Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Palaeolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralic and Altaic populations in Eurasia, with an excursus

on Slavic ethnogenesis by Mario Alinei

Expanded version of a paper read at the Conference Ancient Settlers in Europe, Kobarid, 29-30 May 2003. Forthcoming in Quaderni di semantica, 26.

Introduction

This contribution is based on my recent work on the problem of the origins of IndoEuropean (= IE) languages (Alinei 1996, 1998, 2000ab, 2001, 2002) and lately on Etruscan (Alinei 2003) , and is divided in five parts: (A) the first outlines the three presently competing theories on the origins of IE languages; (B) the second summarizes the converging conclusions reached by different sciences on the problem of the origin of language and languages in general; (C) the third surveys recent theories on the origins of non IE languages in Europe; (D) the fourth illustrates examples of how the IE linguistic record can be read in the light of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory, and in comparison with the two competing theories; (E) the fifth concerns the specific problem of the Slavic ethnogenesis.

The three main paradigms for the origins of Indo-European languages

At present, the international debate on the origins of IE languages and peoples concentrates on three different theories: the traditional theory and two new, quite recent ones. 2.1 Copper Age theory = warlike invasion by Proto-Indo-Europeans as pastoral nomads (kurgan) (Gimbutas, Mallory etc.) As we know, until recently, the received doctrine for the origins of Indo-Europeans in Europe was centered upon the assumption of an Indo-European Invasion in the Copper Age (IV millennium b.C.), by horse-riding warrior pastoralists (fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Gimbutas invasion theory

The last and most authoritative version of this theory was the so called kurgan theory, elaborated by the American-Lithuanian archaeologists Marija Gimbutas, and now defended by the American archaeologist James Mallory (Mallory 1989), according to which the Proto-Indo-Europeans were the warrior pastoralists who built kurgan, that is burial mounds, in the steppe area of Ukraine (e.g. Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980). From the steppe area, the Proto-IE kurgan people would have then first invaded Southern Eastern Europe, then, in the III millennium, after having evolved into the so called Battle Axe people (the black area on the map) would have brought IE languages all over Europe, in a series of conquering waves (white arrows on the map). Neolithic theory = peaceful invasion of Europe by Proto-IndoEuropeans as inventors of farming (Renfrew etc.) The second theory is that of another archaeologist, Lord Colin Renfrew, called the IE Neolithic Dispersal theory (Renfrew 1987). It is based on the observation that since there is absolutely no archaeological record of any large scale invasion in Europe in the Copper Age, the only moment in European prehistory which might coincide with a gigantic change such as the presumed indoeuropeanization of Europe is the beginning of farming in the VII millennium b.C. Since farming originated in the Middle East, and archaeology does detect in southern Europe a migratory contribution from that direction, associated with the introduction of farming, Renfrew has concluded that these early farmers were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, responsible for the introduction of IE in southern and central Europe, and that the subsequent IE dispersal started from these two areas, along with the dispersal of farming techniques. And since an intrusive contribution is especially evident in the two earliest Neolithic cultures of southern Europe (fig. 2), both dated to the VII millennium, namely the Balkanic complex (the checkered area on the map) and the Impresso/Cardial Ware in Western and Central Mediterranean (the black area on the map), as well as in the Linienbandkeramik (or LBK) culture in Germany and Eastern Europe (gray area on the map), dated to the V millennium, these would be the cultures that represent the first introduction of IE into Europe. The philosophy behind this theory is thus that the ProtoIndo-Europeans, far from being warriors who invaded and conquered Europe by sheer military force, are instead the inventors of farming, who conquered Europe by cultural and intellectual superiority.
Fig. 2. Map of Neolithic Europe

2.2

2.3

Paleolithic Continuity Theory = indigenism (Alinei, Ballester, Cavazza, Costa, Husler, Otte, Poghirc) A few years after the publication of Renfrews book two archaeologists and three linguists, all independently from one another, presented an alternative theory of IE origins, which is similar to the Uralic continuity, in that it claims uninterrupted continuity from Paleolithic also for IE people and languages. The two prehistorians are the Belgian Marcel Otte, one of the world major specialist on Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and the German Alexander Husler, a specialist in the prehistory of Central Europe (Otte 1994, 1995, Husler 1996, 1998, 2003). The three linguists are, including myself (Alinei 1996, 2000), Gabriele Costa (Costa 1998), and Cicero Poghirc (Poghirc 1992). Two more linguists are now working on the same line (Ballester 2000a, 2000b, 2001, Cavazza 2001). It is important to note that this theory is the only one, of the three, which has been advanced not only by archaeologists, but also by professional linguists, and therefore carefully checked as to its linguistic coherence, verifiability and productivity.
Fig. 3. Map of Mesolithic Europe

Fig. 3 shows the high degree of cultural differentiation of Mesolithic Europe, which is likely to have been associated with linguistic differentiation of some kind.

An interdisciplinary survey of converging conclusions on the problem of the origin of language and languages

Let us now see, more in general, how the problem of the origin of language and languages has been approached in the last years, and to which results this research has led; and let us also see with which of the three theories we have just summarized, such results come closer. At least five different disciplines, in recent times, have addressed the problem of the origin of language and languages. And though they have done it from different vantage points and with different approaches, they have reached conclusions that seem to show a remarkable convergence. These sciences are: (i) archaeology, (ii) genetics, (iii) general linguistics and, more specifically, psycho- and cognitive linguistics, (iv) paleo-anthropology, (v) cognitive science. To these five disciplines, research on history of ideas can be added, and more specifically history of archaeology and of linguistics, 3

for the critical light that their conclusions throw on the ideological genesis of the traditional theory. 3.1 Archaeology In the last three decades, archaeological research has made quite a few revolutionary advances, among which the most well-known is the much higher chronologies of European prehistory, obtained by radiocarbon and other innovative dating techniques. But as far as our topic is concerned, the conclusion that interests us the most is that there is absolutely no trace of a gigantic warlike invasion, such as to have caused a linguistic substitution on continental scale, as envisaged by the traditional IE theory. On the contrary, there is every possible evidence for demic and cultural continuity, from Paleolithic or Mesolithic depending on the areas on to the Metal Ages. Even James Mallory the isolated archaeologist who has decided to die on the battlefield in the defense of the traditional invasion theory has had to admit that the archaeologists easiest pursuit [is] the demonstration of relative continuity and absence of intrusion (Mallory 1989, 81). Continuity is now universally considered the basic pattern of European prehistory. 3.2 Genetics It is the merit of the new geogenetic school founded and led by Luca Cavalli Sforza to have made several fundamental discoveries about the relationship between genetics and linguistics, among which I would mention at least the following two: (A) the areal distribution of genetic markers largely corresponds to that of the world languages (Ammerman-Cavalli Sforza 1984, Cavalli Sforza et al. 1988, 1994, Menozzi et al. 1978 etc.); (B) substandard dialect microareas also have close correspondences with the finer genetic differentiation (Contini et al. 1989). Although Cavalli Sforza himself has pointed out that such conclusions imply that language differentiation must have proceeded step by step with the dispersal of humans (probably Homo sapiens sapiens) out of Africa, for the specific problem of the origins of Indo-European languages he has contradicted his own views by opting first for the traditional warlike invasion theory, and later for Renfrews hypothesis of a peaceful invasion by the earliest farmers, considered Proto-Indo-Europeans. Whatever the cause of this major contradiction, however, even Cavalli Sforza has recently had to surrender to the latest outcome of genetic research, i.e. that 80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic (Sykes 2001, 240 ff.). As Bryan Sykes has commented: The Neolithic farmers ha[ve] certainly been important; but they ha[ve] only contributed about one fifth of our genes. It [is] the hunters of the Paleolithic that ha[ve]created the main body of modern European gene pool (Bryan Sykes, 2001 242). 3.3 General linguistics, Psycholinguistics, Cognitive linguistics The central idea of Noam Chomskys revolutionary theory on the psychological and formal foundations of language is the thesis that language is innate. Until recently, this claim formed a major obstacle for the integration of his theory in a Darwinian, evolutionary framework. A major breakthrough, however, independently made by two scholars specialized in different sciences, has provided an unexpected solution for this problem.

3.4 Paleoanthropology The last twenty years of discoveries in the field have brought Ph. V. Tobias, one of the world leading paleo-anthropologists, to conclude that the question now is no longer whether Homo habilis spoke, but whether the capacity for language was already optionally present in some Australopithecus, to become obligatory in Homo, or emerged with Homo, as one of his unique traits (Tobias 1996). As himself writes: Several lines of evidence suggest that the rudiments of speech centres and of speaking were present already before the last common ancestral hominid population spawned Homo and the robust australopythecines (Brocas bulge in A. africanus; tool-making perhaps by a derived A. africanus and a hint of an inferior parietal lobule in one endocast, SK 1585, of A. robusts). Both sets of shoots would then have inherited the propensity for spoken language. The function would probably have been facultative in A. robustus and A. boisei, but obligate in Homo (Tobias 1996, 94, authors emphasis). 3.5 Cognitive Sciences On the basis of independent evidence, a similar conclusion has been reached also in the field of cognitive sciences, by Steven Pinker, in his masterly book on language instinct, inspired by Chomskys theory of language (Pinker 1994): a form of language could first have emerged [...] after the branch leading to humans split off from the one leading to chimpanzees. The result would be languageless chimps and approximately five to seven million years in which language could have gradually evolved (Pinker 1994, 345). In short, language would indeed be innate in humans, but only as the result of a much longer evolution than traditionally thought, beginning with some Australopithecus. 3.6 History of ideas As many studies have now shown, the foundation of scientific IE research in the 19thcentury was deeply influenced by the contemporary Arian, Pangermanic and colonialist ideology, as first expounded in Count Joseph-Arthur De Gobineaus, Essai sur lingalit des races humaines (1853-1855) and Houston Stewart Chamberlains, Die Grundlagen des XIX Jahrhunderts (1899), with their emphasis on Indo-Europeans racial superiority and their inclination to war and conquest (e.g. Poliakov 1974, Rmer 1985, Trigger 1989, Renfrew 1987 etc.). Here is, for example, how Adolphe Pictet, the founder of the so called Linguistic Paleontology, in his book Les origines des Indo-europennes ou les Aryas primitif. Essai de palontologie linguistique, Paris, 1859-63, described the Arian race: a race destined by the Providence to dominate the whole world Privileged among all other races for the beauty of its blood, and for the gifts of its intelligence, this fertile race has worked to create for itself, as a means for its development, a language which is admirable for its richness, its power, its harmony and perfection of forms. This is why the first IE specialists imbued with European colonialism of the 19th century chose to see the Proto-Indo-Europeans as a superior race of warriors and colonizers, who would have conquered the allegedly pre-IE Neolithic Europe in the Copper Age, and brought their superior (?) civilization to it. And since it was necessary for the Indo-European warriors to have weapons and horses, also the choice of the Copper Age was obligatory, because this was the context of Battle Axes, metallurgy and horse domestication. At the same time, while the concept of the Arian super-race gave shape to the myth of the Battle-Axe horse riding invaders, another myth, within the Arian larger myth, emerged: Pangermanism. Within the Arian superior 5

race, the German father-founders of IE studies preferred to see the Germanic people as the supermen, the purest and the closest to the original blessed race. This is also why the continental Germanic area for a long time was believed to be the Urheimat of the PIEs (Kossinna!). In turn, the Pangermanic ideology and its political context gave rise to yet another important myth, the consequences of which are still dominating the field of IE studies: namely that of the extremely late arrival of the Slavs: if the Germanic people were the closest to the pure Arian race, then the Slavs must certainly be the farthest ones! Despite their enormous numbers (half of Europe is Slavic), the Slavs were thought of having hidden somewhere, magically leaving no archaeological trace whatsoever of their presence, until in the Middle Ages they unexplainably (and quite regretfully!) emerge and swarm over Eastern Europe After WW2, with the end of Nazi ideology, a new variant of the traditional scenario, which soon became the new canonic IE theory, was introduced by Marija Gimbutas, an ardent Baltic nationalist: the PIE Battle-Axe super-warriors were best represented by Baltic lites, instead of Germanic ones (Gimbutas 1963, 1970, 1973ab, 1977, 1979, 1980). In so far as it explains why the founders of IE studies came to the preposterous idea of a recent invasions of Neolithic Europe by superior IE warriors, the above illustrated conclusion reached by history of archaeology and linguistics belongs in this survey.

A few major corollaries of the six conclusions

In the light of these converging conclusions, four major corollaries can be postulated: 4.1 Antiquity and stability of language and languages, in general Language and languages are much more ancient than traditionally thought. Consequently, also the record of their change and development must be mapped onto much longer chronology, instead of being compressed into a few millennia, as traditionally done. While traditional linguistics, by reifying language, had made change into a sort of biological, organic law of language development, the extraordinarily fast tempo attributed to it would fit the required short chronologies of the recent invasion, the new, long chronologies of language origins and language development impose a reversal of this conception: conservation is the law of language and languages, and change is the exception, being caused not by an alleged biological law of language, but by major external (ethnic) or social factors, in short by language contacts and hybridization, in concomitance with major political, socio-economic and cultural events (Alinei 1996). 4.2 Antiquity of the grammatical structure of natural languages As a consequence of this new conception and new chronology of language origins and development, the emerging and formation of the deepest part of natural lexica, namely the different grammatical structures of the world language families including IndoEuropean cannot be dated to the Copper Age or to the Neolithic, as traditionally thought, but must be seen, rather, as representing the awakening and the slow development of human conscience in already geographically and culturally differentiated groups of Homo sapiens. A linguistic illustration of this principle will follow in the last part of this paper.

Genetic and linguistic continuity is the most reasonable and economic assumption for the study of European languages: the burden of proof falls on alternative models The convergence of different sciences towards the same evaluation of the antiquity and continuity of peoples and languages in Europe allows to postulate continuity from Paleolithic as the basic working hypothesis for the formation of Indo-European languages, both in Europe and in Asia. Consequently, the burden of proof automatically falls on alternative theories. As of now, no alternative theory has provided adequate evidence against the Paleolithic continuity paradigm. As a consequence: (1) The arrival of Indo-European people in Europe and Asia must be seen as one of the major episodes of the arrival of Homo sapiens in Europe and Asia from Africa, and not as an event of recent prehistory. (2) The differentiation of IE languages from the Proto-IE common language must have been an extremely slow process, associated with the varying episodes of the original migration from Africa, with the different course of development in the different settlement areas, and with the difference in climatic, ethnic and social contexts. For example: (A) The mysterious arrival of the Celts in Western Europe, obligatory in the traditional theory as well as in that of Renfrews must be replaced by the scenario of an early differentiation of Celts, as the westernmost IE group in Europe. Western Europe must have been always Celtic, and in the recent prehistory of the Celts from the Megalithic culture through the Beaker Bell to La Tne the direction of their expansion was obviously from West to East and not vice versa. (B) The extremely successful (and sedentary) Mesolithic fishing cultures of Northern Europe must be attributed to Celts, Germanic people and Balts, besides to Uralic people. If the Kunda culture must be attributed to Uralic people, as Uralic language specialists have long claimed, then the Narva culture is Germanic. (C) The totally absurd, fairy-tale like thesis of the so called late arrival of the Slavs in Europe must be replaced by the scenario of Slavic continuity from Paleolithic, and the demographic growth of the Slavs explained by the extraordinary success, continuity and stability of the Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe (the only ones in Europe that caused the formation of tells). Needless to say, these are just three examples: much more can be said on the European linguistic prehistory, utilizing the convergence of archaeological and linguistic data, as I have tried to do in the second volume of my recent book (Alinei 2000). A few more examples will be given in the following section. 4.4 Archaeological charts as means to reconstruct ethnic and language development Once linguists assume Paleolithic continuity to explain the linguistic picture of Europe (and of IE Asia), they can make systematic and fruitful use of archaeological chronostratigraphical charts both of Europe in general and of the different areas of Europe in particular , in order to come to the identification of the languages (and dialects: a fundamental, more authentic relic of prehistory than standard languages!) involved in the different periods and areas of development in prehistoric Europe.

4.3

As is known, these charts aims at representing, on their two axes, the chronological evolution of prehistoric culture in a given, geographic area. This is achieved by condensing the cultural development of the different sub-areas of the territory in the chart vertical columns, while the different periods of prehistory correspond to the chart horizontal lines. As examples, two European charts are reproduced here (figg. 4-5): the one that Gordon Childe kept publishing at the end of all the editions of his Dawn of European Civilisation (Childe 1925-1957), and a combination of two more recent ones published by Lichardus & Lichardus (1985) in their synthesis on European Neolithic and Chalcolithic.

Figg. 4-5

Charts of this kind can be of significant help to historical linguists, and in this regard it is interesting to note that they were first introduced in archaeology precisely by Gordon Childe, the founder of modern archaeology, who, as is known, took a degree in philology before becoming an archaeologist, and was very familiar with both genealogical trees and linguistic maps used by linguists (Burkitt-Childe 1932). The linguistic (and ethnic) significance of these charts lies in the following aspects: (i) the choice of the geographical sub-areas, and thus of the chart columns, is not subjective, but is governed by the specific and exclusive sequence of cultural development, which shapes as it were each sub-area, identifying and distinguishing it from the others. Each self-generated column has thus its own identity. Each of the different developments from the Neolithic Cardial Ware, in each sub-area, for example, can be interpreted as representing a kind of dialect differentiation from the same common language. The same can be said for LBK in Germany and for similar cultural units in other areas. (ii) The very existence of the chart columns also proves the existence and the recurrence of frontiers dividing each sequence from the other ones. These frontiers can be neat or fuzzy, but they are always there. And even when they seem to disappear, because of the expansion of contiguous cultures, they usually reappear again in subsequent developments. Depending on their depth, importance and stability, these cultural frontiers can correspond to linguistic-family frontiers, to linguistic-group frontier, to dialect frontiers. (iii) Each cultural sequence, corresponding to a self-generated column and to a given geographical sub-area, has thus a very distinct and strong cultural identity, which could easily be connected, depending on the period and the area involved, with a language family, a language group, or a dialect group. (iv) In the framework of the PCP, each set of columns generated by the same root within a given area can be thus considered as a sort of genealogical tree of the relevant sub-areas, and the whole chart as a sort of comparative genealogical tree of the whole area. (v) As far as Europe is concerned, the picture revealed by these charts, already evident as soon as the archaeological record permits adequate geographical mapping of cultures (i.e. in the late Paleolithic and Mesolithic), is one of the formation of large ethnolinguistic units. This picture continues also in the early Neolithic, until, in the course of Neolithic and increasingly more so in the Metal Ages, a fragmentation of each original orbit takes place. Some periods of frontier shifting and transitional discontinuity, which are caused by the transitory expansion of elite groups in the Metal Ages, usually come to an end in subsequent developments, with the reappearing of the previous frontiers. All of this seems to correspond quite closely with what we should expect if one or more populations speaking one and the same language such as the Proto-IndoEuropeans or the Proto-Uralic people had first spread to Europe from Africa, and then had broken up into different groups, as a result of their exposure first to different ecological niches, different social networks and different neighbors, then to waves of intrusive immigrants introducing agriculture and stock-raising in Neolithic, and later, in the Metal Ages, when stratified societies develop, to waves of invading elites of akin or distant groups, speaking cognate or foreign languages. Here follow some examples of how archaeological charts can be used linguistically. 9

4.4.1

The cultural sequence in the Baltic area

CHART I: The cultural sequence of the Baltic countries SOUTH Language phylum/group Baltic in present Europe CHALCOLITHIC Bay Coast (III millennium Corded Ware / Boat Axes CHALCOLITHIC Globular Amphora (IV-III millennium) NEOLITHIC Nemunas MESOLITHIC Nemunas

NORTH Uralic (Bay Coast) Pit-and-Comb Ware Pit-and-Comb Ware Narva Kunda

Within the framework of the now commonly accepted Uralic Continuity Theory (s. further), Uralic linguists and archaeologists assume that all cultures of the Northern area (in the chart to the East of the frontier), from the Mesolithic culture of Kunda to the Pit-and-Comb Ware of the Chalcolithic, were Uralic-speaking cultures, and that the first movements of Uralic people into the deglaciated areas came from the Mesolithic Kunda culture. Only at the end of Neolithic, the non-Uralic Bay Coast culture spreads to Estonia, but only to be soon reabsorbed by the local Uralic culture. The ethnic and linguistic character of this Northern Baltic population can thus be considered stable, and has already been identified as Uralic. As the chart shows, the cultural frontier between North and South remains very stable for several millennia, namely from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic. Only on the basis of this observation, it would already be justified to infer that also the non-Uralic population to the South of this frontier has been stable. Now, this frontier is also quite close to the present BaltoEstonian language frontier, which is also a frontier between IE and Uralic. Within the framework of the PCT, then, all the cultures of the Southern area be assumed to represent Baltic people and languages. And the archaeological record confirms this assumption. First of all, the two homonym Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures of Nemunas have been considered two stages of the same culture. Second, the two following cultures Globular Amphora and Battle Axes , which are the ones that introduced farming from the South, are universally considered as IE. Rimute Rimantiene, the excavator of the main Lithuanian Bay Coast sites, has concluded that Baltic languages came from the South with the two new cultures, and replaced the language of Nemunas, which, according to her, was probably also IE. She herself, however, assumes that the Globular Amphora and the Battle Axes did not replace the rich and sedentary fishing communities of the Western Baltic coast, but intermixed with them, so that they, together, created the Bay Coast culture. Moreover, the dominant economy remained for a long time fishing, hunting and gathering (Rimantiene 1992). So it seems more logical to assume that the Globular Amphora and the Battle Axes, coming from the South, might have spoken another IE language, probably Slavic, whereas the people who spoke Baltic were the Nemunas people themselves, who eventually absorbed the newcomers. This hypothesis is further enhanced by the fact that linguistic research has proved that river names in the whole area are Baltic. Now, since the Globular Amphora and Battle Axes intermixed peacefully with the indigenous fishing communities, it 10

would be logical to assume that it was the fishing sedentary populations of the Nemunas that had already given Baltic names to their rivers. 4.4.2 The cultural sequence in Alsace

