THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN URHEIMAT: THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS by Alexander Nash A Senior Honors Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The University of Utah In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Honors Degree in Bachelor of Arts In Linguistics Approved: Benjamin Slade, PhD Supervisor Chair, Department of Linguistics __ Aniko Csirmaz, PhD Sylvia D. Torti, PhD Honors Faculty Advisor Dean, Honors College December 20 IS Copyright © 2015 All Rights Reserved ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the viability of the Armenian Hypothesis, which places the Proto- Indo-European homeland in the Armenian Highland (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Kavoukjian 1987). Arguments supporting the hypothesis are evaluated in the light of linguistic, archeological, and genetic evidence. After a thorough evaluation, I find that the Armenian Hypothesis lacks any evidence that positively differentiates it from the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and fails to provide for several linguistic and archeological facts. It is concluded that for a revised version of the Armenian Hypothesis to be compelling, additional archeological evidence supporting it would need to be found in the Armenian Highland (a sadly under-researched region) and additional details would need to be provided concerning Indo-European fragmentation, migration, and subsequent dialectal development. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION - QUEST FOR THE URHEIMAT 1 2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 2 2.1 THE GLOTTALIC THEORY 2 2.2 EARLY HISTORY OF THE ARMENIAN HIGHLAND 9 3.0 THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 13 3.1 THE MODEL 13 3.2 ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE ARMENIAN HYPOTHESIS 15 3.3 PROBLEMS 17 4.0 THE PONTIC STEPPE HYPOTHESIS 24 5.0 CONCLUSION 25 FURTHER READING 27 REFERENCES 27 iii 1.0 Introduction -- Quest for the Urheimat The location of the Proto-Indo-European urheimat, or homeland, can be considered one of the original puzzles of modern linguistics. Excited by its possible implications for the origins of western civilization, linguists have been engaged in this problem ever since Sir William Jones noted, in 1786, the similarities between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, and other languages now considered to be descendants of the Proto-Indo-European tongue (Mallory 1989]. Many of the tools and theories advanced by linguists were developed in pursuit of this Promised Land; through ever more sophisticated reconstructive techniques, the form of this prehistoric language was slowly revealed, but competing theories as to its original homeland and the method of its dispersal continued to war with each other even through to the 21st Century (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Pereltsvaig 2015). Of these theories, the current favorite among scholars seems to be the Kurgan/Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, identifying speakers of PIE (Proto-Indo- European) with the Yamna culture, present in the Pontic-Caspian area from 5000- 3000 BC (Mallory 1989, Pereltsvaig 2015). Archeological evidence from the region has identified aspects of the Yamna culture that align well with what scholars have inferred about PIE culture, such as the domestication of horses (Mallory 1989). Recent genetic analyses also provide evidence of massive migrations from the Pontic Steppe that match the predictions of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis concerning the spread of PIE to Europe (Haak etal. 2015). The debate is still hot, however (Bouckaert et a l 2012; Gray, Atkinson, & Greenhill 2011) - and the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis, of course, is not above critique1. In order to obtain a more precise picture, therefore, it may be appropriate to reanalyze the linguistic and historical data in terms of alternative hypotheses that may have fallen by the wayside. It is in this light that I wish to analyze the viability of the Armenian Hypothesis, which posits that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in Armenia Major before the various Indo-European peoples migrated to their modern locations (Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1990, Kavoukjian 1987]. This hypothesis has been greatly overlooked by scholars. The Armenian Hypothesis relies on the Glottalic Theory of PIE obstruents, which will be described in detail in Section 2, along with background information on the prehistory of the Armenian highland that is essential for understanding the model. In Section 3 the main arguments of the Armenian Hypothesis will be presented and deconstructed. In Section 4 I will briefly describe the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis and compare it with the Armenian Hypothesis. My conclusions will then be found in Section 5. 2.0 Background Information 2.1 The Glottalic Theory One of the most intense debates surrounding the reconstruction of PIE concerns the nature of the language's phonological system, and in particular, its series of stops [Salmons 1993]. The traditional2 reconstruction of PIE stops posits 1 See Further Reading for a critique of the Pontic Steppe Hypothesis. 2 1 say "traditional" for convenience's sake and not because the reconstruction is uncontroversial. As Salmons (1 9 9 3 ] puts it: "... One fails to find a strongly held consensus about the nature of Proto-Indo-European obstruents during the course of the last hundred years. That is, one cannot appeal to some uncontroversial reconstruction of the obstruent system and claim that Glottalic Theory deviates radically from such an accepted system.” an inventory of stops similar to that found in (1), with three series of stops: voiced, voiced aspirated, and voiceless (Haider 1985]. (1) b bhp d dht gghk This reconstruction was created via the Comparative Method, a method by which correspondences between daughter languages are analyzed in order to determine the original nature of the mother language, using what we know about how languages change over time. Table [2) shows some examples of the kind of data that would be considered using this method (Salmons 1993). Originally, a strong emphasis was placed on the role of Sanskrit in reconstruction, and accordingly, a four-part stop series, similar to that of Sanskrit (voiceless, voiceless aspirated, voiced, and voiced aspirated), was posited using comparative data. However, the voiceless aspirated series was called into question and soon disposed of in most traditional reconstructions (Salmons 1993). P- t- k- Sanskrit pitar- trayas hrd0 Latin pater tres cor, cordis Greek pater treis kardia However, what is shown is typical of the various pre-Glottalic-Theory reconstructions, taken as a whole. 4 Old Irish athir tri cride Gothic fa&ar 0reis hairto Armenian hayr erek' sirt 'father' 'three' 'heart' b- d- g* Sanskrit bala-m dasa janu Latin de-bilis decems genu Greek belteron??? deka gonu Old Irish deich glun Gothic taihun kniu Armenian tasn cunr 'strength, size,' etc. 'tenth' 'knee' Scholars such as Jakobson, Pedersen, and Martinet raised concerns about this traditional view as early as 1957 or earlier, stating that it was problematic mainly for typological reasons - that is, that it ran contrary to what was (and still is) commonly accepted as the typical cross-linguistic pattern for stop systems (Salmons 1993). In analyzing the traditional reconstruction, immediately conspicuous is the presence of a voiced aspirate series in a system that lacks voiceless aspirates. Not only are voiced aspirates rare in themselves cross-linguistically, but they are normally only found in languages that also have a series of voiceless aspirates. Also suspicious is the noted rarity (or possible absence) of *b in this system, which cross- linguistically is a relatively common and unmarked consonant -- it is typologically unusual for / b / t o be absent in a phonological system that contains other bilabial stops (Salmons 1993). These concerns, and others, led some scholars to propose a series of alternative theories, now collectively referred to as the Glottalic Theory. These sought to solve the problems of the Laryngeal Theory by taking typological constraints into consideration, thereby proposing a different nature for the three- stop series of PIE: (weakly) glottalized, voiced with aspirated allophones, and voiceless with aspirated allophones (Salmons 1993). (See the table in (3)). A quick note on some features of the consonants being considered here. Glottalization involves the closure of the glottis during the production of a sound. There are two main types of glottal consonants -- ejective, with a glottalic egressive airstream, and implosive, with a glottalic ingressive and pulmonic egressive airstream. The term aspiration refers to a burst of air accompanying the release of a stop (Salmons 1993). In characterizing the PIE stop system in this manner, therefore, the voiced aspirated series was eliminated and the *b gap was reanalyzed as a *p' (ejective p) gap, which is far more typologically sound3. According to this theory, the first series is only weakly glottalized in order to explain why so many of PIE's daughter 3 For articulatory reasons, /p ’/ is quite rare, even in languages that contain ejective consonants. The opposite is true of implosives — /& / is the easiest of implosives to pronounce, leading most proponents of the Glottalic Theory to propose an ejective rather than implosive series (Salmons 1993). 6 languages lost that feature, and the allophonic distribution of aspiration, unimportant in describing the phonemic inventory of PIE itself, explains the later developments made by those same daughter languages (Salmons 1993). (3) Traditional Reconstruction vs. Glottalic Theory -- Stops Traditional Glottalic Theory Series I voiced - b ,d ,g glottalized - b',d',g' Series II voiced aspirated - bh, dh, g h voiced w/ aspirated allophones - ¥ h\ d ^ , gW Series III voiceless -p,t,k voiceless w/ aspirated allophones - pW, t(h), kW The Glottalic Theory has the advantage of offering a simpler explanation for the root structure constraints that seem to have existed in PIE. As characterized by the traditional view, these restrictions (in roots of type CV(V)C) disallowed the co­ occurrence of either two plain voiced stops or a voiceless stop and a voiced aspirate within a single root, as can be seen in examples (4) and (5) (Salmons 1993). (4) Attested Sequences *ped- *dek- *pek- *deigh- *dheb- *dheigh- (5) Unattested Sequences **bed- **pegh.