Origin of the Indo-Europeans

      The origin of the Indo-Europeans is an issue which scholars have debated for many years.  From this debate two major theories have been proposed by scholars Colin Renfrew and Marija Gimbutas.  The former proposed that the Indo-Europeans emerged from Anatolia and the latter that they came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, north of the Black Sea.  

    Renfrew argued that the Indo-Europeans originated in Anatolia and spread from there in a ‘wave advance model’, taking with them farming methods and the Proto-Indo-European language.  This spread began ca. 7000 BCE with the peoples moving into Greece and then the rest of Europe. This spreading was achieved not by violent conquest but gradually as their numbers increased and people sought new lands to set up their farmsteads.  Renfrew believes these were Europe’s first farmers, sharing the developments of the Neolithic Revolution with the northern western neighbors. 


    Gimbutas’ counter argument proposes that the Indo-Europeans originally came into Anatolia from north of the Black Sea.  This area, known as the Pontic-Caspian steppe, was forested and inhabited by the Kurgan people.  This culture was patrifocal and is known well by their burial mounds, horses and wagons. This people used their advantage of horses and wagons in conquest against the Europeans, who Gimbutas believes were peaceful, egalitarian, culturally advanced and sedentary.  The Kurgans came out of the Pontic-Caspian steppe in three waves between 4000-2500 BCE, moving west to Europe and east to Asia and India. 

    Gimbutas’ Kurgan theory is based on linguistic and archaeological evidence.  There appear to be many loan words between Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and northern languages, suggesting the languages were spoken near each other.  Additionally, not all the Indo-European languages of Anatolia have words that derive from the same PIE root.  For example, the Hittites did not share words for ‘horse,’ ‘wagon’ or many agricultural terms with the rest of the Indo-European languages.  This suggests that the Hittites gradually adopted these terms from other non-Indo-European languages.  If the Indo-European homeland was Anatolia, one would expect these Hittite words to be related to the other Indo-Europeans ones. According to Renfrew’s theory this should be especially true if the Indo-Europeans proliferated agriculture.  

    Apart from linguistic evidence, archeological evidence also contributes to this theory.  Kurgan cultural traits begin to appear with the spread of PIE in Europe and Asia including burial mounds with weapons and animal remains and evidence of horse husbandry.  There also seems to be a disintegration of fine ceramics and painted wares and appearance of crudely made vessels similar to Kurgan styles.  Additionally, we see the appearance new religious ideas centering on the worship of warlike gods with less emphasis on matrifocal items like female figurines.  

    Very recently, Gimbutas’ theory has been proved through DNA analysis. Studies done between 2015 and the present have shown that Indo-Europeans have steppe ancestry, and this has caused Renfrew to retract his Anatolian homeland theory.  It can therefore be said with a great degree of certainty that the Indo-European homeland is the Pontic-Caspian steppe, from which the PIE people, language and culture spread into Europe and Asia. 



Bibliography and Further Reading:
  • Bryce, Trevor R. (2005), The Kingdom of the Hittites (New Edition, Oxford), pp. 8-20.
  • Mallory, J.P. (1989). In Search of the Indo-Europeans. Language, Archaeology and Myth. Thames & Hudson
  • Renfrew, Colin (1987). Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Finkelberg, Margalit (1997). “Anatolian Languages and Indo-European Migrations to Greece”. The Classical World 91(1): 3-20
  • de Barros Damgaard, Peter (2018). "The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. " Science 29 (June 2018).
  • Lecture: https://youtu.be/Pe4jnBdVxjw 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tourism and Archaeological Sites: Conservation through Replication

Image
           Every year, millions of tourists travel the world to see the variety of attractions the modern age has to offer.  But some of the most prized destinations are those not produced by this age, but those of the past.  We travel to Italy for the Colosseum, China for the Great Wall, Peru for Machu Pichu. Meanwhile, archaeological s ite managers strive to make the most exciting and famous parts of a site available for tourists to see. Sometimes whole sites or pieces of them have been reconstructed for a more appealing look or give the visitors the feeling that they are walking in a place at the height of its power.  Tourism can bring a site and its local community great economic gain. Many archaeological sites have prospered tremendously from the thousands of tourist visits every year, likewise the communities and businesses in towns have flourished from being close to archaeological sites.    ...
Read more

Ancient Mesopotamian Animal Herding

Image
What role did pastoralists, nomadic pastoralists in particular, play in ancient Mesopotamian society?  In my opinion, ancient Mesopotamian pastoralists and nomadic pastoralists did not have just one role.  Their place in society was diverse and changed depending on the time and place.  This is clear from both archaeological and textual evidence from periods like the third and second millennia BCE and from places like Ur and Mari.  Sometimes they are portrayed as closely integrated with urban society, and other times as completely separate from it.  Despite their changing status, what does appear constant is the sense of separateness that existed between pastoralist (especially nomadic pastoralists) and sedentary agriculturalists.  The latter were the ones who left most of the evidence we see in the archaeological record and produced texts, all of which show that sedentists regard themselves as different from pastoralists, specifically as more civilize...
Read more

Sugar Production in the Islamic Period: An Archaeological Perspective

Sugar is one of the most common items to be found in a household pantry, it is one of the cheapest ingredients one can buy at the grocery store, and it is an integral part of thousands of recipes, particularly sweet dishes.  But how did it grow to be so popular? How did the cane sugar plant, native to a tropical climate and requiring a lot of water, a lot of heat and a lot of labor to process become part of a thriving industry? How did a luxury item become as abundant as water? The roots of this phenomenon can be found in the Islamic Period.  The explosion of the sugar trade in this period was brought on by new developments in its production, helping this substance enter new international trade markets.  This industry flourished under Ayyubid and Mamluk rule, giving many new peoples a sweet tooth and laying the foundations for the modern sugar industry. Sugar production was not new in the Islamic period, even the ancient Greeks and Romans were awar...
Read more