CHART II: The cultural sequence in Northern France/Alsace Southern Germany WEST: EAST: NORTHERN FRANCE ALSACE AND SOUTHERN GERMANY Language group in present Gallo-Romance German Europe CHALCOLITHIC Bell Beakers Bell Beakers, Corded Ware LATE NEOLITHIC Vienne-Charente, Rssen Sane-Rhone, SOM MIDDLE NEOLITHIC Michelsberg Michelsberg, Grossgartach, Hinkelstein, Chassey SBK EARLY NEOLITHIC LBK, LBK Mesolithic groups This archaeological chart shows the cultural sequence in Northern Central Europe from Neolithic through Chalcolithic, with a frontier, between West and East, which like in the previous chart is remarkably stable. As this frontier passes through the French Alsace, exactly where today a line divides the German-speaking minority from the French-speaking population, within the framework of the PCT it can be easily read as the original linguistic frontier separating Celtic from Germanic people. In fact, as can be seen in the chart, the cultural sequence of German Alsace is basically the same as that of southern Germany, gravitating entirely within the orbit of the LBK, while the western sector presents a completely different developmental picture, typical of (Celtic) Northern France. 4.4.3 The cultural sequence in Western Ukraine and in the Pontic Steppes

CHART III: The cultural sequence in Western Ukraine and in the Pontic Steppes Western Ukraine Pontic Steppes Late Chalcolithic Corded Ware, Globular Amphora Catacombs Middle Chalcolithic Gorodsk-Usatovo Yamna (pastoral nomadism) Early Chalcolithic Tripolje AII etc. Serednij (farming, Stog/Chvalynsk fortifications) (pastoralism, horse-riding) Late Neolithic Tripolje AI Dneper-Donec (farming) (pastoralism, horse domestication) Middle Neolithic Bug-Dnestr Sursk-Dneper (farming) (pastoralism)

11

Because of the appearing of the famous kurgan culture in them, the two sequences shown by this chart can be considered as quite well-known also to linguists. In fact, the evident contrast between the farming cultures in Western Ukraine, and the pastoral ones in the Pontic steppes is what moved Marija Gimbutas to envisage the epochal clash between peaceful autochthonous non IE farmers of the Old Europe, and the warlike intrusive IE who submerged them. Colin Renfrew has lucidly demolished this myth, but in my opinion has not given a satisfactory explanation of the contrast, which remains quite evident and important. In the PCT framework this quite conspicuous frontier proves to be the frontier between an already separated and flourishing eastern Slavic population of farmers to the West, and warlike Turkic pastoral nomadic groups to the East, which would be responsible, among other things, of the two innovations of horse raising and horseriding. Linguistically, this new interpretation has the advantage of explaining the antiquity and the quantity of Turkic loanwords precisely for horse terminology in both branches of Samoyed, in the Ugric languages, as well as in Slavic languages (see also further), and, more generally, the quantity of Turkic neolithic terms in South-Eastern European languages, including Hungarian, which would have been brought into its present area precisely by the kurgan culture (Alinei 2003). Interestingly, the uninterrupted continuity of Altaic steppe cultures, from Chalcolithic to the Middle Ages, can be symbolized precisely by the kurgan themselves: for on the one hand, the custom of raising kurgans on burial sites has always been one of the most characteristic features of Altaic steppe nomadic populations, from their first historical appearance to the late Middle Ages. On the other, the Russian word kurgan itself is not of Russian, or Slavic, or IE origin, but is a Turkic loanword, with a very wide diffusion area in Southern Europe, which corresponds to the spread of the kurgan culture (Alinei 2000, 2003, and see further).

A survey of recent theories on the origins of non IndoEuropean languages in Europe

Finally, in order to further enhance the PCT as the winning view on the formation of the historical picture of linguistic Europe, it is also important to see how the origins of the non-Indo-European peoples and languages of Europe are currently seen by the respective specialists. 5.1 Uralic indigenism (Finno-Ugric and Samoyed) As far as the Uralic people and languages are concerned, a new theory of their origins was advanced about thirty years ago and is now universally recognized by linguists as well as archaeologists: it is called the Uralic Continuity Theory (UCT) and claims an uninterrupted continuity of Uralic populations and languages from Paleolithic (Meinander 1973, Nuez 1987, 1989, 1996, 1997, 1998)

