Colin Renfrew - Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origines (1989).pdf

ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE T h e Puzzle o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n O r i g i n s

C O L I N RENFREW

Penguin Books

T o the m e m o r y o f m y father, A R C H I B A L D RENFREW

PENGUIN BOOKS Published by the Penguin Group 27 Wrights Lane, London w8 5 T Z , England Viking Penguin Inc., 40 West 23rd Street, N e w York, N e w Y o r k 10010, U S A Penguin Books Australia Ltd, Ringwood, Victoria, Australia Penguin Books Canada Ltd, 2801 John Street, Markham, Ontario, Canada L 3 1 1 1 B 4 Penguin Books ( N Z ) Ltd, 182-190 Wairau Road, Auckland 10, N e w Zealand Penguin Books Ltd, Registered Offices: Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England First published by Jonathan Cape 1987 Published in Penguin Books 1989 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Copyright © Colin Renfrew, 1987 All rights reserved Filmset in Bembo (Linotron 202) by Rowland Phototypesetting Ltd, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk Made and printed in Great Britain by Richard C l a y Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk Except in the United States of America, this book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out, or otherwise circulated without the publisher's prior consent in any form o f binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser

PEREGRINE BOOKS

ARCHAEOLOGY AND LANGUAGE Colin Renfrew was born in 1937 and studied natural sciences and archaeology at Cambridge, graduating with first-class honours. While at Cambridge, he was President of the Union. He travelled in Eastern Europe and in Spain and then undertook fieldwork in the Cycladic Islands of Greece. In collaboration with Professor J. D . Evans, he led an expedition to excavate the first stone age settlement to be discovered on the Cyclades. In 1969 and 1970 he was field director of the Anglo-American excavations at the important prehistoric settlement mound at Sitagroi in North Greece, and from 1974 until 1976 he directed the excavations at the bronze age town of Phylakopi on the Cycladic island of Melos. He was a research fellow at St John's College, Cambridge, from 1965 to 1968, has lectured in European prehistory at the University of Sheffield and at the University of California at Los Angeles and was Professor of Archaeology at the University of Southampton. He was a member of the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England) for ten years until 1987 and is a member of the Ancient Monuments Advisory Committee. Professor Renfrew was made a Fellow of the British Academy in 1980. He has been Master of Jesus College, Cambridge, since 1986 and is Disney Professor of Archaeology at the university. As well as contributing scientific papers to Nature, Scientific American and archaeological journals, he has written and edited many publications on archaeology. His own books include The Emergence of Civilization (1972), Before Civilization (1973, Pelican 1976), Problems in European Prehistory (1979), Approaches to Social Archaeology (1984), The Prehistory of Orkney (1985) and The Archaeology of Cult (1985), and he has edited The Explanation of Culture Change (1973), British Prehistory, a New Outline (1974) and Theory and Explanation in Archaeology (1982). He has also co-authored several works.

Contents Acknowledgments

xiü

Preface: W h a t Song the Sirens Sang

i

1

The Indo-European Problem i n Outline

9

2

A r c h a e o l o g y and the Indo-Europeans

3

L o s t Languages and F o r g o t t e n Scripts: T h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n Languages, O l d and N e w

20

42

4

Homelands i n Question

75

5

Language and Language C h a n g e

99

6

Language, P o p u l a t i o n and Social O r g a n i z a t i o n : A Processual A p p r o a c h

120

7

E a r l y Language Dispersals i n E u r o p e

145

8

T h e E a r l y I n d o - I r a n i a n Languages and their O r i g i n s

178

9

Ethnogenesis: W h o w e r e the Celts?

211

10

Indo-European Mythologies

11

A r c h a e o l o g y and I n d o - E u r o p e a n O r i g i n s : A n Assessment

250

263

Notes

291

Bibliography

307

Index

337

Illustrations

2. i 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1

G e o m e t r i c vase f r o m T h e r a c. 750 B C (after Finley) S w o r d scabbard f r o m La T e n e c. 300 B C C o r d e d w a r e f r o m n o r t h e r n and eastern E u r o p e Beaker assemblages Linear-decorated p o t t e r y T h e h o m e l a n d area o f the K u r g a n c u l t u r e (after Gimbutas) C u n e i f o r m script at Persepolis C o p y o f a hieroglyphic Hittite inscription M a p o f the p r i n c i p a l I n d o - E u r o p e a n language g r o u p s o f E u r o p e and Asia M a p o f A n a t o l i a i n the second m i l l e n n i u m B C M a p o f the Aegean, w i t h M i n o a n and Mycenaean sites M i n o a n Linear B script

5.3

M a p o f the O l d Silk R o a d T h e evidence o f l i n g u i s t i c palaeontology for the h o m e l a n d o f the Indo-Europeans T h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f B e l l Beakers i n E u r o p e T h e f a m i l y tree m o d e l for the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages D i s t r i b u t i o n o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages seen i n t e r m s o f the w a v e t h e o r y T h e use o f lexicostatistical data t o infer h i s t o r y o f

5.4

l i n g u i s t i c descent Relationships between different I n d o - E u r o p e a n

6.1

P o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h curves

4.2 5.1 5.2

languages based o n g l o t t o c h r o n o l o g i c a l correlations

page 25 26 31 32 36 40 44 48 52 54 58 60 63 79 87 101 105 113 116 127

6.2

T h e w a v e o f advance m o d e l

127

6.3

C o m p u t e r s i m u l a t i o n o f the w a v e o f advance

128

6.4

D i a g r a m (a) t o s h o w system collapse

134

6.5

Diagram (b) to show system collapse

135

7.1

E m m e r w h e a t , e i n k o r n and s i x - r o w barley

146

ILLUSTRATIONS

VU

7-2

M o d e r n d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the N e a r East o f the w i l d

7-3

M o d e r n d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the N e a r East o f the w i l d p r o t o t y p e o f domesticated barley

148

7-4

R a d i o c a r b o n dates for the spread o f f a r m i n g economy to Europe

149

7-5

T h e i m p a c t o f f a r m i n g o n the e x i s t i n g m e s o l i t h i c c o m m u n i t i e s o f n o r t h - w e s t E u r o p e along the ' A t l a n t i c facade' T h e early spread o f f a r m i n g i n E u r o p e H y p o t h e t i c a l sequence o f c u l t u r a l and l i n g u i s t i c t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s d u r i n g the early spread o f f a r m i n g i n Europe S t a m p seals f r o m A n a t o l i a and E u r o p e

p r o t o t y p e o f domesticated einkorn

7-6 7-7

7.8 7-9 8.1 8.2

T h e o r i g i n a l area o f the A n a t o l i a n early f a r m i n g c u l t u r e T h e Indus script o n copper tablets f r o m M o h e n j o d a r o M a p o f I n d i a i n d i c a t i n g sites o f the Indus V a l l e y civilization

8-3

D e c o r a t e d antler cheek-pieces for horse-bits c. 2 0 0 0 - 1 8 0 0 BC

8.4

M a p o f proposed alternative o r i g i n s for the I n d o - A r y a n languages M a p i n d i c a t i n g n o t i o n a l C e l t i c lands T h e B o t o r r i t a tablet T h e early l i n g u i s t i c p o p u l a t i o n o f Iberia T h e evidence o f C e l t i c place names M a p o f the Pacific s h o w i n g the m a j o r A u s t r o n e s i a n l i n g u i s t i c divisions

9-i 9.2 9-3 9-4 II. I II.2

II-3 il.4

F a m i l y tree d i a g r a m for the Fijian and Polynesian languages D i a g r a m i n d i c a t i n g the c h r o n o l o g y o f Pacific island discovery b y f o u n d i n g p o p u l a t i o n s M a p s h o w i n g the dispersal o f the B a n t u languages o f Africa

U7

151 155

160 169 170 184 186 199 206 213 230 231 237 278 279 280 282

The Indo-European languages in Europe and Asia Indo-European Languages | | | Indo-Iranian

j Armenian

Slavonic

| Albanian

Germanic

Celtic

Romance/Italic Baltic G r e e k (and former G r e e k )

(Formerly C e l t i c ) 1^^^

(Tocharian)

fc^j

(Hittite)

w T h e Principal Language Families o f the Modern World (after [~ [ [ ·•·|

"J

Lehmann) n i i European j Afro-Asiatic

~] A l t a i c | Finno-Ugric

f

:

1 '1

Sino-Tibetan Dravidian Austro-Asiatic

Acknowledgments M a n y people have c o n t r i b u t e d t o this v o l u m e , and I have benefited f r o m discussions over the years w i t h a great n u m b e r o f friends a n d colleagues, since the first t w o articles publ i s h e d i n 1973 and 1978 w h e n m y ideas began t o take shape. A m o n g s t t h e m I s h o u l d l i k e t o express m y g r a t i t u d e for s t i m u l a t i n g discussions t o : D r J o h n A l e x a n d e r , D r R a y m o n d A l l c h i n , D r Paul B a h n , Professor L e w i s B i n f o r d , Professor L. L. Cavalli-Sforza, D r J o h n C h a d w i c k , D r Sara C h a m p i o n and D r T i m o t h y C h a m p i o n , D r D a v i d C o l l e t t , Professor R. A . Crossland, M . Jean-Paul D e m o u l e , Professor Sir K e n n e t h D o v e r , D r D a v i d French, Professor Ernest Gellner, Professor V . I . G e o r g i e v , D r I . Gershevitch, Professor C h r i s t o p h e r H a w k e s , M r Sinclair H o o d , D r Teresa Judice G a m i t o , Sir J o h n L y o n s , Professor Peter M a t t h e w s , M r N . J. M e r r i m a n , D r R o g e r M o o r e y , D r K . R. N o r m a n , M r Sebastian Payne, M r J o h n Ray, D r R o b e r t C . Reed, D r Jane M . R e n f r e w , D r A n n e Ross, D r M . J. R o w l a n d s , D r Stephen Shennan, D r A n d r e w Sherratt, M r s E l i z a b e t h W a r r e n , Professor Peter W a r r e n and D r P a t r i c k Sims W i l l i a m s . Sir J o h n L y o n s , M r J o h n Ray, D r R o g e r M o o r e y , D r j a n e R e n f r e w , D r C h r i s Scarre and D r Stephen Shennan have all k i n d l y read the t e x t and have offered valuable corrections and c o m m e n t s . Needless t o say, n o t all o f t h e m agree w i t h the v i e w s expressed here. M r s Jose J o h n k i n d l y t y p e d m u c h o f the final t e x t , and M r M a l c o l m Payne r e d r e w several o f the figures. D r C h r i s Scarre has greatly assisted i n assembling the plates, and I a m p a r t i c u l a r l y grateful f o r the patience and s k i l l w i t h w h i c h M r s j e n n y C o t t o m has edited the w o r k and seen i t t h r o u g h the press. I s h o u l d l i k e t o a c k n o w l e d g e the great s t i m u l u s offered b y the w o r k o f Professor M a r i j a G i m b u t a s , w h o has, i n recent years, been the f o r e m o s t and m o s t consistent archaeologist t o consider the o r i g i n s o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages. I a m m u c h aware that m y v i e w o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n o r i g i n s is v e r y different f r o m her o w n ,

XIV

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

b u t I a m grateful for her friendship and for the intellectual excitem e n t w h i c h her ideas have p r o v o k e d . M y father was a keen student o f language. I have o n m y shelf his c o p y o f B o d m e r and H o g b e n ' s The Loom of Language w h i c h , as the annotations indicate, he read f o u r times. H e w o u l d greatly have e n j o y e d , and w o u l d n o d o u b t have been keenly c r i t i c a l of, the discussions u n d e r t a k e n here, and this b o o k is dedicated t o his m e m o r y i n affectionate g r a t i t u d e .

Grateful a c k n o w l e d g m e n t is made t o the f o l l o w i n g for perm i s s i o n t o reproduce figures. Figs 2.3 and 4.2: I n s t i t u t e o f A r c h a e o l o g y , L o n d o n ; F i g . 2.4: D r Stephen Shennan; F i g . 2.6: Professor M a r i j a G i m b u t a s ; Figs 3.4 and 7.9: M r James M e l l a a r t ; F i g . 3.6: D r J. T . H o o k e r ; F i g . 3.7: M r Peter H o p k i r k ( f r o m his b o o k Foreign Devils on the Silk Road, p u b l i s h e d b y J o h n M u r r a y ) ; F i g . 5.3: D r D . R. C l a r k ; Figs 7.2 and 7.3: Professor D . Z o h a r y ; Figs 7.4 and 8.2: Professor J. G. D . C l a r k ; F i g . 7.5: D r I a n K i n n e s ; Figs 7.6 and 8.3: Professor Stuart P i g g o t t ; F i g . 9.1: Professor P a u l - M a r i e D u v a l ; Figs 11.1 and 11.3: Professor J. D . J e n n i n g s . N o t e : W h e r e v e r possible the o r i g i n a l m a p o r d i a g r a m has been r e p r o d u c e d f o r the sake o f v e r i s i m i l i t u d e .

Preface:

What Song the Sirens Sang

Language is the m o s t r e m a r k a b l e and the m o s t characteristic o f all h u m a n creations. I t m a y be that o u r species d i d n o t b e c o m e f u l l y h u m a n u n t i l the abilities o f reasoning, as w e l l as speaking, w h i c h a c c o m p a n y the use o f language w e r e f u l l y developed. C e r t a i n l y there are m a n y archaeologists t o d a y w h o w o u l d argue that this m o m e n t m u s t have been associated w i t h the emergence o f f u l l y m o d e r n m a n , Homo sapiens sapiens. Y e t i t is n o t a b l e that archaeologists o f late have, i n general, h a d v e r y l i t t l e t o say a b o u t the o r i g i n s o f the languages w h i c h are used i n the w o r l d t o d a y , o r o f the others, n o w e x t i n c t , o f w h i c h w e have w r i t t e n records. D u r i n g the early days o f archaeology this was a m a j o r t o p i c o f interest, and there w e r e m a n y w h o endeavoured t o trace the o r i g i n s o f the Celts, o r the Greeks, o r some o f the tribes o f N o r t h A m e r i c a , b y e x a m i n i n g the archaeological r e c o r d f o r i n d i c a tions o f t h e i r supposed m i g r a t i o n s . O f t e n their conclusions t o o k a v e r y s i m p l i s t i c f o r m , w i t h a particular k i n d o f p o t t e r y , o r perhaps a specific f o r m o f b u r i a l , regarded as the clear i n d i c a t o r o f a r e c o g n i z able early t r i b e w h o s e m e m b e r s w e r e hailed as the o r i g i n a l speakers o f this o r that language. T h e p r e h i s t o r i c m a p o f the area i n q u e s t i o n was s o o n f i l l e d w i t h b o l d a r r o w s m a r k i n g the supposed paths o f these peoples, often identified there o n l y b y the name o f the language i n q u e s t i o n , so that t o t h e casual eye i t l o o k e d as i f the languages themselves h a d paraded f r o m place t o place across the m a p . N o w i t m u s t be a d m i t t e d - and this is an inescapable l i m i t a t i o n o f the present b o o k j u s t as m u c h as i t is o f those w h i c h i t seeks t o criticize - that w e can, b y d e f i n i t i o n , never speak w i t h c e r t a i n t y a b o u t a ' p r e h i s t o r i c ' language. W e have direct experience o f l i v i n g languages, and o f those earlier ones w h i c h w e r e either set d o w n i n w r i t i n g b y t h e i r speakers o r recorded i n some w r i t t e n f o r m b y others w h o came i n t o u c h w i t h t h e m . For prehistoric languages the evidence is generally v e r y m u c h less direct. B u t this does n o t m e a n that w e have absolutely n o w a y s o f a p p r o a c h i n g such matters. I n the w o r d s o f Sir T h o m a s B r o w n e : 1

