Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Maps Volume I
- Figures Volume I
- Tables Volume I
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part One Language Contact and Genetic Linguistics
- 2 Language Contact and Historical Linguistics
- 3 The Chinese Expansion and Language Coexistence in Modern China
- 4 Tracing Language Contact in Africa’s Past
- 5 Populations in Contact: Linguistic, Archaeological, and Genomic Evidence for Indo-European Diffusion
- 6 The Impact of Autochthonous Languages on Bantu Language Variation: A Comparative View on Southern and Central Africa
- Part Two Linguistic Areas
- Part Three Language Spread
- Part Four Emergence and Spread of Some European Languages
- Part Five Language Diasporas
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
5 - Populations in Contact: Linguistic, Archaeological, and Genomic Evidence for Indo-European Diffusion
from Part One - Language Contact and Genetic Linguistics
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 June 2022
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Cambridge Handbooks in Language and Linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Contact
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Maps Volume I
- Figures Volume I
- Tables Volume I
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- Part One Language Contact and Genetic Linguistics
- 2 Language Contact and Historical Linguistics
- 3 The Chinese Expansion and Language Coexistence in Modern China
- 4 Tracing Language Contact in Africa’s Past
- 5 Populations in Contact: Linguistic, Archaeological, and Genomic Evidence for Indo-European Diffusion
- 6 The Impact of Autochthonous Languages on Bantu Language Variation: A Comparative View on Southern and Central Africa
- Part Two Linguistic Areas
- Part Three Language Spread
- Part Four Emergence and Spread of Some European Languages
- Part Five Language Diasporas
- Author Index
- Language Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This paper synthesizes evidence for the origin and spread of the Indo-European languages from three disciplines – genomic research, archaeology, and, especially, linguistics – to reassess the validity of the Anatolian and Steppe Hypotheses. Research on ancient DNA reveals a massive migration off the steppe c. 2500 BCE, providing exceptionally strong support for the Steppe hypothesis. However, intriguing questions remain, such as why ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian populations had a smaller proportion of steppe ancestry, and Anatolian apparently had none at all. Lexical and archaeological evidence for wheels and looms provides essential clues about the early separation of Anatolian from the Indo-European community and the late entrance of Greek into the Aegean area. Evidence from the morphologies of the Indo-European languages supports these findings: the morphological patterns of the Anatolian languages show clear archaism, implying earlier separation, while the morphologies of Indo-Iranian and Greek display an array of similarities pointing to relatively late areal contact. Both the lexical and the morphological evidence, then, alongside the genomic and archaeological record, suggests that the Steppe hypothesis offers a preferable solution. Ultimately, these conclusions demonstrate the need for more dynamic models of change, including considerations of contact, stratification, and cross-disciplinary approaches.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language ContactVolume 1: Population Movement and Language Change, pp. 122 - 151Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Allentoft, Morten et al. (2015). Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nabure 522.167–72.Google ScholarPubMed
Anthony, David. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Anthony, David & Ringe, Don. 2015. The Indo-European homeland from linguistic and archaeological perspectives. The Annual Review of Linguistics 1.199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Elizabeth. 1991. Prehistoric textiles: The development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, Elizabeth. 1994. Women’s work. The first 20,000 years: Women, Cloth, and Society in Early Times. New York & London: Norton.Google Scholar
Barber, Elizabeth. 2001. The clues in the clothes: Some independent evidence for the movements of families. In Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family, ed. by Drew, R., 1–14. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Emile. 1969. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press. (Translated by Palmer, F. as Indo-European language and society in 1973.)Google Scholar
Birwé, Robert. 1955. Griechisch-arische Sprachbeziehungen im Verbalsystem. Waldorf-Hessen: Verlag für Orientkunde.Google Scholar
Bonechi, M. 1990. Aleppo in età arcaica; a proposito di un’opera recente. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7.15–37.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, Remco, Lemey, Philippe, Dunn, Michael, Greenhill, Simon, Alekseyenko, Alexander, Drummond, Alexei, Gray, Russell, Suchard, Marc, & Atkinson, Quentin. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science 337.6097.957–60.Google Scholar
Broushaki, Farnaz et al. 2016. Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent. Science 353.499–503.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, Will, Cathcart, Chundra, Hall, David, and Garrett, Andrew. 2015. Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis. Language 91.194–244.Google Scholar
Clackson, James. 2007. Indo-European linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Damgaard, Barros et al. 2018. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 360.1–9.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 1995. The sigmatic aorist in Indo-European: Evidence for the Space-Time Hypothesis (Monograph 13 in the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series). Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2003. The development of the perfect in Indo-European: Stratigraphic evidence for prehistoric areal influence. In Language contacts in prehistory: Studies in stratigraphy, ed. by Andersen, Henning, 77–105. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2013. Phylogenetic and areal models of Indo-European relatedness: The role of contact in reconstruction. Journal of Language Contact 6.379–410.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2020. Contact and Early Indo-European in Europe. In The handbook of language contact, (2nd. ed.) ed. by Hickey, Raymond, 303–321. Malden, MA & Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Garrett, Andrew. 2006. Convergence in the formation of Indo-European subgroups: Phylogeny and chronology. In Forster & Renfrew 2006, 139–51.