12

Fig. 6. Map of Uralic settlements

According to this theory, which historically represents the first claim of uninterrupted continuity of a European people from Paleolithic, Uralic people must belong to the populations of Homo sapiens sapiens coming from Africa, who occupied mid-eastern Europe in Paleolithic glacial times (fig. 6: map on the left), and followed the retreating icecap in Mesolithic, eventually settling in their present territories (map on the right). Needless to say, the PCT is the only model that can offer adequate synchronization of the IE language development with the Uralic one, as conceived by the UCT. It would take too long to illustrate this point adequately. 5.2 Basque indigenism? Recent discoveries The main novelties concerning Basque come from genetics, but also traditional linguistics has recently made a most important discovery. While earlier genetic studies, on the basis of now obsolete methods, saw Basques as an isolated group in Europe, thus enhancing the deeply rooted, traditional idea that the Basques are indigenous, and the Indo-European intruders, recent genetic studies have come to a radically different conclusion. As Bryan Sykes writes: the Basques have long been considered the last survivors of the original hunter-gatherer population of Europe [but they are] as European as any other European; and If the Basques [a]re the descendants of the original Paleolithic hunter-gatherers, then so [a]re most of the rest of us (Sykes 2001, 182). True, this conclusion leaves every alternative open as to who are the indigenous people in Europe, the Basques, the Indo-Europeans, the Uralic, or all of them. A recent linguistic discovery, however, has cast serious doubts on Basque indigenism, at the same time producing evidence for a much greater antiquity of Indo-European than traditionally thought. And to make this discovery even more striking is the circumstance that its author is a well-known traditional IE specialist, Francisco Villar (Villar 2000).

13

In his monograph on Iberian place names and river names the Spanish linguist writes: The deepest and most frequent ethnic and linguistic layer, which the study of place names permits us to detect in Catalonia as well as in the Ebro Valley and in Andalusia, is formed by some very ancient Indo-European populations, which created the first network of river and place names, sufficiently dense as to resist successive language changes and to this date; and precisely that part of Spain, which for the last decennia has been called non-Indo-European, proves to have been the object, paradoxically, of one of the most ancient episodes of the process of indoeuropeanization of the peninsula (Villar 2000, 442). And As far as the Basques are concerned, it is on the contrary unsure whether their presence in the Iberian peninsula was particularly extended or dense. Very few place or people names of Basque etymology can be traced in ancient sources, even in those concerning the historically Basque areas; in these too ancient place and people names have a prevailing IE character (Villar 2001, 229, my translation). While this conclusion does not solve the problem of Basque origins, it does make in any case evident that the old doctrine of Basque indigenism, opposed to IE intrusiveness, can no longer be maintained. 5.3 Altaic indigenism in the Euro-Aasiatic steppes Although the origins of the Altaic (i.e. Turkic and Mongol) people and languages has not yet been the object of serious studies, the common opinion is that their presence in central Asia and eastern Europe should be attributed to a recent migration from an unknown focus (with the usual indifference for the lack of any archaeological evidence supporting this event), replacing an earlier layer of Iranian people, in turn considered also as invaders, submerging the prehistoric presumed pre-IE settlers: the typical scenario of ethnic merry-go-round which characterizes the traditional theory. In my books (Alinei 1996, 2000, 2003), I have argued for Altaic indigenism in Asia and eastern Europe, on the basis among other things of the following points:

Fig 7. Map of steppes

14

(1) Throughout history, the Asiatic steppe area has always been inhabited by Altaic pastoral nomadic populations (fig. 7), characterized, among other things, by the use of funerary mounds called kurgan. (2) The word kurgan funerary mound, which is not only Russian, but is diffused in the whole of South-Eastern Europe (Ru. kurgn, ORu. kurgan, Ukr. kurhn, BRu. kurhan, Pol. kurhan, kurchan, kuran mound; Rumanian gurgan, dial. Hung. korhny), is a loanword from Turkic Tatar: OTc. kuran fortification, Tat., Osm., Kum. kuran, Kirg. and Jagat. koran, Karakirg. koron, all from Turkotat. kuramak fortify, kurmak erect. Its distribution area in Eastern Europe corresponds closely to the spread area of the Yamnaya or kurgan culture in SouthEastern Europe. (3) As is known, the Yamnaya or kurgan culture descends from the steppic culture called Serednyi Stog (for bibliography see Alinei 2000). It is within the latter culture that horse domestication and horse riding took place for the first time (fig. 8).

Fig. 8. Map of SS and K

The most economical and productive hypothesis is then to consider both the Serednyi Stog and the Yamnaya cultures as Turkic, which would imply that Turkic people were the first to have mastered horse domestication, and to have passed it on to the neighboring people. This is confirmed by the presence of Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in both branches (Northern and Southern) of Samoyed and in some Finno-Ugric, the 15

antiquity of which has been proved by specialists, and which imply the antiquity of the Turkic presence in Eastern Europe. For example: (1) From Ancient Tc qapt, OTsh qap- to grab with hands and teeth: ProtoSamoyed (= PSam) *kpt\- to castrate; Sam. kpt\ male castrated reindeer; (2) From Ancient Tc yam the typical caravan-tent of the nomads: PSam *yam, S. yamda- to travel with caravan-tent; (3) From Ancient Tc yunt horse (generic): PSam *yunta horse, Sam. yunt\ idem. (4) From Tat. alaa pack horse (> Tchuv. laa horse), Osm., Crim.-Turk., Kaz., Kar.-Balk. alaa castrated horse: Mari alasa and Mordvin alaa castrated horse. Especially important is the presence of such Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in both branches of Samoyed, as it proves beyond any possible doubt that Turkic horse-riders were present in the area after the split between Samoyed and FinnoUgric the earliest split that occurred in the Uralic phylum, within the framework of the Uralic Paleolithic Continuity certainly datable to the remote prehistory but before the split and the subsequent profound differenciation of the two Northern (Nenets, Enets, Nganasan) and Southern (Selkup, Sayan) Samoyed branches, which would be altogether absurd to date after the presumed arrival of Turkic people in Asia in the 3rd or 4th centuries of our era. This also explains why horse terminology in the European area bordering Asia and in most of Eastern Europe is Turkic (and not IE, nor Iranian!). In Slavic, for example, we have: (1) From Tat. alaa pack horse (> Tchuv. laa horse), Osm., Crim.-Turk., Kaz., Kar.-Balk. Alaa: Ru. load horse, lo colt, loak mule, Ukr. o colt, ok young stallion, Pol. oszak horse, tatar horse, osze (Vasmer s.v., Buck 3.41); (2) From Tu. aygur stallion: Cr., Serb. ajgir, Pol. ogier stallion (Buck 3.42); (3) From an Anatolian word, the three groups of cognate terms, represented by: (A) ORu. komon, OPruss. camnet horse (Lith. kumelys, Latv. kume colt); (B) Cr., Serb. konj horse, castrated horse, Cz. k, Pol. ko horse; (C) Cr., Serb. kobila, Cz., Ru. kobyla mare (cp. Lat. caballus) (Buck 3.41, DELL); (4) From Tchuv. com\t, Kasan Tat. kam\t, Kirg. kamit, Mong. comd; Ru., Ukr., Slovk. chomt horse collar, Bulg. chomt idem, Slovn. homt, Cz. chomout, Pol. chomt, Sorb. chomot, all horse collar. The penetration of this loanword into the Germanic area (Germ. Kummet) as well as in North East Italian dialects, proves the importance of the notion, connected with the beginning of horse riding; In Hungarian and in the other two Ugric languages the main Turkic loanwords related to horse riding and vehicles are: (5) Ug. *luw3 (lue) horse, Mansi low, lo, luw, Khanti log, law etc., Hung. l (dial. lo, lu, l), accus. lovat; Ug. *nrk3 saddle, Mansi nwr, na\r etc., Khanti n\r, Hung. nyerg; Ug. *pkka reins, Mansi behch (17th cent.), Khanti pk 16

etc., Hung. fk; Ug. *sk3r3 vehicle, Khanti liker, ik\r, Hung. szekr (UEW s.vv., cf. Rna-Tas 1999, 97). If IE or Iranian people had been the first horse-riders, as maintained by the traditional theory, we would expect to find a large number of IE or Iranian words also in neighboring areas, instead of this conspicuous series of Turkic loanwords. Also the presence of very ancient Turkic loanwords in Hungarian, recognized by Hungarian scholars and unrelated to horse-riding, proves the antiquity of the Turkic presence in the European area bordering Asia. As is known, many ancient Turkic loanwords in Hungarian are related to farming (corn, barley, plow, wine etc.), stock raising (pig, calf etc.), and to very ancient customs (totemic clan names), which specialists consider prehistoric and date to the period preceding the so called Honfoglals (conquest of the territory). ***

17

Reading the European linguistic record in the light of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory

Coming now to the final, and for linguistics the most important part of my contribution, I will give a few examples of how the rich linguistic record produced by IE scholarship in the last one and half century can be read in the light of the new Paleolithic Continuity paradigm, and at the same of how this new reading compares with the two alternative ones. 6.1 Paleolithic I and other grammatical words Whichever theory one chooses on the origins of IE languages, cognate grammatical words, such as the pronominal forms for I and me, common to all IE languages, should now be considered as to belong to the origins of Homo loquens, and thus to Paleolithic: for they can only represent the awakening of individual conscience. Otherwise, we would have to assume a new discovery of human EGO either in Neolithic or in the Copper Age, a hypothesis that does not deserve a serious discussion. Needless to say, this reading does not tell us anything on the location of the Proto-IndoEuropeans in Paleolithic, but it does constitute firm evidence for the very remote antiquity of PIE. COGNATE GRAMMATICAL PALAEOLITHIC: I ME PIE *eg-, *eg(h)om, *eg Nom. pers. pron. 1st sg. (IEW 291) PIE *meObl. form of pers. pron. 1st sg. (IEW 702) W. fyn Bret. ma Oir. me I W. mi I CELTIC GERM. WORDS ITALIC MUST BELONG ALB. TO BALTOSLAVIC Lith. , Latv. es Opruss. es, as OSlav. az Russ., Pol., Slovn. ja Lith. man, OLith. mi OSlav. mene, m

GREEK eg

Goth. ik Lat. eg OHG. ih Venet. eo PNord. ek, ik OIcel. ek

Goth. mik

Lat. mihi Umbr. mehe Ven. meo Lat. me(d)

emeo, moi, em, me

mua, mue

6.2 From Middle to Upper Paleolithic: the Indo-European names of bear Relevant not only for the antiquity, but also for the location of IE languages is then the following example: some IE languages, such as Sanskrit, Latin and Greek, have preserved the real name of the bear *rko-s, while others have replaced it with different innovations, all clearly connected with a taboo prohibiting to pronounce the animal real name. In both the traditional and in Renfrews model we would have to assume that this substitution process would have taken place either in the Bronze Age for the former, or the Copper Age for the latter. But both of these dates would be 18

