Proto Indo-European

Originally posted by Anonym Originally posted by Phallanx They've introduced a theory of an allegedly homogenous We could continue with alleged roots like, ' su'= 'to be born' that they connected to 'uios'= son 'n' = 'not (from one letter!!!) connected to 'agnwstos' = unknown Okay, that "n" thing just made me laugh.

But actually all IE languages I know of (but Greek) have a monosyllabe no/not/non/ne/njet for NO, and simmilar words for NOR. It's obvious there's a connection and it's better represented by *n, being the vowel and the final -t more variable. We can't know wether the original word was no, ne, na or ni or nu... but there was one and it's common denominator is *n.

That's why it's just a reconstructed hypothetical proto-languange and not a true known historical root-language, which is lost.

Here you can find a list of numerals in the different IE tongues, all very clearly connected this way.

As my personal contribution to this debate, this is my main working hypotheis, expressed graphically:

1) Gloto-chronological tree of Cavalli-Sforza et al. (with my own suggested datations):



2) This is my own reconstruction of the expansion of IE languages, blending this tree and archaeological evidence of the expansion and evolution of the so called Kurgan cultures (over a map of modern distribution of IE tongues):



I've obviated the Albanian and Armenian branches for which I don't have any good explanation so far.

If I remeber the paper correctly the tree you posted actually supports the Anatolian farmer theory and not the Kurgan expansion you present in your map above.

Hmmm.   Its refreshing to know someone else champions the Pontic-Caspian origin of IE just as I had in the past in these forums.   The Sredny Stog Culture itself dates from about 4500-3500 BC and it, along with the Novodanilovka, Lower Mikhaylovka, and Khvalynsk Cultures, gave rise to the Yamnaya Complex (c. 3600-2200 BC). 

Hmmm, I think you have old data.  The latest archaeological data I've gathered goes like this:

c. 6500-5000 BC - Dniester-Bug Culture begun by local hunter and fisher groups already inhabiting the region since Mesolithic times.  Beginning of experimental agriculture and cattle and pigs were domesticated, but principle mode of economy was still hunting and fishing.  Later gained contacts with Starcevo (Cris) and LBK agriculturalists.  To the east of the Dniester-Bug culture was the Sursko-Dnieper of similiar hunter-fisher origin.

c. 5500-4500 BC -  The full Neolithic Dnieper-Donets Culture superceded the Sursko-Dnieper Culture.  To the east of the Dnieper-Donets was the Neolithic Seroglasovo Culture of the region of the Volga, based on hunting-fishing and stockbreeding.  Seroglasovo was eventually succeeded by both Samara (displaying Dnieper-Donets characteristics)and Pre-Caspian Cultures

c. 4800-3500 BC - The Neolithic Cucuteni  (Tripolye) Culture formed from Moldavian Boian and LBK agrcultural elements reached the region of the former Dniester-Bug Culture by about 4500 BC.

c. 4500-3500 BC - The Eneolithic Sredny Stog Culture superceded the Dnieper-Donets Culture and becomes the eastern neighbor of Cucuteni-Tripolye.  It was based on stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing.  Eastern cultures with similar cultural traits included the Novodanilovka,and the Lower Mikhaylovka Culture.  Still further east the Khvalynsk Culture succeeded the Samara and Pre-Caspian Cultures and which displayed characteristics of stock-breeding, agriculture, hunting and fishing like the Ukrainian cultures.  Earliest evidence of domesticated horse, c. 4500 BC (horse-riding).  Compared to the west, the transition from Dnieper-Donets influenced cultures to the Khvalynsk Culture was a more gradual one, which may indicate cultural priority compared to the very similar Sredny Stog Culture in the west whose economy was almost radically different from that of preceding Balkan-origin economies. 

c. 4400-4300 BC Kurgan Wave I originated from Sredny Stog Culture.  The region of the northern Balkan Cucuteni Culture experienced dislocations but survived the onslought but now Kurgan peoples remained present with the cultural region of Cucuteni without amalgamation.  The Karanovo-Gumelita culture was destroyed.  Its population moved further west.  The Salcuta Culture was nearly destroyed.  Pockets of its population survived on in caves and islands for another four or five hundred years.  The region of the Vinca Culture witnessed dislocations of populations which moved further west.  End of Vinca Culture, c. 4300 BC.  Same situation with the Lengyel Culture.  Within the LBK Culture, a hybrid culture emerged known as Rossen.

c. 4000 BC  The Varna Culture of the Black Sea coast was replaced by the Kurganish Cernavoda Culture. 

c. 3900 BC  The Kurganish Baalberge Group emerged in the region of the Elbe and Saale.

c. 3600-2200 BC The Eneolithic Yamnaya Complex superceded the Sredny Stog-Khvalynsk Horizon, extending from the Danube Delta to beyond east of the middle Ural River, divided up into some nine cultural variants.  Both stock-breeding and agriculture were practiced.  First evidence of wheeled cart. 

c. 3500-3400 BC Kurgan Wave II.  Cucuteni which survived the First Wave was hybridized.  The result was the Usatovo Complex.  Further north elements of the Cucuteni, TRB, and Pontic cultures became the Globular Amphora Culture.  New hybrid cultures emerged in the Balkans such as the Baden-Vucedol and Ezero groups.  Ezero penetrated into western Anatolia.  Cotofeni, in the northcentral Balkans retained much of the Old European cultural tradition.

c. 3200-2300 BC Corded Ware Culture developed in northern Europe.  Its immediate antecedent was the Globular Amphora Culture of which it shared many characteristics but also showed characteristics similar to Yamnaya, including stock-breeding.  Like Yamnaya, it was expansive.  Its eastern variants are known as Battle-Axe cultures. 

c. 3000-2900 BC Kurgan Wave III.  The whole of the eastern Danube region disrupted and taken over by Yamnaya.  Vucedol migrated to the northwest and south into Dalmatia, western Bosnia, and Albania.  Vucedol succeeded by Vinkovci--Samogyvar Culture.  Evidence of Yamnaya penetration into Greece in Early Helladic II and III (c. 2900-2250 BC). 

Wow! You have a lot of data as well. I think my source (I would need to go back to the library to check) is of the 90s, so it's not truly old but in Archaeology new goes at times so fast. Another possibility is that we are following simply diferent opinions, something that also happens. My source is an strictly archaeological book and fitting all the pieces into those maps was my own job. The author basically held no opinions on how cultures related unless it was quite evident.

You mention Seredny-Stog culture but actually this is confusing because Seredny-Stog I belongs to Dnieper-Don and it is only Seredny-Stog II which belongs to a new complex and gives name to it. An unadverted author could have merged the two strata in the same culture, when they belong to diferent ones. This would explain your early datation for Seredny-Stog, calling eneolithic (chalcolithic) a culture that was obviously still purely neolithic.

But still, this would not explain why almost all your datations are about 1000 earlier than mine. This puzzles me a lot.

You talk of Karanovo-Gumelnita being destroyed 1000 before I think it happened, 500 years before it even formed and then you talk of a Varna culture (that is obviously the monarchic facet of Karanovo-Gumelnita itself) as something separated. You also talk indiscrimintely about a Cernavoda culture that actually is three cultures: Cernavoda I (Kurgan), II (minor Danubian style) and III (simmilar to Vinca - !!!)

You speak of R�ssen as if it was an hybrid culture (of IEs + locals, I guess) when R�ssen (c. 4000-3500, later considered epi-R�ssen) is the earliest independent Danubian culture of Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland and northern France!

But curiously enough, the locality of R�ssen that gives name to that western Danubian culture is precisely in the very heart of that Elbe-Saale region that you say it's almost inemdiately occupied by the IEs of Baalberge. How can this be? Also you say that R�ssen is posterior to Lengyel, when they are contemporary: Lengyel is the Danubian branch in the original Danubian core homeland and R�ssen is that in the western regions.

If you are right, I need to learn a lot of new data that I haven't got access to but I have the presentment that you are not right, at least not fully right. Basically you are saying that Danubian Neolithic never consolidated and that it was all the time under pessure from more advanced "eneolithic" peoples from the east. Though it's clear that the overall scheme is the same, your datations bring kurgan invasions ahead in time about 1000 years, and, in any case, saying that R�ssen is anything different from a regionalization of Danubian is just too much.

Anyhow, chronologies differ sometimes. It should not happen, as for these periods C-14 is very very accurate but misteriously it happens. I think there's not enough contrast nor publicity in archaeological work. The overall kurganish scheme is the same for both, that's the most important thing. The misterious discrepancies will disappear with time.

If you can give me good links, I'll tank you.

Interesting theories guys, how about posting some archeologic finds that could connect all these cultures together and prove that they were the IE that influenced culture and language.

Well, if and when we find pictures we'll present them.  The descriptions of the cultures by the various authors indicate a pattern which they saw was not ignorable.  They go on to list as many patterns as they were able to see.  For them, there are no inconsistency.  The cultural traits of the newer cultures cannot have come from the local cultures but from somewhere else, and that somewhere else ends on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

while you're at it explain the lack of existance of common agricultural, domesticated animal and marinal terms. (I did notice a reference to all these above)

But of course there was common agricultural, and domesticated animal terms.  As the archaeology of the Pontic-Caspian region has revealed, there was in fact, agriculturalism.  Perhaps not in the same degree as that of the Balkans, but nevertheless it was there, along with stockbreeding.  The reality was that true pastoralism was of later date. 

And why is there no reference to the finds in the Balkan area or to be exact in Hellas that predate every single date mentioned above???

What do you mean?  The way I'm understanding your question, is that the reason why there is no reference to the finds in the Balkan area and specifically Hellas before the above mentioned dates is because they weren't there yet.  They were, before, only in the Pontic-Caspian region.

Wow! You have a lot of data as well. I think my source (I would need to go back to the library to check) is of the 90s, so it's not truly old but in Archaeology new goes at times so fast.

My sources are nineties as well, including Gimbutas.

Another possibility is that we are following simply diferent opinions, something that also happens. My source is an strictly archaeological book and fitting all the pieces into those maps was my own job. The author basically held no opinions on how cultures related unless it was quite evident.

Yes, even Pontic-Caspian theorists have variant theories.  In the 70's it was the fashion to describe the Kurgan expansion as one wave occuring between 2300 and 2200 BC, and to describe subsequent Kurgan cultures, especially those of the Balkans and central Europe as subsequent.  My sources are primarily archaeological with the latest in archaeological carbon-14 calibrated dating for all sights involved.

You mention Seredny-Stog culture but actually this is confusing because Seredny-Stog I belongs to Dnieper-Don and it is only Seredny-Stog II which belongs to a new complex and gives name to it. An unadverted author could have merged the two strata in the same culture, when they belong to diferent ones. This would explain your early datation for Seredny-Stog, calling eneolithic (chalcolithic) a culture that was obviously still purely neolithic.

You may be referring to the stratification of the Sredny Stog site.  As you say, Sredny Stog I may be Dnieper-Don, but the Sredny Stog Culture itself is Sredny Stog II, and dates from about 4500 to 3500 BC.  In Russian literature the Sredny Stog and Maikop stages are referred to as Early Yamna, while the Yamnaya Horizon itself (c. 3600-2200 BC) is called Late Yamna.  It may simply be a matter of terminology.

But still, this would not explain why almost all your datations are about 1000 earlier than mine. This puzzles me a lot.

My datings are based on the latest in calibrated carbon-14 dates. 

You talk of Karanovo-Gumelnita being destroyed 1000 before I think it happened, 500 years before it even formed...

The floruit of Karanovo-Gumelnita was from c. 5500-4200 BC with survivals at Sitagroi to about 3800 BC.

.....and then you talk of a Varna culture (that is obviously the monarchic facet of Karanovo-Gumelnita itself) as something separated.

Varna was part of the Hamangia Culture (c. 5500-4700 BC), whose pottery was similar to Starcevo-Cris.  Hamangia was succeeded by the short-lived Varna Culture (c. 4700-4000 BC) which was genetically related to the latter and thus was still distinct from Karanovo-Gumelnita.

You also talk indiscrimintely about a Cernavoda culture that actually is three cultures: Cernavoda I (Kurgan), II (minor Danubian style) and III (simmilar to Vinca - !!!)

Oops.  Yes, "Cernavoda" should have been "Cernavoda I".  I stand corrected at least on that. 

You speak of R�ssen as if it was an hybrid culture (of IEs + locals, I guess) when R�ssen (c. 4000-3500, later considered epi-R�ssen) is the earliest independent Danubian culture of Germany, the Low Countries, Switzerland and northern France!

Rossen was originally within the LBK Culture, c. 5600-4300 BC (originally known as Danubian I), and mainly derived from Starcevo-Koros.  It was succeeded by Rossen (c. 4300-3900 BC) and then by Epi-Rossen in that particular region.  The literature was actually vague in describing Rossen, but you are correct in that it was a Danubian culture ("an LBK culture 'with oriental elements'"), but is also called a "mixed culture".   The accompaning carbon-dating tables describe Rossen "with Kurgan I elements".  What these "oriental elements" were, are not otherwise explained.

But curiously enough, the locality of R�ssen that gives name to that western Danubian culture is precisely in the very heart of that Elbe-Saale region that you say it's almost inemdiately occupied by the IEs of Baalberge. How can this be?

.

Rossen is older than Baalberge.  Baalberge emerges in about 3900 BC.

Also you say that R�ssen is posterior to Lengyel, when they are contemporary: Lengyel is the Danubian branch in the original Danubian core homeland and R�ssen is that in the western regions.

Actually Rossen is contemporary to the latest phase of Lengyel.  While it is true that Lengyel developed in an LBK (Danubian) region, its cultural tradition was not LBK, but rather from Starcevo.  It flourished from c. 5000 to about 3700 BC divided into five phases. 

If you are right, I need to learn a lot of new data that I haven't got access to but I have the presentment that you are not right, at least not fully right.

I recommend to you from your library Civlization of the Goddess, by Marija Gimbutas.  It will provide a wealth of cultural information and a huge resource on chronology.

Basically you are saying that Danubian Neolithic never consolidated and that it was all the time under pessure from more advanced "eneolithic" peoples from the east.

No.  The issue of the Danubian Neolithic was never even addressed.  What I've only related was how the Danubian Neolithic was affected by the Kurgans.  As I've mentioned before, the expansive LBK culture was the earliest Danubian Neolithic culture.  It was much later when it differentiated into various cultures including Rossen and Stroked Pottery.

Though it's clear that the overall scheme is the same, your datations bring kurgan invasions ahead in time about 1000 years, and, in any case, saying that R�ssen is anything different from a regionalization of Danubian is just too much.

I hope I clarified Rossen for you.

Anyhow, chronologies differ sometimes. It should not happen, as for these periods C-14 is very very accurate but misteriously it happens. I think there's not enough contrast nor publicity in archaeological work. The overall kurganish scheme is the same for both, that's the most important thing. The misterious discrepancies will disappear with time.

Please refer to Gimbutas's book.  In the back of the book she exhaustively lists the results of carbon-14 dating on various sites grouped by culture.  This is a resource you don't want to overlook.

If you can give me good links, I'll tank you.

Sadly I have none.  Try the book.

Gimbutas is a little old... though she is no doubt the mother of the Kurgan theory of IE expansion, most of her work is older than my sources. The book you mention is her last work (1991) and while I'll be delighted having a look at it when I can, I suspect that my sources, more strictly archaeological are more precise and modern. I will try to visit the library as soon as I can, get that book and quote my source, so you can have a look (it's from a German archaeologist and, as I mentioned, it is purely archaeological, no theories - all reconstruction is mine).

In my knowledge, Starcevo-Koros-Cris (or just Starcevo), that belongs to the Balcanic stage of European Neolithic (since c. 6000 BCE), gives birth to the Eastern and Western Linear Pottery cultures (via proto-Linear Pottery in Upper Tisza). Only Western Linear Pottery is considered Danubian, while Eastern Linear Pottery falls almost fully in the Balcanic group. This transition happens c. 5000. During the 5th milennium, the Western Linear Pottery culture (Danubian I) expands to all Central Europe and parts of Eastern Europe (giving birth to Boian in Vallachia), reaching the Seine basin by the west also. As it expands it starts diversifying in subcultures that eventually give birth to several cultures already in the 4th milennium:

• R�ssen in most of Germany and other western regions
• Lengyel in the mid-Danube
• Stroked Pottery in Bohemia, Poland and parts of Eastern Germany too
• Pre-Cucuteni in Moldavia and Western Ukraine
• Boian-Maritza in Vallachia and Bulgaria

Since c. 3500 this structure witnesses some changes, some of them linked maybe to direct and indirect effects of IE (and Eastern native) migrations. Most relevant are the formation of Karanovo-Gumelnita (from Boian-Maritza, overriding Hamangia) that is possibly the oldest European monarchy/state, the formation of Michelsberg in northern Germany (Danubian but kind of dissident).

During the second half of this 3rd milennium BCE we see the first IE settlements in Eastern Germany first (Baalberge, which expands to other areas) and in the lower Danub later (Cernavoda I), these would spring, quite clearly from Seredny-Stog II (yes, it refers to local stratigraphy but it's the name I have for that culture anyhow).

My source says that Jamnaja Kultura (or what he calls with that name) is a culture form beyond the Volga that is the first one to develope kurgans (tumuli) and other typical features of the so-called kurgan cultures. They are earlier than 3500 BCE, conventional date for the start of Serednij-Stog II. Seredny-Stog II is described as a complex culture that in some settlements seems kurganish in others seems Dniepr-Don and others finally seems mixed. This would imply an infiltration/invasion from Jamnayans (IEs) and a dynamic mixture/conflict with locals. The fact that cultures with clear Dniepr-Don elements (but not kurganish yet) are located in the Baltic (Pitted Ware) and Scandinavia (TRBK-A) at this time could reflect the migration of exiled tribes from the nord-Pontic region.

Anyhow, the Jamnaya Kultura expands over Dniepr-Don c. 3000 and then recedes before a new arrival (Catacombs) c. 2500 BCE. My own research in other sources seems to link quite clearly Jamnaya with Scythians (and other eastern IEs probably) and Catacombs with Cymmerians.

The expansion of the culture of Catacombs reaches areas of Poland, influencing Globular Amphores and helping somehow in the creation of Corded Ware (Battle Axe people) c. 2400 BCE.

So you see, the problem seems to be that we are founding our schemes in different datations, specially for kurganish cultures. This is a problem and I hope to see it solved satisfactorily at some time.

Still, the overall scheme is the same. The main difference would be wether IEs come from Ukraine and southern Russia (your version) or from Kazakhstan and western Siberia (my version). And also in the dates of their actual invasion of Central Europe.

One question: in your version of the theory, how does Serednij-Stog II evolves from Dniepr-Don. Dniepr-Don is not kurganish, so, in my system, the foreign intervention of eastern peoples already using such paraphernalia would explain it very well.

According to you, when was the proto-Indo-European language dispersed?

According to J.P. Mallory in In Search of the Indo-Europeans, the range of the formation of IE (or PIE) was between 4500 and 2500 BC.  The earliest evidence of dispersal at least archaeologically was about 4300 BC, followed by subsequent dispersals.

How does the Tocharian fit in this all?

There was a culture which originated in the Pontic-Caspian named the Afanasievo Culture (c. 3200-2000 BC) which made its home in the region of the Minusinsk Basin and the Altai.  Not only are the cultural origins well known but also the physical type of the Europids can be traced to the Pontic-Caspian region.  When the Okunevo people (of eastern origin) superceded Afanasievo, the evidence shows migration southwards into the Tarim Basin, where the earliest mummies of the region (and where Tocharian was spoken), appear by 2000 BC. 

What about proto-Uralic? Isn't it suspected, that proto-Uralic dispersed much earlier than proto-Indo-European, seeing that there are proto-IE loanwords all across Uralic languages, but they were borrowed separately.

I haven't heard about that.  The only thing I can relate is that PIE displays loan-words from Uralic, testifying to further evidence of the original home of PIE on the Pontic-Caspian, obviously near speakers of Uralic languages.

Originally posted by hugoestr ... from the wikipedia entry on indo-european. ... The language group was briefly referred to as "Indo-Germanic", until it became apparent that the group included most of the other languages of Europe, as well. "Indo-European", the term now current in English, was coined in 1813 by the British scholar Sir Thomas Young. Franz Bopp performed extensive comparative work. ...

Just a note:

William Jones (1746-94) was probably the first one who named it the (mosaic) name "Hamitic language" in 1786.

AFAIK, Thomas Young was the first one to use the term Indo-European (Fr. indo-europ�enne) in 1813. Julius von Klapstock introduced later (in 1823s) the term Indo-Germanic (Ge. Indogermanische). This naming became quite popular, especially in (nationalistic) Germany.

Other titles include Indo-Celtic, Teutonic, Thracian, Schytic, Caucasic, Wiros, Aryan, Celto-Slavo-Teutonic. These name attracted few scholars besides those ones who coined them.