2

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

W h a t Song the Syrens sang, o r w h a t name Achilles assumed w h e n he h i d h i m s e l f a m o n g w o m e n , a l t h o u g h p u z z l i n g Q u e s t i o n s , are n o t b e y o n d all conjecture. T h e t e r m ' p r e h i s t o r i c ' means ' p r i o r t o the use o f w r i t i n g ' (for w h i c h e v e r r e g i o n is i n question) and i t i m p l i e s that there are s t r i n g e n t l i m i t a t i o n s u p o n w h a t i t is possible for us t o k n o w t o d a y . B u t that does n o t mean that w e have t o assume c o m p l e t e ignorance. I t is w e l l attested that certain languages are closely related - such as French and Spanish, o r several o f the languages o f Polynesia. I n s o m e cases these relationships have h i s t o r i c a l causes w h i c h can be d o c u m e n t e d - for instance the r o l e o f the R o m a n s i n c a r r y i n g the L a t i n language across the w i d e extent o f their e m p i r e . I n others an e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the relationships can be p u t f o r w a r d , and s u p p o r t e d b y other classes o f evidence i n a perfectly c o n v i n c i n g w a y . T h u s the archaeology o f Polynesia n o w indicates the a p p r o x i m a t e date at w h i c h s o m e o f the islands w e r e first occupied b y h u m a n s . I n m a n y cases t h e archaeological evidence and the l i n g u i s t i c evidence h a r m o n i z e s w e l l t o indicate clear patterns o f c o l o n i z a t i o n w h i c h satisfactorily account for the l i n g u i s t i c relationships observed. N o one can n o w p r o v e precisely w h i c h languages w e r e s p o k e n i n different parts o f the Pacific i n , say, A D 1500 since direct evidence for t h e m does n o t exist, b u t s o m e o u t l i n e , s u p p o r t e d b y different lines o f evidence, can be offered. Y o u m a y ask, w h o cares? W h a t o n earth does i t m a t t e r w h a t language was s p o k e n b y l o n g - d e a d people? A s H a m l e t asked o f the p l a y e r : ' W h a t ' s Hecuba t o h i m , o r he t o H e c u b a , that he s h o u l d w e e p f o r her?' So at first one m i g h t t h i n k . B u t language and i d e n t i t y are closely l i n k e d and there are f e w t h i n g s m o r e personal t h a n the language one speaks. Indeed language and n a t i o n a l i d e n t i t y are t o d a y v e r y w i d e l y equated. O n e ' s ' e t h n i c ' affinity is often determ i n e d m u c h m o r e b y language t h a n b y any identifiable physical characteristics, and elections are w o n o r lost b y F l e m i s h and W a l l o o n s , b o m b s detonated b y W e l s h nationalists and Basque separatists, and massacres perpetrated i n m a n y parts o f the w o r l d m o s t recently i n Sri L a n k a - o n the basis o f distinctions w h i c h are 2

linguistic a n d cultural more than anything else. Often the differences are religious t o o , since r e l i g i o n as w e l l as language is fre-

W H A T SONG T H E SIRENS SANG

3

q u e n t l y a f u n d a m e n t a l c o m p o n e n t o f n a t i o n a l o r ethnic i d e n t i t y . So i f we are interested i n the origins o f the m o d e r n w o r l d , w e m u s t understand the nature o f past societies; this includes the social o r g a n i z a t i o n o f these ancient peoples and their sense o f s e l f - i d e n t i t y , w h i c h b r i n g s us t o the questions o f e t h n i c i t y and language. O v e r the past t w o decades, archaeology has l o o k e d w i t h c o n siderable disfavour o n the w o r k o f those earlier generations o f scholars w h o sought t o e x p l a i n the changes observed t o have taken place i n the archaeological r e c o r d i n terms m a i n l y o f m i g r a t i o n s . W e see n o w that the particular k i n d s o f p o t t e r y so m e t i c u l o u s l y s t u d i e d i n the past are n o t necessarily secure indicators o f particular g r o u p s o f people - the pots themselves m a y have been t r a d e d , o r a fashion i n p o t - m a k i n g adopted, w i t h o u t any change i n p o p u l a t i o n . W e see m o r e clearly that social g r o u p s are n o t necessarily p r e cisely the same t h i n g as l i n g u i s t i c g r o u p s , and w e are m u c h m o r e w i l l i n g t o accept changes i n the archaeological r e c o r d as the result o f l o c a l l y - o c c u r r i n g d e v e l o p m e n t s w i t h i n the societies c o n cerned rather t h a n as the result o f outside influences, o r i m migration. A l l this has made unfashionable the k i n d o f w o r k prevalent fifty years ago, w h e n the leading scholars o f the day w o u l d w r i t e b o o k s w i t h such titles as The Coming of the Greeks, o r Prehistoric Migrations in Europe. W e are n o w aware that m a j o r developments i n h u m a n h i s t o r y , such as the emergence o f early u r b a n society i n the East M e d i t e r r a n e a n , w e r e the p r o d u c t s o f the i n t e r p l a y o f social and e c o n o m i c factors, and are n o t usually explained adequately s i m p l y b y d o c u m e n t i n g the m i g r a t i o n s o f groups o f people. 3

B u t have w e t h r o w n the b a b y o u t w i t h the bathwater? For w h i l e w e are surely r i g h t i n l o o k i n g t o social and e c o n o m i c causes f o r m o s t o f the m a j o r developments, are n o t questions o f n a t i o n a l o r ethnic i d e n t i t y (and hence o f l i n g u i s t i c i d e n t i t y ) often an i m p o r t a n t element i n the social reality? T h i s b o o k sets o u t t o argue that this is indeed the case, and that archaeologists have, w i t h a f e w notable exceptions, failed i n recent years t o take adequate account o f the l i n g u i s t i c evidence i n b u i l d i n g u p o u r p i c t u r e o f the past. O f course there are s o u n d reasons f o r t h a t . A l o n g w i t h the enlightened interest i n early E u r o p e w h i c h l e d the great A u s t r a l i a n archaeologist, V . G o r d o n C h i l d e , t o p u b l i s h

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

4

his b o o k The Aryans i n 1926, arose a. m u c h m o r e tendentious i n c l i n a t i o n t o use (and sometimes t o d i s t o r t ) the h i s t o r i c a l evidence f o r partisan p o l i t i c a l ends. H i t l e r and the N a t i o n a l Socialist m o v e m e n t i n G e r m a n y e x p l o i t e d t o the f u l l , i n their u n w a r r a n t e d c l a i m f o r a G e r m a n i c 'master race', the rather s i m p l i s t i c account o f p r e h i s t o r i c l i n g u i s t i c o r i g i n s i n E u r o p e w h i c h scholars such as G u s t a v K o s s i n n a had set o u t . M o s t archaeologists o f the t i m e w e r e appalled t o see w h a t w e r e n o m o r e than plausible theories a b o u t p r e h i s t o r i c languages and cultures c o n v e r t e d i n t o m i l i t a r y p r o paganda a b o u t racial s u p e r i o r i t y and b r o u g h t t o a n i g h t m a r i s h reductio ad absurdum i n the d e s t r u c t i o n o f m i l l i o n s o f people, supp o s e d l y b e l o n g i n g t o other 'races', i n the holocaust. Small w o n d e r , t h e n , that archaeologists have avoided so e m o t i v e a t o p i c . C h i l d e subsequently a v o i d e d all m e n t i o n o f his b o o k The Aryans, a l t h o u g h i n fact i t offered n o evidence i n favour o f the delusion o f racial s u p e r i o r i t y and was v e r y careful t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n language a n d c u l t u r e and supposed racial classifications. Racial explanations have, h o w e v e r , receded i n archaeology, since m o s t o f the earlier w o r k o n supposed racial types, based largely o n the measurement o f skulls, has been s h o w n t o be inaccurate and l a c k i n g in statistical v a l i d i t y . C r a n i o m e t r y , the s t u d y and measurem e n t o f h u m a n skulls, has i n recent years e n j o y e d about as m u c h prestige i n scientific circles as p h r e n o l o g y . T h e r e are still a f e w physical a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s w h o feel able t o make c o m m e n t s a b o u t the racial affinities o f prehistoric i n d i v i d u a l s o n the basis o f t h e i r skeletal remains, b u t such w o r k is n o w b e i n g superseded b y m u c h m o r e c o m p l i c a t e d , c o m p u t e r - a i d e d t a x o n o m i c studies, w h e r e w h o l e p o p u l a t i o n s are c o m p a r e d , using an entire series o f different measurements o n each i n d i v i d u a l . I personally r e m a i n t o be c o n v i n c e d that any clear h i s t o r i c a l conclusions can be d r a w n f r o m such w o r k , a l t h o u g h i t is theoretically possible that they m i g h t . I n the same w a y , the s t u d y o f the b l o o d groups o f ancient p o p u l a t i o n s m a y p r o v e i n f o r m a t i v e , since i n some cases they can be d e t e r m i n e d u s i n g the preserved skeletal remains. These are research p r o g r a m m e s for the future. A t the m o m e n t i t is safe t o l o o k o n any supposed claims about 'racial' groups o r 'racial affinities', based o n a 4

5

study o f skeletal materials over the past 10,000 years, w i t h the gravest suspicion. Racial a n t h r o p o l o g y - Rassenkunde

t o use the

W H A T SONG T H E SIRENS SANG

5

G e r m a n t e r m - has been c o n v i n c i n g l y discredited. T h i s does n o t m e a n that modern biological anthropology w i l l not develop m e t h o d s b y w h i c h the physical relationships a n d affinities o f past p o p u l a t i o n s m a y be studied. I t i m p l i e s o n l y that the g r o u n d w o r k f o r such studies is n o w being l a i d , and that there are at present f e w conclusions that can be relied u p o n . L i n g u i s t i c archaeology earned i t s e l f a bad name, t h e n , f r o m s o m e o f t h e w r i t i n g s o f the 1920s a n d 1930s. I n m a n y w a y s that was u n f o r t u n a t e , f o r w h i l e m a n y o f the approaches a n d conclusions o f that t i m e are n o t n o w c o n v i n c i n g , the questions asked w e r e l e g i t i mate a n d some o f the insights e n t i r e l y sound. Re-reading t o d a y G o r d o n C h i l d e ' s The Aryans, one can see that some o f the questions w h i c h he posed r e m a i n entirely v a l i d , a n d i n m o s t cases u n answered. So i t is t i m e , I feel, t o r e t u r n t o some o f those o l d questions, as w e l l as t o several n e w ones, w i t h o u t i n c u r r i n g t h e o p p r o b i u m w h i c h such discussions understandably, a n d perhaps r i g h t l y , earned at the end o f the Second W o r l d W a r . A r c h a e o l o g y has m o v e d o n f r o m its p r e o c c u p a t i o n w i t h races, ethnic g r o u p s and prehistoric m i g r a t i o n s . I t has learnt t o speak w i t h greater a u t h o r i t y a n d accuracy about the e c o l o g y o f past societies, t h e i r t e c h n o l o g y , their e c o n o m i c basis and their social o r g a n i z a t i o n . N o w i t is b e g i n n i n g t o interest i t s e l f i n the i d e o l o g y o f early c o m m u n i t i e s : t h e i r religions, t h e w a y they expressed r a n k , status a n d g r o u p i d e n t i t y . T h e question o f language is i m p o r t a n t here, a n d w e can approach i t anew, abandoning some o f the o l d p r e c o n c e p tions. Because w e have rejected as inadequate the evidence w h i c h was often p u t f o r w a r d i n the past t o d o c u m e n t the m o v e m e n t o f a g r o u p o f people, w e can ask afresh j u s t w h a t indications w e expect t o find w h e n a g r o u p o f people d i d i n fact m o v e . T h e a r g u m e n t s o f the processual school i n archaeology (as w e s h o u l d n o w t e r m t h e successors o f the N e w Archaeologists o f the 1960s a n d 1970s, n o w that the latter are n o l o n g e r n e w ) have sometimes been m i s u n d e r s t o o d . N o one is asserting that m i g r a t i o n s d o n o t occur o r have n o t o c c u r r e d . T h e p o i n t is rather that the evidence w h i c h was f o r m e r l y p u t f o r w a r d t o d o c u m e n t supposed m i g r a t i o n s was i n m a n y cases i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e task. I t is n o t so m u c h t h e reality as t h e m e t h o d o l o g y w h i c h is under c r i t i c i s m . I t h i n k this is the r i g h t t i m e f o r a reconsideration o f these issues, t a k i n g i n t o account the lessons

6

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

o f t h e N e w A r c h a e o l o g y , and t r y i n g t o w o r k i n h a r m o n y w i t h the processual s c h o o l . I shall t r y here t o develop some o f the principles w h i c h seem relevant i f w e are t o understand the archaeological evidence r e l a t i n g t o the q u e s t i o n o f language change. M y area o f special interest w i l l be the languages o f E u r o p e and parts o f Western Asia, b u t I h o p e that the general issues w i l l be relevant t o those s t u d y i n g the early d e v e l o p m e n t o f languages i n other areas - for instance the B a n t u languages o f A f r i c a . T h e s o l u t i o n w h i c h I propose for the languages o f E u r o p e is i n m a n y w a y s a s u r p r i s i n g one, and i t has its i m p l i c a t i o n s for the m o d e r n w o r l d . T o d a y , for instance, m a n y people believe that the first C e l t i c inhabitants o f B r i t a i n and Ireland a r r i v e d i n these areas s o m e w h e r e a r o u n d 2000 B C f r o m a h o m e l a n d elsewhere i n E u r o p e . O t h e r s w o u l d prefer a date fifteen h u n d r e d years later. I shall argue t h a t there is n o evidence whatever for that, and the C e l t i c languages m a y have m u c h l o n g e r antecedents i n the areas w h e r e t h e y are n o w spoken. Such an a r g u m e n t has the effect o f r e m o v i n g the hiatus b e t w e e n the B r i t i s h and I r i s h n e o l i t h i c periods - the t i m e o f the m e g a l i t h builders and o f the art o f the I r i s h passage graves and t h e succeeding phases o f p r e h i s t o r y . I t means, i f w e accept i t , t h a t o u r o r i g i n s - and i n general this is c l a i m e d here f o r o t h e r parts o f E u r o p e t o o - go v e r y m u c h deeper. These lands have been o u r lands, a n d those o f o u r forefathers, for thousands o f years l o n g e r t h a n is w i d e l y t h o u g h t . M a n y o f the features, t h e n , w h i c h define the Irishness o f the I r i s h , o r the Spanishness o f the Spanish, o r the Britishness o f the B r i t i s h , go back v e r y m u c h deeper. Sir J o h n M y r e s , m a n y years ago, answered the question posed i n the t i t l e o f his b o o k Who were the Greeks? w i t h the v e r y wise answer t h a t t h e y ' w e r e ever i n process o f b e c o m i n g ' . W e can b e g i n t o see that s o m e t h i n g o f this is t r u e for m a n y o f the lands i n E u r o p e . T h i s , I t h i n k , is a f u n d a m e n t a l change i n perspective, and one w h i c h carries m a n y interesting implications w i t h i t . I n the i n t r o d u c t o r y chapter w h i c h f o l l o w s I shall o u t l i n e the early d e v e l o p m e n t o f the discipline dealing w i t h the f o r m a t i o n and e v o l u t i o n o f languages - h i s t o r i c a l linguistics ( o r c o m p a r a t i v e 6

philology, which is much the same thing) - by looking at the first E u r o p e a n languages. W e see that the first answers offered w e r e

W H A T SONG T H E SIRENS SANG

7

essentially l i n g u i s t i c , based o n the evidence d e r i v e d f r o m t h e languages themselves. Around the b e g i n n i n g o f this c e n t u r y , the archaeological evidence was energetically s t u d i e d , and the i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h i t m i g h t offer f o r m i g r a t i o n s o f peoples was seriously assessed. Basically these are the t w o approaches s t i l l w i d e l y practised t o d a y : the t r a d i t i o n a l l i n g u i s t i c (based o n studies o f v o c a b u l a r y , g r a m m a r and s o u n d changes) and the t r a d i t i o n a l archaeological (based o n the e q u a t i o n o f particular artefact f o r m s and o t h e r classes o f finds w i t h supposed ethnic g r o u p s ) . I n the f o l l o w i n g chapters i t w i l l be argued that m o d e r n l i n g u i s t i c s and c u r r e n t processual archaeology offer the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a n e w synthesis. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f l i n g u i s t i c studies o v e r the past t w o decades a l l o w s a m u c h less s i m p l i s t i c v i e w o f l i n g u i s t i c o r i g i n s , w h i c h is applicable t o the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages as m u c h as t o Others. A n d c o n t e m p o r a r y archaeology is n o l o n g e r c o n t e n t t o equate specific g r o u p s o f artefacts (or 'cultures' i n t r a d i t i o n a l parlance) w i t h particular groups o f people supposedly speaking different languages. W e can n o w consider the c o n d i t i o n s i n w h i c h d e m o g r a p h i c change and l i n g u i s t i c change m a y be associated, a n d the o t h e r reasons w h y the language spoken w i t h i n a g i v e n r e g i o n m a y change. A r c h a e o l o g y t o d a y is better e q u i p p e d t o consider such questions as p o p u l a t i o n density and the d y n a m i c s o f c u l t u r e change than i t was a couple o f decades ago. A l t h o u g h i t is t o o early yet t o offer a c o n v i n c i n g synthesis between the n e w l i n g u i s t i c a n d archaeological approaches, some o f the directions w h i c h t h e y m a y f o l l o w can certainly be i n d i c a t e d . T h e examples chosen f o r d i s cussion here nearly all c o m e f r o m the field o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n studies, b u t the principles g o v e r n i n g the relationship b e t w e e n language and archaeology o u g h t t o be universal. I n Chapters 5 and 6 I discuss these principles i n fairly general t e r m s , before settling d o w n t o suggest their a p p l i c a t i o n t o a proposed n e w s o l u t i o n o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n p r o b l e m i n Chapter 7. Since that s o l u t i o n proposes a m u c h earlier c o m m o n o r i g i n (and subsequent separation) f o r m o s t o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages t h a n is generally accepted, i t has some significant i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the n o w - f a s h i o n a b l e concept o f ' P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n society', w h i c h has been f u r t h e r developed recently b y the d i s t i n g u i s h e d French scholar, Georges D u m é z i l , and his f o l l o w e r s . I t can be

8

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

s h o w n archaeologically that m a n y o f t h e features o f the different societies i n q u e s t i o n , features hailed b y D u m é z i l as essentially I n d o - E u r o p e a n , o n l y emerged i n those societies after the date w h i c h I w o u l d suggest for the early m o v e m e n t o f people speaking early I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages i n t o the relevant lands. I shall argue that t o d a y m a n y o f the supposed equivalences i n social structure often c l a i m e d as f u n d a m e n t a l l y I n d o - E u r o p e a n are, i n fact, the p r o d u c t o f parallel e v o l u t i o n . T h e same social f o r m s can indeed be seen i n o t h e r societies o f the t i m e w h o s e languages d i d n o t b e l o n g t o the I n d o - E u r o p e a n f a m i l y . So the i m p l i c a t i o n m u s t be that a g o o d part o f the c l a i m e d ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' basis for the structure and o r g a n i z a t i o n o f the societies i n question is a m o d e r n m y t h . T h i s c o n c l u s i o n , i f accepted, w o u l d be o f great significance for o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the early literatures and religions o f the different regions o f E u r o p e as w e l l as f o r the c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f their languages and archaeology. These are i m m e n s e questions, t o w h i c h i t is certainly n o t yet possible t o s u p p l y w h o l l y satisfactory answers. W h a t I believe one can d o is t o s h o w that m o s t o f the answers c u r r e n t l y o n offer are seriously deficient. H o w e v e r i n order t o suggest a n e w approach, a different m e t h o d o l o g y w i l l be needed before significant progress can be made. I have a t t e m p t e d here t o b e g i n this task.

i . The Indo-European Problem i n Outline I n the year 1786, an E n g l i s h j u d g e , s e r v i n g i n I n d i a at t h e H i g h C o u r t i n C a l c u t t a , m a d e a q u i t e e x t r a o r d i n a r y discovery. H e was Sir W i l l i a m Jones, w h o had trained as an o r i e n t a l scholar before r e a d i n g l a w . O n a r r i v a l i n Calcutta, three years earlier, he h a d t a k e n u p t h e s t u d y o f Sanskrit, the language i n w h i c h the earliest l i t e r a r y and r e l i g i o u s texts o f I n d i a are w r i t t e n , m a n y o f t h e m f r o m t h e f o u r t h t o the s i x t h centuries A D , b y w h i c h t i m e Sanskrit was n o l o n g e r spoken b u t served as the language o f scholarship and l i t e r a t u r e ; m u c h as L a t i n was used i n the west i n Renaissance t i m e s . I n his ' T h i r d A n n i v e r s a r y Discourse' t o the Asiatic Society o f B e n g a l he b r i e f l y m e n t i o n e d an o b s e r v a t i o n he h a d made w h i c h can be t a k e n as a s t a r t i n g p o i n t for the w h o l e s t u d y o f historical l i n g u i s t i c s , and c e r t a i n l y for the field o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n studies: 1

T h e Sanskrit language, w h a t e v e r m a y be its a n t i q u i t y , is o f a w o n d e r f u l s t r u c t u r e ; m o r e perfect t h a n the Greek, m o r e copious t h a n the L a t i n , and m o r e exquisitely refined t h a n either, yet b e a r i n g t o b o t h o f t h e m a stronger a f f i n i t y , b o t h i n the roots o f verbs and i n the f o r m s o f g r a m m a r , t h a n c o u l d possibly have been p r o d u c e d b y accident; so s t r o n g indeed t h a t n o p h i l o l o g e r c o u l d e x a m i n e t h e m all three, w i t h o u t b e l i e v i n g t h e m t o have s p r u n g f r o m some c o m m o n source, w h i c h , perhaps n o l o n g e r exists; there is a s i m i l a r reason, t h o u g h n o t q u i t e so f o r c i b l e , for supposing that b o t h the G o t h i c and the C e l t i c , t h o u g h blended w i t h a v e r y different i d i o m , had the same o r i g i n w i t h the Sanskrit; and the o l d Persian m i g h t be added t o the same f a m i l y , i f this w e r e the place for discussing any q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the antiquities o f Persia. T h i s b r i l l i a n t o b s e r v a t i o n has been f u r t h e r developed and analysed b y generations o f scholars i n m a n y m a j o r w o r k s , a n d there is l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t Sir W i l l i a m Jones was r i g h t . H e saw t h a t i n c o m p a r i n g t w o languages, points o f resemblance i n the g r a m m a t i cal s t r u c t u r e are as i m p o r t a n t as s i m i l a r i t y b e t w e e n the w o r d s o f the

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

IO

vocabularies. H e a p p r o p r i a t e l y c o m p a r e d Sanskrit, L a t i n and A n c i e n t Greek, all b y t h e n dead languages, w h i c h had flourished at a b o u t the same t i m e , and he d r e w i n t o the discussion t w o o f the languages o f n o r t h e r n E u r o p e - G o t h i c (the ancestor o f G e r m a n ) and C e l t i c - and r i g h t l y c o m p a r e d these w i t h the O l d I r a n i a n (Persian) language i n w h i c h the h y m n s o f the Avesta, the ancient I r a n i a n s c r i p t u r e s , are w r i t t e n . 2

Sir W i l l i a m Jones saw that these resemblances w e r e so s t r i k i n g as t o be m o r e t h a n f o r t u i t o u s . These different languages are all related i n s o m e w a y t o one another. T h e m o s t o b v i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n ( a l t h o u g h , as w e shall see, n o t the o n l y possible one) is that t h e y are all descended f r o m some c o m m o n source. T h e idea o f languages b e i n g related t o one another was n o t a n e w one. I t h a d l o n g been realized that m a n y o f the languages o f c o n t e m p o r a r y E u r o p e - for instance Italian, French, Spanish and P o r t u g u e s e - w e r e related, b o t h i n v o c a b u l a r y and i n g r a m m a t i c a l s t r u c t u r e . Indeed i n this case the e x p l a n a t i o n was n o t far t o seek. T h e ' c o m m o n source' i n this case was L a t i n , w h i c h o f course exists t o d a y i n w r i t t e n f o r m , and at the t i m e o f Sir W i l l i a m Jones was still a c t i v e l y used i n some scholarly w r i t i n g s as w e l l as i n the l i t a n y o f the R o m a n C a t h o l i c C h u r c h . Resemblances between L a t i n and Sanskrit h a d already been recognized b y a few scholars, b u t t o l i n k these v a r i o u s languages together i n this w a y was a b o l d stroke. G o t h i c was r e a d i l y seen t o be the ' c o m m o n source' o f several languages, such as G e r m a n and D u t c h , w h i c h t o d a y w e w o u l d call ' G e r m a n i c ' . A n d Sanskrit was already u n d e r s t o o d t o be the ancestor o f H i n d i ( w i t h U r d u ) and m a n y o f the other languages o f I n d i a , i n c l u d i n g S i n d i , N e p a l i , B e n g a l i and Sinhalese.

English

Sanskrit

Greek (Doric)

Latin

Old High German

Old Slavonic

I bear (thou bearest) he bears we bear you bear

bharami bharasi bharati bharamas bharata

phero phereis pherei pheromes pherete

fero fers fert ferimus

bera berasi beretu

they bear

bharanti

pheronti

biru biris birit berames beret berant

Table i

fertis ferunt

Comparisons o f the verb 'to bear'

beremu berete beratu

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N PROBLEM IN O U T L I N E

11

T h e sort o f c o m p a r i s o n w h i c h Jones h a d been m a k i n g m i g h t be set out by more recent scholars i n Table I , using the present tense o f the v e r b ' t o bear' o r ' t o carry'. T h i s table indicates the r e m a r k a b l y close f o r m s i n the c o n j u g a t i o n o f the v e r b , as w e l l as i n the w o r d f o r m itself. I t also reflects one o f the f u n d a m e n t a l principles o f l i n g u i s t i c s , that o f s o u n d shift, w h e r e the consonants (and v o w e l s ) o f one language differ i n a consistent w a y f r o m those o f another. T h u s the / s o u n d i n m a n y L a t i n w o r d s corresponds t o the b i n G e r m a n i c languages - for instance i n the Latinfrater and the E n g l i s h brother. 3

T h i s really is an e x t r a o r d i n a r y state o f affairs. T h a t several languages o f E u r o p e s h o u l d be d e r i v e d f r o m L a t i n is n o t v e r y s u r p r i s i n g . W e can f a i r l y readily accept that other E u r o p e a n languages ( w h a t w e w o u l d t o d a y call the Slav languages) m i g h t be related t o these and t o the G e r m a n i c languages also, as w e l l as t o A n c i e n t Greek, b u t that these s h o u l d be all closely related t o m a n y o f the languages o f I n d i a and I r a n is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h o u r k n o w l edge o f the h i s t o r y o f E u r o p e and Western Asia w o u l d s i m p l y n o t lead us t o p r e d i c t . For b e t w e e n E u r o p e and I r a n and I n d i a lies a great tract o f l a n d w h e r e v e r y different languages are spoken. So h o w and w h y s h o u l d these five languages, and indeed m a n y others, be related? I n 1813 the E n g l i s h scholar T h o m a s Y o u n g coined the t e r m ' I n d o - E u r o p e a n ' f o r this w i d e l y spread g r o u p o f related languages, and ' I n d o - G e r m a n i c ' is occasionally used i n the same sense. B u t w h a t is the h i s t o r i c a l reality u n d e r l y i n g this relationship? W h e r e d i d these languages c o m e from? D i d they derive f r o m a single g r o u p o f people w h o migrated? O r is there an e n t i r e l y different explanation? T h i s is the I n d o - E u r o p e a n p r o b l e m , and the e n i g m a w h i c h has still n o t f o u n d a satisfactory answer. I t is t h e central q u e s t i o n o f this b o o k , and i t is also, o f course, a central q u e s t i o n for E u r o p e a n and A s i a n p r e h i s t o r y . I f there w e r e i n d e e d m a j o r m o v e m e n t s o f early p o p u l a t i o n s , w h i c h m i g h t have been responsible for this language d i s t r i b u t i o n , t h e n they s h o u l d be reflected i n the archaeological r e c o r d , and they s h o u l d be part o f the s t o r y w h i c h the archaeologist tells. If, o n the other h a n d , f o l k m o v e m e n t s are n o t the e x p l a n a t i o n , and the resemblances b e t w e e n the languages are the result o f contacts b e t w e e n the various areas perhaps t h r o u g h trade, and exchange o f marriage partners - t h e n 4

12

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

the archaeological r e c o r d , p r o p e r l y i n t e r p r e t e d , s h o u l d also reflect this. T h e r e is v e r y l i t t l e i n the early histories o r l i t e r a t u r e o f the languages concerned t o e x p l a i n the l i n k s b e t w e e n t h e m . H e r e , t h e n , is one o f the m o s t notable and e n d u r i n g p r o b l e m s i n the p r e h i s t o r y o f the O l d W o r l d . T h e q u e s t i o n is n o t j u s t l i m i t e d i n its interest t o the inhabitants o f E u r o p e and I n d i a . T o d a y m o s t o f the inhabitants o f N o r t h A m e r i c a speak E n g l i s h , and m u c h o f S o u t h A m e r i c a • speaks Spanish o r Portuguese. I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages are spoken w h e r e v e r the empires o f the E u r o p e a n c o l o n i a l p o w e r s h e l d s w a y . W e can, o f course, g i v e a satisfactory d e s c r i p t i o n o f the mechanisms for the dispersal o f these languages a r o u n d the globe i n c o l o n i a l times; t o account f o r t h e i r o r i g i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n E u r o p e and o t h e r parts o f the O l d W o r l d is m u c h m o r e d i f f i c u l t . T h e r e is j u s t one possible e x c e p t i o n t o the lack o f h i s t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . I t comes f r o m a remarkable source, once again i n I n d i a - the Hymns of the Rigueda. These religious texts w e r e apparently first set i n w r i t i n g as late as the f o u r t e e n t h c e n t u r y A D , b u t t h e y are w r i t t e n i n w h a t is agreed t o be a m u c h earlier f o r m o f language, generally t e r m e d V e d i c Sanskrit o r s i m p l y V e d i c , t h a n the classical Sanskrit l i t e r a t u r e o f the s i x t h c e n t u r y A D . T h e y m a y have been collected and arranged before i o o o B C and w e r e preserved o r a l l y , w i t h r e m a r k a b l e accuracy, b y being passed o n f r o m B r a h m i n teacher t o p u p i l , u n t i l they w e r e set i n w r i t i n g at a t i m e w h e n V e d i c was n o l o n g e r w e l l u n d e r s t o o d , and indeed w h e n even Sanskrit was n o l o n g e r spoken. T h e t o p o g r a p h i c a l references i n the Rigveda are generally taken t o relate t o the P u n j a b , and several o f the h y m n s i n v o k e the s u p p o r t o f the gods i n s u p p o r t i n g the w a r l i k e Arya i n defeating t h e i r e n e m y the Dasya. T h e r e is m u c h t a l k o f horses and o f chariots, and m a n y c o m m e n t a t o r s have c o n c l u d e d that some o f these passages refer t o the i n i t i a l conquest o f the l a n d b y h e r o i c , n o m a d i c t r i b e s m e n , the Arya. B u t this i n t e r p r e t a t i o n assumes that the Arya, t o w h o m the h y m n s refer, w e r e i n t r u s i v e t o n o r t h I n d i a o r Pakistan, a n d there is n o t h i n g i n the V e d i c h y m n s themselves w h i c h makes such a c o n c l u s i o n necessary. 5

T h e early observations o f Sir W i l l i a m Jones w e r e soon f o l l o w e d

by the much more systematic linguistic researches o f scholars such as F r i e d r i c h v o n Schlegel and Franz B o p p , 6

