Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia.pdf

Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of

Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an

excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis

by Mario Alinei

Expanded version of a paper read at the Conference Ancient Settlers in Europe, Kobarid, 29-30 May

2003. – Forthcoming in “Quaderni di semantica”, 26.

1 Introduction

This contribution is based on my recent work on the problem of the origins of Indo-

European (= IE) languages (Alinei 1996, 1998, 2000ab, 2001, 2002) – and lately on

Etruscan (Alinei 2003) –, and is divided in five parts: (A) the first outlines the three

presently competing theories on the origins of IE languages; (B) the second summarizes

the converging conclusions reached by different sciences on the problem of the origin

of language and languages in general; (C) the third surveys recent theories on the

origins of non IE languages in Europe; (D) the fourth illustrates examples of how the IE

linguistic record can be read in the light of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, and in

comparison with the two competing theories; (E) the fifth concerns the specific problem

of the Slavic ethnogenesis.

2 The three main paradigms for the origins of Indo-European

languages

At present, the international debate on the origins of IE languages and peoples

concentrates on three different theories: the traditional theory and two new, quite recent

ones.

2.1 Copper Age theory = warlike invasion by Proto-Indo-Europeans as

pastoral nomads (kurgan) (Gimbutas, Mallory etc.)

As we know, until recently, the received doctrine for the origins of Indo-Europeans in

Europe was centered upon the assumption of an Indo-European Invasion in the Copper

Age (IV millennium b.C.), by horse-riding warrior pastoralists (fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Gimbutas’

invasion theory

The last and most authoritative version of this theory was the so called kurgan

theory, elaborated by the American-Lithuanian archaeologists Marija Gimbutas, and

now defended by the American archaeologist James Mallory (Mallory 1989), according

to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans were the warrior pastoralists who built kurgan , that

is burial mounds, in the steppe area of Ukraine (e.g. Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980).

From the steppe area, the Proto-IE kurgan people would have then first invaded

Southern Eastern Europe, then, in the III millennium, after having evolved into the so

called Battle Axe people (the black area on the map) would have brought IE languages

all over Europe, in a series of conquering waves (white arrows on the map).

2.2 Neolithic theory = peaceful invasion of Europe by Proto-Indo-

Europeans as inventors of farming (Renfrew etc.)

The second theory is that of another archaeologist, Lord Colin Renfrew, called the IE

Neolithic Dispersal theory (Renfrew 1987). It is based on the observation that since

there is absolutely no archaeological record of any large scale invasion in Europe in the

Copper Age, the only moment in European prehistory which might coincide with a

gigantic change such as the presumed indoeuropeanization of Europe is the beginning

of farming in the VII millennium b.C. Since farming originated in the Middle East, and

archaeology does detect in southern Europe a migratory contribution from that

direction, associated with the introduction of farming, Renfrew has concluded that these

early farmers were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, responsible for the introduction of IE in

southern and central Europe, and that the subsequent IE dispersal started from these two

areas, along with the dispersal of farming techniques.

And since an intrusive contribution is especially evident in the two earliest

Neolithic cultures of southern Europe (fig. 2), both dated to the VII millennium, namely

the Balkanic complex (the checkered area on the map) and the Impresso/Cardial Ware

in Western and Central Mediterranean (the black area on the map), as well as in the

Linienbandkeramik (or LBK) culture in Germany and Eastern Europe (gray area on the

map), dated to the V millennium, these would be the cultures that represent the first

introduction of IE into Europe. The philosophy behind this theory is thus that the Proto-

Indo-Europeans, far from being warriors who invaded and conquered Europe by sheer

military force, are instead the inventors of farming, who conquered Europe by cultural

and intellectual superiority.

Fig. 2. Map of Neolithic Europe

2.3 Paleolithic Continuity Theory = indigenism (Alinei, Ballester, Cavazza,

Costa, Häusler, Otte, Poghirc)

A few years after the publication of Renfrew’s book two archaeologists and three

linguists, all independently from one another, presented an alternative theory of IE

origins, which is similar to the Uralic continuity, in that it claims uninterrupted

continuity from Paleolithic also for IE people and languages. The two prehistorians are

the Belgian Marcel Otte, one of the world major specialist on Middle and Upper

Paleolithic, and the German Alexander Häusler, a specialist in the prehistory of Central

Europe (Otte 1994, 1995, Häusler 1996, 1998, 2003). The three linguists are, including

myself (Alinei 1996, 2000), Gabriele Costa (Costa 1998), and Cicero Poghirc (Poghirc

1992). Two more linguists are now working on the same line (Ballester 2000a, 2000b,

2001, Cavazza 2001).

It is important to note that this theory is the only one, of the three, which has

been advanced not only by archaeologists, but also by professional linguists, and

therefore carefully checked as to its linguistic coherence, verifiability and productivity.

Fig. 3. Map of Mesolithic Europe

Fig. 3 shows the high degree of cultural differentiation of Mesolithic

Europe, which is likely to have been associated with linguistic differentiation of

some kind.

3 An interdisciplinary survey of converging conclusions on the

problem of the origin of language and languages

Let us now see, more in general, how the problem of the origin of language and

languages has been approached in the last years, and to which results this research has

led; and let us also see with which of the three theories we have just summarized, such

results come closer.

At least five different disciplines, in recent times, have addressed the problem of

the origin of language and languages. And though they have done it from different

vantage points and with different approaches, they have reached conclusions that seem

to show a remarkable convergence. These sciences are: (i) archaeology, (ii) genetics,

(iii) general linguistics and, more specifically, psycho- and cognitive linguistics, (iv)

paleo-anthropology, (v) cognitive science. To these five disciplines, research on history

of ideas can be added, and more specifically history of archaeology and of linguistics,

for the critical light that their conclusions throw on the ideological genesis of the

traditional theory.

