Reseña Archaeology and Language - The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins

Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins by Colin Renfrew
Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 437-468

Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743460 .
Accessed: 24/02/2014 09:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume29, Number3, JuneI988
? I988 byTheWenner-Gren Research.All rights
forAnthropological
Foundation reserved
OOII-3204/88/2903-0004$2.50
areaswherethesehavebeenspoken,thecentralissues
aremethodological ones,notsquarelyaddressed in gen-
A CA * BOOK REVIEW eral termsuntil chapters5 (Languageand Language
Change)and6 (Language, PopulationandSocialOrgani-
zation:A ProcessualApproach). The preceding chapters
discussthe earlydevelopment of ideas concemingthe
Archaeologyand languagegroupin questionand the mannerin which
linguisticchangeshouldbe analysed.In dealingwith
Language theseissuesin terms,specifically,
languagegroup,one is, ofcourse,in factfollowing
pathofdevelopment
oftheIndo-European
ofhistoricallinguistics
the
as a disci-
pline.The Indo-European languagegroupwas thefirst to
be recognisedas such,and it was withthis language
The Puzzle ofIndo-European groupin mindthatmostoftheearlymodelsforlanguage
Origins' change,such as the treemodel and the wave model,
wereworkedout. In thisprecis,I shouldfirstlike to
sketchout theissuesin generaltermsbeforetumingto
thespecific(Indo-European) case in question.
by Colin Renfrew Since the recognition of the Indo-European language
familyin I786,linguists haveclassified mostofthelan-
guagesofthe earthintolargeraggregates or "families"
on thebasisofaffinities ofvocabulary, ofgrammar, and
ofphonology. An obviousquestionwhichinterests the
Author'sPrecis historical linguist is how
the historicalrealityunderlying
these families arose:
the affinities
what
which
is
maybe observed?Since the timeof Schleicher(i863),
Theimmediate reasonforwriting Archaeology and Lan- mostscholarshavepreferred a treemodel,in whichthe
guagewas a feelingofdeepfrustration thatthestudyof principal process is divergence. It is indeedthecase that
has beenseriously when a group of people speaking a singlelanguagebe-
Europeanprehistory impededon sev-
eralfrontsby a seriesofhiddenassumptions and sub- comes, through some historical circumstance, divided
in ourthinking abouta subject into two or more units, and when these are no longer in
mergedpreconceptions effective
currently verymuchoutoffashionamongprehistorians: close, contact, divergence takes place, so that
the originsof the Indo-European separatedialectsand ultimately
languages.But the formed. separatelanguagesare
broaderobjective,whichone would not wish to lose If it is assumed that this is the onlylinguis-
amongtheminutiaeofIndo-European scholarship,was tically significant process taking place, thenthehistory
to bringintoprominence an issuewhichhas beenmuch of a language family may be summarised in family-tree
overlooked in general,theroleoflan- form. Each bifurcation represents a physical separation
byprehistorians
guageinprehistory. The archaeological evidencehasnot or at least the formation of a linguistic boundary. From
effectively beenbrought intoplay. the time of Schleicher this has been interpreted most
In the earlierpartof thiscentury, often in migrationist terms: that is to say, in most cases
whensuch issues
wereverymuchmorein vogue,equationswereoften theseparations in questionareconceivedas theresultof
made betweensupposedsocial groupsspeakinga no- migrations of groups ofpeople(e.g.,tribes)awayfrom
tionalprehistoric languageand archaeological entities the original homeland. Implicitin themodelis theno-
tion that there was a time whenthe parentor proto-
("cultures")definedfromthematerialrecord.So it was languagewas spokenwithina singlesuch homeland,
thatissues such as "the comingofthe Greeks"or the
definition of the Celts werediscussed,oftenin rather well-defined geographically. Inmanycasesthissketchis
simplisticterms,leavinga legacyof assumptionsand indeed valid in outline: the case of the Romancelan-
conclusions:todaythe archaeologist oftenreliesupon guages is the example most often cited,withthehistor-
outdatedlinguisticconceptsand thehistoricallinguist ical reality underlying the linguistic dispersalbeingthe
upon old-fashioned archaeologicalinterpretations. In- movements of the armies and administrators ofImperial
deed sometimestoday,information receivedby ar- Rome.
chaeologists thatappearsto be basedsecurelyuponlin- Thereare of courseothermechanismsof linguistic
guisticinterpretation is,on thecontrary, foundedinpart change, and Schmidt(i872) introduced one ofthemost
upon archaeologicalassessmentswhich,if perceived, influential with his wave model. Here it was recognised
wouldbe unhesitatingly that significant language changes such as soundshifts
repudiated. could
Although thegreater partofthebookfocusseson the originate, without movements ofpeople, as inno-
vation waves moving outward from some centre oflin-
Indo-European languagesand on thearchaeology ofthe
guisticinnovation. The wavemodelcan lead to histor-
ical interpretations whichdiffer greatlyfromthoseof
i. London:JonathanCape, I987. thetreemodelandhasprovedeffective inaccounting for
437

438 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
some of the complexitiesof linguisticpattemingin tralrelevancealso,includingtheextentofin-migration

space. andout-migration fortheareain question(using"migra-
Too oftenin thepast,however, thearchaeological re- tion" here in the demographic sense of crossingthe
sponsewas verymuchthatofKossinna(I902), namely, boundariesof the area understudy,withoutimplying
to takea particular archaeologically attestedcultureor anymorethana purelylocalmovement). The keytothe
ceramicstyleandequateit witha specificgroupofpeo- analysismustbe changeand an attemptto understand
ple assumedto be thespeakersofa particular language how languagechangecorrelateswith otherkinds of
orproto-language. The distribution ofthatpottery style changewithinthesocietyinquestion.Happily,sociolin-
(ordecorative trait)was takento indicatethemigration guisticsis a rapidlygrowingfield:languagesare not
ofthepeoplein question,thusallowinga notionalhis- unitarywholesbut are spokenby speakerswithvery
toryto be built up of the supposedfolkmovements different vocabulariesand withlinguisticconventions
underlying the developmental familytreeforthe lan- whichrelateto theirsocial positions,theirproductive
guage.Atthattimeitwas widelyassumedthattheprin- roles,and otherfactors.
cipalprocessesoflanguagechangewereverymuchthose Now, whilethereis no way thata specificlanguage
indicatedbySchleicher. It was thusthought possibleby per se can be directlyrevealedin the archaeological
studying theaffinities betweenthemodemrepresenta-record,otherthan throughwrittentexts,the sortof
tivesof the linguisticfamily,by focussing uponwhat changesjustconsidered do indeedfindcorrelates in the
theyhadin common,andbytakingaccountoftheregu- archaeological record,be theyeconomic,social,or de-
laritiesobservedin theprocessesofsoundchangeto re- mographic. Archaeological researchin favourablecir-
construct in outlinethe phonology, the grammar, and cumstancesshouldallow the elucidationofsocial and
thevocabulary ofthe Ursprache, theproto-language. In economicchanges,includingthosewhichwill haveac-
I859, AdolphePictetsuggested thatthevocabulary re- companied orbeenaccompanied bylinguistic change.In
vealedas belonging to a specificproto-language couldbe placeoftheoldframework oflinkages-specific language
used,bya processwhichhe termed"linguistic palaeon- people/ethnos + specific archaeological"culture"-it
tology,"to givean impression ofthephysicalenviron- maybe possibleto developin a systematic waya rather
mentof the speakersof the Ursprachewithintheir different framework of inference:languagechange<-*
Urheimat, theoriginalhomeland. economic/social/demographic change <-) change in the
It is the centralthesisof my book thattheseearly archaeologicalrecord.This may be termeda "pro-
models-used by successivegenerations ofscholarsall cessual"approach, in whichemphasisis to be laidupon
tooreadytoequatea culturewitha people(from Gordon theprocessesof changeof each kindratherthanupon
Childeto IrvingRouse)and a peoplewitha language- specificnotionalarchaeological "cultures"as supposed
haveyieldedreconstructions fortheoriginandspreadof ethnicunits.
languageswhichamountto a travesty ofarchaeological It is proposedthatit maybe usefulto distinguish first
interpretation. Theyare baseduponthe cardinalerror, threeverybasic,primary processesbywhichlanguages
propagatedby Childe in I927, that when contemporary come to be spokenin a particular region.These three
archaeologists definea "culture"on thebasisofa "con- processesare (i) initialcolonisationofa previously un-
stantly recurring assemblageofartefacts" (oftenitselfin inhabitedarea(e.g.,Polynesia);(2) replacement, whereby
practicereducedto a singletrait,suchas paintedspirals thelanguagespokenin a particular regionis replacedby
orimpressed corddecoration onpottery)theyaresimul- anotherbrought in bypeoplefroma different, possibly
taneouslyreconstructing an earlyethnicgroupdistinct adjacentregionwhereit is in use; and (3) continuous
fromothersuch groupsand probablyspeakingits own development,includingdivergenceand convergence
language.In reality, it is increasinglyrealisedtodaythat withinthe area in questionand the effects of contact
thisseparation ofthenon-urban worldintoseparateand with neighbours, with resultingacquisitionof loan-
distinctethneis verymucha productof igth-centurywords,etc. Whenthe aim is to explainthe degreeof
anthropology. A strongly developedethnicity is not,in unitypossessedby a specificlanguagefamilyand,in
fact,a universalamonghumansocieties;thenotionof particular, its differences fromotherlanguagefamilies,
ethnicity cannotproperly be used as the fundamental Processesi and 2 areparticularly relevant.Despitethe
organising principlefortheprehistoric past. interesting argumentsof the Soviet linguistN. S.
But if the equationof potterytypesor supposedar- Trubetzkoy, it is noteasyto imaginea wholeseriesof
chaeological"cultures"withspecific languages orproto- previouslyentirelyunrelatedlanguagesevolvingto-
languagesis inappropriate, how can we bringthe ar- getherintoa coherent languagefamilysimplythrough a
chaeologicalrecordto bearuponquestionsoflinguistic processof continuousdevelopment, local interaction,
origins?Or is thissimplyimpossible?I arguethatthe andconvergent evolution.It followsthatwhenseeking
task can indeedbe attemptedwithoutthe simplistic explanations inhistorical termsforsucha languagefam-
equationofspecificculturesor traitswithspecifichy- ily,in thosecases whereinitialcolonisationdoes not
potheticallanguages.Languagesdo notchangein isola- seem the appropriate explanation, moreconsideration
tion,subjectto laws whichhave linguisticrelevance shouldbe givento replacement. Threeprincipal models
alone. They changebecause theirspeakersare within forlanguagereplacement maybe proposed:
societieswheresignificant economicandsocialchanges i. Demography/subsistence. Thismodelassumesthat
arealso takingplace.Demographic questionsareofcen- the new languagecomes to be spoken (withinthe

Volume 29, Number 3, June1988 1439
specificareain question)as theresultofthemovement eredbynomadwarrior horsemen, whosetracesmightbe

intotheterritory oflargenumbersofpeoplewhospeak seenin theCordedWareandBellBeakercultureswide-
it.Thisneednotimplyconquestbyforceofarms,butit spreadat theendoftheEuropeanNeolithic.This view
doesrequire,ifthenewcomers areto displacetheexist- has been more recentlydevelopedand advocatedby
ingpopulationor to outnumber them,a new exploita- MarijaGimbutas,whoseKurganinvaders, sustainedby
tivetechnology. Unlesstheybringwiththemsomespe- herverythorough knowledge ofthearchaeology ofeast-
cial techniquesor skills,in fact,generally, some new em Europe,followverymuchin thehoofprints ofthose
modeofsubsistence, thereis no reasontheyshouldfare ofSchrader and Childe.
betterthantheexistingpopulation. The introduction of In my view, however,thereare seriousarguments
farming in an areapreviously inhabited onlybyhunter- againstthispicture.In thefirstplace,manyoftheargu-
gatherers is an obviousinstance. ments based on linguisticpalaeontologyappearun-
2. Elite dominance.The model assumesthe arrival sound,as manycomparative linguistshave soughtto
fromoutsidetheterritory ofa relativelysmallgroupof show.Buttheprincipal argument againstthetraditional
highlyorganisedpeople speakinga different language view is thatthe archaeological recorddoes not in fact
who,becauseoftheirmilitary effectiveness,areable to offerevidenceforsignificant migrations into central,
dominatetheexisting populationandbringit intoeffec- westem,and southemEuropeat the end of the Neo-
tivesubjection. Ifthelanguageoftheincoming elitesur- lithic.In particular,workon theBeakerphenomenon by
vivesratherthanthe indigenousone,thatis a case of Shennan(e.g., i986) and othershas produceda now
languagereplacement. widelyacceptedmodelbased upon muchmorestatic
3. Systemcollapse. Many earlystate organisationsinteractions. It wouldnoteasilylead to a prediction of
were unstableand underwentoftenspectacular"col- widespread languagechange.
lapses"in whichcentralised controlwas lostbythegov- But, as JulianStewardonce remarked(1955 :209),
emingeliteanda periodofchaosensued.Sucha collapse "Theoriesarenotdestroyed byfacts-theyarereplaced
oftenresultsin groupmovements, sincethesystemsof bynewtheorieswhichbetterexplainthefacts."In seek-
boundarymaintenancealso collapse.We can predict ingan altemativeexplanation, thefirstmodelproposed
thatwhen a statesystemcollapses,therewill follow above, of initial colonisation,could certainlybe ad-
local movements ofgroupsfromtheperiphery towards vanced,butit wouldimplythattheUpperPalaeolithic
thecentre.Someofthesemayultimately establishtheir populationof Europewas alreadyspeakinga language
own organisation and languageuponthe territory as a ancestralto Indo-European. Thisremainsan interesting
whole,producing a degreeoflanguagereplacement. logicalpossibility(andone whichin discussionLewis
Othermodelsforlanguagereplacement can be for- Binford has favoured), butit wouldpresentseveralprob-
mulated, andsomearediscussedinmybook.Here,how- lems.Anothermodelindicatedearlier,thatofcontinu-
ever,it is important to note thatthe system-collapseous development, wouldimplythein situ convergence
phenomenon describedis restrictedto societieswitha view of Trubetzkoy, which again presentsproblems.
statelevel of organisation and thatthe modelof elite Therefore thealtemativeseemstobe theotherprincipal
dominanceimpliesa highlevelofsocialorganisation in class ofmodel,replacement.
the incominggroup,equivalentnormallyto thatof a If we thinkof the distribution of the Indo-European
chiefdom. These modelshave strongsocial correlates: languagesofEuropemainlyin termsofreplacement, it
indeed,hereinlies muchoftheirutility. maybe convenient to do so in termsofthethreemodels
Although generalargumentation ofthiskindoccupies set out earlierunderthisheading,althoughmorecan
onlyone or two chaptersof thebook,it is implicitin certainlybe formulated. The system-collapse model
muchoftherest.Ifthebookhas a contribution tomake, doesnotseema convenient oneforthecase oftheIndo-
it mustbe bydrawingattention to thesegeneralissues. Europeanlanguages, howeverappropriate it maybe for
The Indo-European problemwellexemplifies theseis- the"migration period"oftheIst millennium A.D., since
sues.Itdatesfromtherealisation bySirWilliamJonesin in theperiodup to the EuropeanIronAge we are not
I786 thatthe Sanskritlanguageof India is relatedto talkingof statesocieties.Indeed,the elite dominance
Greek,to Latin,and to the Romanceand Celtic lan- modelalsopresents difficulties in termsofsocialorgani-
guages.The Indo-European languagesincludenot only sation,sincethe incomingelitehas to be alreadypos-
mostofthoseofEurope,Iran,andnorthem Indiabutalso sessedofa degreeofranking sufficienttofacilitate effec-
HittiteandTocharian.As indicatedearlier, mostearlier tive controlover the pre-existing population.If the
approaches havebeenin termsofa treemodel,thought Beakerphenomenonbe rejected,thereare fewcandi-
to be explainedin historicaltermsby migrations out- datesfromlatertimesforwhichthearchaeological indi-
wardfromsomehomeland,whosespecificlocationhas cationsare on a broadenoughscale. BeforetheBeaker
beenmuchdisputed.Childedevotedmuchofhis work periodmostofEuropeseemstohavehadverylittlerank-
to thisissue.In his book TheAryans(I926), muchin- ing:Neolithicsocietieswerein themainrelatively egal-
fluencedbythefindings oflinguisticpalaeontology and itarian,segmentary ones.
the workof Schrader(1i890),he placed the supposed The demography/subsistence modelbecomesat this
homelandin thewestemRussiansteppes,northofthe pointa strongpossibility, and thereis indeedone phe-
BlackSea. The migrations responsibleforthespreadof nomenonwhichwas of greatsignificance throughout
theIndo-European languageswerefelttohavebeenpow- Europeforwhichthereis amplearchaeological evidence

sequenceofculturalandlinguistic
FIG. I . Hypothetical duringtheearlyspreadoffarming
transformations in
Europe.Transformation I iS fromthe(hypothetically earlyNeolithicofAnatoliato thatof
Indo-European)
centralGreece,wherethelanguagewas ancestralto Greek.Transformation ofboth
IO indicatesthetransmission
domesticates fromeasternEuropeansettledfarming
(sheep,goat,and cereals)and Proto-Indo-European
communities to theearlypastoral-nomad communities ofthesteppes.
and whichfallsfairand squarewithinits scope: the describedin this way, the situationwas more com-
spreadoffarming. plicatedin the west,especiallyin Iberia(Lewthwaite
Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza II973, I979, i984) i986). This mightindeedaccountforthe morecom-
have set out in some detail a specificdemography/plicatedlinguisticpicturefoundthere.As a first-order
subsistencemodel.It notesthe verylargeincreasein explanationforthe pan-European natureof the Indo-
population ofup to 5o) whichcanaccompany Europeanlanguagedistribution
(bya factor theexplanation is,how-
theshiftfromhunting andgathering toeffectivefarming ever,an attractiveone. As indicatedin figurei, it im-
in an areasuchas temperate Europe.Theyshowthatif plies limited,relativelyshort-distance movementsof
eachgeneration movesitsplaceofsettlement earlyfarmers
offarmers fromAnatoliainto Greeceshortlyafter
bysomei 8 km,witha movethatis randomin direction, 7000 B.C. anda seriesoftransformations, culturalas well
a "wave of advance"will result,carrying the farming as linguistic,as thefarming economy,carriedbysmall
economyacrossEuropein abouti,ooo years.Ofcourse, local movementsof village farmers, was propagated
such a model oversimplifies, assuming,forinstance, acrossEurope.Centraland easternAnatoliaare thus
thatEuropemaybe considered plain.But seen as theearliestlocatablehomeareasforveryearly
an anisotropic
takensimplyas a first-orderapproximation, it indicates Proto-Indo-European-speakingfarmersand for their
theremarkable dynamismofthenew subsistencesys- Mesolithicpredecessors.
tem.Sincemybookwentto pressZvelebilandhis col- Spaceheredoes notallow adequatediscussionofthe
leagues(i986) haveshownthatwhilefarming colonisa- easternorIndo-Aryan partofthelanguagedistribution.
tionofsouth-east andcentralEuropemayreasonably be My suggestion, however,is thatthelanguageoftheIn-

Volume 29, Number 3, June1988 144I
dus Valley civilisationwas alreadyan Indo-Europeantirelysatisfactory, seemsat leastrather moreeffectively

one (sincethe arguments identifyingthe IndusValley rootedin processualrealitiesthanits predecessor. Of
scriptas recording a Dravidianlanguagedo not appear course,theapproachwillbe seenas brashly iconoclastic
convincing). Findsat earlyfarming sitessuchas Mehr- bymanyworkers. Ithas,forinstance, theeffectofunder-
garhin Baluchistan mayyetshowthatthebasicfarming miningthe historicalrealityof the worksof Georges
economyin NorthIndiaand Pakistanwas an imported Dumezilandhis followers in thefieldofIndo-European
one.In thatcase thefarming-spread modelcouldapply mythology and social structures. The notionthatthe
therealso.Butifearlyfarming was in factindigenous to heroic,patriarchalsocietiesof Vedic India, Homeric
theIndiansub-continent, someotherexplanation, prob- Greece,andlateCelticIrelandsharedthesequalitieses-
ablylinkedto thedevelopment ofnomadicpastoralism, sentiallybecause they derivedtheirsocial structure
needsto be offered. In anycase it shouldbe notedthat froma sharedproto-Indo-European ancestoris nowseen
thenomadic-pastoral economymayhavebeentransmit- as a myth.In realityall threeevolvedduringthe Iron
tedfromwestto eastintotheRussiansteppes.The Kur- Age into sophisticated, chiefly, warriorsocietiesfrom
gan peoples of that area may have spokenan Indo- verydifferent predecessors. TheircommonIndo-Euro-
Europeanlanguagebecausetheirfarming neighbours to peanheritage goesmuchearlier:it cannotreallybe held
thewestdid so beforethem:thatarrowon theold lin- responsible iftheylaterbecomeheroic,warlike,orpatri-
guisticmapwouldbe reversed andreplacedbyTransfor- archal.
mationio offigurei. The timehas surelycomeforsomefundamental re-
This view allows a muchlongertimeforthe evolu- thinking notonlyoftheIndo-European problembutof
tion,mainlyin thoseveryareas wheretheyare later the whole relationship betweenhistoricallinguistics
historically attested, ofthedifferent languagesandlan- andprehistoric archaeology. Sucha reassessment is nec-
guagegroupsof Europe.For instance,the Celtic lan- essary,I believe,if we are to escape fromthe myths
guageswill have evolved,in verymuch those areas which currently imprisonus withina framework of
wheretheywerespokenat thetimeoftheRomans,from igth-century origin,constructed at a timewhenboth
a muchearlier,Neolithicsub-stratum thatwas already archaeology and linguisticswerein theirtoothlessin-
Indo-European. Thisremovestheconstraint whichmost fancy.
writers havehad in dealingwiththeEuropeanIronAge
of havingto allow forsome influxof outsiderswho
would bringthe Celtic languageswiththem.The ar-
chaeological evidenceforsuchan influx, whether inIron Reviews
Age timesor in Late BronzeAge (Urnfield) times,has
neverbeen satisfactory. It seemsmuchpreferable that
the development of society,as documented by the ar- DAVID W. ANTHONY AND BERNARD WAILES
chaeologicalrecord,shouldbe open to interpretationDepartmentofAnthropology, Hartwick College,
withoutthe necessityof bringingin some migrant Oneonta, N. Y. 13820/DepartmentofAnthropology,
group. UniversityofPennsylvania,Philadelphia,Pa. I9I04,
A verysimilarcommentmaybe madeaboutthepre- U.S.A. I4 XII 87
history ofIndiaand Pakistan.It is precisely becausethe
languageoftheAryashas generally beensupposedto be Renfrew's evaluationofthe Proto-Indo-European ques-
an intrusive one thatscholarshavesearchedformigra- tionrightly stressestheneedtounderstand therelation-
tionsintothesub-continent thatmightbe heldresponsi- shipsbetweenlanguagechange/replacement, ethnicaf-
ble. SirMortimer Wheelerevenconveniently had these filiation,populationmovement,and materialculture.
Aryaninvaders("The Destroyers")sackingthe Indus Insteadofoffering thistypeofanalysis,however, he pro-
citiesandbringing theInduscivilisation toan end.Com- videsus with"models"oftheconditions underwhich
parablemythsof a linguistically obligatory invasion language replacementshould have been possible.
have bedevilledtheprehistory ofseveralareas.Aegean Whether ornotthese"models"areappropriate, letalone
prehistorians havedevotedmuchlabourtothesearchfor theonlyones,theyaretoovaguetoprovidefirmsupport
a groupintrusive to Greeceon whichto pintherespon- forhis conclusions.Partof our criticismis linguistic
sibilityforthe "coming"of the Greeklanguage.In (though,like Renfrew, neitherof us claimsparticular
Anatolia too it is widely assumed that the (Indo- competence in thisfield),partis archaeological,andpart
European)Hittitelanguageis intrusiveand the (non- is methodological-andthislast,specifically, takesis-
Indo-European) Hattic languageindigenous,although suewithRenfrew's primary premises:hismodelsoflan-
thisconclusionis basedneitheron strong linguisticnor guagechangeandpopulationmovement.
on strong archaeological evidencebuton an assumption i. The protolexicon.Ifevena smallpartoftheProto-
arisingfromthebroaderframework ofunderstanding of Indo-European lexiconcan be reconstructed withsome
theIndo-European problem. degreeofconfidence, it can providetheequivalentofa
It is thatframework whichI havesoughtto question, fragmented text-a "window"through whichwe may
suggesting thata new approachto therelationship be- see at leastsomeaspectsofProto-Indo-European beliefs,
tweenarchaeological andlinguistic datais necessary and economy,technology,and sociopoliticalsystems.It
offering an altemativeexplanation which,whilenoten- seems odd that anthropologically orientedarchaeolo-