7

so that w i t h i n f i f t y

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N PROBLEM I N O U T L I N E

13

years the f o u n d a t i o n s o f c o m p a r a t i v e linguistics w e r e securely l a i d . T h e same certainly cannot be said of the h i s t o r i c a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . W h e n Sir W i l l i a m Jones was w r i t i n g , i t was s t i l l w i d e l y assumed that the account (and the c h r o n o l o g y ) o f the C r e a t i o n , g i v e n i n the B i b l e , s h o u l d be l i t e r a l l y f o l l o w e d . O n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f A r c h b i s h o p Ussher, the w o r l d was created i n the year 4004 B C . T h i s d i d n o t , o f course, a l l o w v e r y m u c h t i m e for the d e v e l o p m e n t o f h u m a n language o r c u l t u r e . A n e v o l u t i o n a r y v i e w , w i t h a c h r o n o l o g y for h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t e x t e n d i n g o v e r m i l l i o n s o f years o n l y became possible i n the year 1859 w i t h the p u b l i c a t i o n o f Charles D a r w i n ' s The Origin of Species. 8

U n t i l t h a t t i m e , s o m e o f t h e explanations o n offer for the o r i g i n o f the languages o f W e s t e r n Asia w e r e based o n l i t t l e m o r e t h a n b i b l i c a l m y t h . T h u s the s t o r y i n the b o o k o f Genesis o f the three sons o f N o a h , H a m , Shem a n d Japheth was t a k e n as a perfectly acceptable e x p l a n a t i o n for the divergence o f early languages. T h e languages o f A f r i c a w e r e thus t e r m e d H a m i t i c , those o f the L e v a n t S e m i t i c , and those o f the lands t o the n o r t h Japhetic. T h i s absurd and s i m p l i s t i c t e r m i n o l o g y t o some extent survives t o d a y i n the usual d e s i g n a t i o n for the ' S e m i t i c ' g r o u p o f languages. A r a b i c is, o f course, the p r i n c i p a l language o f the N e a r East t o d a y , and i t can be s h o w n t o be related t o earlier languages o f the area i n c l u d i n g A r a m a i c (the language there at the t i m e o f C h r i s t ) , H e b r e w and A k k a d i a n (the language o f the A s s y r i a n e m p i r e ) , f o r m i n g together the Semitic languages. 9

I n the early days o f the s t u d y , i n the aftermath o f Sir W i l l i a m Jones's great d i s c o v e r y , the energies o f l i n g u i s t i c scholars w e r e d e v o t e d p r i m a r i l y t o s t u d y i n g the c o m p a r a t i v e g r a m m a r and the v o c a b u l a r y o f the different I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages t h e n k n o w n . T h e explanations offered for the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the languages r e m a i n e d at a m u c h m o r e superficial level. T h a t this s h o u l d have been so was perhaps inevitable, since archaeology, especially p r e h i s t o r i c archaeology, d i d n o t develop as a discipline u n t i l about the m i d d l e o f the nineteenth c e n t u r y . M o s t N e a r Eastern archaeologists w e r e q u i t e n a t u r a l l y p r e o c c u p i e d b y the remains o f the great c i v i l i z a t i o n s t h e n b e g i n n i n g t o c o m e t o l i g h t . T h e y d e v o t e d l i t t l e t i m e t o the m o r e scanty p r e h i s t o r i c remains u n t i l w e l l i n t o the present c e n t u r y - a l t h o u g h there w e r e

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

n o t a b l e exceptions, such as the h i g h l y o r i g i n a l w o r k o f Sir Flinders Petrie i n E g y p t . I n E u r o p e i n the nineteenth c e n t u r y , m u c h o f the best w o r k was v e r y p r o p e r l y devoted t o the d e v e l o p m e n t o f local c u l t u r a l sequences, and so h y p o t h e t i c a l a m a t t e r as the supposed r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n p r e h i s t o r i c archaeology and l i n g u i s t i c r e c o n s t r u c t i o n was n o t pursued at any v e r y detailed level. A r o u n d the m i d d l e o f the nineteenth c e n t u r y the w h o l e s t u d y o f the subject entered a n e w phase, w h i c h was again l i n g u i s t i c rather t h a n archaeological, b u t l i n g u i s t i c i n a different w a y . I t was b y n o w generally assumed that the similarities i n the different I n d o E u r o p e a n languages w e r e t o be explained b y their d e r i v a t i o n f r o m a single ancestral language, older t h a n Greek o r L a t i n o r Sanskrit, o l d e r even t h a n the Rigveda. T h i s Ursprache as G e r m a n scholars t e r m e d i t (i.e. early o r o r i g i n a l language), w h i c h w e m i g h t t e r m P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n , c o u l d (they believed) be reconstructed b y s t u d y i n g w h a t was c o m m o n t o specific cognate (i.e. related) w o r d s i n the different languages. F o r instance a c o m p a r i s o n o f the E n g l i s h w o r d birch, the G e r m a n birke, the L i t h u a n i a n berzas, the O l d Slavonic breza and the Sanskrit bhurja w o u l d seem t o indicate that there was a parent w o r d f o r b i r c h i n P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n . T h r o u g h the u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the rules g o v e r n i n g s o u n d changes, this m i g h t be reconstructed as *bhergh - the asterisk b e i n g used b y c o n v e n t i o n t o indicate reconstructed parent w o r d s w h i c h w e r e n o t d i r e c t l y attested i n any actual language k n o w n . W h a t the linguists n o w suggested was that b y b u i l d i n g u p the v o c a b u l a r y o f P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n i n this w a y - the p r o t o l e x i c o n , as i t has sometimes been called - i t s h o u l d be possible t o c o n s t r u c t s o m e sort o f p i c t u r e o f the w o r l d o f these people and o f t h e i r e n v i r o n m e n t before t h e i r supposed dispersal f r o m t h e i r h y p o thetical h o m e l a n d , the Urheimat, as G e r m a n scholars t e r m e d i t . T h i s m e t h o d was l u c i d l y set o u t i n 1859 b y A d o l p h e P i c t e t . U s i n g an analogy w i t h the b r a n c h o f natural h i s t o r y w h e r e early and n o w - e x t i n c t life f o r m s are studied, he called this approach ' l i n g u i s t i c p a l a e o n t o l o g y ' . S o o n scholars w e r e b u i l d i n g u p a p i c t u r e o f t h e supposed Urheimat, n o t i n g for instance the c o m m o n I n d o E u r o p e a n w o r d s for various trees. T h e c o m m o n t e r m s f o r v a r i o u s 1 0

animals (e.g. sheep, goat, ox, cow and horse) were listed, from w h i c h i t was sometimes i n f e r r e d that the e c o n o m y i n the h o m e l a n d

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N PROBLEM I N O U T L I N E

15

h a d been one based o n pastoralism rather t h a n a g r i c u l t u r e . B y a r g u m e n t s such as these a w h o l e series o f possible homelands was suggested, a m o n g s t w h i c h C e n t r a l Asia and N o r t h e r n E u r o p e w e r e a m o n g t h e favourites. I n 1890 O t t o S c h r ä d e r p u t f o r w a r d t h e i n f l u e n t i a l suggestion that the appropriate h o m e l a n d f o r the P r o t o I n d o - E u r o p e a n s m i g h t be the S o u t h Russian steppe, f r o m t h e Carpathians t o C e n t r a l Asia, w h e r e n o m a d pastoralism was k n o w n t o have been practised, at least f r o m the t i m e o f t h e Scythians o n w a r d . B u t he was n o t y e t able t o refer t o any b o d y o f archaeol o g i c a l evidence. U p t o this t i m e essentially all the a r g u m e n t s p u t f o r w a r d depended o n the l i n g u i s t i c evidence alone. 1 1

I t was i n the later nineteenth c e n t u r y also that the idea o f the racial s u p e r i o r i t y o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n s began. I t was generally associated w i t h t h e n o t i o n o f blue-eyed, b l o n d A r y a n s , w h o s e h o m e l a n d was i n v a r i a b l y located s o m e w h e r e i n n o r t h e r n E u r o p e - w h e t h e r i n G e r m a n y , i n Scandinavia o r i n L i t h u a n i a . T h i s t h e o r y g r e w i n p o p u l a r i t y i n some quarters u n t i l after the Second W o r l d W a r , and has been a r g u e d i n some quarters even subsequently. U n t i l the t u r n o f the c e n t u r y , t h e n , the q u e s t i o n o f the o r i g i n s o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages had been treated as one t o be resolved p r i m a r i l y o n l i n g u i s t i c evidence, a l t h o u g h o f course t h e P r o t o I n d o - E u r o p e a n language i t s e l f m u s t have been s p o k e n i n p r e h i s t o r i c t i m e s . W i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f prehistoric archaeology i t was, h o w e v e r , inevitable that the m a t e r i a l evidence s u r v i v i n g f r o m the p r e h i s t o r i c p e r i o d s h o u l d be scrutinized f o r a n y l i g h t i t m i g h t shed o n t h e q u e s t i o n . T h e first scholar t o d o this systematically was Gustav K o s s i n n a , w h o s e article ' D i e i n d o e u r o p ä i s c h e Frage archäologisch beantwortet' ('The Indo-European question answered archaeologically') was p u b l i s h e d i n 1902. H e considered the available p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l , and c o n c l u d e d that the e x p a n s i o n o f a g r o u p o f people, supposedly indicated b y t h e characteristic p o t t e r y t e r m e d C o r d e d W a r e , and b y o t h e r associated artefacts, i n d i c a t e d t h e w i d e dispersal o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n s i n G e r m a n y . H e thus p r o p o s e d a n o r t h G e r m a n h o m e l a n d f o r t h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages. K o s s i n n a was effectively the first t o equate p r e h i s t o r i c peoples (and hence languages) w i t h p o t t e r y types, a n d he f o u n d e d t h e r e b y a school o f t h o u g h t w h i c h survives t o this day. 1 2

T h e m o s t influential e x p o n e n t o f this approach was V . G o r d o n

i6

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

C h i l d e , w h o s e first p a p e r , ' O n the date and o r i g i n o f M i n y a n W a r e ' , was p u b l i s h e d i n 1915. H e argued that this characteristic p o t t e r y o f the Greek m i d d l e b r o n z e age (c. 1900 B C ) m i g h t be recognized as the i n d i c a t o r o f the a r r i v a l for the first t i m e o f Greek-speaking people i n Greece. C h i l d e was a p h i l o l o g i s t b y t r a i n i n g , a l t h o u g h he later t u r n e d t o archaeology, and i n 1925 p r o d u c e d his great synthesis o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y , The Dawn of European Civilization. H e c o m b i n e d the t w o approaches the f o l l o w i n g year w i t h his b o o k The Aryans, w h e r e he surveyed each o f the f o u r m a j o r contestants for the status o f the o r i g i n a l h o m e l a n d . H e r e v i e w e d i n t u r n the archaeological arguments for Asia, C e n t r a l E u r o p e , N o r t h E u r o p e and S o u t h Russia, o p t i n g f i r m l y f o r the last o f these. I n fact C h i l d e ' s t r e a t m e n t o f the archaeological evidence is m u c h slighter i n The Aryans t h a n i n The Dawn, and I suspect that The Aryans was i n essence the t e x t o f the d i s s e r t a t i o n w h i c h he w r o t e i n O x f o r d i n 1916 for the degree o f Bachelor o f Letters. 13

1 4

15

16

A s m e n t i o n e d earlier, the excesses o f racialist t h o u g h t w h i c h later defiled E u r o p e a n scholarship d i d n o t emerge i n their m o s t v i r u l e n t f o r m u n t i l rather later, and C h i l d e s h o u l d n o t be j u d g e d t o o h a r s h l y f o r the q u i t e l i m i t e d reliance w h i c h i n that b o o k he placed o n the physical a n t h r o p o l o g y o f the t i m e . Later he regretted expressing the v i e w s w h i c h he had set o u t i n the v e r y last paragraph o f the b o o k : 1 7

A t the same t i m e the fact that the first A r y a n s w e r e N o r d i c s was n o t w i t h o u t i m p o r t a n c e . T h e physical qualities o f that stock d i d enable t h e m b y the bare fact o f superior s t r e n g t h t o c o n q u e r even m o r e advanced peoples and so t o i m p o s e t h e i r language o n areas f r o m w h i c h their b o d i l y t y p e has almost c o m p l e t e l y vanished. T h i s is the t r u t h u n d e r l y i n g the panegyrics o f the Germanists: the N o r d i c s ' s u p e r i o r i t y i n p h y s i q u e f i t t e d t h e m t o be the vehicles o f a superior language. A l t h o u g h C h i l d e later repudiated the approach w h i c h he t o o k i n The Aryans,

he r e m a i n e d deeply preoccupied w i t h the q u e s t i o n o f

I n d o - E u r o p e a n o r i g i n s . I n a w o r k w r i t t e n j u s t after the w a r , Prehistoric

Migrations

in Europe,

1 8

he r e t u r n e d again t o the p r o b l e m ,

and d e p l o y e d i n d o i n g so all his remarkable c o m m a n d o f the

archaeological evidence. This time he no longer advocated a homel a n d i n the steppes o f S o u t h Russia. A n d a l t h o u g h n o w e n t i r e l y

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N PROBLEM IN O U T L I N E

17

rejecting any inferences d r a w n f r o m measurements o f skulls, he

continued to accept that the approach o f linguistic palaeontology, w i t h its reliance o n the terms f o u n d i n P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n , c o u l d g i v e useful i n d i c a t i o n s about the h o m e l a n d . H e n o w f a v o u r e d an A n a t o l i a n o r i g i n , seeing the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages reaching central and n o r t h E u r o p e as late as the late bronze age. I n the years that f o l l o w e d there w e r e several m o r e i m p o r t a n t s y n t h e s e s based largely o n the archaeological evidence, a m o n g t h e m those o f Pedro B o s c h - G i m p e r a , G i a c o m o D e v o t o and H u g h H e n c k e n . T h e m o s t influential recent archaeological t r e a t m e n t has u n d o u b t e d l y been that o f M a r i j a G i m b u t a s , o f the U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a at Los Angeles, w h o since 1970 has p u b l i s h e d a series o f p a p e r s i n w h i c h she locates the I n d o - E u r o p e a n h o m e l a n d i n the steppes o f S o u t h Russia, v e r y m u c h as C h i l d e d i d earlier. She, o f course, has m u c h m o r e archaeological material w i t h w h i c h t o w o r k . She uses the t e r m K u r g a n c u l t u r e (i.e. the B a r r o w c u l t u r e , r e f e r r i n g t o the prehistoric b u r i a l m o u n d s used i n the area) t o designate the m a t e r i a l assemblage o f these P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n speakers. A s she w r o t e i n 1970: 19

20

21

C o n s t a n t l y a c c u m u l a t i n g archaeological discoveries have effectively e l i m i n a t e d thé earlier theories o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n h o m e l a n d s i n central o r n o r t h e r n E u r o p e and i n the Balkans. T h e K u r g a n c u l t u r e seems the o n l y r e m a i n i n g candidate for b e i n g P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n : there was n o o t h e r c u l t u r e i n the N e o l i t h i c and C h a l c o l i t h i c periods w h i c h w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d w i t h the h y p o t h e t i c a l m o t h e r c u l t u r e o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n s as reconstructed w i t h the help o f c o m m o n w o r d s , and there w e r e n o o t h e r great expansions and conquests affecting w h o l e t e r r i tories w h e r e earliest h i s t o r i c sources and a c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u u m p r o v e the existence o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n speakers. G i m b u t a s , b u i l d i n g o n the w o r k o f C h i l d e and before h i m o f S c h r ä d e r , thus lays considerable stress u p o n the a r g u m e n t s f r o m l i n g u i s t i c p a l a e o n t o l o g y - the ' c o m m o n w o r d s ' t o w h i c h she refers. I n the f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t o f her t h e o r y , great w e i g h t is placed o n especially significant features - for instance the kurgans ( b u r i a l m o u n d s ) themselves, and the C o r d e d W a r e w h i c h , since the early paper b y Kossinna, had attracted the a t t e n t i o n o f archaeologists.

