The Horse, the Wheel, and Language
David W. Anthony
Published by Princeton University Press
Anthony, W..
The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World.
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Project MUSE., https://muse.jhu.edu/.
For additional information about this book
Access provided by Harvard University (15 Oct 2018 21:56 GMT)
https://muse.jhu.edu/book/36661
3
Chapter One
The Promise and Politics
of the Mother Tongue
Ancestors
When you look in the mirror you see not just your face but a museum.
Although your face, in one sense, is your own, it is composed of a collage
of features you have inherited from your parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents,
and so on. The lips and eyes that either bother or please you
are not yours alone but are also features of your ancestors, long dead perhaps
as individuals but still very much alive as fragments in you. Even
complex qualities such as your sense of balance, musical abilities, shyness
in crowds, or susceptibility to sickness have been lived before. We carry
the past around with us all the time, and not just in our bodies. It lives also
in our customs, including the way we speak. The past is a set of invisible
lenses we wear constantly, and through these we perceive the world and
the world perceives us. We stand always on the shoulders of our ancestors,
whether or not we look down to acknowledge them.
It is disconcerting to realize how few of our ancestors most of us can
recognize or even name. You have four great-grandmothers, women sufficiently
close to you genetically that you see elements of their faces, and
skin, and hair each time you see your reflection. Each had a maiden
name she heard spoken thousands of times, and yet you probably cannot
recall any one of their maiden names. If we are lucky, we may find their
birth names in genealogies or documents, although war, migration, and
destroyed records have made that impossible for many Americans. Our
four great-grandmothers had full lives, families, and bequeathed to us
many of our most personal qualities, but we have lost these ancestors so
completely that we cannot even name them. How many of us can imagine
being so utterly forgotten just three generations from now by our
4 Chapter 1
own descendents that they remember nothing of us—not even our
names?
In traditional societies, where life is still structured around family, extended
kin, and the village, people often are more conscious of the debts
they owe their ancestors, even of the power of their ghosts and spirits.
Zafimaniry women in rural Madagascar weave complicated patterns on
their hats, which they learned from their mothers and aunts. The patterns
differ significantly between villages. The women in one village told the
anthropologist Maurice Bloch that the designs were “pearls from the ancestors.”
Even ordinary Zafimaniry houses are seen as temples to the spirits
of the people who made them.1
This constant acknowledgment of the
power of those who lived before is not part of the thinking of most modern,
consumer cultures. We live in a world that depends for its economic
survival on the constant adoption and consumption of new things. Archaeology,
history, genealogy, and prayer are the overflowing drawers into
which we throw our thoughts of earlier generations.
Archaeology is one way to acknowledge the humanity and importance
of the people who lived before us and, obliquely, of ourselves. It is the only
discipline that investigates the daily texture of past lives not described in
writing, indeed the great majority of the lives humans have lived. Archaeologists
have wrested surprisingly intimate details out of the silent remains
of the preliterate past, but there are limits to what we can know about
people who have left no written accounts of their opinions, their conversations,
or their names.
Is there a way to overcome those limits and recover the values and beliefs
that were central to how prehistoric people really lived their lives?
Did they leave clues in some other medium? Many linguists believe they
did, and that the medium is the very language we use every day. Our language
contains a great many fossils that are the remnants of surprisingly
ancient speakers. Our teachers tell us that these linguistic fossils are “irregular”
forms, and we just learn them without thinking. We all know
that a past tense is usually constructed by adding -t or -ed to the verb
(kick-kicked, miss-missed) and that some verbs require a change in the
vowel in the middle of the stem (run-ran, sing-sang). We are generally not
told, however, that this vowel change was the older, original way of making
a past tense. In fact, changing a vowel in the verb stem was the usual
way to form a past tense probably about five thousand years ago. Still, this
does not tell us much about what people were thinking then.
Are the words we use today actually fossils of people’s vocabulary of
about five thousand years ago? A vocabulary list would shine a bright light
The Mother Tongue 5
on many obscure parts of the past. As the linguist Edward Sapir observed,
“The complete vocabulary of a language may indeed be looked upon as a
complex inventory of all the ideas, interests, and occupations that take up
the attention of the community.”2
In fact, a substantial vocabulary list has
been reconstructed for one of the languages spoken about five thousand
years ago. That language is the ancestor of modern English as well as
many other modern and ancient languages. All the languages that are
descended from this same mother tongue belong to one family, that of the
Indo-European languages. Today Indo-European languages are spoken
by about three billion people—more than speak the languages of any
other language family. The vocabulary of the mother tongue, called “ProtoIndo-European”,
has been studied for about two hundred years, and in
those two centuries fierce disagreements have continued about almost
every aspect of Indo-European studies.
But disagreement produces light as well as heat. This book argues that
it is now possible to solve the central puzzle surrounding Proto-IndoEuropean,
namely, who spoke it, where was it spoken, and when. Generations
of archaeologists and linguists have argued bitterly about the
“homeland” question. Many doubt the wisdom of even pursuing it. In the
past, nationalists and dictators have insisted that the homeland was in
their country and belonged to their own superior “race.” But today IndoEuropean
linguists are improving their methods and making new discoveries.
They have reconstructed the basic forms and meanings of thousands
of words from the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary—itself an astonishing
feat. Those words can be analyzed to describe the thoughts, values,
concerns, family relations, and religious beliefs of the people who spoke
them. But first we have to figure out where and when they lived. If we can
combine the Proto-Indo-European vocabulary with a specific set of archaeological
remains, it might be possible to move beyond the usual limitations
of archaeological knowledge and achieve a much richer knowledge
of these particular ancestors.
I believe with many others that the Proto-Indo-European homeland
was located in the steppes north of the Black and Caspian Seas in what
is today southern Ukraine and Russia. The case for a steppe homeland is
stronger today than in the past partly because of dramatic new archaeological
discoveries in the steppes. To understand the significance of an
Indo-European homeland in the steppes requires a leap into the complicated
and fascinating world of steppe archaeology. Steppe means “wasteland”
in the language of the Russian agricultural state. The steppes
resembled the prairies of North America—a monotonous sea of grass
6 Chapter 1
framed under a huge, dramatic sky. A continuous belt of steppes extends
from eastern Europe on the west (the belt ends between Odessa and Bucharest)
to the Great Wall of China on the east, an arid corridor running
seven thousand kilometers across the center of the Eurasian continent.
This enormous grassland was an effective barrier to the transmission of
ideas and technologies for thousands of years. Like the North American
prairie, it was an unfriendly environment for people traveling on foot. And
just as in North America, the key that opened the grasslands was the
horse, combined in the Eurasian steppes with domesticated grazing
animals—sheep and cattle—to process the grass and turn it into useful
products for humans. Eventually people who rode horses and herded cattle
and sheep acquired the wheel, and were then able to follow their herds
almost anywhere, using heavy wagons to carry their tents and supplies.
The isolated prehistoric societies of China and Europe became dimly
aware of the possibility of one another’s existence only after the horse was
domesticated and the covered wagon invented. Together, these two innovations
in transportation made life predictable and productive for the
people of the Eurasian steppes. The opening of the steppe—its transformation
from a hostile ecological barrier to a corridor of transcontinental
communication—forever changed the dynamics of Eurasian historical development,
and, this author contends, played an important role in the first
expansion of the Indo-European languages.
Linguists and Chauvinists
The Indo-European problem was formulated in one famous sentence by
Sir William Jones, a British judge in India, in 1786. Jones was already
widely known before he made his discovery. Fifteen years earlier, in 1771,
his Grammar of the Persian Language was the first English guide to the
language of the Persian kings, and it earned him, at the age of twenty-five,
the reputation as one of the most respected linguists in Europe. His translations
of medieval Persian poems inspired Byron, Shelley, and the European
Romantic movement. He rose from a respected barrister in Wales to
a correspondent, tutor, and friend of some of the leading men of the kingdom.
At age thirty-seven he was appointed one of the three justices of the
first Supreme Court of Bengal. His arrival in Calcutta, a mythically alien
place for an Englishman of his age, was the opening move in the imposition
of royal government over a vital yet irresponsible merchant’s colony.
Jones was to regulate both the excesses of the English merchants and the
rights and duties of the Indians. But although the English merchants at
The Mother Tongue 7
least recognized his legal authority, the Indians obeyed an already functioning
and ancient system of Hindu law, which was regularly cited in
court by Hindu legal scholars, or pandits (the source of our term pundit).
English judges could not determine if the laws the pandits cited really
existed. Sanskrit was the ancient language of the Hindu legal texts, like
Latin was for English law. If the two legal systems were to be integrated,
one of the new Supreme Court justices had to learn Sanskrit. That was
Jones.
He went to the ancient Hindu university at Nadiya, bought a vacation
cottage, found a respected and willing pandit (Rāmalocana) on the faculty,
and immersed himself in Hindu texts. Among these were the Vedas,
the ancient religious compositions that lay at the root of Hindu religion.
The Rig Veda, the oldest of the Vedic texts, had been composed long before
the Buddha’s lifetime and was more than two thousand years old, but no
one knew its age exactly. As Jones pored over Sanskrit texts his mind
made comparisons not just with Persian and English but also with Latin
and Greek, the mainstays of an eighteenth-century university education;
with Gothic, the oldest literary form of German, which he had also
learned; and with Welsh, a Celtic tongue and his boyhood language which
he had not forgotten. In 1786, three years after his arrival in Calcutta,
Jones came to a startling conclusion, announced in his third annual discourse
to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which he had founded when he
first arrived. The key sentence is now quoted in every introductory textbook
of historical linguistics (punctuation mine):
The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful
structure: more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin,
and more exquisitely refined than either; yet bearing to both of them
a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of
grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so
strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three,
without believing them to have sprung from some common source,
which, perhaps, no longer exists.
Jones had concluded that the Sanskrit language originated from the
same source as Greek and Latin, the classical languages of European civilization.
He added that Persian, Celtic, and German probably belonged
to the same family. European scholars were astounded. The occupants of
India, long regarded as the epitome of Asian exotics, turned out to be
long-lost cousins. If Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit were relatives, descended
from the same ancient parent language, what was that language? Where
8 Chapter 1
had it been it spoken? And by whom? By what historical circumstances
did it generate daughter tongues that became the dominant languages
spoken from Scotland to India?
These questions resonated particularly deeply in Germany, where popular
interest in the history of the German language and the roots of German
traditions were growing into the Romantic movement. The Romantics
wanted to discard the cold, artificial logic of the Enlightenment to return
to the roots of a simple and authentic life based in direct experience and
community. Thomas Mann once said of a Romantic philosopher (Schlegel)
that his thought was contaminated too much by reason, and that he
was therefore a poor Romantic. It was ironic that William Jones helped to
inspire this movement, because his own philosophy was quite different:
“The race of man . . . cannot long be happy without virtue, nor actively
virtuous without freedom, nor securely free without rational knowledge.”3
But Jones had energized the study of ancient languages, and ancient language
played a central role in Romantic theories of authentic experience.
In the 1780s J. G. Herder proposed a theory later developed by von Humboldt
and elaborated in the twentieth century by Wittgenstein, that language
creates the categories and distinctions through which humans give
meaning to the world. Each particular language, therefore, generates and
is enmeshed in a closed social community, or “folk,” that is at its core
meaningless to an outsider. Language was seen by Herder and von Humboldt
as a vessel that molded community and national identities. The
brothers Grimm went out to collect “authentic” German folk tales while at
the same time studying the German language, pursuing the Romantic
conviction that language and folk culture were deeply related. In this setting
the mysterious mother tongue, Proto-Indo-European, was regarded
not just as a language but as a crucible in which Western civilization had
its earliest beginnings.
After the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, the
Romantic conviction that language was a defining factor in national identity
was combined with new ideas about evolution and biology. Natural
selection provided a scientific theory that was hijacked by nationalists and
used to rationalize why some races or “folks” ruled others—some were
more “fit” than others. Darwin himself never applied his theories of fitness
and natural selection to such vague entities as races or languages, but this
did not prevent unscientific opportunists from suggesting that the less
“fit” races could be seen as a source of genetic weakness, a reservoir of barbarism
that might contaminate and dilute the superior qualities of the
races that were more “fit.” This toxic mixture of pseudo-science and
The Mother Tongue 9
Romanticism soon produced its own new ideologies. Language, culture,
and a Darwinian interpretation of race were bundled together to explain
the superior biological–spiritual–linguistic essence of the northern Europeans
who conducted these self-congratulatory studies. Their writings and
lectures encouraged people to think of themselves as members of longestablished,
biological–linguistic nations, and thus were promoted widely
in the new national school systems and national newspapers of the emerging
nation-states of Europe. The policies that forced the Welsh (including
Sir William Jones) to speak English, and the Bretons to speak French,
were rooted in politicians’ need for an ancient and “pure” national heritage
for each new state. The ancient speakers of Proto-Indo-European soon were
molded into the distant progenitors of such racial–linguistic–national stereo-
types.4
Proto-Indo-European, the linguistic problem, became “the Proto-IndoEuropeans,”
a biological population with its own mentality and personality:
“a slim, tall, light-complexioned, blonde race, superior to all other
peoples, calm and firm in character, constantly striving, intellectually
brilliant, with an almost ideal attitude towards the world and life in gen-