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, Marija. 1970. Proto-Indo-European culture: The Kurgan culture during the 5th to the 3rd millennia B.C. In Endo-European and Indo-Europeans, ed. by Cardona, George et al., 155–98. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Haak, Wolfgang et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522.207–11.Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2006. Interdisciplinary indiscipline? Can phylogenetic methods meaningfully be applied to language data – and to dating language? In Renfrew & Forster 2006, 183–94.Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2007. Linguistics for archaeologists: Principles, methods, and the case of the Incas. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17.311–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2018a. Indo-European and the ancient DNA revolution. In Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indo-European Origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013, ed. by Kroonen, Guus, Mallory, James P., and Comrie, Bernard, 121–73. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Heggarty, Paul. 2018b. Why Indo-European? Clarifying cross-disciplinary misconceptions on farming vs. pastoralism. In Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indo-European Origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013, ed. by Kroonen, Guus, Mallory, James P., and Comrie, Bernard, 69–119. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1994. Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen. In In Honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. Bis 28. März, 1993 in Kopenhagen, ed. by Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 235–51. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2005. The rise of Bronze Age society: Travels, transmissions and transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kroonen, Guus et al. 2018. Early Indo-European languages, Anatolian, Tocharian, and Indo-Iranian. Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. (2018), 1–12.Google Scholar
Lazaridis, Iosif et al. 2016. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature 536.419–24.Google Scholar
Lazaridis, Iosif et al. 2017. Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature 548.214–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallory, James P. & Adams, Douglas Q.. 2006. The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mathieson, Iain et al. 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature 555.197–203.Google Scholar
Meid, Wolfgang. 1975. Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gleiderung des Indogermanischen. In Flexion und Wortbildung, ed. by Rix, Helmut, 204–19. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig. 2003. Prehistory. In The Luwians, ed. by Melchert, H. Craig. 8–26. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig. 2017. Anatolian. In The Indo-European languages, ed. by Kapović, M., 2nd ed., 171–201. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mittnik, Alissa et al. 2018. The genetic prehistory of the Baltic Sea region. Nature Communications 9.442.1–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Narasimhan, Vagheesh et al. 2018. The genomic formation of South and Central Asia. bioRxiv 292581.1–32.Google Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Verbalsystems. In Studies in Greek, Italic, and Indo-European linguistics offered to Leonard R. Palmer, ed. by Mopurgo Davies, Anna & Meid, Wolfgang, 239–54. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Neu, Erich. 1985. Das frühindogermanische Diathesensystem. Funktion und Geschichte. In Grammatische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte, ed. by Schlerath, Bernfried & Rittner, Veronica, 273–95. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Polomé, Edgar C. 1985. How archaic is Old Indic? In Studia linguistica diachronica et synchronica, ed. by Pieper, Ursula & Stickel, Gerhard, 671–83. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Polomé, Edgar C. 1987. Who are the Germanic people? In Proto-Indo-European: The archaeology of a linguistic problem, ed. by Skomal, Susan Nacev & Polomé, Edgar C., 216–44. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Reich, David. 2018. Who we are and how we got here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Jonathon Cape.Google Scholar
Renfrew, Colin & Forster, Peter (eds.). 2006. Phylogenetic methods and the prehistory of languages (McDonald Institute Monographs). Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Ricken, E. 2009. Der Archaismus des Hethitischen: Eine Bestandsaufnahme. Incontri Linguistici 32.37–52.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald A. 1988–90. Evidence for the position of Tocharian in the Indo-European family? Die Sprache 34.59–123.Google Scholar
Salmons, Joseph. 2018. A methodological challenge for Neolithic linguistics: The search for substrate vocabulary. In Talking Neolithic: Proceedings of the Workshop on Indo-European Origins held at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, December 2–3, 2013, ed. by Kroonen, Guus, Mallory, James P., and Comrie, Bernard, 315–35. Washington, DC: Institute for the Study of Man.Google Scholar
Sherratt, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution. In Pattern of the past: Studies in honour of David Clarke, ed. by Hodder, I., Isaac, G., and Ammond, N., 261–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanini, Ruggiero. 2002. Toward a diachronic reconstruction of the linguistic map of Ancient Anatolia. In Anatolia Antica: Studi in memoria di Fiorella Imperati, ed. by de Martino, Stefano & Pecchioli-Daddi, Franca, 783–806. Florence: LoGisma.Google Scholar
Sturtevant, Edgar. 1926. On the position of Hittite among the Indo-European languages. Language 2.25–34.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, Oswald. 1996. Introduction to Indo-European linguistics, translated from Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft, 4th ed., 1990, with additional notes and references. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Chuan-Chao et al. 2018. The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus. bioRxiv (May 16, 2018).1–30.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert. 2001. An Indo-European linguistic area and its characteristics: Ancient Anatolia. Areal diffusion as a challenge to the Comparative Method? In Areal diffusion and genetic inheritance: Problems in comparative linguistics, ed. by Aikhenvald, A.Y. and Dixon, R.M.W., 44–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight. 1889. Sanskrit grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar