqu,whose exact meaning, however, is not certain.62

There remains the question of possible genetic relationship orextensive prehistoric contact between Indo-European and languagesancestral to other historical families. The similarities betweenIndo-European languages and the Finno-Ugric group suggest atleast close contact in the period before Indo-European split up.53

W. S. Allen has recently pointed out the general similarity betweenthe phonological system of Indo-European, as it may now be re-constructed in the light of the "laryngeal hypothesis" and that ofsome Caucasian languages.54 Attempts to demonstrate commonorigin for Indo-European and the Semitic and Hamitic groups have

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




not yielded any solid results.55 It is not inherently improbable thatthe Indo-Europeans should have been ultimately related to proto-Caucasian peoples or proto-Semitic, but comparison between thelanguage-families is not likely to be profitable until the internalrelationships within the Caucasian and Semitic groups have beenthoroughly investigated.

Reconstruction of the vocabulary of Indo-European appeared todefine the region within which the "homeland" might have beenlocated only within rather wide limits. If the similarities withFinno-Ugric are accepted as valid evidence, they point to the moreeasterly of the regions which are possible on other grounds, since thehistorical distribution of the Finnish and Samoyede branches ofthe family, and the supersession of Finns by Slavs in NorthernRussia, point to a prehistoric Finno-Ugric dispersal from a regionnear the tributaries of the Don and the Volga, or still further east.The interrelations of the dialects of Indo-European, as far as theycan be reconstructed, cannot be considered incompatible withdispersal from central or northern Europe, but they are most naturallyexplained if the "homeland" is located in the Danubian region,extending perhaps to the north of the Black Sea. At least, thisregion is centrally placed with regard to the languages which exhibitarchaic features, Celtic, Italic, Hittite, Tocharian and, in certainrespects, Indie. Moreover, the curious overlapping of isoglossesbetween the Celtic, Italic and Germanic groups may be accountedfor on the assumption that the two latter were at one time in contactnear the middle Danube, with the Celts lying further to the west.The hypothesis that the Germans moved into western Europerelatively late will account for the "central" characteristics ofGermanic, and suits the low date, c. 500 B.C., at which Germanictribes conquered or drove out the Celts settled in the middle Rhine-land. The central Danubian area also seems a likely point of originfor the movements of the Italici into Italy. Invasions through theAlps are almost unknown in early historical times.

Among earlier historically attested movements of Indo-Europeanpeoples, that of the Aryas and Iranians must presumably have goneeither across the Caucasus or east of the Caspian. Iranian peopleswere still living north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea in the firstmillennium B.C., and there is no documentary or archaeologicalevidence for a proto-Indic migration across Anatolia.5* But theIndo-Iranian emigration seems to have taken place relatively late,and so the region from which it began may have been only a secondarycentre of Indo-European dispersal, not part of the original "home-land". The Phrygian invasion of Anatolia c. 1300-1200 B.C. seems

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



38 PAST AND PRESENT

to have come from Thrace. Herodotus' idea that the name Phrygesis etymologically the same as that of the Thracian Bryges (VII, 173) isreasonable, and a new type of pottery, known also in eastern Thrace,the peculiar "knobbed ware" ("bucchero") appears at Troy in LevelVIIB2, dated about the end of the twelfth century. The destructionof Hatti c. 1200 B.C. is usually attributed to the Phrygians, since inthe first millennium they lived in what had been its original metro-politan territory. The weakness in the evidence is that changesin the pottery in use in western and central Anatolia are not easilycorrelated with a migration from the north-west.67 The firstapparently Phrygian name, Midas or Mitas, turns up to the north-eastof Hatti68 but this is not a serious objection. The Hittites nevercontrolled the lands to the north of them on the Black Sea coast(the Kaska countries), and immigrants from south-eastern Europemight have moved round the northern frontiers of their empirebefore their power collapsed.

The directions of the earlier Indo-European migrations into Greeceand Anatolia are controversial. The arrival of the proto-Greeksin the Balkan peninsular is generally equated with the appearancethere of the so-called "Grey Minyan" pottery c. 1900 B.C.59 Allthat most specialists have felt able to say about the Hittites and theLuwians is that they entered Anatolia some time before that date.Some have considered that differences between Luwian and Hittiteimply earlier introduction of the former. In 1947 F- Sommeradvanced new philological arguments for the view that the proto-Hittites (i.e. the Indo-European immigrants who introduced theHittite language) came in from the east. Recently S. Lloyd hassuggested that the proto-Luwians entered Anatolia as early asc. 2400-2300 B.C., settling in the south-western parts; that the proto-Greeks, apparently coming from the east, occupied the north-westernregion and then moved westward to Greece c. 1900 B.C.; and thatthe proto-Hittite invasion of the central area came from the eastabout the same time. Since the archaeological evidence on whichhis views are based is still in process of publication one must suspendjudgment, but they are not strongly supported by linguistic evidence.In some respects they seem to conflict with it.*

This discussion has reached the point at which synthesis with theresults of archaeological research begins, and that is in generaloutside its scope. In conclusion it may be noted that H. Henckenin his recent monograph on Indo-European origins'0 comes to theconclusion that the most probable locations for the "homeland"

* See Appendix.