i8

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

H e r w o r k displays f u l l c o n t r o l o f the recent archaeological m a t e r i a l and o f the l i t e r a t u r e o f several east E u r o p e a n languages and she m a y be a c k n o w l e d g e d as the leading exponent o f the direct archaeological approach t o d a y . I n m y v i e w , h o w e v e r , there s h o u l d be a f u n d a m e n t a l r e e x a m i n a t i o n o f the foundations o f this t h e o r y . O n e i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n is t h e extent t o w h i c h i t is l e g i t i m a t e t o reconstruct a P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n language, d r a w i n g u p o n the cognate f o r m s o f t h e w o r d s i n the various I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages that are k n o w n . C e r t a i n l y i t is questionable w h e t h e r the nouns (for l i n g u i s tic palaeontologists m a k e l i t t l e use o f verbs o r adjectives) can l e g i t i m a t e l y be used i n the w a y advocated b y Pictet and b y Schrader t o create an i n v e n t o r y , as i t w e r e , o f the Urheimat, the o r i g i n a l h o m e l a n d o f these P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n s . N o r does m o d e r n archaeology so readily accept that the appearance o f a n e w p o t t e r y style o v e r a w i d e area necessarily betokens the m i g r a t i o n o f a w h o l e people o r conquest b y w a r r i o r nomads. T h e w h o l e a s s u m p t i o n that i n speaking o f early Indo-Europeans w e are necessarily dealing w i t h n o m a d s certainly m e r i t s r e - e x a m i n a t i o n . These issues lead o n t o m o r e general and f u n d a m e n t a l questions. H o w are w e t o e x p l a i n , i n l i n g u i s t i c t e r m s , the emergence o f languages w h i c h are clearly related t o each o t h e r , and w h i c h w e can classify i n t o language groups? A n d i n w h a t historical circumstances d o w e expect t o f i n d one language replaced b y another i n a particular area? U n t i l w e have clarified these p o i n t s , w e can h a r d l y go o n t o consider w h a t trace these processes m a y leave u p o n the archaeological r e c o r d . T h e r e is a v e r y real r i s k that i n searching for the h o m e l a n d o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n s , w e are f o u n d i n g o u r arguments u p o n a c i r c u l a r i t y . I n the passage q u o t e d above, Professor G i m b u t a s spoke o f the ' h y p o t h e t i c a l m o t h e r c u l t u r e o f the Indo-Europeans as r e c o n s t r u c t e d w i t h the help o f c o m m o n w o r d s ' , and C h i l d e i n Prehistoric Migrations used a s i m i l a r starting p o i n t , b u t w e s h o u l d n o t o v e r l o o k the extent t o w h i c h the l i n g u i s t i c palaeontologists r e l y u p o n t h e archaeologists i n reaching t h e i r o w n conclusions. T h u s Paul F r i e d r i c h , i n a consideration o f ' P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n trees' w h i c h is c e r t a i n l y one o f the m o s t t h o r o u g h treatments t o date i n the

field o f linguistic palaeontology, actually begins his discussion as f o l l o w s :

2 2

T H E I N D O - E U R O P E A N PROBLEM IN O U T L I N E

19

T h i s short s t u d y treats one small p o r t i o n o f the language and c u l t u r e system o f the speakers o f Proto-Indo-European dialects, w h o are assumed t o have been scattered i n a b r o a d b a n d o v e r the steppe, forests and f o o t - h i l l s between the w e s t e r n Caspian and the Carpathians, d u r i n g r o u g h l y the f o u r t h m i l l e n n i u m and the first centuries o f the t h i r d m i l l e n nium BC. H i s a s s u m p t i o n is h i g h l y questionable. So c o m p l e t e an a d o p t i o n o f one specific s o l u t i o n t o the question o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n o r i g i n s is b o u n d t o have a considerable i m p a c t u p o n his analysis o f the o r i g i n s o f the tree-names, and the historical conclusions he reaches. I t is scarcely s u r p r i s i n g i f this t h e o r y harmonizes w i t h the h i s t o r i c a l r e c o n s t r u c t i o n u p o n w h i c h i t is based. I t is perhaps reasonable that the h i s t o r i c a l linguistics s h o u l d be based u p o n the archaeology, b u t that the archaeological i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s h o u l d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y be based u p o n the l i n g u i s t i c analysis gives serious cause for concern. Each discipline assumes that the other can offer conclusions based u p o n s o u n d independent evidence, b u t i n reality one begins w h e r e the other ends. T h e y are b o t h r e l y i n g o n each other t o p r o p u p t h e i r m u t u a l thesis.

2 . Archaeology and the Indo-Europeans A n y o n e setting o u t t o investigate the early o r i g i n s o f a language, o r o f a g r o u p o f languages, i n w h a t e v e r part o f the w o r l d t h e y are w o r k i n g , is faced w i t h an o b v i o u s and v e r y substantial p r o b l e m . I t is a l m o s t i n e v i t a b l e that n o adequate records w i l l s u r v i v e o f the v e r y early f o r m s o f the language o r languages. W e can o n l y have direct k n o w l e d g e o f a language used i n the past i f i t was, at t i m e s , e m p l o y e d i n the c o m p o s i t i o n o f w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t s . T h e existence o f w r i t i n g is indispensable t o the adequate s t u d y o f any past language. B u t the practice o f w r i t i n g , and the d e v e l o p m e n t o f a coherent system o f signs, a script, is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h is seen o n l y i n c o m p l e x societies, w h i c h are also usually u r b a n societies w i t h a centralized g o v e r n m e n t characteristic o f the state. W r i t i n g , i n o t h e r w o r d s , is a feature o f civilizations. I n nearly every case these v e r y early w r i t t e n d o c u m e n t s w e r e set d o w n b y the scribes (or s o m e times the priests) w o r k i n g w i t h i n societies w i t h , w h a t the a n t h r o p o l o g i s t w o u l d call, a state level o f o r g a n i z a t i o n - indeed an u r b a n civilization. T h e r e are, h o w e v e r , several w a y s i n w h i c h i t is possible for us t o o b t a i n glimpses o f fragments o f early languages, even w h e n these w e r e n o t i n fact set d o w n i n w r i t i n g b y their speakers at the t i m e . F o r instance t h e historians and geographers i n literate lands d i d s o m e t i m e s r e c o r d s o m e t h i n g o f the customs and v o c a b u l a r y o f t h e i r illiterate n e i g h b o u r s . I n this w a y w e k n o w a l i t t l e o f the languages o f the u n l e t t e r e d c o m m u n i t i e s o n the f r i n g e o f the Greek and R o m a n w o r l d s - the people the Greeks called 'barbarians'. T h e n a t u r a l s t a r t i n g p o i n t for the C e l t i c languages is the p i c t u r e offered b y Greek and R o m a n w r i t e r s , a l t h o u g h i t t u r n s o u t that their v i e w o f the Celts was sometimes rather an i m a g i n a t i v e one. T h o s e early accounts d o c o n t a i n the authentic names o f people and o f places i n Celtic lands as w e l l as a few w o r d s o f their v o c a b u l a r y (see C h a p t e r 9). O u r s l i g h t k n o w l e d g e o f the language o f the Scythians, the n o m a d i c inhabitants o f the south Russian steppes i n classical t i m e s , has c o m e t o us i n a s i m i l a r w a y .

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

21

I t is also the case that place names, i n c l u d i n g r i v e r names, d o c o n t i n u e t o be used i n a g i v e n area long after their original meaning has been f o r g o t t e n , so that w o r d s b e l o n g i n g t o a m u c h earlier and pre-literate f o r m o f a language can be preserved b y spoken t r a d i t i o n , and first set d o w n i n w r i t i n g l o n g after the o r i g i n a l language f o r m has o t h e r w i s e disappeared. O n occasion, v e r y m u c h larger nuggets o f an earlier language f o r m can be k e p t t h r o u g h o r a l t r a d i t i o n s . T o the m o d e r n reader, used t o e m p l o y i n g w r i t t e n notes as an aide-memoire, i t is a l m o s t inconceivable that earlier generations relied exclusively u p o n t h e i r m e m o r i e s t o preserve large tracts o f literature. B u t i t is n o w generally agreed that this is precisely h o w the epics o f H o m e r w e r e preserved, for some centuries after their c o m p o s i t i o n , before t h e y w e r e w r i t t e n d o w n , and the I r i s h epics w e r e preserved i n m u c h the same w a y . Recent studies o f the o r a l transmission o f literature — w h i c h generally t o o k the f o r m o f songs sung b y specialist bards o r priests - have s h o w n , i n Y u g o s l a v i a , A f r i c a and elsewhere, h o w effectively b o t h the spoken texts and the language i n w h i c h t h e y w e r e c o m p o s e d can be passed o n i n this w a y . T h e V e d i c H y m n s o f I n d i a are t h e m o s t r e m a r k a b l e example o f this. T h e y w e r e sung and h a n d e d d o w n over the centuries, u n t i l the meanings o f i n d i v i d u a l w o r d s w h i c h h a d passed o u t o f use, and even o f entire passages, became obscure. O n l y centuries later w e r e t h e y w r i t t e n d o w n for the first t i m e , thus r e c o r d i n g a w h o l e literature, and an entire early language f o r m , w h i c h w o u l d o t h e r w i s e have been lost c o m p l e t e l y . O r a l t r a d i t i o n , h o w e v e r , strengthened i n this case b y the sanctity o f the texts w h i c h made accurate transmission a serious o b l i g a t i o n , can o n l y occasionally preserve i m p o r t a n t evidence o f an o t h e r w i s e lost language. I t cannot conceal f r o m us that central d i l e m m a facing the s t u d y o f the early o r i g i n s o f any language: that there is l i t t l e direct l i n g u i s t i c evidence t o g o b y u n t i l the language was first set d o w n i n w r i t i n g . T h a t , a l m o s t b y d e f i n i t i o n , w i l l n o t have happened u n t i l the society, after a l o n g p e r i o d o f d e v e l o p m e n t , reached t h e p o i n t o f f o r m u l a t i n g a system o f w r i t i n g . E a r l y scholars faced this p r o b l e m , j u s t as w e d o t o d a y . B u t i t was n o t u n t i l the m i d d l e o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y that an alternative e m e r g e d t o the sheer fanciful and u n b r i d l e d speculation w h i c h r e i g n e d u n t i l that t i m e . W h e n the a n t i q u i t y o f m a n was established, 1

2

22

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

i t became clear that h u m a n k i n d has a v e r y l o n g p r e h i s t o r y , r u n n i n g back m a n y thousands o f years before that n o m i n a l date o f 4004 B C w h i c h some b i b l i c a l scholars had established for the C r e a t i o n , and w i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t b y the D a n i s h antiquaries o f the T h r e e A g e system, b y w h i c h the p r e h i s t o r i c past o f E u r o p e and the N e a r East was d i v i d e d i n t o periods o f stone-using, b r o n z e w o r k i n g and t h e n i r o n p r o d u c t i o n , i t became possible t o make m e a n i n g f u l statements a b o u t that r e m o t e past, and the discipline o f p r e h i s t o r y was b o r n . P r e h i s t o r y sets o u t , o f course, t o i n f o r m us about past h u m a n societies d a t i n g f r o m a t i m e w h e n w r i t i n g was n o t available - and deals m a i n l y w i t h illiterate o r ( m o r e p o l i t e l y ) n o n - l i t e r a t e societies. B y s t u d y i n g their m a t e r i a l remains, u s i n g the techniques o f this n e w l y d e v e l o p i n g discipline, i t was h o p e d i t w o u l d be possible t o f i n d o u t about the peoples w h o first occupied E u r o p e and o t h e r lands, t o s t u d y their o r i g i n s , and understand h o w t h e i r societies d e v e l o p e d i n t o those later societies about w h i c h w e are better i n f o r m e d , t h r o u g h the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f w r i t t e n records. A s early m o n u m e n t s w e r e recognized, studied and dated, early t o m b s and cemeteries discovered, and p r e h i s t o r i c settlements unearthed, the realization d a w n e d that i t m i g h t be possible t o k n o w a b o u t the subsistence and the settlement and the trade, and perhaps also t o o the social o r g a n i z a t i o n and r e l i g i o n o f prehistoric c o m m u n i t i e s . I f this r i c h archaeological r e c o r d , w h i c h d u r i n g the last c e n t u r y was b e i n g increasingly w e l l u n d e r s t o o d , c o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d also t o y i e l d i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t p r e h i s t o r i c peoples, and perhaps also t h e i r m o v e m e n t s and interactions, s h o u l d this n o t make possible certain inferences about the languages w h i c h they spoke? T h a t is the central q u e s t i o n o f this b o o k , and the answer w h i c h w e shall reach, a l t h o u g h critical o f m u c h earlier w o r k , is n o t an e n t i r e l y negative one. T h e r e is, o f course, n o t h i n g m u c h t o be learnt o f l i n g u i s t i c significance f r o m an assemblage o f artefacts b e l o n g i n g t o a p r e h i s t o r i c c o m m u n i t y , w h e n these are taken i n i s o l a t i o n . T h e r e is n o possible w a y that w e can m a k e the ' r u d e stones speak' unless t h e y carry w i t h t h e m some w r i t t e n i n f o r m a t i o n . W h e n dealing w i t h an u n w r i t t e n language i t is essential t o m o v e back f r o m w h a t is k n o w n

and understood, towards the unknown. T o what extent we can do this, and b y precisely w h i c h m e t h o d s , constitutes the n u b o f the

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

23

q u e s t i o n . First, h o w e v e r , i t m a y be useful t o cast an eye o v e r the r a w archaeological m a t e r i a l and to review the way i n which i t has been used b y succeeding generations o f scholars.

Patterns of the Past T h e w h o l e subject o f prehistoric archaeology depends u p o n the o b s e r v a t i o n that there is p a t t e r n i n g i n the archaeological r e c o r d o f the past. T o say t h i s , o f course, is t o make the v e r y s i m p l e o b s e r v a t i o n that h u m a n c o m m u n i t i e s at a specific t i m e and place have their o w n w a y o f life, w h i c h is related t o the t e c h n o l o g i c a l abilities available t h e n . T h i s w a y o f life is reflected i n the artefacts, the house remains, the m o n u m e n t s and all the other aspects o f m a t e r i a l c u l t u r e w h i c h the archaeologist finds. I n the early days o f p r e h i s t o r i c archaeology the focus o f s t u d y was u p o n the c h r o n o l o g i c a l aspects o f this p a t t e r n i n g : that i n the O l d Stone A g e c h i p p e d stone tools w e r e used, that w i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a r m i n g a n e w range o f e q u i p m e n t i n c l u d i n g p o t t e r y was developed, and so f o r t h . I n the early years o f this c e n t u r y , h o w e v e r , i t was realized that there was significant spatial p a t t e r n i n g as w e l l as t e m p o r a l p a t t e r n i n g . I t was n o t e d that at a g i v e n t i m e different assemblages o f e q u i p m e n t , for instance different kinds o f p o t t e r y , w e r e consistentl y f o u n d i n adjacent areas. Sometimes these reflected different w a y s o f life i n the e c o n o m i c sense: one assemblage o f e q u i p m e n t c o u l d be ascribed t o settled farmers, another perhaps t o m o b i l e n o m a d i c g r o u p s . B u t i t was also realized that some assemblages i n adjacent areas d i d n o t reflect the same adaptation t o the e n v i r o n m e n t : for instance t w o v e r y different material assemblages, b o t h b e l o n g i n g t o early settled farmers, m i g h t be f o u n d i n the same area. Geographers and a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s , especially those b e l o n g i n g t o the G e r m a n ' K u l t u r k r e i s ' school, p o i n t e d o u t the m o d e r n parallel w i t h t r i b a l g r o u p s i n the n o n - u r b a n areas o f A f r i c a , A m e r i c a and the Pacific, and indeed elsewhere, w h e r e different t r i b a l groups, w i t h n o t a b l y different ranges o f artefacts, l i v e i n close p r o x i m i t y . 3

I t was n a t u r a l , therefore, t o m a k e a comparable e q u a t i o n for assemblages o f finds o n archaeological sites, and t o see these as m a t e r i a l possessions o f different peoples. T h i s line o f inference developed b y such scholars as Gustav Kossinna f r o m a r o u n d

the the was the

24

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

t u r n o f the c e n t u r y , and i t was set u p o n a m u c h clearer m e t h o d o l o g i c a l base i n 1929 b y G o r d o n C h i l d e . H e applied the t e r m ' c u l t u r e ' t o a r e c u r r e n t l y o c c u r r i n g assemblage o f artefacts f r o m archaeological sites i n a r e g i o n and w e n t o n t o i d e n t i f y these different archaeological cultures w i t h different 'peoples' i n the e t h n o g r a p h i c sense. A t first sight, i t l o o k s l i k e an excellent idea, and f o r C h i l d e i t opened u p the w a y t o discussing the o r i g i n s and m o v e m e n t s o f these ' p e o p l e s ' , and hence perhaps also o f the languages w h i c h they spoke, even t h o u g h there c o u l d be n o direct evidence for these. 4

5

T h i s rather o b v i o u s - l o o k i n g first step i n fact hides q u i t e a c o m p l e x and p r o b l e m a t i c a l process o f reasoning. W e shall see that the concept o f 'people' is far f r o m a s i m p l e one i n m a n y cases, l i n k i n g as i t does w i t h the w h o l e question o f e t h n i c i t y . T h e e q u a t i o n o f different languages w i t h different 'peoples' as reconstructed i n this w a y is even m o r e hazardous. Later w e shall come t o reject the s o l u t i o n s w h i c h C h i l d e and others have proposed for the I n d o E u r o p e a n p r o b l e m and d o so largely o u t o f dissatisfaction w i t h the m e t h o d s o f reasoning used about these issues.