3.1 Archaeology

In the last three decades, archaeological research has made quite a few revolutionary

advances, among which the most well-known is the much higher chronologies of

European prehistory, obtained by radiocarbon and other innovative dating techniques.

But as far as our topic is concerned, the conclusion that interests us the most is that

there is absolutely no trace of a gigantic warlike invasion, such as to have caused a

linguistic substitution on continental scale, as envisaged by the traditional IE theory. On

the contrary, there is every possible evidence for demic and cultural continuity, from

Paleolithic or Mesolithic – depending on the areas – on to the Metal Ages. Even James

Mallory – the isolated archaeologist who has decided to die on the battlefield in the

defense of the traditional invasion theory – has had to admit that “the archaeologists’

easiest pursuit [is] the demonstration of relative continuity and absence of intrusion”

(Mallory 1989, 81). Continuity is now universally considered the basic pattern of

European prehistory.

3.2 Genetics

It is the merit of the new geogenetic school founded and led by Luca Cavalli Sforza to

have made several fundamental discoveries about the relationship between genetics and

linguistics, among which I would mention at least the following two: (A) the areal

distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of the world languages

(Ammerman-Cavalli Sforza 1984, Cavalli Sforza et al. 1988, 1994, Menozzi et al. 1978

etc.); (B) substandard dialect microareas also have close correspondences with the finer

genetic differentiation (Contini et al. 1989).

Although Cavalli Sforza himself has pointed out that such conclusions imply

that language differentiation must have proceeded step by step with the dispersal of

humans (probably Homo sapiens sapiens ) out of Africa, for the specific problem of the

origins of Indo-European languages he has contradicted his own views by opting first

for the traditional warlike invasion theory, and later for Renfrew’s hypothesis of a

peaceful invasion by the earliest farmers, considered Proto-Indo-Europeans. Whatever

the cause of this major contradiction, however, even Cavalli Sforza has recently had to

surrender to the latest outcome of genetic research, i.e. that 80% of the genetic stock of

Europeans goes back to Paleolithic (Sykes 2001, 240 ff.).

As Bryan Sykes’ has commented: “ The Neolithic farmers ha[ve] certainly been

important; but they ha[ve] only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It [is] the

hunters of the Paleolithic that ha[ve]created the main body of modern European gene

pool” (Bryan Sykes, 2001 242).

3.3 General linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Cognitive linguistics

The central idea of Noam Chomsky’s revolutionary theory on the psychological and

formal foundations of language is the thesis that language is innate . Until recently, this

claim formed a major obstacle for the integration of his theory in a Darwinian,

evolutionary framework. A major breakthrough, however, independently made by two

scholars specialized in different sciences, has provided an unexpected solution for this

problem.

3.4 Paleoanthropology

The last twenty years of discoveries in the field have brought Ph. V. Tobias, one of the

world leading paleo-anthropologists, to conclude that the question now is no longer

whether Homo habilis spoke, but whether the capacity for language was already

optionally present in some Australopithecus , to become obligatory in Homo , or emerged

with Homo , as one of his unique traits (Tobias 1996). As himself writes: “Several lines

of evidence suggest that the rudiments of speech centres and of speaking were present

already before the last common ancestral hominid population spawned Homo and the

robust australopythecines (Broca’s bulge in A. africanus ; tool-making perhaps by a

derived A. africanus and a hint of an inferior parietal lobule in one endocast, SK 1585,

of A. robusts ). Both sets of shoots would then have inherited the propensity for spoken

language. The function would probably have been facultative in A. robustus and A.

boisei , but obligate in Homo ” (Tobias 1996, 94, author’s emphasis).

3.5 Cognitive Sciences

On the basis of independent evidence, a similar conclusion has been reached also in the

field of cognitive sciences, by Steven Pinker, in his masterly book on ‘language

instinct’, inspired by Chomsky’s theory of language (Pinker 1994): “a form of language

could first have emerged [...] after the branch leading to humans split off from the one

leading to chimpanzees. The result would be languageless chimps and approximately

five to seven million years in which language could have gradually evolved” (Pinker

1994, 345). In short, language would indeed be innate in humans, but only as the result

of a much longer evolution than traditionally thought, beginning with some

Australopithecus .

3.6 History of ideas

As many studies have now shown, the foundation of scientific IE research in the 19 th -

century was deeply influenced by the contemporary Arian, Pangermanic and colonialist

ideology, as first expounded in Count Joseph-Arthur De Gobineau’s, Essai sur

l’inégalité des races humaines (1853-1855) and Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s, Die

Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (1899), with their emphasis on Indo-Europeans

racial superiority and their inclination to war and conquest (e.g. Poliakov 1974, Römer

1985, Trigger 1989, Renfrew 1987 etc.).

Here is, for example, how Adolphe Pictet, the founder of the so called Linguistic

Paleontology, in his book Les origines des Indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitif.

Essai de paléontologie linguistique , Paris, 1859-63, described the “Arian race”:

«a race destined by the Providence to dominate the whole world… Privileged among all

other races for the beauty of its blood, and for the gifts of its intelligence, … this fertile

race has worked to create for itself, as a means for its development, a language which is

admirable for its richness, its power, its harmony and perfection of forms».

This is why the first IE specialists – imbued with European colonialism of the

19 th century – chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and

colonizers , who would have conquered the allegedly “pre-IE” Neolithic Europe in the

Copper Age, and brought their ‘superior’ (?) civilization to it. And since it was

necessary for the Indo-European warriors to have weapons and horses, also the choice

of the Copper Age was obligatory, because this was the context of Battle Axes,

metallurgy and horse domestication. At the same time, while the concept of the Arian

super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse riding invaders, another

myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: