sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chariot, Colin Renfrew, Gustaf Kossinna, Kurgan, Tree model

The canonical Indo-European model and its underlying assumptions

Jean-Paul Demoule

It is widely known that the canonical Indo-European model, which was originally a purely linguistic model, is founded on a strong central assumption: that of an original people (Urvolk), who inhabited an original homeland (Urheimat) where they an original language (Ursprache). They left this homeland to spread progressively throughout a large part of , giving rise through a process of scissiparity to all of the historically known Indo-European languages and to the peoples who spoke, or still speak, them.

I am not the first person to call this model into question, which I do on a number of levels in a recent book (Demoule 2014): a) On a factual, strictly extra-linguistic level, based on data provided by , comparative mythology, biological anthropology and linguistic palaeontology. This approach leads to the conclusion that, in the present state of knowledge, it is impossible to confirm the validity of the canonical centrifugal tree model in all its various forms. b) On a historical and cultural level, by calling into question the usual “Kossinian” model, i.e. the correspondence, based on the model of the 19th century Nation State, between an “archaeological material culture”, a “people”, and a homogenous language; the model followed here adopts a biological view of language. c) On a linguistic level, by questioning the validity of the tree model for charting the resemblances and correspondences between Indo-European languages. d) Finally, on an ideological level, showing by means of historiography how the idea of an original people was constructed over time by European thinkers as an alternative origin- to the , even though it re-used the same models, such as a point of origin and the Tower of Babel; from this perspective, national socialism is but one of the possible mythical outcomes, which also functions as a magnifying mirror.

 Université de Paris I Panthéon – Sorbonne et Institut universitaire de , Courriel : [email protected]

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access 166 Jean-Paul Demoule

In the current paper, however, only the first two levels will be examined, the third being only touched upon, even though it is in fact difficult to dissociate these four levels from each other because reasoning relating to the Indo- European question tends to function in a circular manner: the idea, for example, of a migration from the Pontic has been postulated for the past 300 years and is regularly reaffirmed using various new arguments.

1. WHAT ARCHAEOLOGY CAN TELL US As regards the facts, we will begin with the realia, i.e. archaeology. In order to prove a migration archeologically, it is necessary to be able to trace, step by step, the diffusion of a complete material culture – pottery forms and decoration, tools and , architecture, funerary practices, etc. – from a specific region. Such migrations are well defined in Europe for the spread of agricultural colonisation from the Near East at the end of the 7th millennium BCE (cf. infra) and also for the Polynesian migrations which occurred at a later period on the other side of the world. With regard to the original Indo-European people, therefore, it is essential to: a) prove archaeologically that a migration originated in some part of Eurasia and spread throughout all of the regions where historically-attested Indo-European languages were spoken; b) prove that this original migration was Indo-European.

Three principal alternative homelands are proposed in current scientific literature: the Baltic, the Near East and the Pontic steppe. The idea of a Baltic and Scandinavian homeland, postulated by German nationalist archaeologists, such as Gustaf Kossinna, by their national-socialist epigones, and subsequently by contemporary extreme right-wing groups (“New Right”), is archaeologically untenable. This region, which was occupied by small groups of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, was colonised by Neolithic farming populations originating from Central Europe from the end of the 5th Millennium BCE. There is no evidence for a north to south migration such as that postulated by Kossinna, which he envisaged as occurring in 14 movements.

As we have seen, the Near-Eastern homeland, defended by the archaeologist Colin Renfrew (Renfrew 1987), is the point of origin for the agricultural colonisation of Europe (and elsewhere) from the 7th millennium BCE onwards; however, there is no evidence that these early farmers spoke Indo-European languages, and there are, in fact, several arguments against it, as I have outlined elsewhere (Demoule 2014: 353-384).

Finally, the classic steppe homeland is considered to be “Indo-European” based on the domestication of the and the emergence of the (cf. infra the question of linguistic palaeontology). However, it can be demonstrated that there were other regions of origin for the domestication of the horse, and that the first “” were not war chariots with spoked (these did not appear until c.1800 BCE) but, instead, were heavy, solid-wheeled drawn by oxen, which

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access The canonical Indo-European model 167 were not necessarily invented in one single place. While nomadism is presumed, agriculture, on the other hand, is well attested (Pashkevich 2003). Moreover, there is a lack of archaeological evidence for large-scale migrations emanating from the . It is clear that significant socio-economic transformations took place throughout Europe during the 5th millennium BCE, but this involves a more general phenomenon: the emergence of increasingly hierarchical societies at the moment when the Neolithic colonisation of Europe had reached the Atlantic and when increasingly numerous human groups had to live in a space which would remain confined for some time. On the other hand, there is no evidence within the archaeological record for large scale movements from the steppes to Central and , or to : In other words, we do not find evidence for the diffusion of the entire material culture of the steppe to those regions where historically attested Indo-European languages were spoken (See genetic data presented below).

Classically, it has been argued for more than a century that the migration must have involved small groups who managed to take control of vast territories without leaving detectable traces in the archaeological record. In addition to finding ourselves in the realm of the undecidable and, therefore, outside the realm of science in the strict sense, all known historic examples indicate that when a minority ( or not) elite forcibly takes political control of a population, its members become subsumed by the mass within the space of a few generations, mainly through marriage, and rapidly end up losing their language: such was the case for the Franks in France, the Vikings in various parts of Europe (from the to Normandy and from Sicily to England), the Proto-Bulgarian Turco- in , the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, etc. Mention could also be made of the Spanish conquistadors who, with a couple of hundred mercenaries, succeeded in bringing down the Aztec and Inca empires. The fact that Spanish is spoken in America today (along with Portuguese, English and French elsewhere in America) is due to 500 years of state, military, bureaucratic, and religious domination, and, despite this, numerous indigenous languages have survived and continue to be spoken today.

2. RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FIELD OF GENETICS In terms of biological data, we can cite physical anthropology, which, from the mid- 19th century to the mid- 20th century, attempted to define race using cranial measurement, thereby endlessly distinguishing between dolichocephalics and brachycephalics, Nordic, Alpine and Dinaric races etc. in the search for the great Indo-European and “” migrations. However, the more measurements were taken, the more the races became diluted and their frontiers dissolved, to the point where institutional physical anthropology finally gave up, underwent a name change to become “biological anthropology”, and shifted its interest to other characteristics. Nevertheless, the notion of a “” persisted in ideological literature and particularly among proponents of the Baltic hypothesis (Haudry 1981, Day 2001).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access 168 Jean-Paul Demoule

After a number of early attempts based on blood markers, DNA has recently become the favoured focus of research in this field. Most notably, modern human DNA was used to recreate the Great Hereditary Tree of all humans, which is linked to the tree of all languages of the world (Cavalli-Sforza 1994, Ruhlen 1994). More recently, DNA analysis has been used to shed light on Indo- European migrations and has been shown to support the thesis of a massive Indo- European migration from the Pontic steppe during the 4th millennium BCE (Keyser et al. 2009, Ricault et al. 2012, Haak et al. 2015, Allentoft et al. 2015). While offering future potential, these analyses nonetheless present several problems. Firstly, the samples are small in number, chiefly due to the cost and complexity of the analysis: 200-300 samples were used, spread over several millennia and over a large part of Eurasia. Secondly, numerous technical problems arise, particularly regarding the risk of -contamination between samples and contamination occurring during excavation and post-excavation handling of the bone remains. Thirdly, the samples are used within the framework of the same simplistic models as those previously employed by craniometry, i.e. models involving large-scale migrations of homogenous peoples from a single point of origin, with a clear risk of circular reasoning.

Finally, without going into detail, the published results present several interpretation issues. That the population movements generally occurred from east to west, and not the reverse, is not surprising given that the Atlantic Ocean lies to the west. More precisely, the hypothesis of a “massive migration” from the southeast to the northwest by the Pit Grave Culture (known as Jamnaja Kultura in Russian, where “jama” is the equivalent of “pit”, which is bizarrely simplified to “Yamna” in English-language literature) would only resolve a small part of the problem – and only on condition that one can prove that they spoke Indo-European languages. If the DNA is to be believed, the steppe populations had dark eyes, while northern European populations had pale- coloured eyes. The material cultures (pottery, architecture, etc.) of the two populations differ significantly. When analysis of modern populations is considered, it is found, for example, that in Europe, there is no genetic difference between speakers of Finno-Ugric languages and those who speak Indo-European languages (Haak et al. 2005, fig. 3, p. 23).

Finally, such a hypothesis supposes the permanent and lasting movement of a homogenous “people”. Such a situation is not reflected in available archaeological data and relies on an important assumption regarding the notion of “people”, which will be further examined below under the term “Kossinian assumption”.