eral”.5
The name Aryan began to be applied to them, because the authors
of the oldest religious texts in Sanskrit and Persian, the Rig Veda and
Avesta, called themselves Aryans. These Aryans lived in Iran and eastward
into Afghanistan–Pakistan–India. The term Aryan should be confined
only to this Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. But
the Vedas were a newly discovered source of mystical fascination in the
nineteenth century, and in Victorian parlors the name Aryan soon spread
beyond its proper linguistic and geographic confines. Madison Grant’s The
Passing of the Great Race (1916), a best-seller in the U.S., was a virulent
warning against the thinning of superior American “Aryan” blood (by
which he meant the British–Scots–Irish–German settlers of the original
thirteen colonies) through interbreeding with immigrant “inferior races,”
which for him included Poles, Czechs, and Italians as well as Jews—all of
whom spoke Indo-European languages (Yiddish is a Germanic language
in its basic grammar and morphology).6
The gap through which the word Aryan escaped from Iran and the
Indian subcontinent was provided by the Rig Veda itself: some scholars
found passages in the Rig Veda that seemed to describe the Vedic Aryans
as invaders who had conquered their way into the Punjab.7
But from
where? A feverish search for the “Aryan homeland” began. Sir William
Jones placed it in Iran. The Himalayan Mountains were a popular choice
in the early nineteenth century, but other locations soon became the
10 Chapter 1
subject of animated debates. Amateurs and experts alike joined the
search, many hoping to prove that their own nation had given birth to
the Aryans. In the second decade of the twentieth century the German
scholar Gustav Kossinna attempted to demonstrate on archaeological
grounds that the Aryan homeland lay in northern Europe—in fact, in
Germany. Kossinna illustrated the prehistoric migrations of the “IndoGermanic”
Aryans with neat black arrows that swept east, west, and
south from his presumed Aryan homeland. Armies followed the pen of
the prehistorian less than thirty years later.8
The problem of Indo-European origins was politicized almost from the
beginning. It became enmeshed in nationalist and chauvinist causes, nurtured
the murderous fantasy of Aryan racial superiority, and was actually
pursued in archaeological excavations funded by the Nazi SS. Today the
Indo-European past continues to be manipulated by causes and cults. In
the books of the Goddess movement (Marija Gimbutas’s Civilization of
the Goddess, Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and the Blade) the ancient “IndoEuropeans”
are cast in archaeological dramas not as blonde heroes but as
patriarchal, warlike invaders who destroyed a utopian prehistoric world
of feminine peace and beauty. In Russia some modern nationalist political
groups and neo-Pagan movements claim a direct linkage between themselves,
as Slavs, and the ancient “Aryans.” In the United States white
supremacist groups refer to themselves as Aryans. There actually were
Aryans in history—the composers of the Rig Veda and the Avesta—but
they were Bronze Age tribal people who lived in Iran, Afghanistan, and
the northern Indian subcontinent. It is highly doubtful that they were
blonde or blue-eyed, and they had no connection with the competing
racial fantasies of modern bigots.9
The mistakes that led an obscure linguistic mystery to erupt into racial
genocide were distressingly simple and therefore can be avoided by anyone
who cares to avoid them. They were the equation of race with language,
and the assignment of superiority to some language-and-race
groups. Prominent linguists have always pleaded against both these ideas.
While Martin Heidegger argued that some languages—German and
Greek—were unique vessels for a superior kind of thought, the linguistic
anthropologist Franz Boas protested that no language could be said to be
superior to any other on the basis of objective criteria. As early as 1872
the great linguist Max Müller observed that the notion of an Aryan skull
was not just unscientific but anti-scientific; languages are not whiteskinned
or long-headed. But then how can the Sanskrit language be connected
with a skull type? And how did the Aryans themselves define
The Mother Tongue 11
“Aryan”? According to their own texts, they conceived of “Aryan-ness” as
a religious–linguistic category. Some Sanskrit-speaking chiefs, and even
poets in the Rig Veda, had names such as Balbūtha and Br.bu that were
foreign to the Sanskrit language. These people were of non-Aryan origin
and yet were leaders among the Aryans. So even the Aryans of the Rig
Veda were not genetically “pure”—whatever that means. The Rig Veda was
a ritual canon, not a racial manifesto. If you sacrificed in the right way to
the right gods, which required performing the great traditional prayers in
the traditional language, you were an Aryan; otherwise you were not. The
Rig Veda made the ritual and linguistic barrier clear, but it did not require
or even contemplate racial purity.10
Any attempt to solve the Indo-European problem has to begin with the
realization that the term Proto-Indo-European refers to a language community,
and then work outward. Race really cannot be linked in any predictable
way with language, so we cannot work from language to race or
from race to language. Race is poorly defined; the boundaries between
races are defined differently by different groups of people, and, since these
definitions are cultural, scientists cannot describe a “true” boundary between
any two races. Also, archaeologists have their own, quite different
definitions of race, based on traits of the skull and teeth that often are
invisible in a living person. However race is defined, languages are not
normally sorted by race—all racial groups speak a variety of different languages.