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




are either in south-eastern Europe, roughly from Macedonia to theCarpathians, with some part of the Ukraine; or in the plain northof the Carpathians and the Black Sea (pp. 48, 55). Either is accept-able as far as most of the linguistic evidence is concerned. Hissuggestion that the dispersal of the Celts, Italici, Germans andIllyrians should be associated with the spread of urnfields in thelast quarter of the second millennium B.C. fits in well with Krahe'shypothesis that a western group of Indo-European peoples remainedin contact after Hittite, Greek and Indo-Iranian had moved southor east. In comment, it may be said that the case for locating the"homeland" in a region where excavations show settled agricultureto have been practised in the middle of the third millennium is onlya strong one if Palmer's views on the organization and economicbasis of Indo-European society before the dispersion are accepted.Otherwise areas in which semi-nomadic agriculture was still the ruleat that time remain possibilities. On the other hand, the recent proofthat the Indo-Iranians had the domestic pig strengthens the case forputting the "homeland" west or south of the true steppe-land ofsouthern Russia. In connection with the urnfields, it is of interestthat the Hittites had the custom of cremated burial in urns, and thatthe funeral ritual for the Hittite king was strikingly similar to therites for Patroklos in the Iliad (XXIII, 161-248)." If the urnfieldin Hungary reported by Mozsolics62 is in fact of the Early BronzeAge, the possibility that Indo-Europeans introduced urn-burialwith cremation into Anatolia deserves fresh consideration. Thequestion, however, raises the whole difficult problem of thesignificance of cultural similarities between Anatolia, Thrace, theBalkans and Greece. It is reasonable to suppose that the directionof cultural diffusion, and even of migration, was from Anatolia toEurope until the middle of the third millennium. There may wellhave been an actual cultural continuum extending from Anatoliato Thrace at that time, and it now appears that the "megaron"house, long looked on as a northern characteristic, was of Anatolianorigin.63 But there is no reason why the direction of migrationshould not have reversed about 2500 B.C. or slightly later, as peopleson the periphery of the region of settled agriculture learnt itstechniques, increased in numbers and acquired good weapons'4.

University of Durham,Newcastle upon Tyne. R. A. Crossland

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



40 PAST AND PRESENT

APPENDIX

INDO-EUROPEAN MIGRATION INTO ANATOLIA

While it is possible that Luwian and Hittite had lost contact before theywere introduced into Anatolia, the differences between them, as they areknown to us in the fourteenth century, do not suggest this, and the commonstatement that Luwian is the older language (presumably the one which becameisolated from all cognates the earlier) rests on very little. The only obviousarchaism in Luwian, in comparison with Hittite, is its retention of -t- inindicative active -ti and -nti, which had changed in Hittite to /-tsi/ and /-ntsi/(cf. Luwian asti, Hittite eszi [/estsi/], Skt. asti, "he is"). The unsoundness ofarguing from this is shown by the treatment of the endings in Greek, wherethe Doric dialects, undoubtedly the last to be introduced into Greece, retain-ti and -nti throughout, while the older-established Ionic group changes themgenerally to -si (cf. Doric didoti, Ionic diddsi, "he gives"). Sommer's philo-logical arguments for the eastern origin of the proto-Hittites also seeminadequate. He notes that in the Hittite "Law Code" inhabitants of townsin Hard proper (presumably the Hittite-speaking part of the unified centralAnatolian kingdom) are guaranteed certain privileges which people ofprovinces further to the west do not share, and also that the capture of the cityof Hattusas, which resulted in the unification of the region in the seventeenthcentury, must have been achieved from some city-state in the east of it. Thesefacts, however, merely prove that the conquests which united central Anatoliawere made in an east to west direction within it, not that the original Indo-European migration into it came from the east, or that this had immediatelypreceded the unification. It may well be that the Indo-European immigrantsonly succeeded in establishing themselves as the dominant element in a numberof the central Anatolian city-states, and that these then existed beside survivingnative settlements until the seventeenth century. The non-Indo-Europeanlanguage which we term Hattic survived in religious cult at Hattusas until thefourteenth century, which suggests that the "Indo-Europeanisation" of thecity and its vicinity did not start until its capture by Hattusilis of Kussaras."Conversely, there is no positive evidence that Luwian was in use in south-western Anatolia before Hittite became current in the central area. We knowit only from cuneiform documents of the fourteenth century found at BogazkOy,and how long it had been in use in Anatolia before that is a matter of deduction.The seal found in an Early Bronze Age level at Beycesultan, in the upperMaeander valley, is not in itself proof that Luwian was in use there beforec. 1500 B.C.". Even if the signs on it do belong to a developed script ancestralto the "Hittite hieroglyphs", this does not mean that the word or phrase whichthey represent is in Luwian. The language of the hieroglyphic inscriptionsof die first millennium certainly has close affinities to Luwian, and may be justa dialect of it. But the script might have been devised in the first place forwriting a pre-Indo-European language, and only utilized for writing Luwianor "hieroglyphic Hittite" in the middle of the second millennium.

Lloyd's view diat the proto-Greeks came from north-western Anatoliarests on J. Mellaart's discovery that a ware very similar to Grey Minyan becamecommon in that area c. 2000 B.C." The occurrence of the ware in Greeceand die Troad is hardly sufficient in itself to prove migration from Anatoliawestwards, and Lloyd has not indicated whether he thinks there is typologicalevidence diat Greek Minyan was derived from Anatolian. Prima facie, thealternative explanation, diat the grey ware was introduced into Greece and dieTroad by roughly contemporary migrations from Thrace, or some area to thenorth of it, does not seem excluded. Minyan ware seems not to have beenreported from Thrace, but die area has been litde explored, at least for site

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




of the late Early Bronze Age. From the linguistic standpoint it is improbablethat Greek, which has "central" characteristics, should have been carried acrossAnatolia before the more archaic Hittite entered it, as must be assumed onLloyd's hypothesis. Moreover, there is no archaeological indication of anywestward migration across Anatolia towards the end of the third millennium.The few finds of "Minyan" ware outside the north-western region come fromlevels dated to the middle of the second." On the available evidence, itseems impossible to decide whether the Indo-European invaders of Anatoliaentered it from the east or from the west. The last general change of potterystyles before the twelfth century B.C. is assigned to the third quarter of the thirdmillennium. There is no linguistic reason why either the proto-Hittites,or the proto-Luwians or a still undifferentiatcd people from which both weredescended should not have entered the peninsular as early as that. It seemsless likely that the appearance of "Minyan" ware in the Troad reflects theirarrival. The archaism of Hittite and Luwian in comparison to Greek is anobjection, and "Minyan" pottery has not been reported east of the Troadicarea."

NOTES1 On the possibility that it was not a "language" as generally understood,

vide sup. p. 30.* For accounts see H. Pedersen, Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century,

12-98, 240-339; W. Porzig, Die Gliederung des indogermanischen Sprachgebiets(Winter, Heidelberg, 1954), 17-52.

1 I.e. sound-sequences, such as inflexions or prefixes, and variations such as" Umlaut " in German, which indicate the grammatical function of a word orserve to form derivatives.

4 The Semitic language of which Babylonian and Assyrian are the best-knowndialects.

• Alternatively, Cuneiform Hittite. The name or stem Hani, from whichHittite derives through the Hebrew, belonged originally to a pre-IE peopleof C. Anatolia, who may conveniently be called the "Hattians". The name"Hittites" is best reserved for the people of the historical state of Hattic. 1700-1200 B.C., formed by the amalgamation of the IE immigrants whointroduced the language we term "Hittite" and the native Hattians; see Bittel,Historia I, 267-86, O. R. Gurney, The Hittites (rev. ed., 1954), 16-18.

' See Forrer, Zeitsch. der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft LXXVI,215-23, E. H. Sturtevant and E. A. Hahn, Comparative Grammar of the HittiteLanguage I, 5-9, H. Otten, Zur gramm. und lexikal. Bestimmung des Luvischen(Deutsche Akad. der Wissenschaft. zu Berlin, Inst. fur Orientforschung, Verb'ff.XIX, 1953), 7-11, on Luwian; H. T. Bossert, Ein hethitisches Kb'nigssiegel(Istanbuler Forsch., 1944), 77-106, Otten, Zeitsch. fur Assyriologie XLVIII,119-45 onPalaic.

' See Bossert, Oriens 1,163-92, II, 73-120, Archiv OrientHni' XVIII, ii, 10-42,Jahrbuch fur kleinasiatische Forschung I, 264-95, II, 167-88, 293-339, BelletenXVIII, 27-34, Gedenkschrift P. Kretschmer I (Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1956),40-51 (the inscription); Barnett, Anatolian Studies III, 83-7, Friedrich,Arch. Orient. XXI, 114-39, GUterbock, Eranos XLVII, 93-115 (generaldiscussions). Though the hieroglyphic script was in use at Hattusas byc. 1400 B.C., it is still uncertain whether it was used there to write the languageof the Neo-Hittite inscriptions of c. 1200 B.C. onwards; cf. H. G. Guterbock,Siegel aus BogazkSy II {Arch, fur Orientforschung, Beiheft VII), 41-7; id. andK. Bittel, Bogazkby: neue Untersuchungen (Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., 1935)163-4; Barnett, he. cit. 78-81; Gurney, op. cit. 127-8. On possible use before

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



42 PAST AND PRESENT

c. 1450 B.C. see Barnett, he. cit. 93-4, Antiquaries Journ. XIX, 33-5, The Times31st Aug. 1956, 9 (cf. p. 40 below); Bossert, Welt des Orients I, 480-4; Kinal,Dil ve Tarih-Cografya Fak. Dergisi VII (Univ. of Ankara), 305, AnadoluArastirmalarx I ( = Jb. f kleinas. Forsch. Ill), 75; Ozgiic, Belleten XVIII,374-5, 380. On the supposed "satam" character of H. Hitt. see Bonfante andGelb, Journ. of the Amer. Orient. Soc. LX1V, 169-90; Goetze, Language XXX,405; Werner, Asiatische Studien VIII (Schweiz Ges. fur Asienkunde), 155-63;Kammenhiiber, Riv. hittite et asianique XIV, lviii, 1-4 and fh. 15; (with earlierliterature).

• See Meriggi, Germanen und Indogermanen II (Festsch. Hirt II, ed. H. Arntz),257; H. Pedersen, Lykisch und Hittitisch (Kgl. Danske Videnskab. Selskab,fil.-hist. Meddeleher, XXX, iv); Tritsch, Arch. Orient. XVIII, 502-17. OnLydian, F. Sommer and P. Kahle,Kleinasiat. Forschungen I, 18-86; Meriggi,op. cit. 383 ff.; Bossert, Ein. heth. KSnigss., 107-32; Zgusta, Arch. Orient.XXIII, 510-44. If Etruscan is cognate with Lydian, IE features in it will notnecessarily tell against the theory of its Asianic origin.

* On the "Cappadocian tablets" and Kane§, modern Kultepe nearKayseri, where most of them were found, see A. Goetze, Kleinasien, 64-76; Gurney, Hittites, 18-19; T. and N. Ozgiig, Illustr. London News,14th Jan. 1950, 694; Ausgrabungen in Kaltepe 1948 {Turk Tarih KurumuYayinlan, Ser. V, vii), A-usgr. 1949 (ibid., xii); Belleten XVII, 109-18, 269-88,298-306, XVIII, 373-90, XIX, 64-72, 453-62; Anat. Stud. I, 10, II, 16, IV,19-20, V, 19-20, VI, 25-6; Mellink, Amer. Journ. of Arch. LIV, 61-3, LV, 91-5,LIX, 231-3. On the historicity of Anittas see Lewy, R&v. hitt. et asian. I l l ,1-14; Hrozny, Arch. Orient. IV, 113-40; T. Ozgiic., Belleten XX, 33-6; Balkan,Observations on the chronological problems of the Karum Kanis (T.T.K.Y.,Ankara, 1955), 78-9. The dates given for Anittas and events of Hittite historyare according to the "middle" of the chronologies now considered forMesopotamia before c. 1400 B.C.; for general discussions see Meyer, PhilologusXCVII, 355-60; Schachermeyer, Prdhist. Zeitsch. XXIV-V, 17-48; Goossens,Le Musion LXI, 1-29; Bittel, Reinecke-Festschr. (ed. G. Behrens and J. Werner,Schneider, Mainz, 1950), 17-24; Gurney, Hittites, 217, Journ. of TheologicalStud. VII, 252-60; Mellaart, An. Stud. VII, 55-88.

10 See Goetze, Zeitsch. f. Assyr. XL, 260-3; Proe. Amer. Philos. Soc. XCVII,215-6; Language XXX, 349S9;Journ. Cuneiform Stud.Wlll, 74-82; Landsberger,ibid. 47-61, 124-6, 129-33; Alp, Belleten XIII, 269, Dil ve T.-C. Fak. Derg. X,250-4; Bilgic, Arch. f. Orientf. XV, 18; Crossland, Journ. Royal Asiat. Soc.1953, i52-$i'lATOcht,Recueild'onomastiquehittite(K\incVsiecV.,Paris, 1952), 116.

