03-28-2005, 09:24 PM
Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins
by Norman Berdichevsky
Colin Renfrew. Pimlico. [pounds]12.50 p.b. 346 pages. ISBN 0-7126-6612-5.
Colin Renfrew has wisely subtitled this inquisitive and controversial book: 'The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins', for the puzzle remains although there is much fascinating detective work which only succeeds in casting doubt on what was the generally accepted solution. As recently as this reviewer's own graduate student days, the question of Indo-European origins was answered in standard anthropology and geography textbooks such as The European Culture Area by Terry G. Jordan.
There was a clear-cut reference to either East-Central Europe or the Russian steppes as identified by Paelolinguistics and the assumed existence of a Proto-European/Aryan tongue and mass migrations from an original heartland. The 'proof' was the vocabulary of common 'Proto-European' words describing objects, animals, seasons and trees such as 'river', 'winter', 'cold', 'wolf', 'bear', 'oak', 'pine', 'beech', 'willow', 'plow', 'ox', 'sheep', 'apple' and the small grains common to a mid-latitude land of pronounced seasons. Mr Renfrew decisively succeeds in establishing that this theory 'ain't necessarily so' but does not provide us with any more convincing alternative suspects. There are plenty of suspicions but no proof.
The reader gains some sympathy with Mr Renfrew's position that older theories of common origins, linguistic change, diffusion and migrations were too simple and neglected the growing evidence of archaeology/pottery and the more complex realities of linguistic borrowing, mythology and the development of farming. The book is valuable for no other reason than its forceful explanation of the need to use appropriate archaeological evidence with linguistic palaeontology, and glottochronology (the change in the pronunciation of words over time).
<b>This book is also a conclusive demonstration of the falsehood in the old racist ideas, distorted even further by the Nazis that there was a coincidence between language, culture and 'race' among the Aryan ancestors of the 'Germanic supermen'.</b> There is, of course, no justification that people who spoke (or speak today) similar languages or who had a similar assemblage of material culture, pottery, architecture, etc. were necessarily related racially or ethnically. Archaeologists and anthropologists of the future will not be excused if they claim Liberia was settled by 'The English' because they only found the remains of locally published English language newspapers or that France and China were colonised by 'The Americans' because of the many ruins found there of MacDonald Hamburger signs.
Colin Renfrew also provides much fascinating information on the hitherto most neglected and least known 'lost' branches of the Indo-European family - Hittite, Mycenean Greek in Anatolia and Tocharian in Chinese Turkestan and Sinkiang on the last stations of the Silk Road. It is remarkable that the former area is identified as the probable origin and the latter as the furthermost Eastern extent of the Indo-European family although both were long ago replaced by non- Indo-European speaking peoples (Turks and Chinese).
The author maintains that the best key to solve the problem of origins and related languages lies in the spread of farming and the accompanying wave-like borrowing of loan-words without the long-scale migrations of people. This would involve the acquisition of the necessary domesticated plant and animal species by the hunting-gathering populations of Europe from their neighbours to the south-east in Anatolia, Crete and Greece starting about 6,000 BC and reaching the north-western periphery of Europe, in Scotland and Ireland, by 3,500 BC. This was the result of gradual population increase and cultural borrowing among neighbours rather than of migration.
This theory holds that the non- Indo-European speaking peoples - the Basques and Etruscans may have held out as isolated pockets for a long time because they grew firm already denser mesolithic populations subsistent on shellfish or independently invented agriculture. Mr Renfrew is on less solid ground in trying to diminish the long held view that the culture anti language of much of Iran and North India were the result of the chariot/horse led 'Aryan' pastoral migration/conquests of the second millennium BC.
The book is illustrated with small-scale black and white maps and diagrams but the quality of these leaves much to be desired. This is a shame since they would have immeasurably helped the novice in this field to orient himself. However controversial, Archaeology and Language is a valuable contribution to a fascinating field for whoever is concerned with trying to understand what we were and where we came from.
NORMAN BERDICHEVSKY
by Norman Berdichevsky
Colin Renfrew. Pimlico. [pounds]12.50 p.b. 346 pages. ISBN 0-7126-6612-5.
Colin Renfrew has wisely subtitled this inquisitive and controversial book: 'The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins', for the puzzle remains although there is much fascinating detective work which only succeeds in casting doubt on what was the generally accepted solution. As recently as this reviewer's own graduate student days, the question of Indo-European origins was answered in standard anthropology and geography textbooks such as The European Culture Area by Terry G. Jordan.
There was a clear-cut reference to either East-Central Europe or the Russian steppes as identified by Paelolinguistics and the assumed existence of a Proto-European/Aryan tongue and mass migrations from an original heartland. The 'proof' was the vocabulary of common 'Proto-European' words describing objects, animals, seasons and trees such as 'river', 'winter', 'cold', 'wolf', 'bear', 'oak', 'pine', 'beech', 'willow', 'plow', 'ox', 'sheep', 'apple' and the small grains common to a mid-latitude land of pronounced seasons. Mr Renfrew decisively succeeds in establishing that this theory 'ain't necessarily so' but does not provide us with any more convincing alternative suspects. There are plenty of suspicions but no proof.
The reader gains some sympathy with Mr Renfrew's position that older theories of common origins, linguistic change, diffusion and migrations were too simple and neglected the growing evidence of archaeology/pottery and the more complex realities of linguistic borrowing, mythology and the development of farming. The book is valuable for no other reason than its forceful explanation of the need to use appropriate archaeological evidence with linguistic palaeontology, and glottochronology (the change in the pronunciation of words over time).
<b>This book is also a conclusive demonstration of the falsehood in the old racist ideas, distorted even further by the Nazis that there was a coincidence between language, culture and 'race' among the Aryan ancestors of the 'Germanic supermen'.</b> There is, of course, no justification that people who spoke (or speak today) similar languages or who had a similar assemblage of material culture, pottery, architecture, etc. were necessarily related racially or ethnically. Archaeologists and anthropologists of the future will not be excused if they claim Liberia was settled by 'The English' because they only found the remains of locally published English language newspapers or that France and China were colonised by 'The Americans' because of the many ruins found there of MacDonald Hamburger signs.
Colin Renfrew also provides much fascinating information on the hitherto most neglected and least known 'lost' branches of the Indo-European family - Hittite, Mycenean Greek in Anatolia and Tocharian in Chinese Turkestan and Sinkiang on the last stations of the Silk Road. It is remarkable that the former area is identified as the probable origin and the latter as the furthermost Eastern extent of the Indo-European family although both were long ago replaced by non- Indo-European speaking peoples (Turks and Chinese).
The author maintains that the best key to solve the problem of origins and related languages lies in the spread of farming and the accompanying wave-like borrowing of loan-words without the long-scale migrations of people. This would involve the acquisition of the necessary domesticated plant and animal species by the hunting-gathering populations of Europe from their neighbours to the south-east in Anatolia, Crete and Greece starting about 6,000 BC and reaching the north-western periphery of Europe, in Scotland and Ireland, by 3,500 BC. This was the result of gradual population increase and cultural borrowing among neighbours rather than of migration.
This theory holds that the non- Indo-European speaking peoples - the Basques and Etruscans may have held out as isolated pockets for a long time because they grew firm already denser mesolithic populations subsistent on shellfish or independently invented agriculture. Mr Renfrew is on less solid ground in trying to diminish the long held view that the culture anti language of much of Iran and North India were the result of the chariot/horse led 'Aryan' pastoral migration/conquests of the second millennium BC.
The book is illustrated with small-scale black and white maps and diagrams but the quality of these leaves much to be desired. This is a shame since they would have immeasurably helped the novice in this field to orient himself. However controversial, Archaeology and Language is a valuable contribution to a fascinating field for whoever is concerned with trying to understand what we were and where we came from.
NORMAN BERDICHEVSKY