4421 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
gistsshouldeitherignorethispotentialsourceofinter- nantin Greeceforsome 5,oooyears.Yet amongtheca.

pretation or,as withRenfrew, treatit in such cavalier i8o place-namesin the Pylostablets,appreciably less
fashion. He appearstous toocasualinhisdiscounting of thanhalfhaveIndo-European etymologies (Hainsworth
the abilityof comparative linguiststo discernthe se- I 972:4 I). The absenceofMediterranean faunalandfloral
manticcontentofProto-Indo-European (p. 8I). The pro- termsin Proto-Indo-European is arguedby Renfrew (p.
tolanguage is ofcoursea staticabstraction derivedfrom 82) to reflect lexicaldiscardsandredefinitions byProto-
theanalysisofsystematic relationships betweenthere- Indo-European-speakers as theymovedout of Greece
cordeddaughter languagesandsurelycannotreflect the intothe unfamiliar environment of temperate Europe.
dynamismor the spatialand chronological variability One mightthenexpectthe Greektermsforcypress,
that Proto-Indo-European actuallycontained.Never- olive,laurel,lion, etc.,to have cognatesin the Indo-
theless,the reconstructed elementsdo have somepre- Europeanlanguagesoftemperate Europe,withsemantic
dictivepowerregarding phoneticstructure andexplana- shiftsto temperate species.In fact,theGreektermsfor
torypower with regardto irregularformsof later theseMediterranean speciesare not sharedwithother
languagestates.Similarly, the semanticcontentof at Indo-European languages.Moreover,the I7-2I tree-
least some Proto-Indo-European wordscan be derived namecognatesthataresharedbyGreekandotherIndo-
fromcomparison ofphoneticand semanticregularitiesEuropeanlanguagesare characterized by regularsound
amongrecorded daughter languages. To dismissa whole shiftsandsemanticclustersthatmakebestsenseifthe
rangeof reconstructed terms(floraland faunal,hence originaltermswerefortemperate speciesandtheGreek
environmental; technological, e.g.,"wheel";social,e.g., referent (different in almosthalfthecases)represents a
*reg) as havinglittle or no interpretive significance latershiftofmeaning(Friedrich I970:I65).
comescloseto denying anyhistorical valuetohistorical On thewhole,boththedocumentary andtheenviron-
linguistics. mentalevidencearemostdifficult to reconcilewithan
2. The Anatolianhomeland.Renfrew's hypothesis Anatolianhomeland,and the problembecomesmore
thatthe Proto-Indo-European homelandwas locatedin pronounced whenwe considerchronology.
easternAnatolia,perhapsextending tothenorthern Zag- 3. Dating the dispersal.There can be littledoubt
ros,and shoulddate back to at least 6500 B.C. would that Proto-Indo-European-speakers were familiarwith
place Indo-European-speaking populationsadjacentto wheeledvehiclesat a timewhenIndo-European was still
Mesopotamiafromthattimeon.Duringseveralmillen- relatively unified. Buttheearliestdatingforwheelscan-
nia, materialssuch as obsidian,lapis lazuli, chlorite, notbe putmuchbeforeabout3500 B.C., so Renfrew ar-
flint,copper,and silverfromthesehighlandareasoc- gues (p. i io) that Sanskritand Latin cognatesfor
curredin the Mesopotamian/Palestinian lowlands.Yet "wheel"(p.86)simplyreflect thediffusion ofa technical
the earliestknownlanguageof the region(Sumerian, termwithwheeltechnology some3,000-4,000 yearsaf-
fromca. 3000 B.C.) showslittletraceofanyinteraction terhis proposedProto-Indo-European dispersal.There
with Indo-European. Renfrewposits that these Indo- are, however,at least five reconstructed Proto-Indo-
European-speakers tothenorthandeastofMesopotamia Europeantermsreferring to wheeledvehicles,not just
keptto themselves(p. I93), butdocumented tradeand one.' This complexoftermsformsa semanticfieldin
warfare suggestotherwise. Moreover, theearliesttexts
fromthe proposedAnatolianhomeland(Kiultepe, ca.
I900 B.C.) revealIndo-European as a minority language i. These are (i) *kw6kw1os and *kwekwl6s'wheel',attestedbycog-
nates meaning"wheel" in Sanskritand Avestan,a cognatein
withina predominantly non-Indo-European (Hattic)lan- Greekthatin thesingularcarriesonlytherecordedmeaning"cir-
guagecommunity. Renfrew implies(p. 56)thatthiswas cle" butin thepluralis documentedto mean"wheels,"Old Norse
due to Hatticinvasionsofthisarea,butHittitetextsdo 'wheel',Old English'wheel',and cognatesin TocharianA and B
not supportthatargument. In aboutthe I7th century thatcarrythe recordedmeaning"vehicle"; (2) *rot-eh2- 'wheel',
attestedby cognates in Sanskritand Avestan (only thederivative
B.C., whentheHittites beganto producetheirownrec- *rot-h2-o- 'chariot')and cognatesin Latin,Old Irish,Welsh,Old
ords,theycorresponded in eightlanguages, fiveofthem HighGerman,and Lithuanianthatcarrythemeaning"wheel";(3)
non-Indo-European. AndHittiteitselfhadat thispointa *aks- (or perhaps*h2eks-)'axle', attestedby cognateswith the
smallIndo-European lexicon,themajority ofwordsbe- meaning"axle" in Sanskrit,Greek,Latin,Old Norse,Old English,
ingofnon-Indo-European origin.LuwianandPalaicalso Old High German,Lithuanian,and Oldharness Church Slavonic; (4)
*h2ih3s-(orperhaps*h3ih3S-S 'thill'(the shaftof a cart),
exhibitmany traitsindicatingstronginfluencefrom attested by cognates meaning "thill" in Hittite (higga-)and
non-Indo-European languages(TritschI972:44). In brief, Sanskrit(isa); unlikemostoftheothers,thiswordis nota deriva-
ifAnatoliawas thehomeland,whydidit haveso little tiveofa documentedProto-Indo-European verbroot,and its origi-
impactupon neighbouring languages,and why does nal meaningis therefore verylikelyto have been confinedto the
Indo-European seemto be a minority language,heavily piece ofcarttechnology underdiscussion(it is notablethatit oc-
cursin two verywidelyseparatedlanguagestocksand is theonly
infiltratedbynon-Indo-European lexicon,whenitfinally Proto-Indo-European wheeled-vehicleterm retainedin Hittite,
doesappearin written formin theareain the2d millen- whichhadlostmostofitsProto-Indo-European lexiconbythetime
nium B.C.? it was writtendown); and (5) *w6gheti'conveyin a vehicle',at-
LinearB shedsadditionallighton thequestionofan testedby cognatescarryingthis meaningin Sanskrit,Avestan,
Latin, Old English,and Old Church Slavonic and by cognate
Anatolianhomeland.Renfrewplaces the arrivalof derivednounsendingin *-no-meaning"wagon"in Old Irish,Old
Proto-Indo-European-speakers in the Aegeanca. 65oo English,Old HighGerman,andOld Norseand"way"in Tocharian
B.C., so by ca. I400 B.C. Indo-Europeanhas beendomi- Proto-Indo-
B and A. In addition,thereis a sixthreconstructable

Volume 29, Number 3, JuneI988 1443
which the documentedphoneticand semanticregu- about2300 B.C. This leavesa chronological windowof
laritiesare so pervasivethroughout theIndo-Europeanaboutonemillennium, ca. 3300-2300 B.C., for theinitial
languagesthatit is verydifficult to avoid the conclu- majordispersaland suggestsstrongly thatthe Yamna
sions(a) thatProto-Indo-European-speakers werefamil- horizonwas involvedin thatprocess.The Yamnahori-
iarwithwheeledvehiclesbeforetheirdispersaland (b) zon represents thefirstintensive occupationandexploi-
thatthis vocabulary, whichconsistslargelyof forms tationofthe deep-steppe environment (i.e.,as opposed
derivedfromProto-Indo-European roots,was created to the exploitation of the rivervalleysrunningacross
withinthe Proto-Indo-European-speaking community. the steppeand of the steppemargins)by, interalia,
Theborrowing ofa foreign wordforan acquiredobjectis, sheepherding, carttransport, and(probably) horseriding
ofcourse,well attested, butthewidespread andconsis- (Sherratt I98I, AnthonyI986). We agreewithRenfrew
tentadoptionofan entirepackageofsuchtermssuggests thatthisinitiated theeastward spreadofsteppepastoral-
a writtenuser's manual.The absenceof similarcog- ism into centralAsia by Indo-European-speaking peo-
natesfor"spoke"mightindicatethatthedispersaloc- ples.However,theoriginsofYamnalie in thepreceding
curred,or accelerated,afterthe acquisitionof solid SredniStog(TeleginI973, I977) andnot,as Renfrew has
wheels but was sufficiently advancedwhen spoked it (p. 2o2), in Cucuteni-Tripolye;indeed, the Dnieper,
wheelswereadoptedthatthevariousdispersed language separating thelattertwo,was perhapsthemostclearly
groupswereno longersharingacquiredvocabulary. definedculturalboundary in Europeduringtheperiod
The chronologyof solid wheels is as follows:A ca. 4000-3300 B.C. Late in thisperiod, richSredniStog
wheeledvehicleseems to be represented on a Funnel graves,eastoftheDnieper,beganto containconcentra-
Beakerpot fromBronocice(southernPoland),firmly tionsofCucuteni-Tripolye prestige goods,and afterca.
datedto 2700-2500 b.c.(ca. 3500-3200 B.C.). Two actual 3300 B.C., when Cucuteni-Tripolye suffered a system
solid woodenwheelswererecovered fromthe central collapse,therewas much greatermaterialcontinuity
grave(No. 57) ofa YamnatumulusatBal'ki,southofthe acrosstheDnieper.Aroundthesametime,theGumel-
Dnieperrapids,dated242o b.c. + i10 (ca. 3I00 B.C. nitsaculturealso suffered a systemcollapse,associated
[TeleginI977:II]). Thiswas theprimary grave,notsec- withthesharply discontinuous KaranovoVI-VIItransi-
ondaryto a later-period inhumation as reported byPig- tion.Theseeventsmightwellhaveprovided an opening
gott(I983:56), so thereis no reasonto doubtthe date fortheopportunistic spreadofpeopleandlanguage(per-
(Telegin, personal communication).Solid wooden hapsby "elitedominance"?) fromtheeast (e.g.,see Ec-
wheels are now documentedfromnumerousNorth sedyI979). Yamnatumulusgraveswereconstructed on
PonticYamnaandCatacombgraves,perhapsmorethan theruinsofabandonedCucuteni-Tripolye settlements,
50 (Gudkovaand Cherniakhov I98I), and 2 Yamna and theUsatovocultureexhibitsclearevidenceforthe
gravesin theOdessaregionyieldedfragments ofwooden establishment ofhierarchical patron-client relationships
litters, one associatedwithfourwoodenwheels(Subbo- withsurviving LateTripolyevillages(ZbenovichI974).
tinI980, NovitskiiI985). Thesegravesfallintothegen- The new socioeconomicorganization of the Usatovo-
eralperiod2500-2000 b.c. (ca. 3200-2500 B.C.). All this Yamnahorizonencouraged territorial expansion.
indicatesthatEuropeanwheeled-vehicle technology (a) The laterSredniStoggraveswithprestige gravegoods
was acquiredearliestin easternEurope,probablythe arealso oftendistinguished bymarkers in theformofa
Ponticsteppes;(b) was acquiredtherebyca. 3300 B.C.; surrounding circleofstones("cromlechs" intheregional
and (c) was acquired by the Proto-Indo-European- archaeological literature),and thesecouldbe plausibly
speakingcommunity, whereverthatmightbe placed, interpreted as gravesof "elite"personages in a ranked
andthat(d) Proto-Indo-European was stillrelatively in- societyor chiefdom. Thesepersonsseemto us entirely
tactat thattime. appropriate candidates forthetitle*reg.In thiscase Ren-
Spoked(orcrossbar) wheelsarefirstdocumented on a frew's effortto "demote" *reg to somethinglike
seal impression fromHissarIIIb,ca. 2300 B.C. (Littauer "leader"or "prominent man" in (forhim necessarily)
and Crouwel I979:99-I00), and a spoked arsenical- "egalitarian communities" (p. 259) neednotconcernus
bronzeobjectthat may be a wheel was recentlyre- further (butsee Benveniste I973:227-38, 307-I2). Thus
coveredfroma lateMaikopgraveofaboutthesamedate a Renfrovian elite-dominance modeloflanguageexpan-
intheNorthCaucasus(Bestuzhev andRezepkinI983). If sion mightbe invoked-assumingthatwe acceptthe
thesefindsprovidea reliableindication oftheinception versionrepresented on pp. I32-33 (wherebothchief-
of spoked or crossbarwheels, then the Proto-Indo- domsand statescan operatethisway),ratherthanthe
Europeandispersalmayhave beenwell underway by onegivenon pp. 252-53 (whereonlystratified societies
andstatescan do so).Ifwe accepttheformer, thenmost
ofthelaterprehistoric Europeansocieties(from Middle/
Europeanterm,*h3nobh-, whichhas cognatescarrying themean- LaterNeolithic on, in most areas) would have been capa-
ing "nave" or "hub" in at least fourIndo-European languagesbut ble of such expansion.In any case, the modelis too
also cognatescarrying the meaning"navel" or "shieldboss"; the vagueto providefirmsupport or an explanation oflan-
Proto-Indo-European rangeof meaningclearlyincluded"navel" guage change,and the arguments that migrations of
andcouldhaveincludedone orbothoftheothermeanings.We are
verygratefulto Donald Ringe(Department ofLinguistics,
Univer- European populations were unlikely before the Ist mil-
sity of Pennsylvania)forthis information, thoughwe must be lenniumB.C. (p. I40) strike us as speculative andsmack-
blamedifwe have transmitted it incorrectly. ing of determinism. Partly,such statements and argu-

ments seem promptedby a limitedappreciationof all butmightbe seen morein termsofadvantage.But

demography, to whichwe nowtum. evenhistorically attestedmigrations arenotoriously dif-
4. Migration.No morethanRenfrew do we wish to ficultto explain(e.g.,CeltsintoItaly,5th/4th centuries
returnto assertionsof migration as "explanations" of B.C.; the "migration period"of the 5th/6thcenturies
any culturechange.Nevertheless, populationmove- A.D.; the "Viking"expansionsstartingca. A.D. 8oo-
mentshave occurredfromthe LowerPalaeolithicon, thereis little disagreement that theyhappenedbut
and (as notedabove)we are not convincedthatlater muchas to why).Therefore it seemsto us moreimpor-
prehistoric Europe,fromtheNeolithicto theIronAge, tant,hereat least,to identify structures of migration
can be explainedas a migration-free zoneon theoretical thatmightbe congruent witharchaeological evidence:
grounds.Let us approachthistopicfroma somewhat Leapfrogging: Greatdistancesmaybe "jumped"and
differentdirection. First,we supposethatfewarchaeolo- largeareasbypassedthrough the agencyofadvancein-
gistsdenythe importance ofpopulationstudies,how- formation from"scouts" who collectinformation on
everdifficult theproblemsofestimating prehistoric(or soils, conditions,and resourcepotentialsand relayit
evenmosthistoric) populations maybe.Manyarchaeol- backto thepotentialmigrants (see,e.g.,Lefferts I977).
ogists,however,appearunawareoftheformula usedby In demography thisis knownas channelled orchainmi-
demographers to definepopulation:at anygiventime,a gration(MacDonaldand MacDonald i964, Hilleryand
populationis defined by(a) birthrate,(b)deathrate,and Browni965) and has been extensively studied.Gener-
(c) migrationrate. Mostresearchers working on modem ally,kinshipstructure providesthelineofcommunica-
populations denythattheirstudieshavemuchrelevance tionthatdirectsmigrants to specificlocalitiesfarfrom
to preindustrial, or at least pre-"modem,"societies theirhomes(Lewisi982:48). It is onlytheinfilling that
(ZelinskyI97i; Lewis i982:33), and thishas been ac- mayfollowthisinitialpattern thatultimately canmake
ceptedby archaeologists (Rouse i986:i62). We think thispattern resemblea "wave."In relationtothesteppe-
thatthismaybe too pessimisticand thattheremayin margintheoryofIndo-European origins, theappearance
factbe muchofvalue to archaeologists in thestudyof of SredniStog-likematerialsat Decea Muresuluiin
modemmigration, particularly themigration offarmers. Transylvania (Dodd-Opritsescu I977) and Csongra'd on
Certainly pattemshave been observed-structural ele- theTisza (EcsedyI974) mightrepresent "leapfrogging"
mentsthatdefinetheprocessand configuration ofmi- (perhapstowardtherichestcopper,gold,and silverore
grations. sourceareain Europe?).
Fissionandmigration aregenerally recognized as ways Migrationstreams: Most migrationsresemblea
in whichhunter-gatherers alleviateresourceshortages streammorethana wave.Migrants tendto movealong
and avoid or reduceconflict, and geographers and de- well-defined routestowardspecificdestinations(Lee
mographers identify complexesof "push" and "pull" i966:54),usuallyto joinkin(seeabove).This character-
factors in modemmigrations thatcanbe quantified and isticofmigration structure mightsuggestthatartifact
manipulated in cost-benefit analyses(Sjastaadi962) or attributes linkingmigrants to theirhomeregionscould
regression models (HockingI976). The migrations of be restricted, perhapsleadingto a sortof artifactual
farming peoplesare less easilyacceptedor understood,foundereffect(Thompson I973:5). The widespreadap-
and thoughwe findRenfrew's demography/subsistence pearanceofYamna-horizon tumuluscemeteries in the
modelentirely plausible,we do notfeelthatthis,appli- Lower Danube Valley (Dumitrescu ig80:i26-32) and
cableto certainrestricted situationsonly,shouldbe ac- particularly in easternHungary(EcsedyI979) mightbe
ceptedas theonly typeofmigration forsuchsocieties. understood as a reflection of a migratory streamthat
Rouse (I986:I77) identifies as possiblecauses formi- developedon the basis ofinformation providedby the
grationpopulationpressure,environmental/climatic earlierSredniStogmigrants notedabove.
change,the attraction of favourable conditionsin the Returnmigration: Everymajormigratory streamde-
destination area,and"pushes"byothermigrants. Kopy- velopsa counter-stream movingback to themigrants'
toff(I987) pointsto a seriesof"push"and"pull"factors placeoforigin:"push"I"pull"factors willaffect therela-
promotingmigrationin sub-SaharanAfricaamong tivestrength ofthisprocess(Lee i966). This processis
"chiefdom" and "segmentary" societies.We wouldadd notaccountedforin thewave-of-advance model.On the
thedesirefortheprestige resulting fromsuccessful raid- steppemargins, someoftheCucuteni-Tripolye prestige
ingand warfare, recognizing thatthismay(as withthe goods in later SredniStog gravesmighthave been
Vikings)shadeoffintotrade/exchange (alonga potential brought byreturnmigrants.
conceptualline fromoutright pillagethrough extortion Migration frequency: Becausemigrants tendtobe peo-
to imbalancedexchangeto balancedexchange, depend- ple who have migratedpreviously(Hudson I977:i8-2o;
ingprobablyupontherelativestrength and acumenof Lewis 1982:70), migrationtendsto increasetheprobabil-
thepeople/societies involved). Atthispointwe interject ityoffurther migration. This positivefeedback mecha-
twofactors affecting languagechangewithout, necessar- nismmightpartially underlieflurries ofmigratory activ-
ily,muchifanypopulation movement inbi-ormultilin- ityknownfromthehistorical recordsuchas thosenoted
gualareas:language"switching" and"trade"languages. above.
We see possibilitiesforlanguagereplacement, particu- These pointsbarelydentthe volumeof researchon
larlyoverfairlylongperiodsof time,thatwould not migration butaresufficient tosuggestthatthelinguistic
necessarily involveanymajorpopulationmovement at dynamicsof migrationswill be more complexthan

thosehypothesized forthewave-of-advance model(or, scholarship on thesemattersandrejects,in convincing

indeed,fortheelite-dominance model).Moreover, these fashion,both the arguments fora northern European
structures shouldapplyequallywell to themigrations homelandthatwerepopularintheigthandthefirst part
offarmers or ofmilitaryadventurers and therefore are ofthe2oth century andthemorerecentargument fora
also morewidelyapplicablethanthe wave-of-advancehomelandin the SouthRussiansteppe(see Gimbutas
model. I970 and subsequent publications). Furthermore, he ar-
Conclusion. We suggest,then,thatthe structure of guesforcefully againstthetraditional migrationist view
eventson the steppemarginsat about 3300 B.C. was of the Indo-European-speaking peoplesthatidentifies
consistentwith the documented structureof migra- them as pastoralnomadswho set out in migratory
tions.Theseeventswerealso consistent witha specific swarms,fromwhateverhomeland,and carriedwith
modelofchange,andwithpredictions derivedfromthat themthevariousdialectsthatlatercameto be spoken
model,relatedto theacquisitionofnewtransport tech- acrossEurope,partsof Asia, and the Indiansubconti-
nology(Anthony I986). These dataandthismodelpro- nent.
videa firmfoundation fora steppe-marginhypothesis of Renfrew proposesinsteadthatthelocusoftheoriginal
Indo-European originanddispersal, a hypothesisthatfits Indo-European-speakers, datingfromthe6thto 7thmil-
well withthewheeled-vehicle evidenceandwithother lennium,was easternAnatolia,whence they spread
evidencederivedfromthe reconstructed Proto-Indo-acrossEurope.The Indo-European languages weretrans-
Europeanlexicon.It doesnotrunafouloftheNearEast- mittednotbyhorse-riding nomads,he claims,butbythe
em, Hittite,and Myceneandocumented linguisticdata firstfarmers ofEurope.He favorsa "processual"rather
andtherefore represents, in ourview,a preferable alter- thana "migrationist" viewoftheIndo-Europeanization
nativeto thatoffered byRenfrew. of Europe,and he proposestwo primaryprocessual
In conclusion,we note that Renfrew'selite-domi- mechanismsto accountforthe diffusion of the Indo-
nancemodelpositspotentiallanguagereplacement with Europeanlanguages.The principalmechanismwas a
onlypartialpopulationchange:the elite migratesto "wave of advance"wherebypeople movedoverrela-
dominatean indigenouspopulation(or perhapsmay tivelyshortdistances(abouti8 km pergeneration on
seekto attractadherents? orevenforcibly importa sub- average)in searchofnewfarmland. The secondmecha-
jectpopulation?). We have notedor impliedthatthere nismto whichRenfrew appealsis "elitedominance." In
are othermechanismsby whichlanguagemay be re- thismodel,a relatively smallgroupofhighlyorganized
placedwithrelatively smallpopulationmovements or peoplewithadvancedmilitary technology dominates an
evenconceivably withnoneat all. Thuswe areagnostic existingpopulationand subjugatesit,imposingits lan-
aboutthe necessary relationships betweenpopulation guagein theprocess.The finalmechanism, whichRen-
movement andlanguagechange:surely, theseneedtobe frewagreesis a less effective explanatory tool,is "sys-
examinedagainstdocumentedexampleson a case-study temcollapse."In thismodel,a societyis seento expand
basis. Similarly,and this is the centralissue forar- rapidlyand thenbecomeorganizationally destabilized
chaeologists, can we perceiveanyregularrelationships and collapsewhen centralauthority loses its control.
betweenlanguagechange,population change,andmate- The ensuingsocialchaosresultsingroupmovement and
rialculturechange?TheIndo-European problem willnot languagespread.Renfrew putstheseandothermodelsto
be resolveduntilthesequestionsareaddressedthrough use inhisproposalsin chap.7, "EarlyLanguageDispers-
basicinterdisciplinary research. als in Europe."
To a linguist,all thissoundsquiteconvincing, andI
leaveto myarchaeologist colleaguesthetaskofa more
thoroughreviewof Renfrew'sarchaeologicalclaims.
P. BALDI Traditionally,as Renfrew pointsout,linguistsare cau-
LinguisticsProgram,College ofLiberal Arts, tiouslysympathetic to themigrationist viewofthedif-
PennsylvaniaState University,UniversityPark,Pa. fusionof the Indo-European languages,fromwhatever
16802, U.S.A. i8 XII 87 homeland,primarilybecause large-scalemigrations
rather nicelyfitthefamily-tree modelfordisplaying lin-
This fascinating bookaddressesmanyimportant issues guisticrelationships. Also,thoughRenfrew doesn'tdis-
in whatRenfrew calls "thepuzzleofIndo-European ori- cuss thispoint,thefamily-tree modelreflects a general
gins."It is engagingly written,cleverlyargued,and re- goal ofdiachronic linguistics,whichis to statethefor-
pletewithinteresting maps,illustrations, diagrams, sta- malrelationships betweentwostagesofa language, say,
tisticaltables,and glossyphotographs oflinguisticand Proto-Indo-European and Latin,in such statements as:
archaeological monumentsof the Indo-European past. PIE *p > Lat.p, or *kW> qu, etc.Sincethefamily-tree
As I see it,thebookhas twocentralaims,oneempirical, modelcaptures theresultsofchangeandnottheprocess,
the othermethodological; in one it succeeds,in the it servesas a convenient visualmetaphor formigrations.
otherit doesnot. The traditional notionto whichmost Indo-European
The empirical aimofthebookconsistsin a specific set linguistsare exposedis thatthe earlyIndo-European-
ofclaimsconcerning thefirstspeakersofIndo-Europeanspeakerswere horse-riding independent nomadswho
languages,theiroriginalhomeland,and theirspread movedoutin pulselikethrusts fromtheiroriginal home
fromthat homeland.Renfrewcriticallyreviewspast in the Eurasiansteppe.This maybe romanticfantasy

basedon misuseoflinguisticpaleontology (as Renfrew i. A promising statement (p. 99) about"themorere-

argues)andunrealistic demographic models,butit does centdevelopments ofsociolinguistics" andtheirpoten-
notconflict withtheevidenceandgoalsofa formal lin- tial for"understanding variationwithina language"is
guisticanalysis.On reflection, however, a gradualspread followedbyabsolutelyno discussion:no consideration
of Indo-European-speakers and theirculture,including oftheworkofLabov,Trudgill, Romaine,and countless
language, bymeansofthemorepeacefulintroduction of otherswhohaveaddressed in detailtheveryissuesthat
farming is eminently sensible,andifitcanbe seeninthe he claimsto be central.Further, on p. II2, we find:"A
archaeological recordand supported by a demographicfurther trendin recentyearshas beenthedevelopment
model,so muchthebetter.As Renfrew pointsout,the of sociolinguistics"followed by gratuitousbiblio-
realizationthattheprocessesoflinguisticchangewere graphicalreferenceto Bynon (I977),Labor (read Labov)
notrepresented bythefamily-tree modelis whatled to (I966), and Goyvaerts(I975). Modem sociolinguisticsis
theintroduction ofthewave modeloflinguisticdiffu- ofcrucialimportance, we aretold.Precisely howcrucial
sion,whichhe of coursefavors.It will not,however, itis is demonstrated byanextended quotefrom Bloomfield
changeformallinguisticstatements likethoseabove. II933) onlexicalborrowing. Sociolinguistics comesback
As a linguist,I findRenfrew's conjectures concerning againon p. 286 in theformof"emerging lessons."What
an Anatolianhomelandandhis accountofthespreadof lessons?Where?How?Bywhom?Whatdo theyshowus
theIndo-European languagesquitepersuasive. Infact,by thatis relevantto thepuzzleofIndo-European origins,
apparentcoincidence, his proposalsareverysimilarto especiallyin theone workbyLabovcited(butnotdis-
thoseofGamkrelidze andIvanov(summarized in I984), cussed),whichdeals withlanguagein one ofthemost
thoughtheirsarebasedentirely onlinguistic evidenceof complexurbanenvironments, New YorkCity?A few
whichhe makesno systematic use. similarcomments:"Recentdevelopments in structural
The otheraimofArchaeologyand Language concerns linguistics will also have theirimplications forhistor-
themethodology bywhichhypotheses suchas theabove ical reconstruction"(pp. I i8-i9). Whatspecificdevelop-
concerning thehomelandareformulated. Renfrew crit- mentsin "structural linguistics"have takenplace re-
icizes linguistsfortheirwillingnessto acceptmigra- cently?"The study of linguisticshas undergonea
tionisttheoriesandtheiroverreliance on thefindings of revolution overthepastgeneration" (P. 286). The only
linguisticpaleontology. He criticizesarchaeologists for revolutionin linguisticsin the past generation is the
theirtraditional overemphasis onpottery typesandtheir "Chomskyan revolution," and I am hardpressedto see
generalignoranceof and disregard forlinguisticfacts. itsrelevancehere.
For any progressto be made on the matterof Indo- 2. A secondexampleof "modernhistorical linguis-
Europeanprotohistory, a synthesisofthesedisciplines tics"forRenfrew is an illustration ofphoneticregularity
mustbe achievedin whicheachmakesuse oftheup-to- fromthe firstseries of the traditionally formulated
datemethodsand findings oftheother.In thisrespect, Grimm'sLaw (PIE *p t k > GermanicfP X [h]),witha
the book is a glaringexampleof preciselythe typeof fewrepresentative examplesofeachsegment. Thisis the
methodological gapit purports to fill. firstconcreteillustrationin a chapterwhich is in-
Forone who is pleadingfora synthesis of scientific troducedby the sentence"The studyof languagehas
detail,Renfrew treatslinguistics in general,andhistor- developedremarkably in thepasttwenty years. . ." (p.
ical linguisticsin particular, in a shockingly superficial 99). This illustrationrepresents one small partof a
way.He refersrepeatedly to theuse ofthefindings of phoneticcorrespondence whichwas first identified byR.
"modern historical linguistics" (whichis not,despitehis Raskin I8I8. The exampleis particularly significant for
assertion [p.6],equivalentto comparative philology). To anotherreason.In the past 20 yearstherehas been a
anypracticing linguist,"modernhistoricallinguistics" remarkable development in Indo-European linguistics
means,amongotherthings,studyoftheroleofpidgin- thatgenerally comesundertherubricofthe"glottalic"
izationand creolization in linguisticchange,thestatus or"typological" model.In thismodel,developed primar-
of the Neogrammarian hypothesis of regularphonetic ilybyGamkrelidze andIvanov,Grimm'sLaw ceasesto
changein the light of modem sociolinguistics, the existas a phoneticshiftfromProto-Indo-European to
mechanismsofsyntactic, semantic,and morphological Germanic,renderingthe above exampleineffective.
change,the relationbetweenspeedof culturalchange Renfrew's apparent lackoffamiliarity withtheglottalic
and rate of linguisticchange,linguisticdrift,specific modelis rathersurprising considering his approving ref-
sociolinguistic mechanismsofchangein different soci- erenceto Gamkrelidze and Ivanovon thehomelandis-
eties,lexicaldiffusion, theroleoflanguageacquisition, sue (P. 304 n. io), fromwhichtheirphonological model
and, specifically forIndo-European studies,the "glot- cannotbe separated.
talic" or "typological"model of Proto-Indo-European 3. Renfrewrefersto Lehmann's (I973) Historical Lin-
phonology(see Gamkrelidzeand IvanovI984) and the guistics:An Introduction as "thebestmodemsurveyof
"Nostratic" hypothesis (seeBomhardI984 andthework historicallinguistics"(P. 78). It is a textbookdesigned
of Sheveroshkin reportedin the New- York Times, forundergraduate and perhapsbeginning graduate-level
November24, i987). These arenottheissuesto which university coursesandis appropriately usedin suchcon-
Renfrew refers.A sampleof his use of linguistics fol- texts.It does not,nordoes it pretendto,comparewith
lows: handbooksurveyslike Bynon(I983) or especiallyAnt-

tila (I972) (andthe recently publishedHock I986). To pen but to pointout thatthemethodologies bywhich
illustrateRenfrew'soverreliance on Lehmann,I note suchtheoriesare addressedare quitedifferent. The de-
thathe repeatsLehmann'sreproduction ofSchleicher's velopment ofpidginandcreolesystemsthrough conver-
originalfamilytree of Indo-European languagesand genceandlanguagemixingrepresents rapid,short-term
Lehmann'smodification of Schmidt'swave model as change,morelinguistic revolution thanevolution.
thougheach werethelastwordon thematter.Modem 7. Renfrew repeatedly attacksglottochronology as if
detailedfamilytreesoftheIndo-European languagesare the community of historicallinguistswerefullycon-
availablealmostanywhere (a goodone is in theAmeri- vincedby themethod.His criticisms ofglottochronol-
can Heritage Dictionary),and a dialectmap is readily ogy are sharedby most historicallinguists,and few
available in Anttila (I972:305). The latterwork also of- wouldagreewithhis statement (P. I I7) thatthemethod
fersa seriousdiscussionof the family-tree and wave "represents ... a substantial breakthrough in historical
modelsand a demonstration (fromSouthworth I964) linguistics."
thattheyare not mutuallyexclusiveand can be cre- Themostseriouserror inthelinguistic argumentation
ativelycombined (PP. 300-309). is, however,the lack of concernwithany featuresof
4. A minorbut annoying distraction is thereproduc- languagebeyondthe lexicon.Renfrew repeatedly criti-
tionoflanguagedatawithoutanydiacritics, thereby dis- cizesthenotionoftheprotolexicon andthedeficiencies
torting thephilological record(see,forexample,thelack oflinguisticpaleontology. Whynot,then,makeuse of
ofvowel-length markers, accents,andotherdistinctive thedeep,structural features ofphonology andmorphol-
markersin the data on pp. Io, 55, 56, 66, 100, I04, Io6). ogy?Whatof the sharednonlexicalcharacteristics of
This admittedly bearsno materialconsequence,but it different groups,such as themorphological systemsof
detracts fromthestrength ofthescientific claims. Greek,Latin,and Sanskrit, themorphological parallels
5. Word-order typology (pp.III-I2) has absolutely no betweenGermanicandHittite,theconservative phonol-
significance to the treatment of thematterat handas ogies of Armenianand Germanic,the phonological
presented. IfProto-Indo-European was SOV,as has been parallelsbetweenHittiteandTocharian, therichinflec-
claimed,thenthe SOV patternof Hittitein Anatolia tional systemsof some groups(Greek,Italic, Indo-
mighthavebeenmustered in evidencefortheAnatolian Iranian,Baltic,Slavic) versusthe less dense ones of
homeland. others(Germanic, Hittite)? Whataboutevidenceforlin-
6. Inhiscriticism ofthemisuseoflinguistic paleontol- guistic subgrouping(e.g., Italo-Celtic,Balto-Slavic)?
ogywith regardto the homelandissue (pp. IO8-9), Ren- WhileRenfrew justlycriticizesthelexicalapproach, he
frewpresentsthe "interesting" positionofTrubetzkoy nowheremakesuse ofthephonological, morphological,
(I939[theyearafterhis death;firstpresented in Prague or evensyntacticcorrespondences thatare ofso much
in I936]): value in establishing the protosystems of Proto-Indo-
Thereis,then,no powerful groundfortheassump- European.
tionofa unitary Indogerman protolanguage, from I couldgo on,butI believethepointis made.Renfrew
whichtheindividualIndogerman languagegroups may verywell be rightabouttheoriginalhomelandof
wouldderive.It is justas plausiblethattheancestors the Indo-European-speaking peoples,and he mayvery
oftheIndogerman languagegroupswereoriginally well be right about the spread oftheIndo-European lan-
quitedissimilar, andthatthrough continuing contact, guages across Europe primarily as the result offarming.
mutualinfluence andwordborrowing became Butifhe is correct, itis becauseofthearchaeological and
significantly closerto eachother,withouthowever not the linguistic evidence that he has used.
goingso faras to becomeidentical. It is difficult enoughto masterthecomplexities ofa
singledisciplinein an age of constanttheoretical and
Trubetzkoy "criticizedseverelythedangerous assump- methodological upheaval.Archaeology and Languageil-
tionswhichled to theconstruction ofa supposedProto- lustrates, aboveall else,thatwe shouldcollaborate with
Indo-Europeanlanguage," arguingfor convergence ourcolleaguesfromotherspecialtiesbutnotattempt to
through contactrather thandivergence through splitand represent thosespecialtiesourselvesexceptin themost
spread.Accordingto Renfrew,Trubetzkoy'sconver- cautiousand circumspect way.1
gencetheory is a "beautifully logicalposition."It is also
onethatwas nevertakenseriously byIndo-Europeanists
(whichTrubetzkoy was not,thoughhe did studycom- i. Apartfromthe missingdiacriticsin the citationof linguistic
parativegrammar). Thispaperbytheotherwise redoubt- data, I noticed only a handfulof self-correcting errors:p. I7,
Giacopo > Giacomo;p. 274, I. 7, sc. "mechanisms,"vel sim. after
ableTrubetzkoy was a footnote toa distinguished career "sufficient";p. 297, n. I8, Labor-+ Labov; p. 309, underBopp,
as a theoretical phonologist andgenerallinguist, andit Verhaltnisse Verhaltnisse;p. 3I5, under Gamkrelidzeand
cannotbe taken to representanythingbut his own Ivanovi984b, Yatzik > Yazik; thenameHoenigswaldappearsas
thoughts on thematter. Koenigswaldin all references to paperscontainedin the volume
WhatRenfrew failsto recognize is thatlinguistic con- edited byCardona,Hoenigswald,and Senn;p. 330, thereference to
the TochazischeGrammatikshouldreadSiegE., SieglingW., and
vergence theoriesarenotscientifically provable because Schulze W., I93I. TocharischeGrammatik.G6ttingen:Van-
they cannot be put to the test of the comparative denhoeckand Ruprecht;p. 332, in thereference to Thieme I960,
method.Thatis nottosaythatconvergence doesn'thap- thepublicationis theJournaloftheAmericanOrientalSociety.

GRAEME BARKER Topsy froma multiplicity of UpperPalaeolithiclan-

BritishSchool at Rome, Via Antonio Gramsci 6I, guages.Butit does seemto me ratherdangerous to ac-
00197 Rome, Italy. I3 i 88 ceptthestemtheory as theonlylikelyexplanation given
thatany alternative theorymust shiftthe goal posts
The pointofdeparture forArchaeologyand Language is rather inconveniently fortherestofthebook!I amnota
acceptanceofthestemmodeloftheoriginoftheIndo- linguistandwouldliketo haveseenmorearguments at
Europeanlanguagegroup.Renfrew thedetails thebeginning
criticises ofArchaeologyand Language topersuade
ofSchleicher's Stammbaumtheorieas a product ofigth- me thatthelinguisticgoal postsare as solidlyfixedas
centuryevolutionary theory,but theunderlying thesis Renfrew wouldhaveus believe.
and its implications forarchaeology are accepted.Van- Europeanprehistorians such as Gimbutas,searching
sina (I979:295) has describedthe similarhistoryof the thearchaeological recordforlikelycandidatesto fitthe
studyoftheBantulanguagegroup,wherethestemthe- stemmodelofthelinguists, havefrequently arguedfor
oryhascastthesameshadowoversub-Saharan archaeol- populationmovements fromtheRussiansteppeswest-
ogyas Schleicher'sfamilytreehas overthe European wardintoEuropeduringthe 3d and 2d millenniaB.C.
archaeological landscape:"The late nineteenth century Renfrew persuasively calls intoquestionthe evidence
was ... obsessedwithorigins. The similarities amongst forsuch invasions,offering arguments whichI think
languages[itwas argued]stemmedfromtheirdifferen-manyprehistorians in westernEuropehave long ac-
tialgrowth froma commonancestral language....Buta ceptedbutwhichwill go againstmuchstandard think-
commonancestrallanguagemeanta commonancestral ing in easternEurope.Expandingthe thesishe first
communityof speakers,a 'people.'" Schleicher's proposedin a I973 paper,he arguesthat the only
metaphor allowsno choiceexcepttolookforan original satisfactory candidateleftin the archaeological record
stock,andhavingacceptedthetheory we canargueonly fora processoflanguagereplacement acrossEuropethat
in certainways. can be reconciledwiththestemtheoryis thespreadof
In thecase oftheBantulanguages, however, itis inter- farming between6ooo and 3000 B.C. He suggeststhat
estingthatrecentlinguistic modelsallowforthepossi- thisspreadcanstillbestbe explainedbytheAmmerman
bilityofmechanismsofspreadotherthantheoriginal and Cavalli-Sforza wave-of-advance model.Whilsthe
igth-century theoryofthemigration ofa "stemfolk," admitsthatthismodel"is incompatible withtheview
"suchas drift, thedevelopment oflinguae francaeused on local neolithicoriginsforthe west Mediterranean
by traders,the emergenceof new languagesaccepted heldby suchwell-informed writersas Barker"(P. 269),
overan area as 'standardintercommunity speech'and myconfidence in thequalityofthelatter'sinformation
reflecting thepreferences ofelites,andtheoccurrence of had earlierbeen somewhatshaken by findinghim
languageshiftsas earliercommunities abandonedtheir shownto "misunderstand the [wave-of-advance] model
speech in favourof a Bantu language" (Hall i987:24). at a rather basiclevel" (p. i58).
"Anyandall oftheforcessociolinguists havediscovered I readilyplead ignoranceaboutNeolithicoriginsin
mayhaveoperatedat different timesin different places Europe,a processI findevermorebaffling andintriguing
andwithdifferent It is notcertainat all that themoreI studyit. In studying
intensities. thecurrently available
anypopulation explosionwas everneededtoaccountfor information on the transitionto farmingfromthe
this spread.... moreover,language did not necessarily Mediterranean basinto theArcticCirclein Prehistoric
spreadwithanyofthemore'advanced'artssuchas ag- Farmingin Europe (i 985), I cameto theconclusionthat,
ricultureand metallurgy, let alone withnew pottery whilstthewave-of-advance modelhas a beguiling sim-
styles" (Vansina I980:3I2-I3). plicity,it probably misrepresents therealityofthepro-
In thecase oftheIndo-European languagegroup,Ren- cess so profoundly thatit maynotbe usefulto keepit,
frewrefers briefly to alternativelinguistic theoriesthat albeithedgedroundwiththe increasing numberofifs
would denythe necessityfora searchforan original andbutsaboutregional"acculturation" and "Neolithi-
unity,commenting on themsimplythat"suchcritical cisation,"as ourcentralnotionforwhatwas goingon.
examinationof our assumptionsis necessary"(P. 35), The troubleis,however, thatit is impossibleto offer an
but the restof thebook is basedon the acceptanceof alternative modelanywhere nearas neatandtidyas one
these assumptions. However, as McNeil (I972:23) thatstillhas at itshearttheimageofthemarchofSnow
pointedout someyearsago in whathas alwaysseemed White's Seven Dwarves hey-ho!ing(in proto-Indo-
to me a persuasivecritiqueof Indo-European studies European?)acrossEurope.In the Mediterranean basin,
(thoughone not citedin Archaeologyand Language), forexample,we can discerninstancesofa rapidtransi-
"bystarting fromthepremiseofunity,we simplystack tionto organised mixedfarming in someareas,in others
thedeck. . . it is hardlya matteroffactsdictating the- of an incorporation into hunting-gathering systemsof
ory;rather, thetheory determines whatcanbe accepted. aspectsofagriculture (sheephusbandry in particular)
for
. . . Let us say, as some modernlinguistsdo, thatat the a millenniumor morebeforemixedfarming became
startofa linguistic traditionthereis notunitybutmulti- the norm,in still othersof agricultural and hunting-
plicity.I amnotsayingthatanyofthemechanisms cited gathering systemsexistingside by side formanycen-
abovefortheBantulanguagegroupis precisely applica- turies.In some partsoftemperate Europe,such as the
ble to the Indo-European languagegroupor thatthe alpineregion, southern Scandinavia, theLow Countries,
Indo-European languagesimilarities"just grew"like andperhapswesternFrance,therewas contactbetween

adjacentgroupsof farmersand hunter-gatherers fora concludeshisreviewwiththecomment that"itis prob-

thousandyears,thenthe adoptionoffarming withina ablybetterthatarchaeologists, linguists,and physical
coupleofgenerations. In someplacesthisadoptionin- anthropologists concentrate on the problemsand pos-
volveda majortransformation in the subsistence base, sibilitiesof theirown sourcesof information forthe
in others(partsof Denmark,forexample)a smallbut timebeingand set the task ofgrandsynthesis on one
criticaladditionto theexistingsubsistence base(oftena side" (P. 31)
replacement resource).Discussionat the I987 confer- I knowfromRenfrew's paperat theDecemberI987
ence oftheAssociationofEnvironmental Archaeology TheoreticalArchaeology Groupconference thathe has
suggestedthatinitialfarming may have been of this beenmorepersuaded ofthecomplexity ofthetransition
statustooin thelastbastionofthewaveofadvance,the to farming in Europefromrecentstudiesnotdealtwith
southern lowlandsoftheBritish Isles.Eventhosehonest in Archaeology and Language(suchas ZvelebilI986)
toilersofthesoiltheLinearPottery folkarebeginning to thanhe was bymyI985 reviewor,forexample,byDen-
looka bitsuspectin manypartsofPolandandGermany. nell(i983). Presumably in hisreplybelowhe cansetout
Noneofthiscomplexity deniesthefactthatmostofthe the case forthe compatibility of the language-farming
cultivarsin mostpartsof Europemusthave been in- modelwiththearguments developedin moredetailin
troductions. thepapersinZvelebil'seditedvolumethaninmystudy.
As the radiocarbon chronology and subsistencedata We cannot dodge the language issue, and Ren-
improve, thereis everyreasonto expectgreater rather frewhashadthecouragetograpple withthearchaeology
thanlessercomplexity in theprocessoftransition, prob- andlinguistics andmakea coherent and eloquentcase.
ablywithinstancesof societiesmovingin and out of Butas I havesuggested above,as a non-specialist I have
agriculture in the transitional periodratheras ethno- theimpression thatthebasiclinguistic thesisofan origi-
graphic recordsindicatehas beenthecase in thehistoric nal stemneednotbe theonlyexplanation fortheIndo-
periodin South-East Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.The Europeanlanguagegroup,and I am certainthatthear-
troublewithkeepingthe wave of advanceas the core chaeologyofthe transition to farming in Europeis far
processis that,as I concludedin PrehistoricFarmingin morecomplicated (andI maysaymoreinteresting) than
Europe, "the dominanceof the traditional explanation thewave-of-advance modelcan beginto allow.
hasfordecadeseffectively blighted thechancesofobjec-
tivedebateand (mostcritically) thecollectionofcom-
parativedata on eitherside ofthemesolithic/neolithic
divide-witnessthe rarityof plantremainsfrom'pre- ROBERT COLEMAN
agricultural' sites; or the intellectualconundrums of EmmanuelCollege,CambridgeCB2 3AP,England.
'clearance'interpretation in thepollenrecord;or,most I2 XII 87
ofall,thepaucityofcurrent socio-economic modelsfor
the adoptionof farming by Europeanforagers" (i985: In addressing"the puzzle of Indo-European origins,"
256). Somescholarshavearguedforecologicalfactors as comparative linguistics canoffertwoprocedures thatare
important triggers to the changeto agriculture-shell- of particular relevance.The firstis the assessmentof
fishdepletionin Denmark(Rowley-Conwy I98I), sea- affinity
betweentheextantIndo-European languages.So
levelchangesinthewestern Mediterranean (MillsI983). faras thelexiconis concerned, thisis bestdoneon the
Ofcourse,thesedeus ex machina modelsarelikelytobe basis of a definedbasic vocabulary(see Bergsland and
simplistic andunlikelyto be ofgeneralapplication, but Vogti962). Bytheprincipleofsystematic phonological
at leasttheyare a beginning oftheprocessofreevalua- correspondence we canestimatehowmanyexponents of
tion.Modellingthesocialprocessesis at an evencruder thelistedmeaningsare cognatesas distinctfromloan-
stage-how do communitiesorganisethemselvesas words.The lattercanbe discerned moreeasilythanRen-
theyadoptfoodproduction whollyorpartially, giventhe frewimagines.Of theEnglishand Latinwordsthathe
differences in thewayhuntersandfarmers ownorhave listson p. I04 a fewareofambiguousstatus,like wine
accesstoresources, sharetasksandfood,dependonfam- anduinum,butmostarenot:cheese,palm,andtile,for
ilyorgrouplabour,andso on? instance,wouldrequireamongotherthingsinitialh-,f-
Likemanyotherspecialistsoftheperiod,therefore, I and th- respectively if theywere to be cognatesof
tendto thinkthat-giventhata modernarchaeology palma,andtegula.In thesamewayFrenchbiere,
of caiseus,
mind,body,andenvironment can studytheprocessand tabac,and cafe(p. 85) can be exposedas loansbycom-
contextofthetransition tofarming in Europeveryeffec- parisonwiththeirGermanicandRomanceequivalents.
tivelybuthas barelybegun-it is probably timeto put Of course,a languagemay have a lot of borrowed
asideforthemomentthequestionof"origins"thathas wordsas the resultof prolongedcontactwith their
dominatedthe subjectfora hundredyears.I thinkit sourcelanguage.Thus it is estimatedthat6.7% ofthe
significant thatthestudyofearlyfarming southofthe basic vocabularyofmodernEnglishis of Scandinavian
Saharais goingthroughexactlythe same reappraisal, originand5.4% is fromLatinorFrench, whichhavealso
withrecentresearches in language,physicalanthropol- provided a largernumberofnon-basic wordsin English.
ogy,and archaeology all suggesting theneedfora more In spiteofthe elitedominanceoftheFrench-speaking
orless completeabandonment ofthemodelofa south- Normansafterio66, Englishhas remained as Germanic
wardspreadofBantuagriculturalists (Hall I987). Hall in itslexiconas it is in itsphonology andgrammar. This

is confirmed by the factthatwhereas62% ofthe Old meaningis carriedby two or morelexicalroots,it is

Englishbasic vocabulary has exactcognatesin Gothic, oftendifficult to decidewhether(a) one is originaland
only2I% has exactcognatesin Latin.The percentages theothersinnovatory, (b) morethanonebelonged tothe
aremuchhigherbetween,forinstance,Lithuanianand proto-lexicon butthereweredifferences in meaning, or
Old ChurchSlavonicor betweenAvestanand Vedic, (c) all are innovatory, eitherbecausethe originalword
whichaccordswellwiththephonological andgrammat- hasbeenlostorbecausethethingitselfdidnotbelongto
ical evidencefortheirrespective affinities. theProto-Indo-European "world"beforethedispersal.
It is not easy,however,to convertindicesofaffinity Thus, while *w1kwo- 'wolf'and *gwed3w-'cow', for
intocriteria formeasuring thelengthoftimethatsepa- instance,are widelyenoughattestedto justifytheir
ratestwo affinelanguagesfromtheirparentlanguage. placesin theproto-lexicon, manyotherrootsaremore
Whentheglottochronologists of30 yearsbackcameout problematic.Thus fourdifferent roots are used for
with the preposterous conclusionsthat Englishand "wheel":(i) *cdhregh- 'torun'in Greektrokhos; (2) reth-
Dutchmusthave diverged in themid-gth century and 'torun,roll'inLatinrota,Lithuanian raitas;(3) *kwel- 'to
Italianand Frenchin the i6th or thatGreekdiverged rotate,turn'in Old ChurchSlavonickolo; and (4)its
fromArmenianfourcenturiesbeforeit diverged from reduplicatedform*kwekwlo- in Old Englishhweol,
Latin (pp. II5-I6), it was no wonderthatthe whole Vediccakrah, Tochariankukial. Somelanguagesattest
enterprise was discredited. morethanone,as Old Irishdrochandroth'wheel',cul
The troublewas twofold. First,thegeneralized figure 'cart'andAvestancaxrd'wheel',raOe'chariot'.Fromall
ofI4% (orwitha larger basicvocabulary I9% ) wasbased thisit looksas if "wheel"was notin theproto-lexicon
on verycrudeandsimplistic analysesofthedata.It can andthevariouswordsforit werecreatedindependently
be shown,forinstance,that65.2% ofthebasicvocabu- afterthedispersal, in someareasno doubtbyloan-trans-
laryofOld Englishsurvivesin ModemEnglishwithits lationfromadjacentIndo-European dialects/languages.
originalmorphology andmeaningandonly4% has dis- The horsealso figures prominently in discussionsof
appearedentirely. On theotherhand,I2.9% oftheMod- Indo-Europeanprehistory(see pp. 38-39, I37-38, I94-
emEnglishbasicvocabulary hasno OldEnglishancestry 95).Fivedifferent rootsareattested:(i) *marko- in Old
whatever.However,not onlyweretheglottochronolo-Welshmarch;(2) *kurs-(?) 'to run'in Old Englishhors;
gists'figures unreliable:thereis also,as Renfrew insists (3) *d2er- 'to plough'in Lithuanianarklys; (4) *kob-(?)
(PP. II7, I23), no justification fortheirhypothesis that in Old Church'Slavonickonji; and thewidespread (5)
therateoflexicalreplacement is alwaysconstant.It is *ekwosin Old Irishech,Latinequus,Vedica'svah,Av-
determined bymanyvariablefactors, suchas bilingual estanasp6, Tocharianyakwe(andperhapsGreekhip-
interaction withneighbours, elitedominance, andother pos). Here we mightinferthatthe proto-lexicon con-
forms ofpopulation mixture, andis therefore as language- tainedseveralwordsfortheanimal,depending uponits
specific as thetempoofphonological orgrammatical change. functions, as Lithuanian has zirgas'steed'besidearklys
The secondrelevantlinguisticprocedure is thecom- andOld Englisheoh (< *ekwos)'war-horse' besidehors,
parativereconstruction oftheProto-Indo-European lexi- or thatthe animalwas knownonlyin some areas of
con.Fromtherangeofcognatesemanticequivalentsin Proto-Indo-European speechandtheoriginalword,*ek-
different languagesit is possibleto buildup a pictureof wos perhaps,was therefore dialectaland theothersin-
theproto-lexicon and fromit to infersomething ofthe novatory afterthe dispersal.However,thefactthatin
physicalsurroundings and cultureof the Proto-Indo-modernEuropeGreekalogo, Italiancavallo,and Ger-
European-speakers. The arbitrary andunrigorous meth- manpferdareall innovations, as againsthippos,equus,
ods that have characterized much of this linguistic and horsrespectively, counselscaution.A singleroot
palaeontology certainly deserveRenfrew's scepticism (p. acrossthelanguageswouldbe conclusivefortheproto-
75). Nevertheless, some progresshas been made,and lexicon;a multiplicity of rootsis inconclusiveeither
moreis possible. way.
Mostofthelexemesthatcan be confidently assigned Lexical argumentsforthe reconstruction of Proto-
onthebasisofwidespread attestation (e.g.,*gwher- 'hot', Indo-European culturalinstitutions and conceptsare
*ped- 'foot', *penkwe'five', *en 'inside', *bher-'carry', even more hazardous.The triadic speculationsof
*swep-'sleep') do not tell us much.' Wherethe same Dumezil and his disciplesdeserveevenmoresceptical
treatment thanRenfrew givesthem(pp. 25i-55), and
i. kw and gw denotepost-palatalstops with lip-rounding (labio- even Benveniste's work in this field,mentioned more
velars),aia2a3theso-calledlaryngeals, probablyvoicedfricatives, a2 approvingly (p. 261), is oftenmorestimulating thanper-
imparting an a-colour,a3 an o-colourto the adjacentvowel.The suasive.Renfrew himselfhas littlepositiveto sayabout
conventional reconstruction oftheProto-Indo-European occlusives all this,partlybecause his main concernis withthe
is retainedthroughout; viz., forthe labials p b bh (and a more interface betweenarchaeologyand linguistics,partly
recentph)ratherthanp/ph p' b/bh, as advocatedby Gamkrelidze
(i98i) and Hopper(i98i). The allophonicvariation assumedin the also because his theoryof the originalIndo-European
new "glottalic"theoryraisesa hostofderivational problems,and community leaveslittleroomforinstitutions.
the typologicalarguments mountedagainstthe conventional the- Andyetthe"egalitarian peasants"whospreadslowly
orylose much of theirforceif the systemp b bh is assumedto outofeasternAnatoliafromaround6000 B.C. onwards,
belongto a transitionalstate.The glottalictheorymay well be introducing theirnew technology andtheirlanguageto
appropriate at some earlierstageofProto-Indo-European (see Mar-
tinet i986), but forthe terminalstage reflected in the attested such hunter-gatherers as lay in theirpath IPP.I48-50,
theoryis stilltheleastunsatisfactory. 205-6,
languagestheconventional 266), canhardly
havebeenanincoherent
rabble.

Volume 29, Number 3, JuneI988 | 45 I
The conceptsof"king"and "ruler"in ancientIreland, The complementarity ofmodelsis well illustrated in

Italy,and Indiamayhave differed greatly, butthefact comparative linguisticsbytheinteraction ofthefamily-
thatni,rex,andrajii all reflect a root*rjg-meaning"di- treeandwavetheories(pp.67-74, IOI, io5) as appliedto
rector"(not"prominent man"; cf.pp. 8i, 259) pointsto thephenomena ofdivergence andconvergence. Thefam-
some degreeof hierarchical organization in the areas ilytreehas its prototype in Romance(p. I03), whereit
fromwhichthespeakersofthosethreelanguages derive. matchesthehistoricalsituation, withcolonizationand
Again,the close correspondence ofLatinIuppiterwith elitedominanceby Latin-speakers followedby further
IllyrianDeipacturos,GreekZeu's pater,andVedicdyaulh divergent development withinthe areasofsettlement.
pita pointsto beliefin a specific*Dieus pd2t`&'sky The Romancelanguagesforma moretightly knitgroup
father', something morethan"an earlydivinetermof than,say,the Germanicones,whichare nevertheless
somekind"(p.259). Finally, thestriking correspondenceunitedbythegreatconsonantshift(defined in Grimm's
betweenGreek kleos aphthiton and Vedic aksitam and Verner'sLaws),a groupof eventsthatmusthave
sravah revealsan articulatedconceptof heroicvalue occurred relativelymuchfarther backin timethanany-
thatmustsurelybe inherited: *klewosnkwbitom2'fame thingthatdefinesproto-Romance.
imperishable'. Accumulation ofsuchdetails3buildsup Convergence phenomena can oftenbe observed in the
a pictureof a kind of societyinto whichsome com- dialectsalongborders, as betweenProvencal andNorth-
munitiesof Proto-Indo-European speakershad evolved WestItalianor betweenDutch and German.Such in-
before thegreatdispersal. It is a picturehardtoreconcile teractionis obviouslyfacilitatedby a long periodof
withthelifeofegalitarian Neolithicpeasants. settledbilingualism, byrelativeisolationfromthestan-
Renfrew is verymucha "models"archaeologist. Now, dardizingepicentresof theirrespective languages,and
anyenquirythatclaimsto be scientific or evenmerely aboveall bythefactthatbothlanguagesarecloselyre-
systematic has to be shapedby modelsof some kind, latedfromthestart.This lastpointwas notappreciated
whethertheseare explicitor not.However,thereis a properly by Trubetzkoy, whose egregiousattemptsto
dangerthata modelmaybe excessively a priori,gener- accountforIndo-Europeanness entirely bywave-theory
ated and shapedby mathematical criteriaof elegance convergence (citedwithapprovalon pp. io8-9) never
ratherthanby abstraction fromthedata.The wave-of- properly facedthequestionwhatlanguageorlanguages
advancemodel(pp. i26-27) is a case in point.Again,a therelevant communities originallyspoke.The slowad-
modelmay be derivedfromtoo limitedan empirical vancein thelast ioo yearsofthe"RhenishFan"dividing
base-a faultharderto avoidin observational sciences theLow and HighGermandialectsshowsthatconver-
thanin experimental ones-and so cometo generalize genceis not alwaysrapideven withinthe same lan-
whatis untypical orevenunique."Systemcollapse"can guage.Renfrew'spictureof Indo-European horsemen
surelyresultfromfarmorecausesthanarerepresentedgalloping overthesteppesto hastenconvergence among
in thediagramsand expositionon pp. I33-37. alreadydiverging languages(p. I94: a tacitconcession
Mostseriousofall is thetemptation, whenever a new perhapsthat the processualmodel by itselfis not
modelis developed,to applyit to the exclusionof all enough)seems to implythat linguisticpeculiarities
others.Its development will oftenhavebeenmotivated couldbe imported and exported like materialartifacts.
bytheinabilityofan existingmodelto accountforone However,it is obviousthat,at a timewhenlinguistic
particular groupofobservations. The explanatory power communities weresmallenoughtobe absorbed intoone
ofthenewcomermaybe powerful enoughbothto deal anotherand thedialectaldifferences out ofwhichlater
withthisproblemarea and to accountforeverythinglinguisticdiversity was to emergewerenot yetgreat
coveredbythepreviousmodel.Butmoreoftenthetwo enoughtoimpaircommunication, thelikelihoodofcon-
modelsarecomplementary andtheonedoesnottotally vergence andtheblurring andcrossing ofisoglosseswas
excludethe other.Thus,evenifit is rightto interpret muchgreater thanit subsequently became.
the spreadof farming as primarily a wave-of-advance Certainmajorisoglosseshavedefiedanalysisin terms
phenomenon (p. I28), thisneed not excludewholesale ofeitherthefamily-tree orwavemodels.The first is the
populationshifts, centrifugal colonizations, andviolent centum/satdm division, whichrefers tothetreatment of
raidsor invasions,occurring at different timeswithin Proto-Indo-European post-palatals and labio-velars (pp.
the fourmillenniathat separateRenfrew'soriginal io6-8). The difficulty is notso muchthatthedivisionis
Proto-Indo-European-speakers in easternAnatoliafrom "simplistic"(p. 66) as thatit is inconclusive. The divi-
ourearliestwritten Indo-European documents in Hittite sion has oftenbeen assumedto derivefromdialectal
andMycenaeanGreekandin different placesacrossthe variationsin Proto-Indo-European. If so, thenthe geo-
vastareabetweentheNorthSea and theIndianOcean graphical distribution ofthedialectsdidnotcorrespond
overwhichthegreatdispersalhad scattered them.Ren- to thatofthe daughter languages,sinceAnatolianand
frewrecognizesthe possibilityof combiningdifferentTocharianare centum like mostEuropeanlanguages,
models(p. io6), butin practicehe concentrates almost whereasAlbanian,Baltic,and Slavonicaresatdm along
exclusively on one. withIndic,Iranian,and Armenian.In itselfthisis no
problem,since the historically attestedlanguageshad
clearlynot alwaysbeen wheretheyendedup. But the
2. Theprecisereconstructionoftheadjective theroot
is uncertain;
is probablynon-Indo-European. actual changesseem to have takenplace earlyin the
3. Foran interestingexampleofmoreambitious re- languagesin whichtheyoccurred,
institutional andgiventhatpala-
construction,see Watkins(1970). talizationis a frequent phenomenon (cf.Romancevs.

Latin),theycouldbe assignedtotheindependent history The arrivalofa newpopulation, whether as colonists,

ofeach languageand therefore be oftypological rather as immigrant crowds,or as a dominantelite,does not
thangeneticimportance. necessarily leadto a languagechange.The Romandomi-
A secondisoglossconcernsthedistribution of-m-and nationoftheeasternMediterranean hadvirtually no lin-
-bh-in instrumental andothercase morphs.The former guisticeffect; in theWest,by contrast, Latinendedup
are foundin a "northern" band comprising the Ger- replacingall the existinglanguagesexceptBasque and
manic,Baltic, and Slavonic languages,the latterin imposingitselfon the successivewaves of Germanic
Celtic,Italic,Armenian, andtherest.One setcannotbe invaders, evenin areaswheretheybecamethedominant
derivedphonologically fromtheother,andit is hardto elite.Sometimes, as in mediaevalEngland,a dominant
see how one couldbe an innovative replacement ofthe elitemayretainits languagewithoutits everreplacing
other.Moreover, ifbothexistedas allomorphs in differ-the languageof the conquered.(Tongais not relevant
ent Proto-Indo-European paradigms,it is remarkable here.Noblesand Commonsdo notspeakdifferent lan-
thatno languagehas preserved anytraceofthis. guages,as is claimedon p. 2i6, butthereis something
Finally,therearethe-rmedio-passive morphs, shared muchmoreinteresting an elaborate
socio-linguistically,
bya "central"bandcomprising Celtic,Italic,Anatolian, hierarchy of address,lexicallydefined,fromthe self-
and Tocharian.These wereregarded by Meilletas pe- deprecatory through theunmarked, thepolite,and the
ripheral conservations,butthereis no reasonto believe honorific to theregal,as in theverbs'to eat',whichare
thatLatin and Hittitewere everas peripheral to the in ordermama (lit. 'to chew'),kai, tokoni,?ilo,and
Indo-European groupas Old Irishand Tocharianeven- taumafa.)
tually became. Furthermore, if -r was a conserved The converseis, however,true:a changeoflanguage
morph,what was its functionalrelationshipto the impliesa populationmovement, andmostlanguagedis-
medio-passive formsin *- 920(i), -to(i), etc.,reflected in placementin theprehistoric periodmusthavebeendue
Greekand Vedic and indirectly also in Hittite,where to elite dominance,as Renfrew recognizesaftersome
-r(i)is addedoptionally? earlierhesitation(cf.pp. i6i and i63 with93).The dis-
Addedto all this is the lexical situationillustrated appearing languagesmayhavelefttheirmarkin,forin-
above,in whichlanguagesgroupandregroup according stance,some ofthe moreidiosyncratic features ofOld
to whichrootsare beingconsidered. It is possiblethat Irish,Albanian,andTocharianorin thehighproportion
suchdiversity willbe accountedforbydifferent combi- oflexicalmaterialthatis peculiarto a givengroup,such
nationsofthefamily-tree andwavemodelswithinIndo- as Germanic, Balto-Slavonic,Indo-Iranian,andaboveall
Europeanitselfandbyconvergence and substrate influ- Anatolian.(Bird'sfigureof 77% sharedvocabulary be-
encesfrominsideandoutsidethegroup, all reflectingthe tweentheHittiteandIndic,citedonp. I93, infactrefers
fluidpopulation conditionsremarked earlier.Whatis clear onlyto thewordslistedin Walde-Pokorny as havingan
is thatno onemodelcanhandlethisdegree ofcomplexity.Indo-European etymology.The overall figureis far
It is worthobservingthatthe family-tree and to a lower.)
lesserextentthewavemodelcan be usedpurelyas de- The mostseriouslinguisticdifficulty posedby Ren-
scriptiveprocedures. Thus the family-tree is perfectlyfrew'saccountof Indo-European prehistorylies not in
compatible witha wave-of-advance viewofthepopula- his locationoftheoriginIndo-European-speaking popu-
tion movement.As the firstwaves in each direction lation in eastern Anatolia (pp. I72, 266) but in the
movedfurther andfurther fromtheirstarting point,they chronology and sequenceof "transformations" thathe
would becomemoreand moredifferentiated in their proposes(pp. I49-5I, i59-61). The beginningofthe dis-
speechbothfromeach otherand fromthe dialectof persalis putat around6000B.C. inordertocoincidewith
thoseleftat thecentre,whichwouldofcoursedevelop the evidenceforthe spreadof farming, and the first
in its own way.The familytreewouldprovidea lucid movements intoGreecearedatedtothelate6thmillen-
descriptive modelforthe resultantdivergence. If,as a nium (p. I49). This means that the firstHittiteand
resultofsubsequent population movements, someofthe Greektextsare well over4,000 yearsaftertheearliest
peripheral andcentraldialectsrenewedcontactwithone linguistic divergence andthefirstAlbanianandLithua-
another, thentheresultant convergence couldbe clearly nian textsnearly7,500yearsafter,withthe material
describedby thewave model.Complexsituationswill from most languages falling in the 5,000-7,ooo-year
requirecomplexcombinations ofmodels. band.On thistime-scaleone wouldexpectfargreater
Turning nowtotheactualinterface betweenarchaeol- linguisticdiversity in Indo-European thanwe actually
ogyandlinguistics: Renfrew stressesearlyon (p. 24) the have;compare, forinstance,thediversityamongtheRo-
independencefromone anotherof languagereplace- mance languagesin somewhatless than 2,ooo years
ment,culturalchange,and populationshift.However, fromtheirpointoforigin.It is besidethepointto claim
his subsequentargumentties the spread of Indo- (p. i67) thatMycenaeanGreekstandscloserto Modem
Europeanspeechto the spreadoffarming fromeastern Greekthanto Latin,whichis muchnearerto itin time.
Anatoliaduringtheperiod6000-3000 B.C. Incidentally,Languageschangeat different rates,andtheformer rela-
his estimatefortherateofadvanceofsoo kmevery5oo tionshipis linear,the lattercollateral:I3th-century
years(pp. i26-30) comesa littlesurprisingly fromone Frenchis closerto ModemFrenchthanto I 3th-century
whoelsewherecastigates glottochronologists forassum- Italian. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (i985) and Martinet
ingfixedratesofchange. (i986) datethedispersal(from a regionnotfarfromthat