The Raw Material: Europe in the First Millennium B C T h e first literate c o m m u n i t i e s i n E u r o p e w e r e the Greeks and R o m a n s . I t thus makes excellent sense for any i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o E u r o p e a n language o r i g i n s t o start w i t h the Greek and L a t i n languages and w i t h their E u r o p e a n contemporaries. F o r here at least w e can s t u d y , i n c o n j u n c t i o n , the languages o n the one h a n d and the archaeological remains o n the other. T h i s was the s t a r t i n g p o i n t for m o s t scholars i n this field. I t was o n l y i n the present c e n t u r y that s t i l l earlier I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages became k n o w n f r o m E u r o p e and W e s t e r n Asia. T h e m a t e r i a l w o r k s o f the Greeks and R o m a n s h a d , o f course, been w e l l k n o w n and w e l l studied since the Renaissance. These researches w e r e at first l i m i t e d m a i n l y t o the standing m o n u m e n t s , t o m a j o r w o r k s o f sculpture and t o the handsome, r e d and black p a i n t e d vases o f w h i c h so m a n y w e r e f o u n d i n the t o m b s o f E t r u r i a

in Italy that they were initially called 'Etruscan'. Only later was it realized that the finest o f these w e r e i n fact o f Greek manufacture,

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

25

e x p o r t e d t o I t a l y , and b u r i e d b y the Etruscans i n t h e i r t o m b s .

The German excavations at Olympia i n the later part o f the n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y effectively

i n i t i a t e d the s t u d y o f the early,

pre-classical G r e e k s . W i t h the d e v e l o p m e n t o f Greek archaeology, 6

h o w e v e r , i t soon became clear that before the h e y d a y o f Greek c i v i l i z a t i o n i n the fifth and f o u r t h centuries B C there was an earlier A r c h a i c p e r i o d c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h the earliest k n o w n Greek i n s c r i p t i o n s , and that before this again was

a formative period,

characterized b y p o t t e r y largely l a c k i n g i n figured d e c o r a t i o n , y e t p r o f u s e l y o r n a m e n t e d i n rectilinear style. For this reason i t was termed Geometric

pottery. This,

and its predecessor,

Proto-

g e o m e t r i c p o t t e r y , is the d o m i n a n t ceramic find f o r the t e n t h t o e i g h t h centuries B C i n Greece, and w i t h i t , f r o m cemeteries a n d settlements,

comes a w e a l t h o f other

f o r m a t i v e phase o f Greek c i v i l i z a t i o n .

finds

i l l u s t r a t i v e o f the

7

FIG. 2.1 Geometric vase from Thera c.750 BC. Height 77 cm (after

Finley).

B e f o r e the P r o t o g e o m e t r i c p e r i o d , i n the eleventh c e n t u r y

BC

came w h a t was f o r l o n g regarded as the ' D a r k A g e ' o f Greek c i v i l i z a t i o n , w h i c h archaeological research is o n l y n o w b e g i n n i n g

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND L A N G U A G E

26

t o clarify. B e f o r e that was the M y c e n a e a n c i v i l i z a t i o n , w h o s e scribes, as w e n o w k n o w , w r o t e an early f o r m o f Greek. T h e R o m a n s w e r e , o f course, the other great early literate c i v i l i z a t i o n o f E u r o p e . T h e characteristic p o t t e r y and other finds o f the R o m a n e m p i r e h a d been familiar f o r centuries, b u t again i t was o n l y d u r i n g the last c e n t u r y that archaeology began t o reveal s o m e t h i n g o f early R o m e i t s e l f . A r c h a e o l o g i c a l l y its o r i g i n s g o back t o t h e early i r o n age o f L a t i u m , j u s t as those o f its rival c i v i l i z a t i o n the Etruscans t o the n o r t h , soon t o be eclipsed b y R o m e , g o back t o the i r o n age o f E t r u r i a . T h e processes b y w h i c h these c o m p l e x societies o f the Italian i r o n age emerged f r o m the b a c k g r o u n d o f the A p e n n i n e b r o n z e age are c u r r e n t l y the focus o f active research. 8

9

T o the n o r t h a n d w e s t o f the A l p s at the t i m e o f early Greece a n d R o m e w e r e those t r i b a l g r o u p s w h i c h the classical authors call Gauls o r Celts. T h e task o f the archaeologist thus seemed a r e l a t i v e l y s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d one i n i d e n t i f y i n g the m a t e r i a l culture used b y the inhabitants o f the t i m e , and hence the artefacts o f these Celts. I t was i n 1872 that the Swedish archaeologist H i l d e b r a n d used the

FIG. 2.2 Sword scabbard from La Tene, with incized decoration (c. 300 BC). The finds from La Tene gave their name both to a culture and an

art style generally associated with the Celts (after

Vouga).

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

27

archaeological finds f r o m the n o r t h A l p i n e area t o d i v i d e the

pre-Roman iron age there into t w o phases, which he named H a l l s t a t t and La Tene, after sites o f i m p o r t a n t archaeological d i s coveries i n A u s t r i a and S w i t z e r l a n d . T o g e t h e r these phases cover m o s t o f the first m i l l e n n i u m B C . T h e finds f r o m La T e n e i n c l u d e d i r o n s w o r d s , some o f t h e m w i t h s p l e n d i d l y decorated scabbards, w h o s e art style c o u l d be c o m p a r e d w i t h finds f r o m chieftains' graves i n France and G e r m a n y . I t was the B r i t i s h scholar Sir A u g u s t u s F r a n k s w h o was the first t o realize the geographical extent o f the La Tene c u l t u r e , and t o i d e n t i f y i t w i t h the Celts, described b y classical w r i t e r s such as Caesar and the geographer Strabo. T h e n i n 1871, the French scholar G a b r i e l de M o r t i l l e t i n d i c a t e d the resemblance b e t w e e n s w o r d s , spear-heads and brooches f o u n d i n n o r t h I t a l y and those f r o m the M a r n e area o f France. H e suggested that the n o r t h Italian finds w e r e the e q u i p m e n t o f the C e l t i c invaders o f I t a l y , about w h o m a n u m b e r o f classical w r i t e r s i n c l u d i n g L i v y had w r i t t e n . T h e Celts as t h e y appear i n the classical w r i t e r s had thus been i d e n t i f i e d a r c h a e o l o g i cally, and a d i s t i n c t i v e art style, generally designated after the site o f La T e n e , had been recognized as special t o the Celts. T h e languages s p o k e n b y the Celts and Gauls described b y the classical w r i t e r s also came t o be classified as ' C e l t i c ' . T h i s was perfectly reasonable, b u t w e s h o u l d n o t e that the t e r m ' C e l t i c ' was b y n o w b e i n g used i n f o u r different w a y s : t o refer t o the people so called b y the Greeks and R o m a n s , t o designate a g r o u p o f languages, t o n a m e an archaeological c u l t u r e , and t o indicate an art style. ( T h e substantial p r o b l e m s caused b y the e q u a t i o n o f these o v e r l a p p i n g , b u t i n r e a l i t y rather different, concepts are discussed i n C h a p t e r 9.) 1 0

T h e o r i g i n o f these ' C e l t s ' was n a t u r a l l y sought, and the assumpt i o n was r a r e l y e x p l i c i t l y questioned, that the o r i g i n f o r the e t h n i c g r o u p , the language g r o u p , f o r the c u l t u r e and f o r the art style w o u l d be one and the same. T h e p r e v a i l i n g m o d e l for c u l t u r e change at the t i m e was essentially a m i g r a t i o n i s t one. So i t was a l m o s t i n e v i t a b l e that archaeologists s h o u l d speak o f ' w a v e s ' o f m i g r a t i n g Celts. I t was generally agreed that the H a l l s t a t t c u l t u r e w h i c h preceded L a Tene also represented C e l t i c - s p e a k i n g peoples. T h e q u e s t i o n t h e n arose as t o w h e t h e r its late b r o n z e age predecessor, generally t e r m e d the U r n f i e l d c u l t u r e , was an i m m i g r a n t one,

28

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

b r i n g i n g the first C e l t i c speakers t o w e s t e r n E u r o p e , o r w h e t h e r m u c h earlier archaeological cultures s h o u l d instead be regarded i n this w a y . T h e o t h e r name used b y the classical authors t o designate t r i b a l g r o u p s o f central and n o r t h e r n E u r o p e , and specifically those i n lands t o the east o f the Celts and Gauls, was ' G e r m a n ' . T h e finds f r o m these areas, b r o a d l y o c c u p y i n g m o d e r n G e r m a n y and parts o f Scandinavia, are i n m a n y w a y s s i m i l a r t o those f r o m t h e i r c o n t e m poraries t o the west, b u t the s t r i k i n g ' C e l t i c ' La T e n e art style is less c o m m o n and there are n o t such s p l e n d i d l y r i c h , p r i n c e l y graves as are f o u n d f u r t h e r t o the s o u t h and west, w h e r e contacts w i t h the classical w o r l d w e r e stronger. F u r t h e r east o n the other h a n d , the T h r a c i a n s ( i n w h a t is t o d a y B u l g a r i a ) and the Scythians n o r t h o f the B l a c k Sea b u r i e d t h e i r princes under r i c h l y furnished m o u n d s . T h e g o l d e n objects w i t h i n t h e m w e r e often decorated i n a l i v e l y a n i m a l style w h i c h is related t o , and m a y indeed o r i g i n a l l y have influenced, the La T e n e style o f the C e l t i c areas. These t h e n are some o f the elements o f the archaeology o f the first m i l l e n n i u m B C , the E u r o p e a n i r o n a g e , w h i c h scholars w e r e able t o discuss and sometimes t o associate w i t h the earliest securely d o c u m e n t e d I n d o - E u r o p e a n speaking g r o u p s i n these areas. 11

I t s h o u l d be n o t i c e d that t h r o u g h o u t m u c h o f E u r o p e , i r o n age society was a w a r l i k e society. Princes and chiefs w e r e b u r i e d w i t h r i c h l y decorated s w o r d s and o t h e r weapons and chariots w e r e w i d e l y used i n battle i n the later i r o n age. I t is easy t h e n t o see i n these remains, especially i n the richer burials, the sort o f heroic society w h i c h w e encounter i n the epics o f H o m e r , o r i n the early C e l t i c l i t e r a t u r e o f I r e l a n d , o r indeed i n Caesar's n a r r a t i v e o f his conquest o f G a u l . W h e r e d i d these people c o m e f r o m , and w h a t was the source o f the u n d e r l y i n g c o m m u n i t y o f language w h i c h these various I n d o E u r o p e a n speakers shared? T o answer this, scholars n a t u r a l l y t u r n e d t o earlier periods.

The Raw Material: The Earlier Prehistory of Europe Before the first millennium B C , the time o f the Greeks, Romans and Etruscans, the Celts and the Germans, stretch t h e l o n g , n o n -

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

29

literate ages o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y . I t is f r o m the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the material remains o f that time, as recovered by archaeology, that s o m e s o l u t i o n to the I n d o - E u r o p e a n p r o b l e m m u s t c o m e , i f any is t o be f o u n d . Earlier archaeologists saw that p r e h i s t o r y i n terms o f m i g r a t i n g tribes o f people, w h o s e m o v e m e n t s w o u l d e x p l a i n the changes i n the material c u l t u r e w h i c h m a y be observed i n different areas. T o d a y w e are less i n c l i n e d t o t h i n k i n m i g r a t i o n i s t o r diffusionist terms; b u t there are certainly changes i n the m a t e r i a l r e c o r d , reflecting m a j o r transformations i n the w a y o f life, w h i c h r e m a i n to be accounted for. I t is scarcely possible here t o g i v e a systematic account o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y , b u t i t is a p p r o p r i a t e t o m e n t i o n some o f those changes w h i c h , either because they d o indeed seem t o have been o f p r o f o u n d significance, o r because t h e y have been seized u p o n b y scholars i n this f i e l d , are o f possible relevance. A t the same t i m e i t is pertinent to indicate some o f the p r o b l e m s prehistorians are n o w s t u d y i n g . 1 2

T o go deep i n t o the past, the earliest h o m i n i d s for w h i c h w e have evidence i n E u r o p e came i n t o the area a r o u n d 850,000 years ago. T h e earliest o f t h e m made simple chopper tools, for instance those f r o m Vertesszollos i n H u n g a r y . T h e y resemble tools o f some o f the early h o m i n i d s f o u n d i n the O l d u v a i G o r g e i n Tanzania, w h e r e h o m i n i d o r i g i n s have a m u c h longer p r e h i s t o r y . Later i n E u r o p e those h a n d s o m e i m p l e m e n t s k n o w n as 'handaxes' came t o be used. T h e fossil remains o f their makers w e r e f o r m e r l y classified as Pithecanthropus erectus ('the u p r i g h t ape m a n ' ) , n o w t e r m e d Homo erectus. A r o u n d 85,000 years ago a rather different t o o l k i t , o r series o f t o o l k i t s , was made, w i t h less emphasis o n handaxes and m o r e u p o n flakes: i t is t e r m e d M o u s t e r i a n , and its m a k e r was N e a n d e r t h a l m a n , n o w classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. I t is n o t u n t i l a r o u n d 3 3000 B C that f u l l y m o d e r n m a n , Homo sapiens sapiens, makes his appearance i n western E u r o p e a l o n g w i t h a different i n d u s t r y o f stone tools, l a y i n g m o r e emphasis u p o n blades than o n flakes. Q u i t e h o w this fundamental change t o o k place - the establishm e n t o f m o d e r n m a n u p o n E u r o p e a n soil - is n o t yet clear. I t m a y be that o u r species a r r i v e d here b y a simple process o f m i g r a t i o n , w h e t h e r f r o m A f r i c a o r the N e a r East, w i t h the resultant gradual displacement o f the pre-existing N e a n d e r t h a l p o p u l a t i o n . O r i t

30

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

m a y be that Homo sapiens sapiens e m e r g e d as a consequence o f a process t a k i n g place o v e r a m u c h w i d e r area, so that E u r o p e m a y have been part o f that i n i t i a l area o f emergence. T h i s is one o f the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g questions under i n v e s t i g a t i o n at the present t i m e . C e r t a i n l y d u r i n g the w a r m e r spells i n the latter part o f the last g l a c i a t i o n , m u c h o f E u r o p e , i n c l u d i n g s o u t h B r i t a i n , came t o be o c c u p i e d b y such hunter-gatherer g r o u p s , physically i n d i s t i n g u i s h able f r o m m o d e r n m a n . W i t h the end o f the last glaciation a r o u n d 8000 B C and the retreat o f the ice sheets n o r t h w a r d s , n o r t h E u r o p e presented a v e r y different landscape, w h i c h necessitated a different m o d e o f e x p l o i t a t i o n b y the various h u m a n g r o u p s . C o l l e c t i v e l y these are sometimes t e r m e d ' m e s o l i t h i c ' , w i t h an e c o n o m y based o n the e x p l o i t a t i o n o f m a r i n e a n d r i v e r i n e resources as w e l l as h u n t i n g and g a t h e r i n g . Characteristically the t o o l k i t s o f these hunter-gatherers i n c l u d e d n u m e r o u s s m a l l bladelets t e r m e d ' m i c r o l i t h s ' . T h e m a t e r i a l assemblage differs quite clearly i n its details f r o m area t o area, so t h a t i t is q u i t e possible t o speak o f different 'cultures' i n E u r o p e at that t i m e i n the sense e m p l o y e d b y G o r d o n C h i l d e . O n e o f the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g questions i n c u r r e n t research is precisely w h e n i n the course o f h u m a n d e v e l o p m e n t such c u l t u r a l l y d i s t i n c t g r o u p s w i t h different assemblages o f artefacts emerged, and precisely h o w t h e y s h o u l d be i n t e r p r e t e d . A t present i t seems that such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n m a y have made its appearance d u r i n g the U p p e r Palaeolithic, that is t o say s h o r t l y after the appearance o f anatomically m o d e r n m a n . I n all o f these areas a p r o f o u n d l y i m p o r t a n t t r a n s i t i o n t o o k place, rather earlier i n the s o u t h t h a n the n o r t h : the d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a r m i n g , based largely u p o n cereal agriculture and the raising o f livestock. T h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f f a r m i n g i n E u r o p e is a m a t t e r for discussion. T h e earliest f a r m i n g settlements i n E u r o p e are seen b y 6500 B C i n Greece, and v e r y soon after i n the western M e d i t e r r a n e a n . B y 3000 B C nearly all o f E u r o p e except the extreme n o r t h was occupied b y a great d i v e r s i t y o f c o m m u n i t i e s , all o f t h e m r e l y i n g o n f a r m i n g t o a significant extent. ( W h e t h e r the n e w e c o n o m y , w h i c h was p a r t l y based o n d o m e s t i c plants and animals n o t native t o E u r o p e , was the

result o f an influx o f new human population, or was rather the consequence o f a process o f adaptation b y the e x i s t i n g p o p u l a t i o n s

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

31

o f the area is f u r t h e r considered i n Ch a pt e r 7.) These c o m m u n i t i e s

did differ considerably from each other i n their farming practice, social o r g a n i z a t i o n , m o n u m e n t s ( i f any), p o t t e r y and e q u i p m e n t . M o r e o v e r i n south-east E u r o p e copper m e t a l l u r g y had developed b y this t i m e , and i t was b e g i n n i n g i n Iberia t o o . Q u i t e h o w copper m e t a l l u r g y began i n E u r o p e has been a m a t t e r for debate. I have argued that this was a local and independent d e v e l o p m e n t , w h i c h t o o k place before 4000 B C . I t was n o t u n t i l after 2500 B C t h a t t i n was used as an a l l o y i n g agent t o m a k e bronze. T h i s specific technical advance does seem significant, since m a j o r t r a d i n g n e t w o r k s t h e n emerged across E u r o p e , i n w h i c h copper, b r o n z e a n d b y inference t i n played a m a j o r role. I n a b r i e f synopsis o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y i t is possible o n l y t o refer t o some o f the m o r e o b v i o u s and widespread d e v e l o p m e n t s . O n e o f these, especially notable i n parts o f w e s t e r n and n o r t h w e s t e r n E u r o p e o n w a r d s , was the practice o f c o n s t r u c t i n g i m pressive collective b u r i a l m o n u m e n t s o f large stones, the m e g a l i t h i c t o m b s . These are b o u n d t o have a place i n o u r discussions because t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n was i n i t i a l l y explained i n terms o f a m i g r a t i o n o r i n f l u x o f people, the ' m e g a l i t h b u i l d e r s ' . Later their d e v e l o p m e n t was ascribed instead t o a process o f the d i f f u s i o n o f c u l t u r e - that is t o say t o influences f r o m m o r e c i v i l i z e d lands i n the N e a r East - b u t the c a l i b r a t i o n o f r a d i o c a r b o n d a t i n g has made this e x p l a n a t i o n

FIG. 2.3 Corded ware from northern and eastern Europe (after Childe).

32

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

untenable, since the earliest examples o f such t o m b s u p t o n o w investigated have been f o u n d i n B r i t t a n y . A local E u r o p e a n o r i g i n for t h e m is n o w generally preferred. H o w e v e r , this does n o t really e x p l a i n w h y these b u r i a l m o n u m e n t s are f o u n d along the A t l a n t i c coasts f r o m Iberia t o B r i t a i n and D e n m a r k , yet n o t i n central o r eastern E u r o p e . A l t h o u g h the hypothesis o f independent o r i g i n seems w e l l established, there are still p u z z l i n g features t o this process, and m u c h t o explain. T o w a r d s the end o f the n e o l i t h i c p e r i o d i n E u r o p e , w h i c h is s i m p l y t o say a r o u n d the t i m e that bronze was b e g i n n i n g t o c o m e i n t o use s h o r t l y after 3000 B C , n e w ceramic f o r m s associated w i t h n e w b u r i a l customs are w i d e l y seen. I n n o r t h e r n and eastern E u r o p e , single burials ( i n contrast t o the earlier collective burials) are f o u n d u n d e r l o w earth m o u n d s o r t u m u l i , accompanied b y n e w k i n d s o f p o t t e r y and often b y a handsome stone axe p r o v i d e d w i t h a shaft h o l e , and often t e r m e d a battle axe. T h e p o t t e r y is often decorated b y means o f impressions o f fibre c o r d , and so is t e r m e d ' c o r d e d w a r e ' . I n central and western E u r o p e , f r o m a r o u n d 2600 B C , a rather different b u r i a l assemblage is f o u n d , also w i t h single i n h u m a t i o n s covered b y a r o u n d t u m u l u s . T h e characteristic grave

FIG. 2.4 Beaker assemblages from Britain and Hungary showing Beaker pottery, copper dagger with tang and archer's wristguard (after

Shennan).

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

33

g o o d s are a deep, handleless p o t t e r y d r i n k i n g cup o r 'beaker', a copper dagger, generally o f a type w i t h a h a f t i n g t a n g , and o t h e r characteristic f o r m s . T h i s beaker assemblage was i n the past, and is still t o d a y , o f t e n regarded as the i n d i c a t i o n o f i m m i g r a n t g r o u p s o f people. A m o r e recent a n d alternative v i e w is that the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f these b u r i a l s , w i t h their prestigious gravegoods, is due t o the establishment o f n e t w o r k s o f social contacts, sometimes serving also as t r a d i n g n e t w o r k s , w h e r e p r o m i n e n t i n d i v i d u a l s displayed t h e i r h i g h status t h r o u g h the o w n e r s h i p and use o f such objects. C e r t a i n l y i n the succeeding early b r o n z e age, still richer burials are c o m m o n l y f o u n d , and i t is clear that a n e w social p r i n c i p l e o f r a n k i n g has e m e r g e d , displayed i n the ostentatious use o f costly objects. T h i s process o f the emergence o f r a n k i n g is c u r r e n t l y one o f the m o s t actively discussed i n the field o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y , and different approaches are taken b y those w i t h different theoretical s t a n d p o i n t s . T o m y m i n d the m o s t persuasive arguments suggest an e x p l a n a t i o n i n terms o f the i n t e r n a l w o r k i n g s o f the societies themselves, b u t even w i t h i n these terms v e r y different scenarios have been offered. These d e v e l o p m e n t s i n b u r i a l and artefact use are indicated here because t h e y have often been discussed i n considerations o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n language p r o b l e m , and i t was n a t u r a l t o l o o k i n the archaeological r e c o r d for some c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y w i d e s p r e a d p h e n o m e n o n . I f that c o u l d be equated w i t h a possible i n f l u x o f n e w people i n t o the area, t h e n the ready ingredients o f some sort o f e x p l a n a t i o n w e r e there. A t a b o u t the same t i m e that these developments w e r e t a k i n g place i n central and n o r t h e r n E u r o p e , s t r i k i n g b u t v e r y different changes w e r e u n d e r w a y i n the Aegean. I n Crete, a r o u n d 2000 B C , a palace-based society emerged, s h o w i n g the literate bureaucracy w h i c h w e associate w i t h state societies: the M i n o a n c i v i l i z a t i o n . I t was f o l l o w e d , after some f o u r o r five centuries, b y the M y c e n a e a n c i v i l i z a t i o n o f Greece. These w e r e the first E u r o p e a n c i v i l i z a t i o n s , and f r o m that t i m e o n w a r d s , apart f r o m a b r i e f i n t e r l u d e , the A e g e a n was the h o m e o f societies that were at least i n p a r t b o t h literate and u r b a n . These days, the d e v e l o p m e n t o f the f u l l E u r o p e a n b r o n z e age is

34

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

generally seen as representing a c o n t i n u i t y w i t h the preceding beaker phase a n d its contemporaries, b u t i n the later bronze age a n e w b u r i a l c u s t o m is seen o v e r m u c h o f central E u r o p e and indeed b e y o n d . T h i s is the practice o f c r e m a t i o n , w i t h the b u r i a l o f the ashes and some gravegoods i n a large p o t o r u r n . C o m m u n i t i e s d i s p l a y i n g this b u r i a l f o r m have often been collectively designated as U r n f i e l d C u l t u r e s , j u s t as the predecessor was sometimes t e r m e d the T u m u l u s C u l t u r e . C e r t a i n l y an outside source has at times been s o u g h t f o r the bearers o f the U r n f i e l d C u l t u r e ; b u t m a n y observers agree that t o say this puts t o o m u c h emphasis u p o n the b u r i a l c u s t o m , and that the continuities w i t h preceding periods s h o u l d n o t be o v e r l o o k e d . O n c e again i t is the task o f the prehistorian t o seek to u n d e r s t a n d and i n a sense t o explain these changes. I t is often easier t o see w h a t was w r o n g w i t h earlier explanatory f r a m e w o r k s , w i t h t h e i r emphasis o n m i g r a t i o n and d i f f u s i o n , t h a n i t is t o develop consistent and c o m p e l l i n g alternative explanations. A r o u n d i o o o B C i r o n w o r k i n g is first seen o n a significant scale i n Greece and i n south-east E u r o p e , and s h o r t l y thereafter i n m u c h o f the rest o f E u r o p e , and this was the t i m e o f the emergence o f c h i e f d o m societies i n s o u t h France and G e r m a n y d u r i n g the H a l l statt i r o n age, w i t h p r o m i n e n t i n d i v i d u a l s b e i n g g i v e n a p r i n c e l y b u r i a l . B y about 600 B C the first Greek c o l o n y was f o u n d e d o n the s o u t h French coast at Massalia (Marseilles) and f r o m t h e n o n greater quantities o f i m p o r t e d goods are f o u n d i n these r i c h burials. Indeed it m a y w e l l be that the early Celtic chieftains and their precursors achieved w e a l t h and p r o m i n e n c e b y c o n t r o l l i n g the flow o f i m p o r t e d goods t o t h e i r o w n territories. Be that as i t m a y , this contact represents the sort o f i n t e r a c t i o n between the literate M e d i terranean w o r l d and the c h i e f d o m societies o f the 'barbarians' t o the n o r t h , referred t o b y the various classical w r i t e r s . I t was this i n t e r a c t i o n and these records w h i c h b r o u g h t t h e m w i t h i n the l i g h t o f h i s t o r y , and w h i c h therefore is responsible for the direct k n o w l e d g e w h i c h w e have o f their languages. F r o m this t i m e o n w a r d s literacy spread i n E u r o p e a n d , despite s o m e recession at the fall o f the R o m a n e m p i r e , i t s u r v i v e d t o the extent that w e have at least some k n o w l e d g e o f nearly all the

European languages spoken since that time down to the present day.

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

35

Archaeology and the Indo-Europeans: Earlier Syntheses N e a r l y all scholars w h o have considered the I n d o - E u r o p e a n p r o b l e m have felt able t o propose a specific place o f o r i g i n , a h o m e l a n d , f o r those early speakers o f a P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n language, postulated as ancestral t o these languages w h i c h w e r e later r e c o r d e d and therefore k n o w n t o us. O n e e x c e p t i o n was the Russian scholar, N . S. T r u b e t s k o y , w h o questioned the w h o l e n o t i o n o f an ancestral I n d o - E u r o p e a n language. A s i m i l a r p o s i t i o n has been taken u p m u c h m o r e recently b y Jean-Paul D e m o u l e . Such critical e x a m i n a t i o n o f o u r assumptions is necessary i f a s o l u t i o n t o the p r o b l e m is ever t o be f o u n d . W i t h these notable exceptions, h o w e v e r , the v a r i o u s theories c u r r e n t l y available differ p r i m a r i l y i n the l o c a t i o n o f the Urheimat, the area w h e r e the P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n s s u p posedly l i v e d before s p l i t t i n g and setting o f f i n their different w a y s . T h e y differ also about the date, o r dates, at w h i c h this supposed split o c c u r r e d . T h e case f o r a h o m e l a n d i n the eastern part o f the area o f the m o d e r n d i s t r i b u t i o n o f the languages h a d n o t been argued recently w i t h any c o n v i c t i o n u n t i l the paper b y the Soviet scholars, G a m k r elidze and I v a n o v , was p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 8 3 . I n 1927, A . H . Sayce, w h o was the first t o recognize the extent o f the H i t t i t e e m p i r e i n A n a t o l i a (see C h a p t e r 3) suggested t h a t ' i t was i n Asia M i n o r that the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages developed'. H o w e v e r this was n o t backed u p b y the detailed archaeological evidence f o u n d i n E u r o p e , and was a s i m p l e b u t rather shaky exercise i n l i n g u i s t i c g e o g r a p h y . T h e same m a y be said o f the arguments o f L a c h m i D h a r i n 1930 f o r an I n d i a n o r i g i n . P r o b a b l y the m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g arguments f o r an A s i a n source w e r e those o f W i l h e l m K o p p e r s i n f a v o u r o f an o r i g i n i n w e s t T u r k e s t a n , i n v i e w o f the supposed similarities o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages t o those o f the A l t a i c peoples. B u t again this was n o t f o l l o w e d u p w i t h any detailed analysis as t o h o w and w h e n the supposed dispersal o c c u r r e d . Such a r g u m e n t s , w i t h an emphasis o n the i m p o r t a n c e o f the horse, w e r e f o l l o w e d u p b y W i l h e l m S c h m i d t i n 1 9 4 9 . H e envisaged t w o ' w a v e s ' o f c o l o n i z a t i o n reaching E u r o p e f r o m the east. Despite the interest o f his ideas, he was n o t v e r y precise about w h e n these m o v e m e n t s o c c u r r e d , n o r indeed w h e r e t h e y began. N o detailed case, w i t h a 13

1 4

1 5

1 6

17

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

36

c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the archaeological evidence, has ever been set o u t for an A s i a n h o m e l a n d . W e s t e r n E u r o p e has never been considered as a h o m e l a n d , n o r has s o u t h e r n E u r o p e often seriously been p u t f o r w a r d u n t i l the v e r y i n t e r e s t i n g , recent paper b y D i a k o n o v . Indeed i t is fair t o say that m o s t subsequent arguments have f o l l o w e d either the lines first set o u t b y Kossinna for n o r t h - c e n t r a l E u r o p e , o r b y Schrader, f o l l o w e d b y C h i l d e , for east E u r o p e and the margins o f the steppe lands. Just one o r t w o scholars have i n fact o p t e d for n o r t h e r n E u r o p e (e:g. L i t h u a n i a ) , b u t the arguments are close t o those for n o r t h - c e n t r a l E u r o p e , and they can be taken together. 1 8

B e f o r e considering these t w o m a i n contenders, h o w e v e r , i t is w o r t h m e n t i o n i n g the interesting suggestion o f H e r b e r t K i i h n , made i n 1932, and f o l l o w e d u p b y Gustav S c h w a n t e s i n 1958, that i t was necessary t o go r i g h t back t o the palaeolithic p e r i o d , and specifically t o the M a g d e l e n i a n c u l t u r e , w e l l before 10000 B C , i n o r d e r t o find the necessary c u l t u r a l u n i t y for a suitable h o m e l a n d . H e suggested that the o r i g i n a l roots o f the P r o t o - I n d o - E u r o p e a n cultures s h o u l d be sought r i g h t back i n the A u r i g n a c i a n c u l t u r e , w h i c h can t o d a y be set a r o u n d 30000 B C . K i i h n d i d n o t , h o w e v e r , offer any e x p l a n a t i o n for the existence o f the eastern g r o u p o f I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages, and restricted his consideration t o Europe. 1 9

20

T h e n o r t h central E u r o p e a n o p t i o n , as proposed b y Kossinna i n 1 9 0 2 and subsequently elaborated b y h i m , was the first t o take specific bodies o f archaeological material and t o treat t h e m i n detail, 21

FIG. 2.5 Linear-decorated pottery (after Kilian and Kahlke).

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

37

u s i n g the supposed spread o f particular p o t t e r y f o r m s as indicators

o f the m o v e m e n t s o f groups o f people. He drew attention to the Linear P o t t e r y (decorated w i t h c u r v e d lines incised i n t o the surface before f i r i n g ) w h i c h is t o d a y regarded as the earliest p o t t e r y f r o m the first farmers o f G e r m a n y and H o l l a n d . T h i s , i n his m o r e elaborate theories, he saw as h a v i n g a n o r t h e r n o r i g i n , and as b e i n g displaced s o u t h w a r d s under I n d o - E u r o p e a n pressure f r o m the n o r t h , and as u l t i m a t e l y m o v i n g east so that the Linear P o t t e r y people w o u l d also be ancestral t o those speaking the eastern I n d o E u r o p e a n languages, such as Persian and I n d i a n . A m o n g the g r o u p s w h o s e expansion f r o m n o r t h e r n E u r o p e supposedly f o r m e d the i m p e t u s for the f u r t h e r process o f dispersion w e r e the people m a k i n g the cord-decorated p o t t e r y k n o w n as C o r d e d W a r e . Kossinna's approach i n m a n y w a y s seems a v e r y unsatisfactory one t o d a y , b u t n o one c o u l d deny that he had a v e r y t h o r o u g h grasp o f the p r e h i s t o r i c m a t e r i a l . H e was the first t o treat a particular artefact t y p e - a p o t t e r y f o r m , o r even a style o f d e c o r a t i o n - t o trace w h a t he t h o u g h t w e r e the m i g r a t i o n s o f groups o f people and the displacement o f languages. T h i s general approach was closely f o l l o w e d b y G o r d o n C h i l d e , and i t is still w i d e l y f o u n d t o d a y . T h e m a i n alternative t h e o r y , and the one n o w favoured a m o n g m a n y l i n g u i s t s , is t h a t o f the s o u t h Russian h o m e l a n d . T h e case for i t was first made o n l i n g u i s t i c g r o u n d s b y S c h r a d e r , and i n 1926 b y G o r d o n C h i l d e i n The Aryans. C h i l d e had n o hesitation i n d e f i n i n g the s o u t h Russian steppes as the h o m e l a n d o f the early Indo-Europeans: 22

23

H a v i n g surveyed all other regions o f E u r o p e w e t u r n t o the S o u t h Russian steppes. T h e climate and p h y s i o g r a p h i c a l features thereof, as O t t o Schrader so c o n v i n c i n g l y argued, c o r r e s p o n d a d m i r a b l y t o the characters o f the A r y a n cradle as deduced b y l i n g u i s t i c palaeontology. A n d the earliest c o n nected remains o f post-glacial m a n there l i k e w i s e reveal a c u l t u r e w h i c h harmonizes t o a remarkable degree w i t h the p r o t o - A r y a n c u l t u r e described b y the p h i l o l o g i s t s . T h e r e mains i n question are d e r i v e d almost exclusively f r o m graves c o n t a i n i n g contracted skeletons covered w i t h r e d ochre (ochre-graves) and s u r m o u n t e d b y a m o u n d o r kurgan. T h e

38

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

people here i n t e r r e d w e r e generally t a l l , dolichocephalic, o r t h o g n a t h i c and l e p t o r h i n e , i n a w o r d N o r d i c s . T h e r e was h o w e v e r , at least a small m i n o r i t y o f brachycephals present i n the p o p u l a t i o n . T h e m a t e r i a l f r o m the poorest kurgans is p o o r and r u d e , yet is r e l a t i v e l y u n i f o r m over the w h o l e area f r o m the Caspian t o the D n i e p r . . . I n the first place these N o r d i c s o f the steppe w e r e pastoralists, since the bones o f animals are f o u n d i n the kurgans. T h e remains i n c l u d e n o t o n l y sheep and cattle b u t also the bones o f that peculiarly A r y a n q u a d r u p e d the horse . . . T h e ochre grave f o l k f u r t h e r possessed wheeled vehicles l i k e the A r y a n s , since a clay m o d e l o f a w a g o n has been f o u n d i n one such grave . . . W e have seen i n the preceding chapters that the characteristic a t t r i b u t e and s y m b o l o f the N o r d i c cultures w h i c h w e n o w recognize as A r y a n was the perforated battle-axe. N o w the genesis o f this v e r y peculiar w e a p o n can be explained i n S o u t h Russia better than a n y w h e r e else. H e w e n t o n t o discuss ' T h e M i g r a t i o n s o f the A r y a n s ' :

2 4

O n e such expansion w i l l be a d m i t t e d even b y the Germanists. I t l e d the battle-axe f o l k t o T r o y and the east Balkans . . . B u t the m o s t c o m p a c t and ruthless b o d y o f invaders w o u l d have been those w h o used c o r d - o r n a m e n t e d p o t t e r y . T h e i r s t a r t i n g p o i n t w o u l d be near the D o n e t z valley w h e r e such p o t t e r y is f o u n d i n the oldest class o f b a r r o w s and whence t h e i r k i n s m e n w o u l d have set o u t for T r a n s y l v a n i a . . . T h u s Kossinna's m i g r a t i o n s w o u l d be reversed. W i t h that last, t e l l i n g phrase, C h i l d e described v e r y accurately w h a t he h a d done - for m u c h o f Kossinna's reasoning was t a k e n o v e r b y C h i l d e . T h e further process o f the spread o f the I n d o E u r o p e a n languages w e s t w a r d and s o u t h w a r d f r o m central and n o r t h e r n E u r o p e c o u l d f o l l o w some o f the outlines w h i c h K o s s i n n a had p r o p o s e d . T h e essential difference was that C h i l d e h a d Single G r a v e / C o r d e d W a r e / B a t t l e - A x e peoples m o v i n g w e s t w a r d f r o m the steppes o f s o u t h Russia rather than eastward, as Kossinna h a d done. I n this w a y , also, C h i l d e ' s early I n d o - E u r o p e a n s h a d m o r e

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND T H E INDO-EUROPEANS

41

represent the I n d o - E u r o p e a n c u l t u r e o f the 5 t h , 4 t h and 3 r d millennia B C . T h i s v i e w o f the p r o b l e m has been f o l l o w e d b y a n u m b e r o f f u r t h e r scholars such as Stuart P i g g o t t i n his Ancient Europe. A l t h o u g h the c e n t r a l - n o r t h E u r o p e p o s i t i o n o f Kossinna, a n d especially the s o u t h Russian v i e w o f C h i l d e and G i m b u t a s , r e p r e sent the t w o m o s t influential positions t o d a y , there are certainly others o f n o t e . P. B o s c h - G i m p e r a i n i 9 6 0 argued for a central E u r o p e a n area o f f o r m a t i o n o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples, back i n the early n e o l i t h i c p e r i o d , so that the d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f the v a r i o u s D a n u b i a n cultures i n the later n e o l i t h i c w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d t o the dispersal o f the I n d o - E u r o p e a n peoples. T h e o t h e r m a j o r s t u d y o f recent years is t h a t o f G i a c o m o D e v o t o , p u b l i s h e d i n 1 9 6 2 , a l t h o u g h he reaches n o such clear-cut conclusions a b o u t an o r i g i n a l homeland. 30

3 1

32

M o s t o f these studies, w h i l e based o n a v e r y t h o r o u g h k n o w l e d g e o f the archaeological m a t e r i a l f r o m E u r o p e , l i k e the r e v i e w u n d e r t a k e n b y H e n c k e n , (for few c o u l d c l a i m t o equal the e n c y c l o paedic grasp o f a G o r d o n C h i l d e o r a M a r i j a G i m b u t a s ) rest a l m o s t w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o n o n a series o f assumptions g o i n g back t o the t i m e o f O t t o Schrader and Gustav Kossinna. I t is n o w necessary t o q u e s t i o n these. I f t h e y are rejected, i t s o o n f o l l o w s that the c o n c l u sions that have been d r a w n f r o m t h e m are t o a large extent erroneous. T h i s i n t u r n has a n u m b e r o f serious consequences f o r o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f E u r o p e a n p r e h i s t o r y and o f the o r i g i n s o f the peoples o f E u r o p e . Before u n d e r t a k i n g this critical r e - e x a m i n a t i o n , h o w e v e r , i t is a p p r o p r i a t e t o take a closer l o o k at the evidence n o w available for the earliest d o c u m e n t e d I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages. 3 3

3. Lost Languages and Forgotten Scripts: The Indo-European Languages, O l d and N e w T h e I n d o - E u r o p e a n (or I n d o - G e r m a n i c ) languages, spoken i n countries as far r e m o v e d as I r e l a n d o r B r i t t a n y i n the west a n d I n d i a and Pakistan i n the east, are generally supposed t o o w e t h e i r a f f i n i t y t o some c o m m o n descent. T h i s c o n c l u s i o n derives f r o m the idea o f a f a m i l y tree, a l t h o u g h i t does n o t d e n y that languages can c o n verge, as the ' w a v e ' idea predicts, w i t h the acquisition o f l o a n w o r d s and o t h e r features f r o m one language t o another. F e w scholars t o d a y w o u l d go so far as T r u b e t s k o y i n suggesting that there is n o genetic o r f a m i l y - t r e e relationship at all a m o n g the I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages, and that they j u s t came t o resemble each o t h e r t h r o u g h the effects o f p r o l o n g e d contact. A n d v e r y few i n d e e d w o u l d agree w i t h the French archaeologist, Jean-Paul D e m o u l e , that there really is n o I n d o - E u r o p e a n language g r o u p at all, o r that the similarities observed are u n i m p o r t a n t , i n s i g n i f i c a n t and f o r t u i t o u s . I f w e are t o criticize recent attempts t o e x p l a i n the o r i g i n s o f these languages, and t h e n t o offer some alternative, and h o p e f u l l y b e t t e r based, e x p l a n a t i o n i n t h e i r place, w e need t o l o o k m o r e closely at the similarities b e t w e e n t h e m , i n particular the languages w h i c h are d o c u m e n t e d f r o m early times. H e r e w e are aided b y some remarkable discoveries w h i c h , a l o n g w i t h the s t u d y o f the early religious h y m n s o f I n d i a (the Rigveda) and t h e i r c o u n t e r p a r t i n early I r a n (the Avesta) have t r a n s f o r m e d o u r p e r c e p t i o n o f the p r o b l e m . Each was i n its w a y h i g h l y r o m a n t i c , and t h e y s h o w h o w the discoveries o f archaeology can advance o u r k n o w l e d g e i n altogether unexpected w a y s . N o t h i n g is m o r e m y s t e r i o u s o r m o r e i n t r i g u i n g t h a n the discovery o f a h i t h e r t o u n k n o w n language i n an unreadable script, and f e w advances i n scholarship are m o r e dramatic t h a n the decipherment o f such a script and the subsequent translation o f the language i n w h i c h i t was written. 1

2

LOST LANGUAGES AND FORGOTTEN SCRIPTS

43

i The Language of the Persian Kings W h e n the early E u r o p e a n travellers first systematically e x p l o r e d I r a n i n the seventeenth c e n t u r y , the great Persian E m p i r e w h i c h A l e x a n d e r the Great had conquered was k n o w n o n l y t h r o u g h the w r i t i n g s o f the Classical w r i t e r s , p r i n c i p a l l y o f H e r o d o t u s . H e had r e p o r t e d i n detail the Persian Wars, some 260 years before A l e x a n d e r ' s conquest, w h e n D a r i u s the Great K i n g , and t h e n his successor, X e r x e s , had t w i c e come close t o d e s t r o y i n g the g r o w i n g p o w e r o f A t h e n s and o f Greece. 3

T h e h i s t o r y o f the Persian e m p i r e was w e l l d o c u m e n t e d t h r o u g h these Greek sources, b u t o n the g r o u n d n o t h i n g was k n o w n o r u n d e r s t o o d . I t was n o t u n t i l 1621 that the Spanish ambassador t o Persia c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d the site o f Persepolis, the great Persian palatial centre. H e c o m m e n t e d o n the r e l i e f sculptures, w h i c h offer such a v i v i d p i c t u r e o f life and c l o t h i n g as they w e r e i n the early f i f t h c e n t u r y B C , and he w e n t o n t o describe an i n s c r i p t i o n i n the language o f the Persian E m p i r e - an I n d o - E u r o p e a n language t h e n u n k n o w n to scholarship: 4

T h e r e is a r e m a r k a b l e i n s c r i p t i o n carved o n black jasper. Its characters are still clear and s p a r k l i n g , astonishingly free f r o m damage o r d e t e r i o r a t i o n despite t h e i r v e r y great age. T h e letters themselves are neither Chaldean n o r H e b r e w n o r Greek o r A r a b i c n o r o f any people that can be discovered n o w o r t o have ever existed. T h e y are t r i a n g u l a r , i n the shape o f a p y r a m i d o r m i n i a t u r e obelisk and are all identical except i n p o s i t i o n and arrangement. B u t the r e s u l t i n g c o m p o s i t e characters are e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y decisive and distinct. T h i s is the script w h i c h later scholars have come t o call ' c u n e i f o r m ' - m e a n i n g l i t e r a l l y 'wedge-shaped'. I t was a system o f w r i t i n g w h i c h w e n o w k n o w was i n v e n t e d b y the Sumerians, the people o f the first c i v i l i z a t i o n o f the N e a r East, s h o r t l y after 3000 B C . I n m o d i f i e d f o r m s i t was used i n m a n y o f the N e a r Eastern languages, several o f w h i c h b e l o n g e d t o the Semitic language g r o u p . I t was first i l l u s t r a t e d b y the Italian, P i e t r o della Valle, after his o w n v i s i t t o Persepolis i n a letter p u b l i s h e d i n 1658. Splendid i n s c r i p t i o n s f r o m the r o y a l palaces at Persepolis and f r o m other sites w e r e

44

A R C H A E O L O G Y AND LANGUAGE

|^Tf

. I T . f i . u . n . rf-.Mf.f-1 . E ff

^ W f f f . rrf. rrr. irr ,-tf .