So skull shapes are almost irrelevant to linguistic problems. Languages
and genes are correlated only in exceptional circumstances, usually
at clear geographic barriers such as significant mountain ranges or seas—
and often not even there.11
A migrating population did not have to be genetically
homogeneous even if it did recruit almost exclusively from a
single dialect group. Anyone who assumes a simple connection between
language and genes, without citing geographic isolation or other special
circumstances, is wrong at the outset.
The Lure of the Mother Tongue
The only aspect of the Indo-European problem that has been answered to
most peoples’ satisfaction is how to define the language family, how to
determine which languages belong to the Indo-European family and
which do not. The discipline of linguistics was created in the nineteenth
century by people trying to solve this problem. Their principal interests
were comparative grammar, sound systems, and syntax, which provided
the basis for classifying languages, grouping them into types, and otherwise
Old Prussian
Lithuanian
Latvian
Sanskrit
Dard
Tocharian B
Sindhi
Romany
Urdu
Hindi
Bihari
Assames
Bengali
Marthi
Gujaranti
Punjabi
Singhalese
Lycian
Lydian
Luwian
Hittite
Pashto
Baluchi
Kurdish
Sogdian
Pahlevi
Persian
Old Persian
Avestan
Greek
Oscan Umbrian
Welsh
Cornish
Breton Gaulish
Faliscan
LatinPortuguese
Spanish
Catalan
Provencal
French
Italian
Rumanian
Rhaeto-Romance
Russian
Byelorussian
Ukrainian
Old Church Slavonic
Bulgarian
Macedonian
Icelandic
Old NorseFaroese
Norwegian
Slovene
Serbo-Croatian
Wendish
Polish
Slovac
Czech
Old Swedish
Old Danish
Old English
Old Frisian
Old Dutch
English
Frisian
Middle Dutch
Swedish
Danish
Old Low German
Old High GermanLow German
German
Yiddish
Irish Gaelic
Scottish Gaelic
Manx
Dutch
Flemish
Afrikaans
Gothic
Tocharian A
PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN
BALTIC
SLAVIC
TOCHARIAN
INDO-IRANIAN
GERMANIC
ANATOLIAN
CELTIC ITALIC
ALBANIAN
HELLENIC
ARMENIAN
PHRYGIAN
West Slavic
South Slavic
East Slavic
North
Germanic
West
Germanic
East
Germanic
Goidelic
Brythonic
Osco-Umbrian
Latino-Faliscan
Dardic
Indic
Iranian
Uncertain Placement:
ILLYRIAN
THRACIAN
The Mother Tongue 13
defining the relationships between the tongues of humanity. No one had
done this before. They divided the Indo-European language family into
twelve major branches, distinguished by innovations in phonology or pronunciation
and in morphology or word form that appeared at the root of
each branch and were maintained in all the languages of that branch (figure
1.1). The twelve branches of Indo-European included most of the
languages of Europe (but not Basque, Finnish, Estonian, or Magyar); the
Persian language of Iran; Sanskrit and its many modern daughters (most
important, Hindi and Urdu); and a number of extinct languages including
Hittite in Anatolia (modern Turkey) and Tocharian in the deserts of Xinjiang
(northwestern China) (figure 1.2). Modern English, like Yiddish
and Swedish, is assigned to the Germanic branch. The analytic methods
invented by nineteenth-century philologists are today used to describe,
classify, and explain language variation worldwide.
Historical linguistics gave us not just static classifications but also the
ability to reconstruct at least parts of extinct languages for which no
written evidence survives. The methods that made this possible rely on
regularities in the way sounds change inside the human mouth. If you
collect Indo-European words for hundred from different branches of the
language family and compare them, you can apply the myriad rules of
sound change to see if all of them can be derived by regular changes
from a single hypothetical ancestral word at the root of all the branches.
The proof that Latin kentum (hundred) in the Italic branch and Lithuanian
shimtas (hundred) in the Baltic branch are genetically related cognates
is the construction of the ancestral root *k’m. tom-. The daughter
forms are compared sound by sound, going through each sound in each
word in each branch, to see if they can converge on one unique sequence
of sounds that could have evolved into all of them by known rules. (I explain
how this is done in the next chapter.) That root sequence of sounds,
if it can be found, is the proof that the terms being compared are genetically
related cognates. A reconstructed root is the residue of a successful
comparison.