3. COMPARATIVE MYTHOLOGY In France, it is impossible to discuss the Indo-European question without referring to the celebrated mythologist, Georges Dumézil, who died in 1986. The author of some sixty works on the subject, he described an original Indo-

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access The canonical Indo-European model 169

European religion which was based on a world view articulated around three “functions”: magico-religious sovereignty, warfare and, finally, production and reproduction (Dumézil 1968). The of deities, as well as several areas of life (medicine, marriage, compensations, punishment, etc.), appear to have been organised around these three functions. To those who objected that these are constant features of human and of all forms of society, Dumézil always responded by claiming that the Indo-Europeans were the only culture to base a general theory on them. Moreover, he convincingly identified similarities between certain originating from often far-removed parts of Eurasia.

The issues arising from Dumézil’s research revolve less around the reality of these similarities than around the overlap, or lack thereof, between these mythological structures and Indo-European-speaking peoples. In fact, certain Indo-European-speaking peoples fit uneasily within the tri-functional model (, ) whereas the said structure occurs in a more or less developed form here and there across Eurasia (Japan, Korea, Mesopotamia, and ). The same can be said of certain myths and rites, such as those relating to the horse.

Since the tri-functional ideology calls for a warrior society which is already strongly hierarchical, it is more reasonable to associate the structural similarities observed with the wide scale exchanges of prestige goods across Eurasia, which characterised Eurasian aristocratic and warrior societies in the 2nd millennium BCE, rather than to trace them back to a hypothetical primitive Indo- European source (dating to the 4th millennium BCE at the latest).

As regards the method used in the comparative study of religions, and indeed in comparative studies in general, we need only refer to the by no means recent remarks of the Indianist Charles Malamoud: “There is general agreement that the social structures, and what G. Dumézil refers to as the Indo-European ideology, are better preserved in Rome and India than in Greece. But doesn’t our assertion assume that we have already formed an idea of what constituted the original state? We make a selection from the available empirical data in order to construct a model which we then use to re-interpret and re-organise the same data, in other words the result is that we refine and systemise the selection. This is not strictly speaking a vicious circle, but rather a complex dialectic, which always leads us to perceive maximum plausibility where there is maximum coherence. It would be a good thing, some day, to see the theory formulated in an explicit manner” (Malamoud 1971: 656).

4. THE DEAD-ENDS OF LINGUISTIC PALAEONTOLOGY “Linguistic Palaeontology” aims to describe the main features of proto-Indo- European society by means of the vocabulary shared by most of the Indo- European languages. The uncertainties of the method, which was developed by Adolphe Pictet a century and a half ago, are constantly in the spotlight (Demoule 2014: 530-535), not least because the method can be used to locate the initial

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access 170 Jean-Paul Demoule homeland more or less anywhere in Eurasia. In fact, it fell out of favour between the world wars and in the immediate post-war period but has made a comeback in recent years. However, since Schrader and Nehring’s monumental work, Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde (1917-1929), the same errors in logic are constantly repeated. Schrader came to the conclusion that the original homeland was located in the steppes on the basis that names for common trees are lacking. In the same way, he claimed, despite a lack of evidence, that bears were present on the steppe and, on the contrary, attributed the lack of common names for fish to “taboo” even though the great rivers of the Russian and Ukrainian steppes were teeming with them. The concept of “taboo” has been widely used since then to explain, for example, the absence of a root for salt (*sal) among Asian Indo-Europeans, or the absence of common names for many wild animals, or common names for deities: this latter is paradoxical if we accept the notion of a shared tri-functional structure. As regards the theory of the horse and chariot, they are, in fact, referred to using various terms which do not support the notion of a single point of origin.

The nomadic character of the original Indo-Europeans becomes accepted, or rather presumed, from the moment that we assign the group to the steppes, with the implicit underlying model applied being that of the “great migrations” of the early . In fact, there are names for cultivated plants within the shared vocabulary, just as there is agriculture on the steppes. Symmetrically, genetic analyses reveal high levels of lactose intolerance among European Neolithic populations, including those of the steppes, a fact which hardly supports the idea of nomadic pastoral populations (Allentoft 2015).

5. THE FOUR BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF THE “KOSSINIAN” MODEL We owe the notion of a general “Kossinian” model to the German archaeologist Gustaf Kossina, who was active in the early decades of the 20th Century (he died in 1931). With regard to the identification of the original Indo-European people in particular, he developed the idea that “Cultural provinces, which are clearly delimited on the basis of archaeology, correspond in every era to specific peoples or tribes”; i.e. “Scharf umgrenzte archäologische Kulturprovinzen decken sich zu allen Zeiten mit ganz bestimmten Völkern und Völkerstämmen” (Kossina 1911:3).

Four basic assumptions arise from this central idea:

1) Changes in languages are due to population movements, usually involving conquest, and every migration implies a linguistic change.

2) Archaeological “cultures” are homogenous ethnic groups, with defined frontiers, based on the model of 19th and 20th century nation states and equally on the model of biological entities that reproduce by parthenogenesis.

3) There is coincidence between language and material culture.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access The canonical Indo-European model 171

4) Finally, languages are also homogenous biological entities which are autonomous and clearly delimited, and which can reproduce by parthenogenesis or by scissiparity.

However, none of these points is self-evident, and each can be countered by a number of historical examples.

The first point was mentioned earlier: military conquests only gave rise to linguistic change when they were long-lasting and based on a state structure unknown in proto-historic societies. Such large-scale conquests are relatively easily detected by archaeology as they leave many physical traces on the ground: even thousands of years after the fact, it is impossible to ignore, for example, the importance of Roman colonisation in the Mediterranean Basin and in the southern half of Europe. Symmetrically, all historical examples show that when small warrior groups, which are archaeologically “invisible”, take control of a region, they are rapidly subsumed culturally and, therefore linguistically, by the mass.

Regarding the second point, the Kossinian model defines archaeological cultures according to the (romantic) model of Nation States which remain unchanged as they perpetuate. However, this model does not even apply in the case of nations: there is, for example, little in common between the France of Clovis, the first of the “forty kings who built France”, and the France of today. Up until the twelfth century, France was lacking its eastern half, not to mention Brittany. The present “French nation” was built on the conquest of numerous territories where many languages, other than that which would become standard French, were spoken. But to return to the prehistoric and protohistoric periods, it is impossible on the basis of material culture to distinguish any cultural entities which carried on unchanged, even when evolving regularly, and which might be traceable either within the same geographic space or shifting within the Eurasian space.

Thus, without going into detail, the cultural landscape of the European Neolithic at the end of the 5th millennium had little in common, in terms of its cultural divisions, with the situation at the end of the 6th millennium, for example. We are regularly confronted with the re-combination and re-shaping of all aspects of the material culture, even though we can identify more or less rapid transitions, influences and exchanges of objects over long distances, etc.

Thirdly, matching a language with a given material culture is a bold assumption, even though in the first instance it may appear self-evident. Where detailed studies of material culture have been conducted, ethnology does not validate this assumption. There may be coincidence between a material culture and a given, self-defined ethnic group, but this is not always the case (Gosselain 2012). Furthermore, a given ethnic group may not necessarily be homogenous in terms of its language, and in fact, many small-scale traditional societies are multilingual, given continuous matrimonial and commercial exchanges between groups.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access 172 Jean-Paul Demoule

This is the reason, fourthly, why languages cannot be considered as homogenous entities that reproduce by scissiparity: they are usually presented as such in genealogical trees regardless of whether these trees are produced “by hand” or using increasingly sophisticated algorithms, which critical linguistics refers to as “mathemagics”. Many Indo-Europeanist linguists will argue, of course, that the notion of a tree is only a fiction and that, in fact, they use more complex models. However, as soon as we pass from precise and erudite to more general interpretation, the tree model still underlies the thinking, either implicitly or explicitly. One could interpret this, in a way, as “double-speak” on the part of Indo-Europeanists.

In reality, languages ought to be considered like any other human material objects: they should not be not thought of in terms of biological but, rather, treated following the approaches of social anthropology and archaeology to material culture in general.

6. RETURN TO THE LINGUISTIC MODEL We are, therefore, entitled to return to the starting point and to question the linguistic model itself. In fact, not all Indo-Europeanist linguists agree that it is possible to reconstruct the original language (Ursprache). Many, following in the path of Antoine Meillet at the beginning of the 20th century, prefer to refer simply to “a system of correspondences” between phonemes, which explains that a given phoneme in the Indo-European language “corresponds” to another in another language. Thus, “huit” in French corresponds to “otto” in Italian and to “ocho” in Spanish; or “nuit” in French corresponds to “notte” in Italian and to “noche” in Spanish. Therefore, the French sequence “-uit” corresponds systematically to the Italian “-ott” and the Spanish “-och”. In this case at least, we have proof that these three romance language descend for the most part from Latin. Certain researchers try to reconstruct the Ursprache itself, even attempting to re-write Schleicher’s famous fable about the sheep and the of which at least ten variations are known, all very different from each other, including the most recent versions.

In fact, if we limit ourselves to the common roots of the various Indo-European dictionaries, it is worth noting that three quarters of the reconstructed Indo- European roots are, in reality, only attested in half, or less, of the dozen Indo- European sub-families (Celtic, Germanic, Anatolian, Slavic, etc.); that almost half of these roots are only attested in four or less families; and that a quarter are only attested in two or three families. One could object that it is normal for vocabulary to renew itself, and it is this renewal that is controversially used by glossogenetics to date the divergence between two languages. But this simply indicates that the Indo-European linguistic family is far less lexically compact than might be expected.

It can also be argued that the lexicon is more vulnerable to external influences and that it is the morphology that is relevant; there is no shortage of striking

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access The canonical Indo-European model 173 resemblances, in terms of declensions and conjugations, for example, between some of these languages. Nevertheless, even though certain comparative algorithms incorporate morphological traits in addition to the lexicon, we do not have an exhaustive count of the presence or absence of the whole set of morphological traits considered to be reconstructed, in contrast to that which exists for the reconstructed roots. When this count is eventually available, it is likely that it will display degrees of incompleteness comparable to those highlighted for the lexicon.

7. ALTERNATIVES This is why, as early as the 19th century, a minority of linguists proposed alternatives to the tree model, beginning with Johannes Schmidt’s wave theory (Wellentheorie) and the first studies of the creoles initiated by Hugo Schuchardt. The latter was in a position to claim, in opposition to Max Müller, that “there is no such thing as a totally pure language” (“Es gibt keine völlig ungemischte Sprache”) and he even questioned the “laws”, which were supposedly “without exception”, of the German Neo-Grammarians. The strong reservations expressed by Nikolaï Troubetzkoy in 1938, shortly before his death, regarding the necessity of postulating an Ursprache are also well known. In fact there are numerous examples of languages which are mixed in various ways, including English, Vietnamese, Maltese, Yiddish, Afrikaans, Swahili and Songhai, to mention but a few of the best known. Almost a third of Romanian, officially a Romance language, is composed of Slavic words, and this in spite of a deliberate “cleansing” of the language. One must also include creoles and pidgins, 200 of which have been recorded. There is even debate as to whether English or Hittite should be considered as having originally been pidgins.

Phenomena of progressive convergence between several languages have long been highlighted: these were labelled Sprachbund by Troubetzkoy, and fall within the realm of “areal linguistics”. The textbook example is that of the Balkan languages (Modern Greek, Romanian and its derived dialects, Albanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Judaeo-Spanish and Gypsy dialects). Thanks to their peninsular location and the disappearance of borders under Ottoman rule, these languages became progressively closer to each other, not only in terms of their vocabulary, but particularly in terms of their structure: the disappearance of declensions and the infinitive, verb aspect, formation of the future tense, article at the end of a word, vowel harmony, particular phonemes, etc. Such cases have been identified in other regions of the world, and Colin Masca has shown, for example, that thirty morphological characteristics of Indian Indo-European languages are also found in neighbouring, non-Indo-European linguistic groups, while only a third of them are found in the Indo-European languages of Western Europe (Masica 1976).

Alternatives to the tree model have been applied to Indo-European languages, for example the network constructed by Kroeber, which shows that the closer these

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access 174 Jean-Paul Demoule languages are geographically, the closer they become morphologically (Kroeber 1960). Recent reassessments, favouring “convergence” and “chaotic” models, have been conducted for both Semitic (Edzard 1998) and Oceanic languages (François 2014 and in press).

All of these obvious linguistic facts prompt a rethinking of the initial model. It should be remembered that modern humans (homo sapiens sapiens), with psycho-motor and linguistic aptitudes identical to our own, emerged in Africa at least 100,000 years ago, and that they spread throughout the before arriving in Europe about 40,000 years ago. Therefore, what we understand of the Indo-European languages, which is already quite complex, represents only the last few millennia of a very long process of linguistic . Even in the most traditional Indo-European model, the presumed Ursprache cannot have emerged from nothing, but emerged from a process of re-composition of various elements. Meillet himself referred to “dialects” existing since the origin of the Indo-European family, thereby admitting that one cannot talk of a single point of origin. This is the case for other aspects of material culture (and of non-material culture when it can be identified), which also undergo constant re-composition. What we term “archaeological cultures” are periods of relative stability in the set of material aspects which structure a given culture (shapes and decoration of pottery and tools, architecture, funerary practices, etc.), but they are also periods which are transitory and which do not exceed a duration of a few centuries during the Neolithic.

There is, therefore, no reason not to think of the evolution and re-composition of languages in the same way. In the past, phenomena of military conquests and linguistic spread have undoubtedly occurred, but these constitute only a portion of the factors which might explain the resemblances and correspondences between languages, regardless of their family.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Allentoft M, Sikora M., Sjögren K.-G. et al., 2015, Bronze Age population genomics of Eurasia, Nature 522, p. 167-172. Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Menozzi P. & Piazza A., 1994, The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Day, John V., 2001, Indo-European Origins: The Anthropological Evidence, Washington, Institut for the Study of Man. Demoule J.-P., 2014, Mais où sont passés les Indo-Européens ? Le mythe d’origine de l’Occident. Paris, Le Seuil. Dumézil G., 1968, Mythe et épopée, I : L’Idéologie des trois fonctions dans les épopées des peuples indo-européens, Paris, Gallimard. Edzard L., 1998, Polygenesis, Convergence, and Entropy: an Alternative Model of Linguistic Evolution Applied to Semitic Linguistics, Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz. François A. & Kalyan S. (sous presse), Freeing the from the tree model: A framework for , in R. Kikusawa & L. Reid (eds), Let's talk about trees: Tackling Problems in Representing

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access The canonical Indo-European model 175

Phylogenic Relationships among Languages (Senri Ethnological Studies), Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology. François A., 2014, Trees, Waves and Linkages: Models of Language Diversification, in Cl. Bowern & B. Evans (eds), The Routledge Handbook of , New York, Routledge, p. 161-189. Gosselain O., 2012, D’une histoire à l’autre. Retour sur une théorie des liens entre langues et techniques en Afrique, in N. Schlanger et A.-Chr. Taylor (eds), La Préhistoire des autres. Perspectives archéologiques et anthropologiques, Paris, La Découverte, p. 83‑98. Haak W. et al., 2015, Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo- European languages in Europe, Nature 522, p. 207–211. Haudry J., 1981, Les Indo-Européens, Paris, PUF, Que-sais-je ? Keyser C., Bouakaze C., Crubézy E., Nikolaev V. G., Montagnon D., Reis T. & Ludes B., 2009, Ancient DNA Provides New Insights Into the History of South Siberian People, Human Genetics 126 (3), p. 395-410. Kossinna G., 1911, Die Herkunft der Germanen: zur Methode der Siedlungsarchäologie, Leipzig, Kabitzsch. Kroeber A., 1960, Statistics, Indo-European, and , Language 36-1, p. 1-21. Malamoud Ch., 1971, L’œuvre d’Émile Benveniste. Une analyse linguistique des institutions indo-européennes, Annales, Économies, Sociétés, Civilisations 3- 4, p. 653-662. Masica C., 1976, Defining a Linguistic Area: South Asia, Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Pashkevich G., 2003, Palaeoethnobotanical Evidence of Agriculture in the Steppe and the Forest-Steppe of East Europe in the Late Neolithic and Bronze Age, in M. A. Levine, C. Renfrew & K. V. Boyle (eds), Prehistoric Steppe Adaptation and the Horse, Cambridge, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, p. 287-298. Renfrew C., 1987, Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London, Jonathan Cape. Ricaut F.-X., Cox M. P., Lacan M. et al., 2012, A Time Series of Prehistoric Mitochondrial DNA Reveals Western European Genetic Diversity Was Largely Established by the Bronze Age, Advances in Anturopology 2-1, p. 14-23. Ruhlen M., 1994, The Origin of Language: Tracing the Evolution of the Mother Tongue, New York, John Wiley & Sons. Schrader O. & Nehring A., 1917-1929 [1901], Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde: Grundzüge einer Kultur-und Völkergeschichte Alteuropas, -Leipzig, de Gruyter, 2 vol.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 06:47:49PM via free access