Volume 29, Number 3, JuneI988 | 453
postulated by Renfrew)to more than 2,ooo years later saidthatthismodel,likeall othersinglemodels,failsin

and connectit withthe spreadof the Kurganculture the end to accountforthe linguisticfactsas we have
fromSouth-East Russia.Thisis linguistically altogether them.
moreplausibleso faras the extantIndo-European lan-
guagesare concerned.
Thereis ofcourseno reasonwhatever to assumethat MARIJA GIMBUTAS
thefirst farmers wereIndo-European-speakers or,ifthey InstituteofArchaeology,Universityof California,
were,thatwhat theyspokeis reflected in any of the Los Angeles,Calif. 90024, U.S.A. 22 xii 87
knownIndo-European languages. Krahe'sAlteuropaisch,
if it existedat all, mayhave been not the undifferen-History,comparativemythology, linguistics,and ar-
tiatedparentofthelaterEuropeanlanguages(p. i62) but chaeology teachus thattheIndo-Europeans werepatriar-
an alreadypartially diversified Indo-European substrate chal,patrilineal, a peoplestrongly focusedon theartsof
thatwas to be overlainby the wave ofIndo-Europeanwar. Theirhorse-riding gods werewarriorsalso, their
speechthatcamewiththeKurgancultureandperhaps powersymbolized bythemasculineBlade.Renfrew pro-
byotherwavesthathaveleftno tracein thearchaeolog- posesto invertthings:theearlyfarmers ofEuropeand
ical recordbuthaveall lefttheirmarkin thelanguages Asia were proto-Indo-Europeans. If we accept this,
thatare actuallyattested.The possibility ofsuccessive "Indo-European" should be redefined, since the Old
waves is tacitlyadmittedwhen the close affinity be- European/OldAnatolian/OldIndian agriculturalists
tweenAvestanandVedicis attributed to lateelitedom- were gynandric and peaceful.Their communities ex-
inance (pp. I95, 209) or when the farmers who used pressa nonhierarchical partnership modelofhumanin-
LinearPotteryare envisagedas encountering in Gaul teraction, withharmony betweenman and natureand
Westerncousinswho spokea different dialect(p. 242), betweenthesexes.Theirreligionwas thatoftheGod-
butit is notrecognized or developedin theargument. dess.Is it possiblethatthesewereIndo-Europeans?
As fortheninearchaeologically defined"transforma- Accordingto Renfrew, the firstIndo-European lan-
tions"(p. I59), not onlyis thereno reasonto suppose guagescameto EuropefromAnatoliaaround6000B.C.,
thata matchinglinguisticsequencecouldbe valid (p. together withthefirstdomesticated plantsandanimals.
i 6I), butthereis every reasontobelievethatitwouldbe This,he suggests, is thekeyto thesolutionoftheIndo-
totallyinvalid.Unless we assume thatthe languages Europeanproblem.He has not raisedthe crucialques-
wereverydifferent fromthosetowhichthesenamesare tionofdescribing thecultureand,moreimportant, the
normallygiven,the linguisticoutputof the model religionand social structure oftheseearlyagricultural-
wouldbe something like this: ists.No evidenceis offered thattheNeolithiccultureof
Europe (in my terminology non-Indo-European "Old
Slavonic Europe," ca. 3500 B.C.) was Indo-European in
> Germanic 65oo-ca.
the sense heretofore understood. It is to
difficult furnish
Anatolian-> Greek
forsucha wheneverytempleand
> Celtic arguments everyhypothesis
statue and wall painting,every
tomb-shrine,
Italic paintedsherdandinscribed cultobjectwe discovercries
Thewave-of-advance model,hereas elsewhere, doesnot out to us thatthiscultureofart,oflove oflife,and of
allow foranybacktracking, as by the Celts wandering balancedpartnership stoodin oppositionto all ofwhat
back downintoItalyand acrossintonorthern Greece we knowas Indo-European.
and AnatolianGalatiain thelast fourcenturiesB.C., a If the earliestagriculturalists of Europewere Indo-
migration thatRenfrewis inclinedto play down (pp. European-speakers, why are basic agricultural terms
233, 242, 249), or forany changesof direction,as by the non-Indo-European? Andwhyis theterminology associ-
Germanic-speaking peoplesmovingsouthintotheBal- atedwithreligious worship, especiallythenamesofgod-
kans,Italy,and thewesternMediterranean in theearly desses,notablynon-Indo-European? Renfrew does not
centuries oftheChristianera. ask thesekeyquestions.He has chosentwo Neolithic
Indo-European archaeologyand comparativeIndo- figurines (pl.9) toillustrate Neolithicreligion, andthese
Europeanlinguistics canneverworkforlonginisolation aretobe understood as "Indo-European" goddessesfrom
fromeachother;theyarein manywaysinterdependent.theendofthe7thmillennium B.C.! It followsthatMi-
Butit is important, as Renfrew oftenemphasizes(espe- noanreligion is also Indo-European, sinceitis a continu-
ciallyin pp. 284-89), thateach ofthemgetits ownact ationoftheOld European/Old Anatolianreligion.Such
together withoutsmuggling intotheargument essential proposalsoutstrip anypossibility ofrationalcriticism.
stepstakenfromtheother'sfield.In thiswayalonecana Itis astounding thatRenfrew, longtheleadingvoiceof
worthwhilesynthesisbe produced.The picturethat antimigrationism in prehistoric Europe,now speaksof
finally emergesfromthatsynthesis is likelytobe much the migrationof farmers fromeast to west and from
-toocomplexanduntidyto be accountedforexclusively southeasttonorthwest. Indeed,thisis therouteofdiffu-
byonemodel,howeversophisticated itmaybe.Renfrew sionforthefood-producing economy.Smallimmigrant
has putus all in his debtbysettingouttheproblemand groupsof small-statured Mediterranean people with
exploring in a stimulating seriesofarguments someof sheepandgrainmayhavearrived ontheGreekmainland
theimplications ofoneparticular model.Butit mustbe byboatacrosstheAegeanfromAnatoliaduring thefirst

halfofthe 7thmillenniumB.C. and fromtheremoved Europeans wereacquaintedwithsomecereals,as wellas

northto Macedoniaandevenas faras theCarpathians. withploughing, sowing,andreaping. Theywerealso ac-
But the agriculturalization of the northand west of quaintedwithforestforaging. This evidencecannotbe
southeastern Europewas a processof acculturation, a appliedto earlyEuropeanand Anatolianfarmers, who
mixtureoflocal populations andtraditions withpromi- werefull-fledged agriculturalists
(GimbutasI986).
nentinfluences fromthesoutheast.This appliesto the In additionto the linguisticsubstratum, thereis a
culturesoftheDanubianbasin,theIronGateregion, the clearnon-Indo-European substratum oftraditions, nota-
Dniester-Bug, the Dnieper-Donets, and all of west- blyin ceramics,architecture, sculpture, coppermetal-
centralandwesternEurope. lurgy,andtextiles.The sophisticated paintedpottery of
That agriculturalization was not Indo-Europeaniza-Old Europecan in no way be comparedto thatofthe
tionis shownfirstofall bythenon-Indo-European belief Kurgantradition; it vanishedfromeast-central Europe
systemfoundamong the earliestagriculturalists of afterthefirstwaveofKurganinfiltration together with
Europe.Atthetimeofthetransition froma food-gather-the sculpturalart, temple building,frescoes,ritual
ing to a food-producing economytherewas no corre- paraphemalia, and a distinctly Europeancoppermetal-
sponding changein thestructure ofsymbolism, onlyan lurgywithoutweapons.Suchdrasticchangescannotbe
elaborationoftheold.The mainattributes oftheGreat explainedin economicterms.Old Europeantraditions
Goddess-creationoflife,increase,death,andregenera- continuedonly in non-Indo-Europeanized southern
tion-continuedfromthe UpperPalaeolithicinto the Europeand reachedtheirzenithin theAegeanislands
Neolithic.Only at the demiseof Old Europedoes a and Crete.NeolithicOld Europehad a powerfuland
drastictransformation in the symbolicsystemoccur, elaboratetextiletradition (geometricallydecorated tex-
concurrent withthechangefroma matrilineal (butnot tilesareknownfromSwissdwellings andpassagegraves
matriarchal) andgylanicorgynandric, balancedorderto in westernEurope)whichhad nothingto do withthe
a patrilineal,
patriarchal,and androcratic one. Further- Indo-European tradition.CentralEuropemusthavebeen
more,thelinguistic substratum oftheEuropeattested to thecenterfromwhichradiatedthemostelaboratetex-
us is non-Indo-European. Thatsubstratum is notMeso- tiles in the Old World.Here we findbands,triangles,
lithic,as Renfrew seesit;itreflects a Neolithiceconomy zigzagborders,checks,and checkswithinchecks,all
and technology. For example,most of the names for madewitha supplementary wefttechniquesimilarto
cerealsand legumescannotbe accountedforby Proto- whatwe thinkoftodayas brocade.The exuberantly dec-
Indo-European as we knowitbutweretakenoverbythe oratedtextilesof the same tradition continuedin Mi-
Indo-Europeans fromthelocalEuropeansubstrata. Thus noan Creteand Thera(see BarberI988 and,on Proto-
thecommonnamesforrye,barley,oats,beans,lentils, Indo-European notionsofclothandclothing, I975). The
peas,vetch,poppies,flax,andhempareknownonlyto Indo-European clothingtraditionis distinguished by
theEuropeanbranchofIndo-Europeans. Someofthem, wrapping(cloaks),pinning,belting-the oppositeof
such as namesforbeans,peas, and vetch,are known whatis seenon Old EuropeanandMinoanfigurines and
onlyin the south,in Greek,Latin,and Albanian.The frescoes.
wordfor"apple"is also non-Indo-European andwas bor- Europefromthebeginning ofagriculture totheChris-
rowedfromthe northern Europeansubstratum in the tianera consistsoftwoverydifferent strata,Old Euro-
northandfroma Mediterranean substratum inthesouth pean and Indo-European. Whatis understood todayas
(HampI979). Significant forsubstratum studiesis the "Westerncivilization"is derivedfromthe merging of
factthatin theIndo-European languagesofEuropedo- the two. I see manytwo-wayacculturative processes.
mesticatedanimalsand birdsoftenhave two sets of The mainingredients ofeveryIndo-European culturein
names,non-Indo-European and Indo-European. For in- Europemaybe describedas substratal and superstratal.
stance,non-Indo-European namesfor"pig"(Lithuanian Therewas a collisionof two ideologies,two religions,
*keul-and *kuili-and Celtic *mokku-,*suku-,*banu-, and two social systems.Indo-European culturedid not
and *turko-) have been reconstructed as goingback to simplyevolvefromOld Europeancivilization, and the
centraland northern Europeanpre-Indo-European sub- same appliesto Anatoliaand India(on thetransforma-
strata;theyareunmatched elsewherein Indo-EuropeantionofEuropeanand Anatoliancultureca. 4500-2500
(Hamp i987). On the otherhand, *porko- and *su- are B.C. and its legacy,see GimbutasI980-8I). Renfrew's
originalIndo-European termsdesignating "piglet"and "keytothesolution"ofIndo-European origins-making
"sow" (Gamkrelidze andIvanovI984:593). Contrary to non-Indo-European agriculturalistsspeak Proto-Indo-
the existinglinguisticdata,Renfrewdeclares,"If the European-isa grossdistortion ofEuropeanandAsiatic
Proto-Indo-Europeans werefamiliarwithdomesticated prehistory.
sheep,goatsorcattle,thentheymustcertainly alsohave Dumezil'slifeworklaid thefoundation forcompara-
beenacquaintedwithwheat,barleyandpeas andalso a tiveIndo-European mythology. His studieshaveshown
rangeofotheranimalspecies"(p.84).Exceptfor*mel-i-, that mythology reflectsan ideologicalstructure that
'a "ground"cereal,millet',*yewo-,'a cerealused for is also manifestin social organization. It cannotbe
fermentation', and *puro-, 'a grassorspeltwheat',there doubtedthattheproto-Indo-Europeans shareda mythol-
areno well-attested Proto-Indo-European wordsforcere- ogy,socialforms, andinstitutions, andthissharedcon-
als. There is no linguisticevidencefor proto-Indo-structis notofrecentformation as Renfrew tendsto see
Europeanarboriculture andviticulture. The proto-Indo-it. It has beenshownthatthespecificcorrespondences

Volume 29, Number3, fune1988 1455
betweenmanyIndo-European legendsandmythsarefar upper Tisza area in eastern Hungary,across the

too detailedto be explainedbya phylogenetictheoryor Karanovoand Vinca territories I
into the Tiszapolgair.
by one of intraculturalloans. The specificfeaturesof describedthe firsteast-westwave into east-central
hieraticandsymbolicstructure andthecharactersofthe Europein I977, and I see no need to changemy opinion,
maindivinitiesarefoundin theeasternmost andwest- sincenewevidenceconfirms theeast-west movement in
ernmost branches ofIndo-Europeanandmustreachback themiddleofthe5thmillennium orsoonthereafter and
to theprotoculture. Anydoubtsin thisregardare dis- certainly does not supporta west-eastmovement. The
pelled by Puhvel (i987:38): Kurgan I peopleappearineast-central Europeas a foreign
The studyofhieraticentrenchment is indeeda basic bodyand fullyformed. Theirburialrites(inpitsunder
toolofIndo-European comparative mythology. low, round mounds), pottery,and weapons(largeflint
There different
is a greatamountofspecificsocial,religious, and knife-daggers, spears, arrows) are ofan entirely
legalterminology theeastmostandwestmost tradition with no known prototypes in Europe. This
branchesofIndo-European havein common.These wave introduced to east-centralEurope not only the do-
accordances mesticated horse (Bdkdnyi i987) but also the cult of the
betweenIndicandIranianon theone proto-Indo-European.
handandItalicandCelticon theotherreflect inde- horse,whichis characteristically
pendentsurvivalsofproto-Indo-European Typically, the rich graves ofchieftains orimportant war-
lore.
riors,such as Suvorovoin Moldaviaand Casimceaon
Indic,Iranian,Baltic,Italic,Celtic,andScandinavian are the bank of the lower Danube, were equippedwith
the mainstaysof reconstructed Indo-European myth. horse-head scepterscarvedout ofstone.Twenty-five of
Greeceand Anatolia(Renfrew's "Proto-Indo-European thesescepters havebeenfoundbetweentheDanube,the
area")contribute relatively littletothereconstruction of Caucasus,and the MiddleVolga;some are schematic,
Indo-European religionand myth;therethe Old Euro- somemorenaturalistic, withline engravings thatsug-
peanmythicsubstratum prevails.To discardtheresults gestbridles.Themostrecentadditiontotheevidencefor
ofcomparative mythological research is to robarchaeol- horsesacrifice is theI986 discovery ofa horseskullcut
ogyofa richtreasure. fromtheneckin a Tiszapolgair pitinTiszafoldvar, north-
Contrary to Renfrew, I viewthebearersoftheKurgan easternHungary(S. Bokonyi, personalcommunication,
cultureofthe sth and4thmillenniaB.C. as proto-Indo-Marchi987). The cult of the horseis attestedin the
Europeanswhoseinfluenceand infiltrations in several MiddleVolgabasin fromthe periodthatpredatedthe
waves into east-centralEurope between 4500 and 3000 Stogand Suvorovo.There,at S'ezzee,in thedistrict of
B.C. transformed Old Europeanculture.The hybridiza- Kujbysev, twohorseskullsplacedon a sacrificial stone
tionof two social structures and symbolicsystemsis slab werediscovered in a grave.Miniaturefigurines of
ignored byRenfrew, theformation ofhybrid Cernavoda/ horsescarvedout offlatbonewerealso found(Vasil'ev
Baden/Cotofeni and GlobularAmphoraculturesin the andMat'veevaI976). Representations ofhorsesin bone
secondhalfofthe 4thmillenniumB.C. not evenmen- carvingarealso knownfromtheXvalynsk groupin the
tioned.I considertheseculturesalreadyIndo-European-districtofSaratov(Vasil'ev I979). Horsebackriding,sug-
ized and thebase fromwhichEuropeanIndo-Europeangestedby a considerable numberofbridlecheek-pieces
branchesdeveloped(Gimbutas1980-8I, I986). ofbone,antler,andwood(TeleginI986, Cernjaxovand
Renfrew's assertions(i) thatthesteppe pastoralistsde- Smaglii983), verylikelycoupledwithfighting from
velopedfromthe Cucuteni-Tripolye culture,ca. 3500 horseback, musthave playeda paramountrole in the
B.C., (2) thattheinitialcolonization ofthewesternpart development ofmobilityand tradeamongtheKurganI
ofthesteppestookplacefromthewest,(3)thattheearly peoplesand theirspreadwestward.It is inconceivable
Kurganpastoralists werenotridinghorses,and (4)that thatRenfrewshouldminimizethe importance of the
theKurganpeoplewerenotpossessedofa warlikespirit horse.According to him,onlyin the 3d millennium is
(PP. 95, 97, 2o2) are entirelyunsubstantiated.These as- there"some evidencethatthehorsewas used forrid-
sertionsreflectan ignoranceofprimary archaeological ing." The two millennia between ca. 4500 and ca. 25oo
sourcesfromtheSouthRussian,Ukrainian, andMolda- B.C. make a real difference. The proto-Indo-Europeans
viansteppeandforest-steppe regionandofrecentwork wereable to expandto thewest,to theeast,andto the
bySovietscholars. southprimarily becauseofthehorse.Renfrew has also
KurganI pastoralists in themiddleVolga-Uralinter- failedto stressthe enormousimportance of the horse
fluveandnorthoftheCaucasusMountains(theSamara andhorseback ridingin his treatment oftheBellBeaker
and Xvalynskgroups)with knowledgeof the domes- phenomenon.
ticatedhorseandhorsemanship areknownfroma much The hypothesis thatKurganculturesoriginated about
earliertime,at leastthemiddleofthe sthmillennium 3500 B.C. in an area bordering on the regionoccupied
B.C., thanRenfrew postulates. The extension ofKurgan I by Cucuteni-Tripolye peasants,thatis, in thewestern
pastoralists intotheDniepersteppe(theterritory ofthe Ukraine,an idea borrowedfromGoodenough(I970), is
Dnieper-Donets Neolithicculture)is knownas Stogor an entirelyunsubstantiated speculationand therefore
SrednijStogII. The further thrust westintothesteppeof cannothave"revolutionary consequences forthehome-
Moldaviaand the lowerDanube (Gumelnita-Karanovo landtheory"(p. 97). Furthermore, in orderto makethe
territory) is knownas the Suvorovovariant.The west- KurganpeoplespeakIndo-European, Renfrew saysthat
wardextensionreachedas faras the middleDanube- theirlanguage"must.. . havebeenderivedfromthatof

... Cucuteniand Tripolyepeasants"(p. 2o2). In myview, andCaspianin thesouthandtheMiddleVolgabasinin

on thecontrary,thiscreativeandart-loving civilizationthenorthis linkedto theNearEast and theCaucasus.
perishedin thecourseofthesecondhalfofthe4thmil- Linguisticborrowingsby Proto-Indo-European from
lenniumB.C. The area was Kurganized through subse- KartvelianandSemiticwouldharmonize verywellwith
quentpressurefromtheeast. thisview.It is notlikelythattheKurganhypothesis can
The Suvorovokurgansnorthwest oftheBlackSea are be discredited.
datedbyimported paintedCucuteniAI-3 pottery to the Archaeology written
and Languageis an effectively
period 4500-4200 B.C. (calibrated chronology).Soviet book,butonewithtoomuchrhetoric andtoolittlesub-
scholarswhodealfirsthand withtheKurgan I (Suvorovo) stance.Itsnotionsconcerning theproto-Indo-Europeans
materialsunanimouslyspeak of easternrootsin the are simplyfictions,devoidof supportfromlinguistic,
Volga-Ural regionnorthoftheCaucasus(see therecent comparativemythological, or archaeologicalsources.
synthesisbyDergacevI986:65-74). The solutionoftheproblemofIndo-European originsis
InrelationtotherootsoftheKurganculture, theprob- muchmoredelicateand challenging thanthetissueof-
lem oftheoriginsoftheNeolithiceconomyin thefor- feredus byRenfrew. I hopethatthisbookwill serveas
est-stepperegionof the MiddleVolga-southern Urals, an impetusformore substantialinterdisciplinary re-
whichdatesbackto the7thmillennium B.C., cannotbe search.
ignored(seerecentworkon theNeolithiceconomyand
especiallyon animal husbandryby Vasil'ev I979, i98i;
Matjusin i982; Petrenkoi984). The earliestIndo- EVZEN NEUSTUPNY
Europeanwordsfordomesticated animals(*k'uon-'dog', ArchaeologicalInstituteoftheCzechoslovak
*owi-s 'sheep', *gwou-s 'bovine', *pek'u-s 'livestock, Academyof Sciences,Letenskac 4, 1190I Praguei,
movable wealth,cows and sheep', *su- 'swine', *porko- Czechoslovakia. 15 XII87
'piglet') may reflectthe animal husbandryof the
Neolithic Volga-Uralregion.The sheep of eastern I largelyagreewiththeprincipalpointsmade in Ren-
Europe are largerand woollier than Old European frew'sbook.Thismaycomeas no surprise tothosewho
Neolithicsheep.The wordfor"wool" is clearlyearly knowthatmy own professional careerhas to a large
Proto-Indo-European. The woollysheepwas introduced extentbeen devotedto attemptsat disproving the hy-
into Europe by the Kurganpeople (Bokonyii987). The pothesisthatmigrations are responsible formostcul-
Proto-Indo-European wordfor'horse'*ekwo-sseemsto turalchangesin prehistoric CentralEurope(see, e.g.,
havebeencoinedlaterthanthetermsfortheotherdo- NeustupnyI969, I972, I974), thatmy fatherand I have
mesticated stock(thatis, withthedomestication ofthe expressed similarviewson theoriginsofIndo-European
horse),sinceit is a thematicnounand appearsto be a groupsin Europe(Neustupn'and NeustupnyI96I, J.
derivative.Pastoralism derivedfroman earlierfarming NeustupnyI976), and thatsome ofmy demographicpa-
cultureinwhichlivestockwas an original element.This pers containideas comparableto those Renfrew pro-
regionis includedin the distribution area of thewild poses (Neustupny I98I, i982, i983a, b). Much of my
horsesubspecies tarpan(Equus ferusgmeliniAntonius), earlierwriting was basedon typological arguments, but
fromwhichthefirstdomestichorsesderived.The ear- this,I hope,does not applyto themorerecentpapers,
liest horsedomestication could have takenplace be- especiallynot those followingthe one on the social
tweentheDnieperandnorthern Kazakhstan, butrecent structure ofAeneolithiccommunities in CentralEurope
discoveries supporttheMiddleVolga-northern Kazakh- (NeustupnYi967).
stan.Kurgansitesin thisregionfromtheperiodbetween Turningto someofthemoreconcrete problems relat-
sooo and 2500 B.C. have yielded enormousnumbersof ingmainlyto CentralEurope,a regionofwhichI have
domesticatedhorse bones, which constitute80-90% of some firsthand knowledge, thefirstissue ofinterest is
all domesticanimalbones (forinstance,at Petropav- the formof the wave-of-advance model.The formula
lovsk,northern Kazakhstan,ioo,ooo horseboneswere devised by Ammerman and Cavalli-Sforza(I973) may
recentlydiscovered[S. Bokonyi,personalcommunica- notbe theonlyone admissible.The rateofnaturalin-
tion,i987]). The domesticationofthe horsein theVolga creasetheysupposeis veryhighindeed(0.039),andthere
basinprobably beganno laterthansooo B.C. As already is some questionhow this could have been achieved
mentioned,the horse cult is evidencedfrom5000-4500 giventheveryhighmortality ratesuggested bycemeter-
B.C. The cultofoxenalso existedat thattime,as can be ies of prehistoric populationsthatcan be assumedto
judgedfromthedoubleox-headfigurines ofbonein the havebeenstationary (Neustupn'I983a): thebirthrate
cemeteryat S'ezzee. Sacred pairs of oxen in Indo- would have had to be veryclose to the physiological
Europeanmythologies are associatedwiththe God of maximum.Moreover,the rateof advancesuggested (i
the ShiningSky.It shouldbe mentionedthatpairsof km per year)does not seem to be in agreement with
oxen werefoundburiedwithimportant males in the certainobservedfacts.
BadenandGlobularAmphora culturesofcentralEurope, The advanceofNeolithicfarmers intoEuropewas al-
datingfromca. 3000 B.C. At the same time,such fig- mostcertainly no continuous process,and,in fact,Ren-
urinessuggestthe use of yokedoxen and the plough frewseveraltimesindicatesthathe is awareofthis.The
("yoke"and "plough"areIndo-European words). frontier
oftheNeolithicculturestoppedforat leastsev-
The archaeology oftheregionbetweentheCaucasus eral centuriesbeforeapproximately 5500 B.C. (some-

Volume 29, Number3, June1988 1457
thinglike 4400 b.c. uncalibrated)at a line passing ofinterestto thosestudying earlylanguagedispersals:

through thesouthern partofHungary andRomania(the such changescan be interpreted in a numberof ways
northern frontier of Starcevo-Koros). For quite a long otherthanbymigrations ofpeoplebringing aboutlan-
timetherewas no movement northward. Butwhenthe guagedisplacements. I stillbelieve,however,thatthe
advancewas resumedafter5500 B.C., thespreadofthe studyoftypological developments can,ifproperly com-
earlyLinearPottery intoCentralEurope(somei,oookm binedwiththestudyofeconomic,demographic, andso-
at least)certainlydidnottakemorethana fewhundred cial change,bearon the questionof the continuity or
years.The evidenceforthis is furnished not onlyby discontinuity of settlementof a regionby the same
radiocarbon datesbutalso bythecharacteristic forms of groupofpeople.The problemofcontinuity is oftenquite
thepottery, whichare moreor less the same all over complicated, as humanculturemayappeartobe discon-
CentralEuropein theearlyphases.Thispottery cannot tinuousbecauseofsocial and quiteprobably otherfac-
be considered ofmuchdifferent age in thedifferent re- tors,manyofwhichRenfrew discussesin his chapter
gionsofCentralEurope,as it is followedbyphasesthat "Homelandsin Question."In consequenceofthis,any
areagaincomparable interregionally. judgement as to the continuity/discontinuity ofsettle-
Then therewas againa haltforat least severalcen- mentbasedon thecontinuity/discontinuity ofmaterial
turiesbeforefarming spreadfurther to the northand culturemay be difficult thoughnot impossible.The
north-west at about4500B.C. orevensomewhat later(in difficulty oftenarisesfromthe inadequacyof ourthe-
the case of the ScandinavianFunnelBeakerculture). oreticaland methodological premisesor of the ar-
Hereagainthespreadseemsto havebeenratherrapid. chaeological recordorboth,butI amoptimistic thatthis
Something verysimilarcan be assumedfortheremain- inadequacycan be greatlyreducedby continuingar-
ingshiftsofearlyfarmers intoterritoriesoccupiedup to chaeologicalresearch.In some archaeologically well-
thattimebyhuntersandgatherers (forexample,theoc- knownregions,such as CentralEurope,such judge-
currenceof CordedWare derivatives-theFatyanovo mentscan alreadybe consideredfairlysecure(cf.J.
groupsand others-in EasternEuropeat about 2goo NeustupnY I976).
B.C.). Thus,thespreadoffarming and,consequently, of It is mycontention thatprehistoric migrations, where
theIndo-European languagesseemstohavebeenaccom- therewereany,canbe tracedbymeansofartifact typol-
plishedby "leaps." ogyifeconomic,social,demographic, andpossiblyother
This, I believe,requiressomewhatdifferent demo- factors aretakenintoaccount.Forexample,I havesug-
graphic models,althoughthesemayperhapsstillbe sub- gestedseveralcasesofwhatI call migrations byinfiltra-
sumedunderthegeneralconceptofthewaveofadvance. tionin CentralandEastemEuropethatI believecanbe
I haveattempted to formulate severalsuchalternatives quitereliably tracedarchaeologically; someofthesemay
(Neustupni1983b:88).Theyassumea gradually shifting be pertinent to the consideration of languagechange
zone, ratherwide and demographically active,witha (Neustupn'i982). (Bytheway,thisformofmigration
highrateofnaturalincrease(butnotas highas supposed does not seemto be readilysubsumedundertheelite-
byAmmerman andCavalli-Sforza) anda densityofpop- dominancemodel.)I agreethatthe applicationof this
ulationdecreasing as it advancesintoEurope.It can be method cannot account for the dispersalof Indo-
shownthatthesubsequentincreasein densityofpopu- Europeanlanguagesin general.
lation to the usual Neolithiclevel could have been As I see it,thereis stillanotherwayto arriveat infer-
achievedin a veryshorttime,mostoftenin severalde- ences about the distribution of prehistoric languages.
cades.I hopethatmyformulas canbe brought intosatis- Thisis thestudyoflong-lasting culturalfrontiers, espe-
factory agreement withtheobservedfacts;theadvance ciallyif thesecan be identified on groundsotherthan
offarming communities can be assumedto havebeena justpottery typology. One ofthesefrontiers runsfrom
ratherrapidprocess. north-western Bohemiato centralMoraviaandnorthern
Acceptingthis spreadin leaps fromone territorialSlovakiain the periodcovering(at least) the middle
stageand,indeed,one ecologicalzone to another,one BronzeAge,late BronzeAge,and earlyIronAge.It di-
has to findan explanationforeach of the leaps.I am videsculturegroupssuchas KnovizandVelaticeto the
convincedthatthe main causesweredevelopments in southfromLausitzgroupsto thenorth.In manyperiods
agriculturalsystemsthatallowedtheoccupationofthe oftheBronzeAgethisis a boundary traceablenotonly
adjacentecologicalzone. Once thefarmers enteredthe in potteryforms(includingtechnological aspects)but
newzone,theycreateda situationin whichthedensity also in the styleof the bronzeindustry (showingthat
oftheirsocialrelationsrapidlydeclinedsimplybecause tradeoftenstoppedat thisboundary), rituals,andsettle-
ofthedeclineintheirdemographic density.The reaction mentpatterns. Theremayalso havebeendifferences in
mostprobablein sucha casewouldbe theremovalofthe socialstructure on thetwosidesoftheline.Thefrontier
constraintsthatkeptpopulations stationary.Thiswould was not altogether constant,shifting by some io km
resultinrapidpopulation growth-until theboundary of eachwayfromtimeto time.In somesubperiods villages
the next ecologicalzone was reachedand the demo- ofnorthern andsouthern typeswereseparated byonlya
graphicand social situationstabilized(or,better,"sta- fewkilometers. This bipartition has beenknownsince
tionarized"). the beginning of this century, but it is onlyquite re-
I fullyagreewithRenfrew thatthespreadofindividual centlythatit has beenpossibleto demarcate it exactly
artifacttypesand/or particularburialritesoffersnothing (Bouzek,Koutecky,and NeustupnyI966; papersby

Bouzek,Dohnal,Romsauer, andVeliacikin Die Urnen- was bound to make a numberof new "processual"
felderkulturen Mitteleuropas I987; Jiran i987). pointsof generalarchaeological interestin writingon
This is a clearexampleofdiscontinuity ofsettlement theIndo-European questionin thisway.His theoryof
in spatialterms.Becauseit can be followedforsucha theoriginofnomadicpastoralism in theareaofEastern
longperiodand becausethereare signsthatit maygo Europeadjacentto CentralEuropeand its spreadeast-
backto evenearlierperiods, nottoacceptit ward(notwestward,
itis difficult as is acceptedbymanyarchaeolo-
as a frontier betweentwoorpossiblymorelanguages. It gists)is one ofthemostinteresting pointsofthiskind,
is to be expectedthatsuchfrontiers becamebarriers to buttherearemanyothers.The solutionofproblems like
waves of linguisticchange.Even if these boundaries these makes Renfrew'sbook worthreadingeven for
wereobliterated bysubsequent cultureandlanguagedis- thosewho maynotbe interested in earlylanguagedis-
placements, it is likelythattheireffect was lasting,i.e., persals.
thelanguagecontinuum thatcanperhapsbe assumedfor The indisputablesuccess of Renfrew's book proves
some earlierstage could hardlyhave been resumed oncemorethatthecrisisofarchaeological thinking, not
again.Frontiers suchas thosejustdescribed maybepres- yet overcomeby manyindividualarchaeologists and
entin otherpartsofEuropeas well,buttheymaynotbe wholearchaeological communities, cannotbe resolved
easyto recognizewheretheycoincidewithsomesharp eitherby means of new excavationsor by theoretical
geomorphological featureor the boundarybetween papersthatemployarchaeological findsas examples.
ecologicalzones.
No doubtmanyregionsofEuropewitnessedlocal de-
velopment oflanguagesfollowing theirdispersalbythe ANDREW SHERRATT
firstwave offarmers in thewaysuggested byRenfrew. DepartmentofAntiquities,Ashmolean Museum,
Buttheremusthavebeenlarge-scale linguistic replace- OxfordOXI 2PH, England. 8 I 88
mentsin CentralEuropefollowing theNeolithiccoloni-
zation.This is broughtout by the merefactthatthe The problemofIndo-European originsis one whichhas
threeprincipallanguagegroupsappearing in thisterri- underlainmuch of the development of prehistory in
toryat thebeginning ofwritten history(i.e.,Celtic,Ger- Europefromthe commonbeginnings ofprehistoric ar-
manic,and Slavonic)have verysharpboundaries with- chaeologyand comparative linguistics in theRomantic
out any intermediate links.I wonderhow thesefacts movement oftheearlyigthcentury. Manyoftheearlier
could be explainedwithoutusingall the evidenceas- comprehensive accountsof Europeanprehistory were
sembledby archaeology up to now. These problems, written withthisproblemin mind.In thelast so years,
however, shouldbe studiedbymeansofthecontinuity/however, theexplicitracismwhichin Germany was the
discontinuity conceptand not simplyby equatingty- ultimateoutcomeof the Romanticsearchforethnic
pologicalgroups,artstyles,religions, etc.,directly with originsled manyprehistorians to avoid thisissue,in
ethnicand linguisticentities. reactionto the politicalabuses of archaeology under
It appearsto me thatthecase oftheNeolithiccoloni- the Nazis. The growthof archaeologicaland palaeo-
zationofEurope(andpossiblyofsomeareasofwestem environmental information since WorldWar II rein-
Asia) forwhichRenfrew arguesso persuasively can be forcedthe desireof archaeologists to concentrate on
takenas a specificinstanceofthe continuity/disconti- theirownmaterialandinterpret it in termsofecological
nuitymodel.In theNeolithiccase,ofcourse,thediscon- andevolutionary models.Thosearchaeologists whocon-
tinuity ofsettlement is so sharpthattypological consid- tinued to addressthe Indo-European problemwere
erationsareunnecessary. mainlyoutsideEuropeand less enthusiastic aboutthe
To mysatisfaction, Renfrew dismisseswithoutmuch model-building approachoftheNew Archaeology.
discussiontheoriesstill commonin researchon the This dissociationbetweentheexplanation oflinguis-
NeolithicofpartsofCentralEuropeaccording to which ticpatterns and theconcernsofmainstream prehistory
manyimportant Neolithic/Aeneolithic groupsin that has allowedmanyigth-century assumptions aboutthe
territory mightbe explainedas further developments of Indo-European problemto survivewithoutradicalscru-
the local Mesolithicculture(cf. BoguckiI987 with tiny.Although greatprogress hasbeenmadeonthetech-
manypredecessors and sympathizers). Ifthesetheories nical linguisticside, the archaeology has not always
wereaccepted,muchwouldchangein the overallpic- beenso progressive. The imageofprehistory conjured up
tureof Indo-European originsin Europe.I was able to in writingsaboutthe Indo-European dispersalis often
argue,however, in myCA comment onBogucki'spaper, stilldominated bymassmovements ofpeoplesoverlong
thatsuchviewsmightbe mistaken.I remainto be con- distances,usuallybringing widespread destruction and
vincedthatmostpartsofthe "NorthEuropeanPlain" setting offwavesofrefugees. Thismodelmayhavebeen
werecolonizedby farmers of southernorigin;the evi- realisticwhenthearchaeology was lesswellknownand
dencebasedon boththedevelopment ofagriculture, set- whenprehistory was still writtenon the compressed
tlementpattems,andsocialstructure andconsiderationtimescalewhichprevailed beforetheuse ofradiocarbon
ofthecultureas a wholeis strong. Moreover, thereis no dating,butit increasingly appearsas an unjustified and
evidenceto thecontrary, as thelocalsurvivalofsomeof anachronistic extensionofa picturederivedfrommuch
the specializedMesolithicgroupsdoes not seemto be laterperiods.Whileit maybe appropriate as a descrip-
decisivefortheoverallpatternofchange. tionoftheparticular conditions ofproto-historic Europe
It shouldbe notedat least marginally thatRenfrew (andespeciallyofthemigration period), it is no guideto

Volume 29, Number3, fune1988 1459
thephenomena encountered in theverydifferent condi- innovations fromtheprimary farming region(fig.i): the

tionsofearlierprehistory. plough,cart,wool,horse,donkey, camel,treecrops,and
Forthesereasonsa radicalreviewoftheproblem from perhapsalcohol,as well as newcraftssuchas metallur-
an archaeological standpoint is longoverdue;anda com- gical skills,textiles,and also new methodsoffighting
prehensive accountofEuropeanprehistory wouldbe in- andaspectsofideologyandreligion.Europeansocieties
completewithoutsome explanationof the patternof werefundamentally transformed bythearrivalofthese
languageswithwhichEuropeemergedintothelightof features, long afterthe adventof the Neolithic(Sher-
history. Renfrew's bookmusttherefore be welcomedas rattIg8I, I983, i987). Had theseno linguisticconse-
thebeginning of a processofreassessment, givingdue quences?Languagesmay changeformanyreasonsbe-
weightto a modernarchaeological view of whathap- sidesthedemographic wave ofadvance!Moreover, the
penedin prehistory. conceptionofa dispersalofpeoplewitha unitarylan-
This said,however, it shouldalso be pointedoutthat guage,breaking downintoa varietyofrelatedbranches
the"New" (processual) archaeology was also a childof withincreasing isolation,is onlythesimplestmodelof
itstime,andwhileitwas a necessary corrective to older linguisticchangeand is itselfpartlyan artifact of the
views it was also lackingin historicalsubtletyand comparative method:it is a historicalassumption that
oversimplified manycomplexissuesaboutthenatureof the "familytrees" which summariserelationships
social and culturalchange.Archaeology and Language amonglanguageswereactuallygenerated bysucha pro-
is clearlywrittenwithinthe prevailing archaeological cess.WhilemanyoftheseaspectsaretouchedonbyRen-
assumptionsof the I96os, and manyof the attitudes frewinhisexcellentsurveyoftheproblem, theyseemto
whichunderlieit thusseem curiouslydated.Its stress be forgotten bythetimehe proposesa solution.
on theautonomyoflocal development anditshostility One disappointing aspectof the book is the limited
to long-distance contactsand continuinginfluences extentto whichit makesuse ofexamplesfromoutside
fromareasofmoreadvancedcultureseemunaffected by Europe.Indeed,the choiceof the Polynesiandispersal
the growthof models of core-periphery development andthespreadoftheBantulanguagesmightbe thought
whichmightbe particularly relevantto the problem tendentious withoutanyassessmentofhowtypicalare
underconsideration. Itsmethodology couldjustlybe de- the phenomenawhichtheyrepresent. Althoughthey
scribedas Procrustean in thatit consistsofloppingoff bothdemonstrate thatthespreadofagriculture is likely
thosereconstructions whichdo notconform to a small undercertaincircumstances to giveriseto widespread
numberofpreconceived models,whilethereis a certain familiesof languages,thereare severalreasonsforbe-
ironyto thefactthattheanswerswhicharefinally pro- lievingthattheseexamplesmaynotsupportRenfrew's
posedare essentiallylarge-scaleversionsof themigra- equationof the spreadof farming in Europewiththe
tionssoughtbyan earliergeneration ofscholarship. dispersalofIndo-European languages.Most important,
Renfrew'sdiscussionhas the meritof a welcome theyare bothrelativelyrecenteventsby comparison
breadthofperspective, notleastin confronting thefull withthe spreadof farming in Europe.Giventhe ten-
timedepththatis relevantto theproblem.It placesthe dencyofgeographically dispersed languages todrift apart
emphasisfirmly on thefundamental economicand so- fromtheircommonprototype, it is byno meanscertain
cial shiftswhichhavetakenplacein thePostglacialand thatafter8,oooyearsthe languagesintroduced by the
whichcannotbe withoutimplications forthehistory of firstfarmers in Europecouldevenbe recognised as hav-
languages.Andit suggeststhepotentialimportance of inghada commonorigin.Thisis themostfundamental
Anatolia,wheremuch of significance forprehistoric objectionto the whole Renfrewthesis.Secondly,the
Europetookplace. In so doing,it emphasisesthatthe Polynesian case is unusualin resulting fromtheagricul-
solutionis likelyto lie somewherewithinthe known turalcolonisation ofan uninhabited area,whichwasnot
archaeologicalpictureand in processesalreadyun- thecase in Europe(whereoutsidethecentralloesszone
derstood,ratherthan in some remoteand ill-defined therewas a largemeasureofdemographic and perhaps
homelandin centralAsia where the quintessential linguisticcontinuity frompre-Neolithic populations),
Indo-European Volksgeist was distilled.It also usefully whiletheBantuspreadwas associatedwithan impor-
inflatesthescale on whichtheproblemhas oftenbeen tantpastoralelementthatmakesitmorecloselycompa-
conceived:it replacesthe imageof languagesmoving rableto examplessuch as the spreadof Turco-Tartar
aroundthe map like billiardballs by an idea of slow languagesin Eurasia-and,indeed,to certainaspectsof
development overrelatively largeareas,congruent both the traditional pictureof a post-Neolithic dispersalof
withgeography and withthe scale of culturalentities Indo-European.
whichcan be discerned in prehistoricEurope. Ifwe ask whatkindoflinguisticpatternmighthave
It mightbe objected, however, thattherethinking has resultedfromthe spreadof agriculture in Europe,we
notgonefarenough.Withinsuchan areaandtimedepth mayredressthebalancebylookingat Melanesia,which
thereis surelyscopeformorethana simpleequationof offersa verydifferent picture.Neolithicsocietiesin
the mostprominent archaeological event-the spread Europehaveoftenbeencompared-intermsoftheirso-
of farming-andthe conventionalview of language cial organisation, exchangesystems,etc.-with the
change-thedispersaloftheproto-Indo-Europeans. Al- "Neolithic"societiesofhighland New Guinea.A recent
thoughbasic cultivationand livestock-keeping spread surveyof the PapuanlanguagesofNew Guinea(Foley
withtheNeolithic,thereweremanyimportant agricul- i986) counts some 700 languages in more than 6o
turalfeatureswhichspreadas a secondgeneration of families,one ofthemostdiverseandcomplexpatterns

460 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
WESTERN CENTRAL EASTERN BALKANS. STEPPES, ANATOLIA, WESTERN EASTERN

B.C.C |EUROPE EUROPE. EUROPE AEGEANi SYRIA, LEVANT MESOPCTAMIA IRAN IRAN B.C.
Birth Birth
Of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-oF
Christ Christ
1000 I 1000
2000 I
<HORSE TRACTION O 200
I \ 1
1(BATTLE 11
5000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~10 ,
r OO-S3JEE
CAP.) II/
6000 6000CAR)C E - O
40001 1, 1/yC I\ I /1170
5O0 000 <5
XCROP-CULTIVATION
8000t FOREST - STEPPE, OASIS & MONTANE

--MEDITERRANEAN, HABITATS T-DESERT 8000
FIG. i. Innovationsin farmingand transport.
anywhereon earth.Such diversity admittedly results There are some technicalobjectionsto Renfrew's
fromseveralfactors-thelonghistory offarming in that equationwhichareindependent ofdoubtsoverthetime
area,theexistenceofindigenouspopulations,thepersis- depthofhis reconstruction. The mostimportant is that
tenceof "Neolithic"modesofsocial organisation, and thepattern ofphylogeny generated bytheassumption of
the brokenterrain-butit arguablyrepresents a more Neolithicorigins(Renfrew's fig.7.7) does not accord
plausiblepictureformuchof NeolithicEurope(espe- withthe presentunderstanding ofIndo-European rela-
ciallyfortheouterparts,wherefarming spreadlargely tionships, whichdoes not have the successivebranch-
byadoption)thantheuniformity ofIndo-European. The ings of igth-century models.In particular, Renfrew's
spreadofagriculture in Europeas we currentlyunder- modelimpliesthatmostEuropeanlanguageswerede-
standit is thusmostunlikelyto accountforthedegree
oflinguisticuniformitywhichnowprevailsandtherela-
tionshipswhich can be reconstructed fromsurviving Europe. Whether the Neolithic Anatolian-Balkan-Central-
Europeanlanguageshad some deeperlevel ofaffinity with **pre-
languages, bothbecauseofhowlongagoithappenedand Proto-Indo-European (the double asterisksignifiesan ancestral
becausemuchofthespreadoffarming in Europedidnot phylumbeyondthe chronologicallimitsoflinguisticcomparison)
resultsimplyfromdemographic advance.' is a meaningful
and importantquestionand turnson theissue of
whetherthe Indo-Europeanlanguage stock was indigenousto
Anatolia.I believethatthisis a veryplausibleassertion(andit has
i. It is quitelikelythatthespreadofagriculture
intocentralEurope arisenindependently in the linguisticworkof Gamkrelidzeand
(whichis aptlydescribedby the wave-of-advance model)was in- Ivanov),but it is a problemindependent of the questionat issue
deed associatedwitha "Polynesian"patternofinitialuniformity here,whichis thedatingof *Proto-Indo-European in thesensethat
andlaterfragmentation, butthisappliesonlyto a partofNeolithic linguistsunderstand it.

Volume 29, Number 3, June1988 146I
THE "NEOLITHIC" PATTERN
speech communtiies
#'Down-the-llne1
Bi/iryUalh5m
Typlcal artSfact
X///y/V> distn&'1tlor
estone oxes
THE "BRONZE AGE" PATTERN
D,rec&o1rcroal
tra~de
( ( ~t roade, la ng u ag eo
Typicalarhfact d1s5-1bhboir
////////KD eg brrinze swors ;/
origin
patternsoflanguageand trade:above,tradechainin manyshortstepsaccomplished

FIG. 2. Contrasting by
(e.g.,New Guinea,NeolithicEurope);below,directional
bilingualism trade,necessitating
a specialtrade
languagesuchas a pidginorcreole(e.g.,BronzeAgeNearEastand Europe).
rivedfrom*Proto-Greek, forwhichthereis no justifica- "down-the-line"exchangewhichcharacterise

Neolithic
tionwhatsoever in thelinguisticevidence:modemre- societies are capable of being handled (as in New
constructions would derive all the main European Guinea)by extensivemultilingualism, it could be ar-
languagegroupsdirectlyfrom*Proto-Indo-European, gued that tradingnetworksinvolvingdirectionalex-
withoutintermediate stepsorbifurcations. change,whichbecameincreasingly commonfromthe
Moreimportant, giventhecombination ofarguments Copperand BronzeAges onwards,wouldhave created
pointing to a relativelylate dateforthepattemsrecon- new demandsforinter-regional communication, espe-
structable by linguisticcomparison, thebookdoes not ciallybetweenelites(fig.2). Thesewouldhaveprovided
considerthemorecomplexpossibilities ofsociolinguis- circumstances fortheformationofpidginsand creoles,
tic relationshipsin laterprehistory.Whilethetypesof whichbecauseoftheirassociationwithprestige activi-

AD
CELTICI ILLYRIAN THRACIANPHRYGIAN I

ETC. ETC. J II QQ
2000
2000X
Z| IINDO-IRANIAN (U>rnf/ed I i
EALTO-IELWPAN
I I LANGUAGES 1
GUAGES20
I1expansion) A
24000- 1I -
PROTO PRPro
PROTO-
| LoI GERMANO-CENTRAL
P
REEK0
I|
Z
LI BALTO- I EUROPEAN N
IN5 O
I Z <
I SLAV I I(StePI L
30001 ' 1 3000
FI 3 Secondaryfacalrint expansion) I a
0~~~~~~~~~~40
I I I ?*PRE-PROTO- CL
INDO- EUROPEAN NON- INDO-
5000 ~~FARMINGLANGUAGES EUROPEAN o
FARMING LANGUAGES
I ~~(Pri'mary (5emit.ic,.Hurricn,
farrnlng Dravidiain)EIO
GOO PRE- FARMING I expans'on)
LANGUAGES I
A : SuIrvival I PRE- FARMING

!P : ex&inction(or survival ILANGUAGES
as svbstnates)I J1I
8000.
phasesin theexpansionofIndo-European
FIG. 3. Hypothetical languages.
ties couldhave slowlygainedmuchwidercurrency in forthepropagation ofnetworks ofclientshipanddepen-

pre-literatecommunities. The growth ofsuchexchange dencesetup bythespreadofnewfeatures ofeconomic
networks linkingdifferent partsofEuropeat thistime and culturalimportance. In thisway the existingcul-
wouldprovidea possiblecontextforthe dispersion of turesoftemperate Europecouldhavebeenslowlyrefor-
Indo-European speech,especiallysincemanytechnolog- mattedat the same timeas the drylandscapesof the
ical innovations had theiroriginsin easternand south- steppeand semi-desert zone wereextensively occupied
easternEurope. forthe firsttime by groupswith transport animals,
Perhapsevenmorefundamental was thespreadofad- ploughs,and advancedlivestock-rearing. Both move-
vancedlivestock-rearing economiesoverthesametime ments(different in expressionbut resultingfromthe
period(fig.i), whichwouldhave providedan opportu- samesetoftechnological innovations) couldhavepropa-
nityfortheslow economic,social,andlinguistic trans- gatedIndo-Europeanlanguages, westward andeastward,
formation of laterprehistoricEuropeby mechanisms froma commonfocusaroundtheBlackSea.
whichare familiarfromthe NorthAmericanethnog- My own conceptionof the chronology ofIndo-Euro-
raphy:thepenetration ofPit-Graves (Ochergraber) from peanexpansionis summarised in figure3, whichenvis-
theNorthPonticregionintopartsofRomania,Bulgaria, agesthreestagesin theextensionofthephylum:a pri-
and easternHungary(Ecsedy I979) mightbe compared maryphaseassociatedwiththedispersal offarming (but
to the penetrationof Athabascan-speaking Navajo beyondthelimitsoflinguistic reconstruction),a second-
groupsintothedryareasofthe Southwest, whileNel- aryphaseassociatedwiththe spreadofthefeatures of
son's (I973) elegantmodelforthe spreadoffishweirs advancedagriculture and livestock-keeping, affecting
and Salishlanguagesfromthecoastontotheintermon- bothEuropeand the steppes(thephenomenon recon-
taneplateauoftheNorthwest offersa suggestivemodel structedby comparative linguistics),and a tertiaryex-

Volume 29, Number 3, fune I988 1463
pansionin the EuropeanLate BronzeAge (associated To one who is impressed, as I am,bytheutilityofthe

withthe economicinnovations and spreadoftheUrn- quantitativemeasuresused by Coleman (while,like
fieldcultures) whichexplainssomeoftheremaining fea- him,rejecting anymechanistic constancy ofrate),some
turesofthehistoricalpattern. further approachto thesequestionswouldbe helpful.
I hope thatthis is enoughto indicatethatthereis MeanwhileI wouldliketo see bothcommentators sub-
further scopeforconstructive debate,in whichthe is- stantiate moresecurelytheir"hunch"thattheproposed
sues can be tackledwithmoreimagination thanhas timescale is too long.
hitherto beendeployed. Botharchaeology andlinguistics Modelsand thewaveofadvance.It is thefunction of
havemadegreatadvancesinrecentyears,thoughlargely anymodeltogeneralise and,in generalising, tosimplify.
in isolationfromeach other.We mustall be grateful to Itcannotbe toofirmly stressed thatthewave-of-advance
Renfrew forinitiating a newroundofdialogue. model was formulated by Ammermanand Cavalli-
Sforzafora well-defined generalcase (involving an an-
isotropiclandscapeand a homogeneous populationof
farmers) suchas couldneverexistin therealworld.Its
Reply role is to offeran intelligible mechanismby whicha
basic processcan be understood. I am entirely happy,
therefore,withNeustupny's suggestion thattherewere
COLIN RENFREW phasesofrapidspreadandothersofconsolidation: as he
Cambridge, England.I4 I 88 recognises, mymap(fig.I), withitssequenceoftransfor-
mations,reflects preciselythatview.Indeed,thisis one
FirstI shouldlike to thankthosereviewers who have ofthefewpointswhereI feelColeman'sreading hasnot
hereinitiatedthe discussionwhichI hopedmy book beena sympathic one.To say(p. i29) thatin themodel
wouldgenerate. In thespaceavailableit is notpossible therateofmovementofthewaveofadvanceturnsout
to discussall the interesting pointswhichtheyhave to be i km per yearis a factualstatementaboutthe
raised.Itis perhapsappropriate toidentify threepatterns mathematics ofthemodel:it is notan assertion offixed
of response,from(a) those who, on archaeological ratesofchangeas is indeedthecase withglottochronol-
grounds, respondin themainpositively to at leastsome ogy.On thesamepageI insistthat"obviously peopledo
of the suggestionsoffered(Neustupn',Sherratt, and, notbehavelikemathematical automata,"andit should
fromthe"empirical"standpoint, Baldi),(b) thosewho, be clearlyunderstood thatwhenthemodeloperates, the
while raisinginteresting issues,preferon mainlyar- rateof advancewill naturallyvaryaccordingto local
chaeologicalgroundsto reassertthe traditional view conditions. Thisis preciselybecausethelandscapeis not
(Anthony and Wailes,Gimbutas),and (c) thepredomi- anisotropic orthefarming population homogeneous. But
nantlylinguistic comments ofColeman,openingseveral perhapsthedifficulty hereis less withthewave ofad-
important avenues.Beforereferring in turnto thevari- vancethanwiththeapplication ofmathematical models
ouspointsmade(aswellas tothe"methodological" con- in general.
cernsofBaldi),it maybe usefulto refer to somegeneral An important butaltogether differentpoint,touched
issuesraisedin morethanone review.At theendI will on by Sherratt, is thatin some areasfarming maynot
tryto make some observations aboutpossiblefurther havebeencarried byan expanding population offarmers
directions ofresearch. butacquiredthrough exchangebythelocal Mesolithic
Timedepth.BothSherratt and Colemansee theearly population.This pointis considered byZvelebil(i986)
date of the processesproposedas presenting a major andhiscolleaguesandis applicabletoIberiaandperhaps
difficulty.As Colemanindicates,the firstHittiteand elsewhere, although thereis a generalconsensusthatthe
Greektextsare well over4,000 yearsaftertheearliest wave-of-advance modelmaybe appropriate forcentral
linguisticdivergence. This he contrasts withthediver- andsouth-east Europe.
sityamongthe Romancelanguagesin somewhatless Singleor multipleprocesses.In writing Archaeology
than 2,ooo yearsfromtheirpoint of origin.But I findit and Languageit was mypurposeto offer a viablealter-
difficulthereto decideon whatgrounds we areto form nativeto the now conventional"Kurganexpansion"
ourexpectations, giventhatall agreethatthesupposedly view,whichforthereasonsgivenI considertobe unten-
regular divergence ratesproposedbythepractitioners of able. I had therefore to offeran explanationof pan-
glottochronology areto be rejected.To thelayman,the Europeanscope,sincetheIndo-European languages have
suggestion thatHittiteandMycenaeanGreekaremuch a pan-European distribution, and theearlyfarming hy-
lessalike(perhaps bya factoroftwo,ifsuchan estimate pothesisseems the onlyone whichcan operateon so
werepossible)thanareFrenchandRomanianorItalian wide a scale. It was not,however,mypurposeto deny
andSpanishseemsperfectly plausible.It is problematic the effectof laterand different patternsof change,al-
also that most of our well-documented experience thoughclearlyColemanfeelsthatthismayhave been
comesfromthe divergence of languagepairsoverthe implied.Yet themovementofGerman-speakers on the
firstmillennium ortwooftheirdivergence. Whatarethe fringes ofthelateRomanEmpireto whichhe refers is a
conditions in whichconservatism prevailswithina lan- system-collapse processwhichI certainly recognise.On
guageand innovations and losses arefew?In whatcir- pp. i62-63 thereis explicitreference to the"simplistic
cumstances is languagechange,hencedivergence, rapid? presentation ofthebasicmodel,"andotherprocessesof

laterdate are suggested(althoughnot detailed)which withwhichColemandealsso informatively. He is,how-

wouldhavetheeffect ofcomplicating thelinguisticpic- ever,verymuchfirmer on whathe regards as "method-
ture.Indeed,thechapteron theCeltsdevelopsthedis- ological"issues(andthosehe citesarerestricted tochap.
cussionofsomeoftheselaterprocesses.The laterpre- 5),andhereI canonlyreplythatnowherein mybookdo
history ofEuropemustbe fullofminordisplacements,I makeclaimsto be otherthana laymanin thefieldof
episodesof elite dominance,and no doubtothercul- linguistics. Evenso,Baldi'sobjections relatein themain
tural/linguistic happenings, all leavingtheireffects on to sins of omissionratherthan of commission.No-
the pattemsof language.That mustbe acknowledged where,so faras I can see,doeshe makeanyobservation
andadmitted. Thereis no suggestion oftheexclusionof whichbearson the centralthesesof my book.He is
otheroccurrences: simplythesuggestion thatthesim- simplybewailingmylackofcompetence in modemlin-
ple, pan-European languagepatternmay well have a guistics,andtherehe is in a betterpositionto judge.
principalandidentifiable underlying cause. Notall hispoints,however, arequitesoundinrelation
The specificreviews.I am heartened by thepositive to the book.He refersto my statement on "emerging
responseof Neustupny,the principalpioneerof pro- lessons" fromsociolinguisticsand asks a series of
cessualthought inthearchaeology ofeasternEuropeand rhetorical questions.In facttheyfindanswerwithinthe
one who,withhis fatherthe late JiriNeustupny, has sameparagraph: "Linguisticchangedoesnottakeplace
written influentially on thisand otherrelatedsubjects. in a vacuum,irrespective ofotherfeaturesofsociety."
Reference is madebelowtotheimportant pointofpossi- That maynot be an astonishing revelationbutwould
blecorrelations withtheevidenceofphysicalanthropol- nonethelessbe a new one in much of the literature
ogy.His interesting suggestion concerning long-lastingwhichI havebeencriticising. He is censorious aboutthe
culturalfrontiers (as possible indicatorsof language use ofGrimm'sLaw,which"ceasesto exist"underthe
boundaries) is one well worthfollowing further,and I impactof the glottalicmodel,but he overlooksthat
lookforward toreading moreofthiswholephenomenon theexplicit reference to Grimm'sLawis hisown:itis no-
ofspatialdiscontinuity. wherecitedby name in my book.He bewailsthe ab-
Sherratt makesa numberofinteresting points,many senceofdiacritical marksin mybook,butiftheiromis-
wellsummarised in hisfigures i and3. Thereis perhaps sion was good enoughforthe originalwritersof the
theriskofover-stressing theextenttowhichthevarious languagesin questionit can surelybe acceptedina book
innovationsin his "SecondaryProductsRevolution" intended fora widereadership. He lamentsTrubetzkoy's
constituted a singleassemblage, orappearedat thesame positionon convergence, failingtorecognise thatithasa
time,or indeedderivedfromthe same area: manyof significant statusas the mostextremestatement of a
themseemto be simplytheconsequenceofthesortof convergence viewpoint. Ifwe wereto acceptitwe could
intensification to be expectedanywhere as farming de- dowithoutmigrations altogether! Infact,I donotfollow
velopsoverthemillennia.ForthatreasonI would,inhis Trubetzkoy's position,but I do findit interesting and
figure 3,interrupt orweakenthehorizontal linelabelled cansee no validreasonforBaldi'sobjectiontomyciting
"secondary farming expansion."In thesameway,there it or forhis introducing it as an indicationof my
seemslittleto support thenotionofan "Umfieldexpan- "superficiality." Atonepointhe goesso far,in deploring
sion,"1 once set out by Childeand reiterated in much the absenceamongrecentdevelopments of the "Nos-
the same form(but in different language)by Clarke tratic"hypothesis, to makereference to theNew York
(i968:39I), if by "expansion" an outwardmigrationis Times ofNovember 24, I987. Perhaps atthispointI may
intended.Thathorizontalline too couldgo. Butother- be forgiven a twingeofvexation:mybookwaspublished
wisethereis muchtonotein whatSherratt has written, on Octoberi of thatyear!In the circumstances I am
and his clearintroduction hereof the notionof trade heartenedthathe appearsquite willingto acceptthe
languages(seehis figure 2) addsa usefulfurther compo- "empirical"contextofthebook.
nentto thediscussion.His mentionofthediversity of The issue ofthe"protolexicon" is raisedbyAnthony
Melanesianlanguagesis also apposite.Butaretheynot andWailes,andofcoursetheyarerightthattheremust
so diverseprecisely becausetheinceptionoffarming in be an innerresiduumof wordsand meaningsderived
Melanesiawas not an externally impelledprocessof fromthe earlyancestralProto-Indo-European language
wave-of-advance type?Was thisnot,in fact,a case of surviving withintheextantIndo-European languages.I
indigenous development, or at bestoflocal adaptation? agreewith themthatit is intriguing thatthe Greek
Is it notin factthepatternwhichwe wouldexpectin termsformanyMediterranean speciesare not shared
NeolithicandlaterEuropeiftherehadnotbeena wave- withotherIndo-European languagesandfeelthatthisis
of-advance introduction offarming? a valid pointwhichmeritscomment.However,when
It is difficult to commenton thefirstpartofBaldi's theyplace veryconsiderableemphasisupon a single
review,sinceat the"empirical"levelhefindshimself in wordorgroupofwords(as in thecase of"wheel"),great
agreement withthepointsmade.It is perhapssurprising care and scepticismis needed.Theirpointis, in fact,
thathe has no comments on thetime-depth pointmen- answeredveryeffectively by Coleman:"it looks as if
tionedearlieroron therejection oflinguistic palaeontol- 'wheel' was not in the proto-lexicon, and the various
ogyorindeedon theimportant problems ofrelating the wordsforit werecreatedindependently afterthe dis-
pattern oflinguisticphenomenain spaceto theirpossi- persal."Manyof the termsrelatedto "wheel,"forin-
ble historicalorigins,difficulties of some complexity stance,rota, could easilybe derivedfrompre-existing

verbforms, formostlanguagesmusthavea termfor"to wheat,barleyand peas," she says that"thereare no

rotate"whichwill havepre-existed theintroduction of otherwell-attested proto-Indo-European wordsforcere-
thewheelandcouldwellhaveprovided thetermforit.It als" (beyondthe threewhich she quotes).That this
is in this connectionsignificant that Ringehimself shouldbe so simplyemphasisestheweaknessofa rigid
makesthispointbyimplication in theirfootnote i when "protolexicon" approach.The archaeological evidence
he remarks that"thill"is nota derivate ofa documented makesit unlikelythatherders ofsheepandgoatswould
Proto-Indo-European verbroot.But it has in somelan- be unfamiliar withwheatandbarley.
guagesa moregeneralmeaningof "board"or "plank" Coleman'shelpfulcomments indicatesomeofthere-
(forinstance, Lithuanian tille'smallplankin thebottom mainingdifficulties as wellas someoftheopportunities
ofa boat',Sanskrittalam,'bottom, floor,orsurface'). In forfurther work.I havereferred earlierto theissuesof
its earliestformit neednothave beenassociatedwith timedepthand theuse ofmodelsandfullyacceptthat
cartsorwheels.Whiletheirdiscussionofearlyfindsof thereality,overthewholeofEuropeand beyondover
wheelsis interesting and well-documented, it neednot manymillennia,will havebeenverymuchmorecom-
lead to the remarkably precisechronological conclu- plexthanthebasicoutlinewhichI haveattempted, in-
sionswhichtheywouldinfer. tendedas a first-order approachonly.Two moreofhis
Theirdoubtson theAnatolianhomelandseemderived points,earlysocialorganisation andlinguistic matching,
mainlyfromsecondarysourceswhichalreadyoperate requireseparatecomment.
withina framework in whichHittiteis assumedto be All thereviewers who mentionthepoint(otherthan
intrusive preciselybecauseit is Indo-European. It would Gimbutas)are in agreement thatDumezil'sinterpreta-
be interestingtosee theinference fromtheKultepetexts tionsin thisfieldareexaggerated andunreliable. Butit
madein greater detail:I am notawarethattheylead to mustindeedbe possibleto say something ofthesocial
the view thatHittitewas intrusive. It maywell have organisation oftheearlyfarmers, bothfromthelinguis-
beenat Hattusasitself,butmanyscholarssee the(im- tic and fromthe archaeological evidence.As Coleman
mediate)homeareaas thatofNesa,ofteninfactequated remarks, thesepioneering peasantswill not have been
withKultepe. "an incoherentrabble."We cancertainly expectthemto
Theirdiscussionofdifferent kindsofmigration seems havehadoraltraditions (ofwhichtheterm"fameimper-
entirely constructive, indeedprecisely thekindofanaly- ishable"may be a remarkable relic)and cosmological
sis whichis needediffurther progress is to be made.In ideas,perhapsinvolving a termancestral tothenotionof
mybook(pp.97-98),influenced byEcsedy(I979),I ac- "skyfather."As I remarkin my book,the root*reg-
knowledged thattheKurganinfluences seenin Romania neednotimplya chiefor king,andI readilyacceptthe
and Hungarymay have involvedsome movementsof correction that"director" maybe moreappropriate than
people,and hence a migration. (Nor shouldit, by the "prominent man." But it maybe perfectly possibleto
way,be overlooked thatthewave-of-advance modelis in relatetheseideasto thearchaeology in question,noris
itselfa migrationary one,as Sherratt remarks.) I feelthat thereanyneedto postulatefromthema stratified soci-
phenomenasuch as theydiscussmaywell have taken etyor one withrankingsufficient to merittheappella-
place in the LowerDanube. But what of the restof tion"chiefdom."Some social ranking, on the basis of
Europe?IftheIndo-European languageswererestricted ageandexperience, is tobe expectedinmostsegmentary
toeasternandsouth-eastern Europe,thetraditional view societies,a pointrecently well-argued in thearchaeolog-
sustainedby the argumentswhich theyput forward ical literature (Tilleyi984). A recentstudyofthesocial
wouldbe perfectly adequate.Butthedistribution is very structureoftheearlyDanubianpeasants, preciselythose
muchwider,andin theirdiscussiontheydo notaddress forwhomthe model of the wave of advanceis most
themselves to thiscentralproblem, thevery*h3nobh of appropriate,has used evidenceof theirhouse plansas
theIndo-European question. well as theirburialcustomsto discusspreciselysuch
OvertheyearsI havelearntmuchfromGimbutas, and issues(Coudart I987, I988).
we havecollaborated profitably in fieldwork in northern It seems a perfectly appropriate task forthe future,
Greece.In herGoddessesand GodsofOld Europe(Gim- working withina newframework, to considerwhatevi-
butasi982) shehas donemuchto drawourattention to dencethearchaeological remainsoffer forthesociallife
hitherto unnoticedaspectsofthematerial.Butourap- andinstitutions ofthefirstfarmers andto comparethis
proachto andourpreconceptions ofthepresentsubject withthelinguistic evidence.We shouldnotforget, after
areverydifferent. Hersis well-exemplified bythevery all,thatthesiteof QatalHiiyuk(Mellaarti967), withits
firstsentenceofherreview:thedifference will be clear richsymboliclife,lies withintheprimary area of our
toanyreader, as wellas ourdiffering viewsonthemerits earlyAnatolianfarmers. Working withinthenewframe-
ofwhathas frequently beenoffered undertherubricof work,ratherthan within the exaggerated mythical
comparativemythology. While acknowledging that I worldofDumezil,somemoremodestinference maybe
havemuchto learnfromhermuchdeeperknowledge of perfectlyfeasible.
theSovietarchaeological material,I wouldsimplylike Withlinguisticmatchingwe cometo themostdiffi-
hereto reiterate one point.In responseto myremark, cultproblem,one to whichthereseemsno immediate
which she quotes,that "if the proto-Indo-Europeans solution.Severalof the linguisticfeaturessharedby
werefamiliarwithdomesticated sheep,goatsor cattle, some languagesbut not by otherswithinthe Indo-
thentheymustcertainly alsohavebeenacquaintedwith Europeanfamilyought (when consideredin spatial

terms)to giveus a clearerunderstanding ofthedevelop- I conclude,then,thatthe timeis indeedripefora

mentalhistory ofthosespatialpatterns. Theremarkable reconsideration oftheissuesraisedin mybook.
thingis that theydon't-eitherin termsof my hy- IfI am rightthatthecurrent archaeological evidence
pothesisorin termsofthetraditional one.Itwas indeed rendersinvalidthe traditional explanations, thenit is
partlyforthatreasonthatGamkrelidze andIvanovpro- timethatwe satdowntoexaminethealternatives rather
posedtheratherelaboratemigratory routeswhich(with carefully. I havetriedto openthediscussion:it maybe
Diakonov)I havecriticised (P.304). Butthepointswhich thatin laterworkwe shallbe abletoavoidat leastsome
Coleman raises-the centum/satamdivisionand the ofthesuperficialities towhichBaldiobjects.The issues,
others-aredeeplydisturbing. He is quiterightto pro- bothin historical linguistics andin prehistoric archaeol-
ducethesortoffamily-tree modelwhichmyhypothesis ogy,aretoo important to be leftdormant anylonger.
wouldgenerate and to commentthatit doesnotmatch
the distribution of theselinguisticfeaturesverywell. [Barker's reviewarrived toolatetobe considered here.-
But nor,in fact,does the sortof treewhichone may EDITOR.]
generate fromtheKurganhypothesis. Indeed,I havenot
seenin printanywhere
plicationofthesepatterns
a detaileddiscussionoftheim-
inthelightofthathypothesis.
References
Cited
Ofcourse,it maybe,as Colemansuggests, thatsome AMMERMAN, A. J., AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. I973. "Apopu-
features areofindependent originandhenceoftypolog- lationmodelforthediffusion ofearlyfarming in Europe,"in
ical ratherthangeneticimportance. But thismaynot The explanationofculturechange:Modelsin prehistory. Edited
holdfortheothers. byC. Renfrew, pp. 348-58. London:Duckworth.
. I979. "The wave ofadvancemodelforthespreadofag-
The implication mustsurelybe thatColemanis right riculture in Europe,"in Transformations: Mathematicalap-
in one ofhis basicpoints,thattheultimateexplanation proachesto culturechange.EditedbyC. RenfrewandK. L.
forthe presentdistribution of the Indo-European lan- Cooke,pp. 275-94. New York:AcademicPress.
guageswill be a morecomplicated one thanI havepre- . I984. TheNeolithictransition and thegeneticsofpopula-
sented.AlthoughI have stressedthe wave-of-advance tionin Europe.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.
model,whichmaybe ofbasic and fundamental impor- peanorigins,andthedomesticationofthehorse:AIndo-Euro-
ANTHONY, DAVID W. I986. The "Kurganculture,"
reconsidera-
tancetothedistribution, thatdoesnotruleouttheoper- tion. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:29I-3 I3. [DWA]
ationof otherprocessesalso, as Sherratt also remarks. ANTTILA, RAIMO. I972. An introduction tohistoricaland com-
Butthesesecond-order (mainlylater)processescan only parativelinguistics.New York:Macmillan.[PB]
B E R, E . J . W. I 975. The Proto-Indo-European notionofcloth
be correctlyinterpreted iftheyareseenwithina frameof B AR andclothing.Journal ofIndo-European Studies3:294-32I. [MG]
reference whichis approximately validfortheprimary . I988. The development oftextilesin theNeolithicand
processes. BronzeAge.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity Press.In press.
Beforeconcluding, it is worthnotingthatrecentad- [MG]
vancesin molecularbiologyoffer thepossibility oftest- BARKER, G. I985. Prehistoric farming in Europe.Cambridge:

Cambridge UniversityPress. [GB]
ingsomeoftheimplications ofthewave-of-advance ap- BENVENISTE, EMILE. I973. Indo-European languageand society.
proachto the problem.In my book I avoided,in the TranslatedbyElizabethPalmer.CoralGables:University of
main,references to traditional approachestowardsthe MiamiPress.[DWA]
inference ofgeneticrelationships, basedon skeletaland BERGSLAND, K., AND H. VOGT. i962 On thevalidityofglotto-
chronology.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 3: I I 5-53. [RC]
craniometric measurements(e.g., Vencl i986), even BESTUZHEV, G. N., AND A. D. REZEPKIN. I983. Novye nakhodki
thoughthesewouldat firstsightsupport myposition.I iz grobnitsyu stanitsyNovosvobodnoi. Kratkie Soobshcheniia
didso on thegrounds thatphenotypic relationships can- InstitutArkheologii SSSR, no. I76, pp. 75-78. [DWA, BW]
notalwaysreliablybe linkedwithgenotypic ones.For BLOOMFIELD, LEONARD. I933. Language.New York:Holt. [PB]
similarreasonsI avoidedthesupporting evidencefrom B 0on GUCKI, P. I987. The establishment ofagrarian communities
theNorthEuropeanPlain.CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 28: I-
blood-groupstudies (Ammermanand Cavalli-Sforza I3. [EN]
I984; also Rendine,Piazza, and Cavalli-Sforza i986). B O K O N Y I, SA N D O R. I 978. The earliestwavesofdomestichorses
Alain Gallay has also kindlydrawnmy attentionto in EastEurope.Journal ofIndo-European Studies6: I7-76. [MG]
promising workin thisdirection (Sanchez-Mazas, Excof- . I987. "Horses and sheep in East Europe in theCopperand
BronzeAges,"in Proto-Indo-European: Thearchaeology ofa
fier,andLanganeyi987). Butit is possiblenowto com- linguistic problem(Studiesin honorofMarija Gimbutas).
pare specificamino-acidsequencesfromthe DNA of EditedbyS. SkomalandEdgarC. Polome,pp. I37-44. Washing-
differentindividuals, anditmaybe possibletoapplythis ton,D.C.: InstitutefortheStudyofMan. ]MG]
to prehistoricor earlyhistoricmaterialwhereproteins BOMHARD, ALLAN. I984. TowardProto-Nostratic: A new begin-
have been preserved(Paarboi985). Valid measuresof ning.Amsterdam: Benjamins.[PB]
J., D. KOUTECKY, AND E. NEUSTUPNY. I966. The
geneticproximity maysoonbecomeavailableforliving BOUZEK, Knoviz settlement of North-WestBohemia. (Fontes Archae-
individualsandpopulations, andperhapsforearlierones ologiciPragensesio.) Prague:NationalMuseum.[EN]
also. This will not,ofcourse,tellus anything directly BYNO N, THEO DORA. I977. Historicallinguistics.Cambridge:
aboutspecificlanguages, butin somecasesit mayoffer CambridgeUniversityPress.[PB]
. I983. Enlargededition.Historicallinguistics. Cambridge:
an effectiveway of discriminating betweenthe demo- Cambridge University Press.[PB]
graphicimplications ofsome ofthemodelsforchange tERNJAXOV, I. T., AND M. M. ?MAGLI. I983. Derev'janyjpsalii
whicharenow on offer. jamnojkul'tury. Arxeologija(Kiev),no. 42, pp. io-i6. [MG]

CHILDE, V. GORDON. i926. TheAryans:AstudyofIndo-Euro- parative linguistics: An introductoryguide to theoryand

pean origins.London:KeganPaul,Trench,Trubner. method.Ghent:Story-Scientia. [PB]
CLARKE, D. L. I968. Analyticalarchaeology. London:Methuen. GUDKOVA, A. V., AND I. T. CHERNIAKHOV. I98I. "Yam3nyepog-
COUDART, A. I987. Spatialorganisation, architectural style,and rebeniias kolesamiu s. Kholmskoe,"in DrevnostiSevero-
relationships betweendomesticunitsin a small-scalesedentary Zapadnogoprchernomor'ia, PP. 38-50. Kiev:NaukovaDumka.
egalitarian society.Paperpresented at theNinthAnnualMeet- [DWA,BW]
ingoftheTheoreticalArchaeology Group,Bradford, England, HAINSWORTH, J. B. I972. "Some observations on theIndo-Euro-
December. pean placenames of Greece." Acta, 2nd International Collo-
. I988. Architectureet societ6 n6olithique:Uniformit6 et quium on Aegean Prehistory:The FirstArrival of Indo-Euro-
variabilit6, fonctionet stylede l'architecture dansl'approche pean Elementsin Greece,PP. 39-42. Athens:Ministry of
des communaut6sdu N6olithiquedanubien.BritishArchae- Cultureand Sciences.[DWA,BWJ
ologicalReportsInternational Series.In press. HALL, M. I987. The changingpast: Farmers,kings, and tradersin
DENNELL, R. w. I983. Europeaneconomicprehistory. London southern Africa,200-I860. Cape Town: David Philip.[GB]
andNew York:AcademicPress.[GB] HAMP, ERIC P. I979. The NorthEuropeanwordfor"apple."
DERGAtEV, V. A. I\986. Moldavija i sosednietezitoriiv epoxu Zeitschzift furkeltischePhilologie37:I5 8-66. [MG]
bronzy.Kiginev:Stiintsa.[MG] . I987. "The pigin ancientnorthern Europe,"in Proto-
Die Umenfelderkultur en Mitteleuropas. I987. Prague:Archae- Indo-European: The archaeology of a linguisticproblem (Stud-
ologicalInstitute.[EN] ies in honor of Marija Gimbutas). Edited by S. Skomal and Ed-
DODD-OPRITSESCU, M. I978. Les elements steppiquesdans garC. Polome, pp. I85-9.I Washington,D.C.: Instituteforthe
l'Eneolithique de Transylvanie. Dacia 22:87-97. [DWA, BW] StudyofMan. [MG]
DUMITRES CU, VLADIMIR. 1980. "Appendix III: Tumulifrom HILLERY, G. A., AND J. S. BROWN. I965. Migrational systems of
theperiodoftransition fromtheEneolithicto theBronzeAge the southernAppalachians: Some demographicobservations.
excavatednearRast,"in TheNeolithicsettlement at Rast,pp. RuralSociology30:3-48. [DWA,BW]
i26-33. BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational Series72. HOCK, HANS H. I986. Principles ofhistoricallinguistics. Berlin:
[DWA, BW] de Gruyter. [PB]
ECSEDY, ISTVAN. I974. A new itemrelating theconnections HOCKING, R. R. I976. The analysisand selectionofvariablesin
withtheEast in theHungarianCopperAge.A M6raFerenc linearregression. Biometrics 32:I-50. [DWA,BW]
MutzeumEvk6nyve,no. 2, pp. 9-I7. [DWA, BW] HOPPER, J. B. I98I. "'Decem' and 'taihun'languages:An Indo-
. I979. ThepeopleofthePit-Gravekurgansin easternHun- European isogloss," in Bono homini donum: Essays in histor-
gary.Budapest:Akademiai Kiad6.[DWA, BW, AS] ical linguistics in memory of J.Alexander Kerns. Edited by Y. L.
FOLEY, W. A. I986. ThePapuanlanguagesofNew Guinea.Cam- Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard,pp. I33-42. Amsterdam. [RC]
bridge:Cambridge University Press.[AS] HUDSON, J. C. I977. "Theory and methodologyin comparative
FRIEDRICH, PAUL. I970. Proto-Indo-European trees:Thear- frontierstudies," in The frontier:Comparative studies. Edited
borealsystemofa prehistozic people.Chicago:University of byD. H. MillerandJ.0. Steffen, pp. I I-3I. Norman: Univer-
Chicago Press. [DWA,BW] sityofOklahomaPress.[DWA,BW]
GAMKRELIDZE, T. v. I98I. "Languagetypology andlanguageuni- JIRAN,L. I987. Osidlenistredoceskeho Ploabiv dobepopel-
versals and theirimplications forthe reconstructionof the Indo- nicovychpoli. Diss., Archaeological Institute,Prague,Czecho-
European stop system," in Bono homini donum: Essays in his- slovakia.[ENI
toricallinguisticsin memoryofJ.AlexanderKerns.Editedby KOPYTOFF, I., I987. "The internalAfricanfrontier:The making
Y. L. Arbeitman and A. R. Bomhard,pp. 57I-609. Amsterdam. of Africanpolitical culture," in The Africanfrontier:The repro-
[RC] duction of traditional African societies. Edited by I. Kopytoff,
GAMKRELIDZE, T. V., AND V. V. IVANOV. I984. Indoevropejskij andIndianapolis:IndianaUniversity
PP. 3-84. Bloomington
jazyki indoevropejcy. Press.
Tbilisi:TbilisiStateUniversity Press.[DWA,BW]
[PB,MG] KOSSINNA, GUSTAV. I902. Die indogermanische Fragearchaolo-
. I985. The ancient Near East and the IE question: Tempo- gisch beantwortet.Zeitschriftfir Ethnologie 34: I6I-222.
ral and territorialcharacteristicsof Proto-Indo-Europeanbased LABOV, WILLIAM. I966. The social stratification ofEnglishin
on linguistic andhistorico-cultural data; and themigrationof D.C.: CenterforAppliedLinguis-
New YorkCity.Washington,
tribesspeaking Indo-European dialects fromtheiroriginal tics. [PB]
homelandin theNear East to theirhistoricalhabitationsin LEE, E. S. I966. A theoryofmigration. 3:47-57.
Demography
Eurasia.JoumalofIndo-European StudiesI 3:3-9 I [RC] [DWA,BW]
GIMBUTAS, MARIJA. I970. "Proto-Indo-European culture: The LEFFERTS, G. j. i982. "Frontierdemography:An introduction,"
Kurgancultureduringthefifth, and thirdmillennia
fourth, in The frontier:Comparative studies. Edited by D. H. Miller
B.C.," in Indo-European
and Indo-Europeans.EditedbyG. Car- andJ.0. Steffen, pp. 33-55. Norman: Universityof Oklahoma
dona, H. M. Hoenigswald, and A. Senn, pp. I 55-97. Philadel- Press.[DWA,BW]
phia:University ofPennsylvaniaPress.[PB] LEHMANN, WINFRED P. I973. Historical linguistics: An intro-
. I977. The firstwave ofEurasiansteppepastoralists
into duction.New York:Holt. [PB]
CopperAgeEurope.Journal ofIndo-European Studies5:277- LEWIS, G. A geographical
j. i982. Humanmigration: perspective.
338. [MG] New York:St.Martin'sPress.[DWA,BW]
. I980-8i. The transformationofEuropeanandAnatolian A
to foodproduction:
LEWTHWAITE, J.I986. "The transition
culture c. 4500-2500 B.C. and its legacy. Journalof Indo-Euro- Mediterraneanperspective," Edited
in Huntersin transition.
pean Studies8 (I-2), 9 (I-2). [MG] byM. Zvelebil,pp. 53-66. Cambridge:Cambridge University
. I982 (I974). The goddesses and gods of Old Europe. Lon- Press.
don:ThamesandHudson. LITTAUER, M. A., AND J.H. CROUWEL. I979. Wheeledvehicles
. I986. "Remarkson theethnogenesis oftheIndo-Euro- and ridden animals in the ancient Near East. Leiden: Brill.
peansin Europe,"in Ethnogenese europaischer Volker.Edited [DWA,BW]
byBernhard andKandler-Palsson,pp. 5-I9. Stuttgart andNew MACDONALD, L. J., AND J. MACDONALD. I964. Chainmigra-
York:GustavFischer.[MG] tion,ethnicneighborhood formation, andsocialnetworks. Mil-
GOODENOUGH, WARD. I970. "The evolutionofpastoralism and bank Memorial Fund Quarterly 42:82-97. [DWA, BW]
Indo-European origins,"in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. MC N EI L, R. A. I 972. The Greeksin historyandprehistory.
An-
EditedbyG. Cardona,H. M. Hoenigswald,andA. Senn,pp. tiquity 46: I9-.28. [GB]
253-66. Philadelphia:University ofPennsylvania Press.[MG] MARTINET, A. I986. Des steppesaux oceans: L'indo-europeen et
GOYVAERTS, DIDIER L. I975. Present-day historical and com- les "Indo-europeens." Paris.[RC]

MATJUSIN, G. N. i982. Eneolit juznogo Urala.Moskva:Nauka. SHENNAN, S. I986. "Interaction

andchangein third-millennium-
[MG] BC western and central Europe," in Peer polity interaction and
MELLAART, J.I967. Qatal Hiiyiik:A Neolithictownin Anatolia. sociopoliticalchange.EditedbyC. RenfrewandJ.F. Cherry,
pp.
London:ThamesandHudson. I37-48. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
MILLS, N. T. W. I983. "The NeolithicofsouthernFrance," in An- SHERRATT, A. G. I98I. "Ploughandpastoralism:
Aspectsofthe
cientFrance:Neolithicsocietiesand theirlandscapes6ooo- SecondaryProductsRevolution,"in Patternof thepast: Studies in
2000B.C. EditedbyC. Scarre,pp. 91-145. Edinburgh: Univer- honour of David Clarke. Edited by I. Hodder, N. Hammond, and
sityPress.[GB] G. Isaac,pp. 26I-305. Cambridge:Cambridge Press.
University
NELSON, C. M. 1973. "Prehistoricculturechangein theintermon- [AS]
taneplateauofwesternNorthAmerica,"in Theexplanationof .I983. The secondary
exploitation
ofanimalsin theOld
culturechange:Modelsin prehistory. EditedbyA. C. Renfrew, World.WorldArchaeologyI5:90-I04. [DWA, BW, AS]
pp. 37I-90. London: Duckworth. [AS] 1i987. "Cups that cheered," in Bell Beakers of the Western
NEUSTUPNY, E. I967. Kpocatkoum
patriarchatu
ve stiedni Mediterranean. EditedbyW. H. Waldrenand R. K. Kennard,pp.
Evrope. (RozpravyCSAV 77-2.) Prague: Academia. [EN] 8I-Io6. BritishArchaeologicalReports.[AS]
*i969. Economy of the Corded Ware cultures.Ar- SJASTAAD, L. A. i962. The costsandreturns ofhumanmigration.
chaeologickeRozhledy21:43-68. [EN] JournalofPoliticalEconomy37:6I5-28. [DWA, BW]
. 1972. Das jungere Aeneolithikumin Mitteleuropa. SOUTHWORTH, FRANKLIN C. I964. Family-treediagrams.Lan-
Musaica (ZbomikFilozofikejFakulty)12:91-120. [EN] guage 40:557-65. [PB]
.1974. "Paradigm lost." Glockenbechersymposion
Ober- STEWARD, JULIAN H. I955. Theoryofculturechange.Urbana:
ried1974, pp. 241-47. Bussum/Haarlem. [EN] UniversityofIllinoisPress.
.I 98I. MobilitatderaneolithischenPopulationen.
Sloven- SUBBOTIN, L. V. I980. "Nekotoryeosobennostipogrebal'nykh
ska'Archeologia 29:III-19. [EN] obriadovplemenyamnoikul'turyust'ia Dnestra,"in Severo-
1i982.Prehistoricmigrations byinifitration.
Archeologicke Zapadnoe prichernomor'ev epokhu pervobytno-obshchinnogo
Rozhledy 34:278-93. [EN] stroia, pp. 52-63. Kiev: Naukova Dumka. [DWA, BW]
. I983a. The demography ofprehistoric
cemeteries. TELEGIN, D. IA. I973. Seredno-Stogivska kulturaepokhimidi.
PamatkyArcheologicke 74:7-34. [EN] Kiev: Naukova Dumka. [DWA, BW]
9Ig83b.Demografie pohrfebis'f.
pravkyfch Prague:Ar- .I 977. "Ob absoliutnomvozrasteyamnoikul'turyi
chaeologicalInstitute.[EN] nekotorye voprosykhronologii eneolitaiugaUkrainy.
NEUSTUPNY, E., AND J. NEUSTUPNY. I96I. Czechoslovakiabe- SovietskaiaArkheologiia,no. 2, pp. 5-I9. [DWA, BW]
foretheSlavs. London:ThamesandHudson. [EN]. .I 986. Dereivka: A settlement and cemeteryof Copper
NEUSTUPNY, J. I976. Archaeologicalcommentsto theIndo-Euro- Age horse-keeperson the Middle Dnieper. BritishArchaeolog-
peanproblem.OriginiI0:7-I8. [EN] ical ReportsInternational Series.[MG]
NOVITSKII, E. IU. I985. Dereviannaiakonstruktsiia
iz yamnogo THOMPSON, S. I. 973. Pioneercolonization:A cross-cultural
u sela Kholmskoe.SovietskaiaArkheologiia,
pogrebeniia no. 2, view. Addison-Wesley Modulein Anthropology 33. [DWA, BW]
PP. 232-35. [DWA, BW] TILLEY, C. I984. "Ideologyand thelegitimation ofpowerin the
PAARBO, S. I985. MolecularcloningofAncientEgyptian middleNeolithicofsouthernSweden,"in Ideology,representa-
mummyDNA. Nature3I4:644-45. tion, and power in prehistory.Edited by C. Tilley and D. Miller,
PETRENKO, A. G. I984. Drevneei srednevekovoe
zivotnovodstvo pp. III-46. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
srednego Povolz'ja i Predural'ja. Moskva: Nauka. [MG] TRITSCH, F. J.I972. "Minyansand Luwians."Acta,2ndInterna-
PIGGOTT, S. I983. The earliestwheeledtransport,
fromtheAt- tional Colloquium on Aegean Prehistory:The FirstArrival of
lanticCoast to theCaspian Sea. Ithaca:CornellUniversity Indo-European Elements in Greece, pp. 43-45. Athens: Minis-
Press.[DWA, BW] try of Culture and Sciences. [DWA, BW]
PUHVEL, JAAN. I987. Comparative mythology. Baltimoreand TRUBETZKOY, NIKOLAJ S. I939. Gedanken uber das Indoger-
London:JohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.[MG] manenproblem.Acta Linguistica I:8I-89. [PB]
RENDINE, S., A. PIAZZA, AND L. L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. I986. VANSINA, J. I979. Bantu in the crystalball. I. Historyin Africa
Simulationandseparationbyprincipalcomponents ofmultiple 6:287-333. [GB]
demicexpansionsin Europe.AmericanNaturalisti28:68i- .I980. Bantu in the crystalball. 2. Historyin Africa 7:293-
706. 325. [GB]
RENFREW, A. C. I973. "Problems in thegeneralcorrelation
ofar- VASIL'EV, I. B. I979. LesostepnoePovoli'e v epoxueneolitai ran-
chaeologicalandlinguisticstratain prehistoric
Greece:The nej bronzy.Diss. Moskva,InstitutArxeologii,
AkademijaNauk
modelofautochthonous origin,"in BronzeAgemigrations in SSSR. [MG]
theAegean.EditedbyR. A. CrosslandandA. Birchall,pp. 263- i98i. Eneolit Povolz'ja: Step' i lesostep'. Kujbysev: Kujby-
76. London:Duckworth.[GB] sevskij GosudarstvennyjPedagogiceskij Institut.[MG]
ROUSE, I. I986. Migrationsin prehistory:
Inferringpopulation VASIL'EV, I., AND G. MAT 'VEEVA. I976. "Poselenieimogil'niku
movementfromculturalremains.New Haven:Yale University sela S'ezzee," in Ocerki istorii i kul'turyPovolz'ja. Kujbysev:
Press.[DWA, BW] Kujbysevskij GosudarstvennyjUniversitet. [MG]
ROWLEY-CO NWY, P. I98I. "MesolithicDanishbacon:Perma- VENCL, S. I986. "The roleofhunting-gathering
populationsin the
nentandtemporary sitesin theDanishMesolithic,"in Eco- transition to farming:
A CentralEuropeanperspective," in
nomicarchaeology. EditedbyA. SheridanandG. Bailey,pp. Huntersin transition. EditedbyM. Zvelebil,pp. 43-52. Cam-
5I-55. BritishArchaeologicalReportsInternationalSeries96. bridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
[GB] WATKINS, CALVERT. I970. "Studiesin IE legallanguage, institu-
SANCHEZ-MAZAS, A., L. EXCOFFIER, AND A. LANGANEY. tions, and mythology,"in Indo-European and Indo-Europeans.
I987. Measure andrepresentationofthegeneticsimilarity
be- EditedbyG. Cardona,H. M. Hoenigswald,andA. Senn,pp.
tweenpopulationsbythepercentage
ofisoactivegenes.Theoria 32I-54. Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvania
Press.[RC]
2:I43-54. ZBENOVI CH, V. G. I 974. Pozdnetripol'skie
plemenasevemogo
SCHLEICHER, AUGUSTUS. I863. Die Darwinische Theorieund prichemomor'ia. Kiev:NaukovaDumka. [DWA, BW]
die Sprachwissenschaft.
Weimar. ZELINSKY, W. I97I. The hypothesis ofthemobilitytransition.
SCHMIDT, JOHANNES. i872. Die Verwandtschaftsverhiltnisse GeographicalReview6I: 2I 9-49. [DWA, BW]
derindogermanischen Sprachen.Weimar:Bohlau. ZVELEBIL, M. Editor. I986. Hunters in transition.Cambridge:
SCHRADER, OTTO. I890. Prehistoric
antiquitiesoftheAryan Cambridge UniversityPress.
peoples.New York:ScribnerandWelford.


Reseña Archaeology and Language - The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Reseña Archaeology and Language - The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins by Colin Renfrew

Current Anthropology, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Jun., 1988), pp. 437-468

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

some of the complexitiesof linguisticpattemingin tralrelevancealso,includingtheextentofin-migration

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

specificareain question)as theresultofthemovement eredbynomadwarrior horsemen, whosetracesmightbe

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

dus Valley civilisationwas alreadyan Indo-Europeantirelysatisfactory, seemsat leastrather moreeffectively

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

gistsshouldeitherignorethispotentialsourceofinter- nantin Greeceforsome 5,oooyears.Yet amongtheca.

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

ments seem promptedby a limitedappreciationof all butmightbe seen morein termsofadvantage.But

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

thosehypothesized forthewave-of-advance model(or, scholarship on thesemattersandrejects,in convincing

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

basedon misuseoflinguisticpaleontology (as Renfrew i. A promising statement (p. 99) about"themorere-

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

GRAEME BARKER Topsy froma multiplicity of UpperPalaeolithiclan-

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

adjacentgroupsof farmersand hunter-gatherers fora concludeshisreviewwiththecomment that"itis prob-

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

is confirmed by the factthatwhereas62% ofthe Old meaningis carriedby two or morelexicalroots,it is

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

The conceptsof"king"and "ruler"in ancientIreland, The complementarity ofmodelsis well illustrated in

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

Latin),theycouldbe assignedtotheindependent history The arrivalofa newpopulation, whether as colonists,

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

postulated by Renfrew)to more than 2,ooo years later saidthatthismodel,likeall othersinglemodels,failsin

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

halfofthe 7thmillenniumB.C. and fromtheremoved Europeans wereacquaintedwithsomecereals,as wellas

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

betweenmanyIndo-European legendsandmythsarefar upper Tisza area in eastern Hungary,across the

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

... Cucuteniand Tripolyepeasants"(p. 2o2). In myview, andCaspianin thesouthandtheMiddleVolgabasinin

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

thinglike 4400 b.c. uncalibrated)at a line passing ofinterestto thosestudying earlylanguagedispersals:

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

thephenomena encountered in theverydifferent condi- innovations fromtheprimary farming region(fig.i): the

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

WESTERN CENTRAL EASTERN BALKANS. STEPPES, ANATOLIA, WESTERN EASTERN

40001 1, 1/yC I\ I /1170

5O0 000 <5

8000t FOREST - STEPPE, OASIS & MONTANE

FIG. i. Innovationsin farmingand transport.

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

THE "NEOLITHIC" PATTERN

THE "BRONZE AGE" PATTERN

patternsoflanguageand trade:above,tradechainin manyshortstepsaccomplished

rivedfrom*Proto-Greek, forwhichthereis no justifica- "down-the-line"exchangewhichcharacterise

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

CELTICI ILLYRIAN THRACIANPHRYGIAN I

A : SuIrvival I PRE- FARMING

ties couldhave slowlygainedmuchwidercurrency in forthepropagation ofnetworks ofclientshipanddepen-

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

pansionin the EuropeanLate BronzeAge (associated To one who is impressed, as I am,bytheutilityofthe

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM

laterdate are suggested(althoughnot detailed)which withwhichColemandealsso informatively. He is,how-

This content downloaded from 132.204.38.194 on Mon, 24 Feb 2014 09:21:55 AM