Figure 1.1 The twelve branches of the Indo-European language family. Baltic
and Slavic are sometimes combined into one branch, like Indo-Iranian, and
Phrygian is sometimes set aside because we know so little about it, like Illyrian
and Thracian. With those two changes the number of branches would be
ten, an acceptable alternative. A tree diagram is meant to be a sketch of broad
relationships; it does not represent a complete history.
14 Chapter 1
Linguists have reconstructed the sounds of more than fifteen hundred
Proto-Indo-European roots.12
The reconstructions vary in reliability, because
they depend on the surviving linguistic evidence. On the other hand,
archeological excavations have revealed inscriptions in Hittite, Mycenaean
Greek, and archaic German that contained words, never seen before, displaying
precisely the sounds previously reconstructed by comparative linguists.
That linguists accurately predicted the sounds and letters later found
in ancient inscriptions confirms that their reconstructions are not entirely
theoretical. If we cannot regard reconstructed Proto-Indo-European as
literally “real,” it is at least a close approximation of a prehistoric reality.
The recovery of even fragments of the Proto-Indo-European language is
a remarkable accomplishment, considering that it was spoken by nonliterate
people many thousands of years ago and never was written down. Although
the grammar and morphology of Proto-Indo-European are most
important in typological studies, it is the reconstructed vocabulary, or
lexicon, that holds out the most promise for archaeologists. The reconstructed
lexicon is a window onto the environment, social life, and beliefs
of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European.
For example, reasonably solid lexical reconstructions indicate that
Proto-Indo-European contained words for otter, beaver, wolf, lynx, elk,
red deer, horse, mouse, hare, and hedgehog, among wild animals; goose,
crane, duck, and eagle, among birds; bee and honey; and cattle (also cow,
II R A N I A N
I R A N I A
N
TOCHARIAN
I
N D I C
ANATOLIAN
ANATOLIAN
BALTICBALTIC
SLAVICSLAVICGREEK
IT
ALIC
GERMANIC
CE
L
T
I
C
CELTICCELTIC
I R A N I A N
I R A N I A
N
TOCHARIAN
I
N D I C
ANATOLIAN
BALTIC
SLAVICGREEK
IT
ALIC
GERMANIC
CE
L
T
I
C
CELTIC
Figure 1.2 The approximate geographic locations of the major Indo-European
branches at about 400 BCE.
The Mother Tongue 15
ox, and steer), sheep (also wool and weaving), pig (also boar, sow, and piglet),
and dog among the domestic animals. The horse was certainly known to
the speakers of Proto-Indo-European, but the lexical evidence alone is
insufficient to determine if it was domesticated. All this lexical evidence
might also be attested in, and compared against, archaeological remains to
reconstruct the environment, economy, and ecology of the Proto-IndoEuropean
world.
But the proto-lexicon contains much more, including clusters of words,
suggesting that the speakers of PIE inherited their rights and duties
through the father’s bloodline only (patrilineal descent); probably lived
with the husband’s family after marriage (patrilocal residence); recognized
the authority of chiefs who acted as patrons and givers of hospitality for
their clients; likely had formally instituted warrior bands; practiced ritual
sacrifices of cattle and horses; drove wagons; recognized a male sky deity;
probably avoided speaking the name of the bear for ritual reasons; and
recognized two senses of the sacred (“that which is imbued with holiness”
and “that which is forbidden”). Many of these practices and beliefs are
simply unrecoverable through archaeology. The proto-lexicon offers the
hope of recovering some of the details of daily ritual and custom that archaeological
evidence alone usually fails to deliver. That is what makes the
solution of the Indo-European problem important for archaeologists, and
for all of us who are interested in knowing our ancestors a little better.
A New Solution for an Old Problem
Linguists have been working on cultural-lexical reconstructions of ProtoIndo-European
for almost two hundred years. Archaeologists have argued
about the archaeological identity of the Proto-Indo-European language
community for at least a century, probably with less progress than the linguists.
The problem of Indo-European origins has been intertwined with
European intellectual and political history for considerably more than a
century. Why hasn’t a broadly acceptable union between archaeological
and linguistic evidence been achieved?
Six major problems stand in the way. One is that the recent intellectual
climate in Western academia has led many serious people to question the
entire idea of proto-languages. The modern world has witnessed increasing
cultural fusion in music (Black Ladysmith Mombasa and Paul Simon,
Pavarotti and Sting), in art (Post-Modern eclecticism), in information services
(News-Gossip), in the mixing of populations (international migration
is at an all-time high), and in language (most of the people in the
16 Chapter 1
world are now bilingual or trilingual). As interest in the phenomenon
of cultural convergence increased during the 1980s, thoughtful academics
began to reconsider languages and cultures that had once been interpreted
as individual, distinct entities. Even standard languages began to be seen
as creoles, mixed tongues with multiple origins. In Indo-European studies
this movement sowed doubt about the very concept of language families
and the branching tree models that illustrated them, and some declared
the search for any proto-language a delusion. Many ascribed the similarities
between the Indo-European languages to convergence between neighboring
languages that had distinct historical origins, implying that there
never was a single proto-language.13
Much of this was creative but vague speculation. Linguists have now
established that the similarities between the Indo-European languages
are not the kinds of similarities produced by creolization and convergence.
None of the Indo-European languages looks at all like a creole.
The Indo-European languages must have replaced non–Indo-European
languages rather than creolizing with them. Of course, there was interlanguage
borrowing, but it did not reach the extreme level of mixing and
structural simplification seen in all creoles. The similarities that Sir William
Jones noted among the Indo-European languages can only have
been produced by descent from a common proto-language. On that point
most linguists agree.
So we should be able to use the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European
vocabulary as a source of clues about where it was spoken and when. But
then the second problem arises: many archaeologists, apparently, do not
believe that it is possible to reliably reconstruct any portion of the ProtoIndo-European
lexicon. They do not accept the reconstructed vocabulary
as real. This removes the principal reason for pursuing Indo-European
origins and one of the most valuable tools in the search. In the next chapter
I offer a defense of comparative linguistics, a brief explanation of how
it works, and a guide to interpreting the reconstructed vocabulary.
The third problem is that archaeologists cannot agree about the antiquity
of Proto-Indo-European. Some say it was spoken in 8000 BCE,
others say as late as 2000 BCE, and still others regard it as an abstract
idea that exists only in linguists’ heads and therefore cannot be assigned
to any one time. This makes it impossible, of course, to focus on a specific
era. But the principal reason for this state of chronic disagreement
is that most archaeologists do not pay much attention to linguistics.
Some have proposed solutions that are contradicted by large bodies of
linguistic evidence. By solving the second problem, regarding the ques-
The Mother Tongue 17
tion of reliability and reality, we will advance significantly toward solving
problem number 3—the question of when—which occupies chapters
3 and 4.
The fourth problem is that archaeological methods are underdeveloped
in precisely those areas that are most critical for Indo-European origin
studies. Most archaeologists believe it is impossible to equate prehistoric
language groups with archaeological artifacts, as language is not reflected
in any consistent way in material culture. People who speak different languages
might use similar houses or pots, and people who speak the same
language can make pots or houses in different ways. But it seems to me
that language and culture are predictably correlated under some circumstances.
Where we see a very clear material-culture frontier—not just different
pots but also different houses, graves, cemeteries, town patterns,
icons, diets, and dress designs—that persists for centuries or millennia, it
tends also to be a linguistic frontier. This does not happen everywhere. In
fact, such ethno-linguistic frontiers seem to occur rarely. But where a robust
material-culture frontier does persist for hundreds, even thousands of
years, language tends to be correlated with it. This insight permits us to
identify at least some linguistic frontiers on a map of purely archaeological
cultures, which is a critical step in finding the Proto-Indo-European
homeland.
Another weak aspect of contemporary archaeological theory is that
archaeologists generally do not understand migration very well, and migration
is an important vector of language change—certainly not the
only cause but an important one. Migration was used by archaeologists
before World War II as a simple explanation for any kind of change observed
in prehistoric cultures: if pot type A in level one was replaced by
pot type B in level two, then it was a migration of B-people that had
caused the change. That simple assumption was proven to be grossly inadequate
by a later generation of archaeologists who recognized the myriad
internal catalysts of change. Shifts in artifact types were shown to be
caused by changes in the size and complexity of social gatherings, shifts
in economics, reorganization in the way crafts were managed, changes in
the social function of crafts, innovations in technology, the introduction
of new trade and exchange commodities, and so on. “Pots are not people”
is a rule taught to every Western archaeology student since the 1960s.
Migration disappeared entirely from the explanatory toolkit of Western
archaeologists in the 1970s and 1980s. But migration is a hugely important
human behavior, and you cannot understand the Indo-European
problem if you ignore migration or pretend it was unimportant in the
18 Chapter 1
past. I have tried to use modern migration theory to understand prehistoric
migrations and their probable role in language change, problems discussed
in chapter 6.
Problem 5 relates to the specific homeland I defend in this book, located
in the steppe grasslands of Russia and Ukraine. The recent prehistoric archaeology
of the steppes has been published in obscure journals and books,
in languages understood by relatively few Western archaeologists, and in a
narrative form that often reminds Western archaeologists of the old “pots
are people” archaeology of fifty years ago. I have tried to understand this
literature for twenty-five years with limited success, but I can say that Soviet
and post-Soviet archaeology is not a simple repetition of any phase of
Western archaeology; it has its own unique history and guiding assumptions.
In the second half of this book I present a selective and unavoidably
imperfect synthesis of archaeology from the Neolithic, Copper, and
Bronze Ages in the steppe zone of Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan,
bearing directly on the nature and identity of early speakers of IndoEuropean
languages.
Horses gallop onstage to introduce the final, sixth problem. Scholars
noticed more than a hundred years ago that the oldest well-documented
Indo-European languages—Imperial Hittite, Mycenaean Greek, and the
most ancient form of Sanskrit, or Old Indic—were spoken by militaristic
societies that seemed to erupt into the ancient world driving chariots
pulled by swift horses. Maybe Indo-European speakers invented the chariot.
Maybe they were the first to domesticate horses. Could this explain
the initial spread of the Indo-European languages? For about a thousand
years, between 1700 and 700 BCE, chariots were the favored weapons of
pharaohs and kings throughout the ancient world, from Greece to China.
Large numbers of chariots, in the dozens or even hundreds, are mentioned
in palace inventories of military equipment, in descriptions of battles, and
in proud boasts of loot taken in warfare. After 800 BCE chariots were
gradually abandoned as they became vulnerable to a new kind of warfare
conducted by disciplined troops of mounted archers, the earliest cavalry. If
Indo-European speakers were the first to have chariots, this could explain
their early expansion; if they were the first to domesticate horses, then this
could explain the central role horses played as symbols of strength and
power in the rituals of the Old Indic Aryans, Greeks, Hittites, and other
Indo-European speakers.
But until recently it has been difficult or impossible to determine when
and where horses were domesticated. Early horse domestication left very
few marks on the equine skeleton, and all we have left of ancient horses is
The Mother Tongue 19
their bones. For more than ten years I have worked on this problem with
my research partner, and also my wife, Dorcas Brown, and we believe we
now know where and when people began to keep herds of tamed horses.
We also think that horseback riding began in the steppes long before
chariots were invented, in spite of the fact that chariotry preceded cavalry
in the warfare of the organized states and kingdoms of the ancient
world.
Language Extinction and Thought
The people who spoke the Proto-Indo-European language lived at a critical
time in a strategic place. They were positioned to benefit from innovations
in transport, most important of these the beginning of horseback
riding and the invention of wheeled vehicles. They were in no way superior
to their neighbors; indeed, the surviving evidence suggests that their
economy, domestic technology, and social organization were simpler than
those of their western and southern neighbors. The expansion of their language
was not a single event, nor did it have only one cause.
Nevertheless,thatlanguagedidexpandanddiversify,andits daughters—
including English—continue to expand today. Many other language families
have become extinct as Indo-European languages spread. It is possible
that the resultant loss of linguistic diversity has narrowed and channeled
habits of perception in the modern world. For example, all Indo-European
languages force the speaker to pay attention to tense and number when
talking about an action: you must specify whether the action is past, present,
or future; and you must specify whether the actor is singular or plural.
It is impossible to use an Indo-European verb without deciding on these
categories. Consequently speakers of Indo-European languages habitually
frame all events in terms of when they occurred and whether they involved
multiple actors. Many other language families do not require the speaker
to address these categories when speaking of an action, so tense and number
can remain unspecified.
On the other hand, other language families require that other aspects
of reality be constantly used and recognized. For example, when describing
an event or condition in Hopi you must use grammatical markers
that specify whether you witnessed the event yourself, heard about
it from someone else, or consider it to be an unchanging truth. Hopi
speakers are forced by Hopi grammar to habitually frame all descriptions
of reality in terms of the source and reliability of their information.
The constant and automatic use of such categories generates habits in the
20 Chapter 1
perception and framing of the world that probably differ between people
who use fundamentally different grammars.14
In that sense, the spread
of Indo-European grammars has perhaps reduced the diversity of human
perceptual habits. It might also have caused this author, as I write
this book, to frame my observations in a way that repeats the perceptual
habits and categories of a small group of people who lived in the western
Eurasian steppes more than five thousand years ago.