11 Illyrian: J. Pokorny, Substrattheorie und Urheimat der lndog. (Mitt.d. Anthrop. Gesellschaft in Wien LXVI), 69-91, Zur Urgeschichte der Kelten undIllyrier (Halle, 1938; with probable overestimate of the historical r61e of theIllyrians); H. Krahe, Sprache und Vorzeit (Quelle und Meyer, Heidelberg, 1954),98-122 (earlier literature 174-6), Welt als Geschichte VI, 54-73. Phrygian:N. Jokl in Ebert, Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte X, 141-53.

11 See Ventris and Chadwick, Antiquity XXVII, 196-206, Journ. of HellenicStud. LXXIII, 84-103. For discussions of A. Seattle's criticism of thedecipherment, ibid. LXXVI, 1-17, see Chadwick ibid. LXXVII (in the press),Green, Time and Tide 23rd March 1957,359-60, Ilievski, Ziva Antika VI, 314-36,Palmer, History Today VII, 308-12, Treweek, Bull, of the Inst. of ClassicalStud. (London), 1957 (in the press), Webster, Antiquity XXXI, 4-8. The"Linear B" tablets from Knossos are the earliest, c. 1450-1400 B.C., but use ofGreek there at that time implies earlier use in the Peloponnese.

13 See Friedrich, Reallex. d. Assyriologie, s.v. Arier; Mironov, Ada OrientXI, 140-217; Keith, Indian Hist. Qu. XII, 569-80; Dumont, Journ. Amer.Or. Soc. LXVII, 251-3 and apud R. T. O'Callaghan, Aram Naliarain (AnalectaOrient. XXVI), 149-55 5 w - v ° n Brandenstein, Fruhgeschichte und Sprachwiss. I(Gerold, Vienna, 1948), 138-45.

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




11 See G. Redard, Panorame linguistique de I'Iran (Asiat. Stud. VIII, 137-48).15 This term subsumes isolated IB languages like Greek and Armenian,

which have no specially close cognates.l* cf. Scherer, Das Problem der idg. Urheimat vom Standpunkt der Sprach-

wissenschaft (Arch, far Kulturgeschichte XXXIII), 6-13; P. Thieme, Die Heimatder idg. Gemeinsprache (Abh. d. Geistes- und Sozialvriss. Kl. 1953, XII; Univ.of Mainz), 543-8.

17 ie. study of texts as literary or historical documents, as distinct fromlinguistic study of grammatical or phonetic structure or lexis.

l s On the possibility of deducing the time elapsed since the divergence of twolanguages by statistical comparison of their basic vocabularies ("glotto-chronology"), see Swadesh, American Anthropologist LV, 349-52, Lees,Language XXIX, 113-27 (with previous literature). The method seems stilltoo imprecise to decide questions of the chronology of the differentiation of theIE dialects (cf. Lees, pp. 121, 126), but it is interesting that it seems to confirmthe theory about Germanic and Italic discussed below, p. 35.

" The equations are most conveniently set out in A. Meillet, Introductiona Vitude comparative des langues i.e. (7th ed., Hachette, Paris, 1934), 387-417.

20 Bull, de la soc. de linguistique de Paris XLV, 74-91; Thieme op. cit., 560.11 Thieme, op. cit. 578."cf. Giiterbock, Zeitsch. f. Assyr. XLIV, 113-39, Archaeology VI, 215;

Mitt. d. Deutsch. Orient-Ges. LXXXVI, 59-63; Goetze, Journ. of Cun. Stud.IX, 22; Gurney, Hittites, 178-9.

•• Forrer, Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgenland. Ges. LXXVI, 254-69; Kammen-hiiber, Forschungen und Portschritte XXVIII, iv, 119-24; Giiterbock, ArchaeologyVI, 215-6; Bittel, Mitt. d. Deutsch Orient-Ges. LXXXVI, 45-7; Piggott,Listener LIV, 10th Nov. 1955, 791.

" Bull, of the School of Orient. Stud. (London) VIII, 411 ff." E . Meyer, Die Indogermanenfrage (Elwert-Grafe, Marburg, 1948), 8;

Meillet, op. cit. 392." cf. Meillet, op. cit. 385, 389-91.17 E. H. Sturtevant, Hittite Chrestomathy, 189, sec. 28 ff., J. Friedrich, Heth.

Elementarbuch II, 60 (Telipinus text); Herodotus I, 173 (Lycian matrilineardescent). G. Thomson's conclusions that "matriarchial" customs gainedground among the Hittites in the historical period (The Prehistoric Aegean,rev. ed., 1954, 179-80) is e silentio. The types of documents on which thetawannannas's name sometimes appears along with the king's are not representedfrom the Old Kingdom.

" See Sturtevant, he. cit. sees. 30-2, Friedrich, op. cit., 60,64, F. Sommer andA. Falkenstein, Die heth.-akkad. Bilingue des Haituiih I (Bayer. Akad. d. Wiss.,Abh. phil-hist. Abt.y N.F. VI), 207-11; Sommer, Orient. LiteraturzeitungXXXVIII, 279.

" Trans, of the Philological Soc. 1954, 18-53; History Today VII, vi, 367-71.so Goetze, Kleinasien, 96-102 (Hittite feudalism); E. von Schuler, Orientalia

N.S. XXV, 209-40, Heth. Dienstanweisungen (Arch. f. Orient}., Beiheft X;on Hittite local officials or headmen, with previous literature); K. Bittel,Grundziige der Vor- und Fruhgeschichte Kleinasiens (2nd ed., Wasmuth,Tubingen, 1950), 46-52.

" H. Lewy, The Nuzian feudal system (Orientalia N.S. XI), 1-40, 209-50,297-349; K. Balkan, Babilde feodalizm arastirmalariz (Dil ve T.-C. Fak. Derg.II; German resume by Guterbock Arch.f. Orientf. XV, 130); J. Gray, Feudal-ism in Ugarit and early Israel (Zeitsch f. alttest. Wiss. LXIV); Childe, Pastand Present VII, 76-7. On Hittite kingship see Goetze, op. cit. 56-65; Gumeyin S. H. Hooke, Myth, Ritual and Kingship (O.U.P., in press).

'- Zeitsch. fur vergleichende Sprachforschung ("Kuhn's Ztsch.") LXXII,1-29, LXXIII, 1-25.

" ibid. LXIX, 209-16, Heimat der idg. Gemeinsprache, 551-8; for comments,

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



44 PAST AND PRESENT

see Pisani, Paideia VI, 184 ff., Mayrhofer, Zeitsch. d. Deutsch. Morgen. Ges.N.F. XXX, 175-83. Hoenigswald, Language XXXII, 313 ff.

54 See W. ] . Bean, Trees and Shrubs (7th ed.) II, 4. (I thank the Directorof the Royal Botanic Gardens for additional information).

" See T. Regan, Annals and Mag. of Natural History XIII, 405 ff.; L. S.Berg, Ryby presnych ved SSSR i sopredel'nych, Str. I, 239, 242-3, figs. 144,145 (on Salmo trutta labrax and Salmo trutta caspius). cf. Bailey, Trans.Phil. Soc. 1956, 116. (I thank Dr. D. A. Parry and Dr. E. Trewaras for refer-ences and information). It is interesting that the name Tigris salmon has beengiven to the large Barbus esocinus of Iraq.

"• Cf. Porzig, Gliederung, 184." cf. H. Krahe, Sprachverwandschaft im alten Europa (Heidelberg, 1951);

Porzig, Gliederung, 51-64; Pulgram, Orbis II, 67-72; Collinge, Arch. LinguisticumVIII, m - 2 8 ; Dyen, Language XXIX, 611-26; Tovar, Word, X, 333-50.

" M. G. Bartoli, Introduzione alia neolinguistica (Bibl. d. Arch. Roman. II,Geneva, 1925); Bonfante, American Journ. of Philology LXVII, 291-301.

" See now U. Weinreich, Languages in Contact (Linguistic Circle of NewYork,Publ. I, 1953), and review by Haugen, Language XXX, 380-9.

40 See Mansion, Acta Jutlandica IX {Milanges Pederseri), 486.41 See Trubetzkoy, Acta Linguistica I, 81-9; Pisani, Arch. Orient. XVII,

251-64.42 Les dialectes indoeuropiens (Paris, 1 9 0 8 ; 2 n d ed . wi thout important altera-

tion, 1922); see esp. 31-9, 133-6.43 Bull, de la soc. de ling. X X X I I , 1-28; cf. Goetze, Kleinasien, 56-7; Di l lon,

Trans. Phil. Soc. 1947, 15-24.44 The Indo-Hittite Laryngeals (Ling. Soc. of America, Baltimore, 1942),

23-30 (with references to earlier literature), Classical Philology X X X I X , 187-8,Language X X V I I I , 177-81. Sturtevant's arguments will be criticised indetail elsewhere.

48 Indogermanische Forsch. L I I , 2 2 1 - 6 , L V , 1 3 1 - 4 , R&v. beige de philologieXVIII, 381-92, Actajutl. IX, 15-33, Armenian Qu. I, 87-92, Amer. Journ. Phil.LXVII, 289-310, Word I, 139-40; also Emerita II, 263-306, Arch. Orient.XI, 84-90 on supposed cultural differences between early and late waves of IEemigrants. On the Hittite evidence discussed, see provisionally Proc. VIJthInt. Congr. Linguists, I, 152-3, II, 498-500.

44 e.g. he fails to consider die equations Hitt. kessar: Gk. kheir, Hitt. tuzzis:O. Irish tuath, etc. (cf. Sturtevant, Comp. Gramm. I, 58, 76) and the Hitt.verbal forms in -la (Pedersen, Journ. Cun. Stud. I, 60-4) in the sections onTocharian and Hittite, pp. 186-92. For discussions of his book see Polome,Latomus XIII, 475-80 Ogam VI, 145-64; Lehmann, Language XXX, 461-7;Martinet, Word XI, 126-32.

47 Gliederung, 171-4; Specht, Zeitsch f. vergl. Sprach. LXVI, 4-14." Of the features considered by Porzig pp. 106 ff. only nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4

involve major innovations. Nos. 5, 6, 8, 11, 13 and 15 might be archaismsindependently retained. Almost all the rest are lexical items which mighthave been borrowed in conditions of relatively tenuous contact, or after thetwo dialects had already diverged considerably.

49 Cf. Bonfante, Ind. Forsch. LII, 223-4; R&v. des itudes indo-eur. I, 353-76;Pisani, Rivista indo-greco-italica, XVI, 91; Vendryes, Corolla Linguistica(Festsch. F. Somnier, ed. H. Krahe, Harrassowitz, 1955), 229-34 (pres. participlesin Irish); H. Lewis and H. Pedersen, Concise Comp. Celtic Gramm. 243-4;R. Thumeysen, Gramm. of Old Irish, 50, 110, 223 (on *yo-).

" Porzig apparently considers that the important development in the"satsm" dialects was a change of original palatal stops to sibilants; cf. op. cit. 73.and N. Jokl, Actajutl. IX, 127-61. If he is correct, the possibility that Albanianmight reflect IE at the stage when a change of velars to palatals began in the'satsm" dialects will still need to be considered. Such a change usually

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from




begins in a small number of phonetic contexts. Goetze has now suggestedon the basis of three new etymologies, Language XXX, 403-5, that Hittitepreserves traces of distinct IE velar and palatal series; cf. Kammenhuber,Rev. hitt. et asian. XIV, 1-4, Hamp, ibid. 23-5.

61 See M. Vormer, Die alien Bevolkerungsverhdltmsse Russlands (DeutscheAkad. d. Wiss., Vortrdge und Schriften V).

" See Specht, loc. cit.; M. Falkner apud W. von Brandenstein, Studienzur idg. Grundsprache, 26 ff.

«See Scherer, Arch. f. Kulturgesch. XXXIII, 13, with references;B. Collinder, Fenno-Ugric Vocab. (Uppsala, 1955), 128 ff.

54 See Allen, Trans. Phil. Soc. 1956, 172-4. On the "laryngeals" seeCrossland, ibid. 1951, 87-122; Polome1, Rev. beige dephil. XXX, 444-83; Zgusta,Arch. Orient. XIX, 428-72.

s s See Couvreur, Riv. beige de phil. XXIV, 211-4, Bibliotheca Orientalis III,77-80, on A. Cuny's IE-Semitic-Hamitic comparisons. Cf. also Greenberg inSouth-Western Joum. of Anthropology V and VI.

•• cf. T. Burrow, The Sanskrit Language (Faber and Faber, 1955), 25.Mallowan's arguments for dating the IE movement into Northern Indiac. 2000 B.C., Antiquity XXIX, 202, fn. 6, seem unsound. There is no linguisticevidence that a proto-Indo-Iranian ("Aryan") element ever passed throughAnatolia. The proto-Indic names at BogazkOy occur in Hittite treaties of thefourteenth century (E. F. Weidner, Politische Dokumente aus Kleinasien;Boghazkoi-Stud. VIII, ed. O. Weber, 37, 55), and belong to dynasts of Humanstates such as Mitanni, and their gods. The button-seals which he mentionsdo not seem to have been associated with the Hittites, in the sense of the IEimmigrants who introduced the Hittite language.

" See Goetze, Kleinasien, 186-92; Bittel, Grundzuge, 74-8, 81-6; B6rard,Historia I, 359; Mellink, Amer.Journ. Arch. LVIII, 167-9 (°n C. H. E. Haspels,La citl de Midas; Explor. arch, de la Phrygie III; Inst. fran9. arch., Istanbul);Mellaart, Belleten XIX, 123-4, !3°-

" Gurney, Liverpool Ann. of Arch, and Anthr. XXVIII, 32-47, esp. 46." See Childe, Journ. of Hellen. Stud. XXXV, 196-207; Haley and Blegen,

Amer. Journ. Arch. XXXII, 141-54.60 Indo-European Languages and Archeology (American Anthrop. LVII,

y\\Amer. Anthrop. Assn., Memoirs VIII, 1955)." See Otten, Zeitsch.f. Assyr. N. F. XII, 206 ff., Mitt. d. Deutsch. Orient-Ges.

LXXVIII, 3, 14 ff.; Bittel, ibid. 25 ff., LXXXVI, 37-47; Guterbock,Archceology VI, 215-6. T. Ozgiic, Die Bestattungsbrduche im vorgeschicht.Anatolien (Veroff. XIV, Wiss. Reihe 5, Univ. of Ankara, 1948), 41, concludes,however, that Anatolia may well have been the original centre of urn-burialwithout cremation.

" Archaologica Hungarica XXVI."See Goetze, Kleinasien, 25-7; Bittel, Prdhist. Forschungen in Kleinasien

(1st. Forsch. VI, 1934), 104-7; Grundzugs, 31-2; Childe, Anat. Stud. VI, 45-8:on "megara" in Anatolia; C. W. Blegen, Troy I, i, 380 col. 3; Ozgu£, BelletenXVIII, 373; Mellink, Amer.Journ. Arch. LIX, 232; Lloyd, Anat. Stud. VI,104-6, The Times n th Dec. 1956, 11, 18.

" cf. Piggott, Listener, 10th Nov. 1955, 7?i on the possibility that IEdynasts already ruled the city at Alaca Hiiyuk in the late E.B.A., c. 2300 B.C.;also Mellink, The Aegean and the Near East (Stud. Hetty Goldman, ed.S. Weinberg; Augustin, Locust Valley, N.Y., 1956), 54-6. The Mikhalitsculture discussed by Childe loc. cit. might well be a peripheral, IE-dominatedculture of the kind which Piggott postulates.

" See Sommer, Hethiter und Hethitisch (Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, 1947),4-ic; 3 . Hrozny, Code Hittite, 15-7, 44-51, sees. 19-23, 50-5 (or E. Neufeld,Hittite Laws, 5-6, 17-9); Crossland, Bibl. Orient. X, 122; Otten, Milt. d.Deutsch. Orient-Ges. LXXXIII, 33 ff.; Kammenhuber, Rev. hitt. et asian.XIV, 17 fn. 39-

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



46 PAST AND PRESENT

•• The Times 31st Aug. 1956,9." The Times 26th Nov. 1955, 7, 9. Early Anatolia, 127.*" cf. MeUaart, Anat. Stud. V, 60. Note that Mellaart applies "Minyan",

Anat. Stud. VI, 126, to some types of vessels from E.B.A. levels at Beycesultanwhich are not in the characteristic grey ware. Presumably these recur laterin that ware in the north-western Anatolian province.

" The change in the distribution of the beak-spouted jug between the E.B.A.and the M.B.A., noted by Mellaart Anat. Stud. V, 70, deserves considerationas a possible indication of migration from the north-west to the central region.

ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

(To supplement the bibliographies in Krahe, Sprache und Vorzeit, 172 ff., andPorzig, Gliederung, 13 ff).

(1) H. Bender, The Home of the Indo-Europeans (Princeton, 1922).(2) W. von Brandenstein and others, Studien zur idg. Grundsprache (Inst. f. allg.

undvergl. Sprachwiss., Graz, Arbeiten IV; Gerold, Vienna, 1948); reviewedby Lehmann, Language XXX, 99-103.

(3) S. Feist, Die Dialekte in der idg. Ursprache (Acta Jutlandica IX, 3-14).(4) H. Hirt and H. Arnzt, Die Hauptprobleme der idg. Sprachwissenschaft

(Neimeyer, Halle, 1939). Indogermanica: Forschungen liber Spracheund Geschichte Alteuropas (Niemeyer, 1940).

(5) M. Jahn, Die Abgrenzung von Kulturgruppen und Volkern und dieVorgeschichte (Sachs. Akad. d. Wiss., Berichte und Verh. XCIX, iii).

(6) H. Otten, Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, (Wissenschaftliche Annalen II,322-30).

(7) V. PolAk, La posizione linguistica dell' ittito, (Misc. G. Galbiati III FontesAmbrosiani XXVII), 75-81).

(8) E. Unger, Altidg. Kulturgut in Nordmesopotamien (Harrassowitz, 1938).(9) V. V. Iyanoy, The Social Organisation of the Indo-European Tribes according

to the Linguistic Evidence (Vjestnik Istorii Mirovoi Kultury 143-52, Academyof Sciences of the USSR, Historical Sciences Section). This article, inRussian, came to my notice after I had finished my article.

• [A paper by Mellaart entitled The Origin of Minyan Pottery, read to theTurkish Historical Society, is now mentioned Anatolian Studies VII, 8].

at Russian A

rchive on Decem


Dow

nloaded from



indo–european origins: the linguistic evidence

Documents