preposterous: why would be the bear be tabooed in the Metal Ages, long after hunting had become marginal to production? Much more realistically, the PCT projects the common IE name of the bear in the Middle Paleolithic, that is prior to the beginning of religious beliefs, and the new noa bear names in the Upper Paleolithic, when religious thinking begins and when, incidentally, many forms of bear cult begin to be attested. FROM MIDDLE TO UPPER PALEOLITHIC: THE INDO-EUROPEAN NAMES OF BEAR MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC: Common IE *rko-s bear (cp. Aind. kas, Lat. ursus, Grk. rktos etc.) FIRST ATTESTATIONS OF BEAR CULTIN UPPER PALEOLITHIC The different European names of the bear are typical noa names, replacing the tabooed one, and must thus belong to Upper Paleolithic: CELTIC GERMANIC BALTIC SLAVIC good calf: brown: probably honey eater: hairy: OIr. mathgamain, OIcel. bjorn, Lith. lokys, OSlav. Cr., Serb. Ir. mathghamhain Dan. bjrn, Latv. lacis, medvjed, Cz., (from maith Swed. bjorn, OPruss. Slovn. medved, clokis good and Engl. bear, Pol. niedwied, ghamain calf) Germ. br, Ru. medved, Du. beer, Ukr. medvid etc. 6.3 From Middle to Upper Paleolithic: die and bury IE has a common word for dying, but not for burying. Within the traditional frame, it is difficult to understand why and how this would occur (and this is probably why no discussion of this problem seems to be present in the literature): given the assumption that the kurgan was the typical burial of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, should we not expect a common IE name also for burying? And also in Renfrews model, why would PIE farmers invading Europe and still speaking a common language, have innovated their common word for burial in every single IE area, after their arrival? In the PCT framework, on the contrary, the notion and the word for dying can be quite simply projected in Middle Paleolithic, and therefore seen as belonging to the Common IE, while the notion of burial necessarily belonging to the Upper Paleolithic (when ritual burial began, but IE languages were already differentiated), could only be expressed by different IE words.

19

FROM MIDDLE DIE AND BURY CELTIC

TO GERMANIC

UPPER ITALIC PIE *mer-

PALAEOLITHIC: GREEK BALTO-SLAVIC

MIDDLE to die PIE *mer- PIE *merPAL. UPPER to bury Oir. OIcel. jara, grafa adnaicim PAL. Swed. jorda; W. daearu, Germ. begraben (beginning of Br. douara Du. begraven ritual burial) etc. Engl. bury etc.

PIE *mer- PIE *merLith. (pa)laidoti, pakasti; Latv. aprakt, apbedt; OSlav. pogreti Cr. Serb. Slovn. pokopati Cr. Serb. sahraniti Slovn. skriti etc.

Lat. sepelre Gr. tpt

6.4 Mesolithic: some Indo-European names for tar The production of tar from trees is unanimously considered by archaeologists as a Mesolithic technological innovation. It is then quite significant to note that Celtic, Germanic, Latin/Greek and Balto-Slavic have a different name for tar, though all based on IE roots. The Germanic word tar, teer etc., for example, clearly comes from the common IE word designating tree. In the traditional, as well as in Renfrews scenario, this lexical differentiation cannot be explained: why would PIE, arriving in the Copper Age or in Neolithic, and certainly having a common word for tar, have innovated it in Bronze or Copper Age, when tar played no special role? Within the PCT, in Mesolithic IE languages would have already been differentiated, and at the time of the invention each language would have simply chosen its own word. MESOLITHIC: INDOEUROPEAN NAMES FOR TAR (Production of tar from trees begins in Mesolithic) CELTIC (Gall.-Lat.) betulla birch > bitumen tar GERMANIC PIE *ter tree > Engl. tar, Germ. Teer, Du. teer, Dan. tjre, Swed. tjra, Norw. tjra tar (> Finn. terva) etc.; OIcel. tjorr wooden haft glued to a weapon LATIN GREEK BALTOSLAVIC PIE *smelburn > Latv. smeli, Lith. smel, Bulg., Cr., Cz., Ru., Serb., Slovk., Slovn. smola, Pol., Ukr. smoa

pinus pine ptys pine > pix, picis tar > pssa tar (It. pece, Fr. poix, Sp. Pg. pez, Occ. Cat. pega etc.)

20

6.5 Mesolithic: Indo-European names of the bow Even more absurd is the reading obtained in the traditional and in Renfrews model, for the IE names of the bow, another fundamental invention of Mesolithic. Assuming the existence of a common IE name at the moment of the invasion, either in the Copper age or in Neolithic, what would have caused an inclination to innovate this name everywhere, after the alleged IE invasion, since neither in Neolithic nor in the Metal ages did the bow undergo any special development? Within the PCT, the already differentiated IE languages would have simply developed a different name. MESOLITHIC: INDO-EUROPEAN NAMES OF THE BOW (The bow is a Mesolithic invention) Celtic Bret. gwareg < gwar to bend Germanic *beuga- to bend > Germ. bogen, Engl. bow, Du. boog, Dan. bue, Swed. bge Latin Greek Baltic Lith. lankas cp. lenkti to bend; Latv. stuops < stiept stirare Slavic Oslav. lk, Cr., Cz., Ru., Serb. luk, Pol. uk

txon arcus > It., Sp. arco, Fr., Rum. arc

6.6

Neolithic: *Proto-Slavic *ldo fallow land ~ Proto-Germanic *landaland As is known, English and German land, as well as well as all their numerous cognates in the other Germanic languages, are connected with the Slavic names for fallow land, which in turn are the basis of the Slavic name for Poland and Polish Ru. ljach Polish, Serb. Cr. (obs.) Leanin Polish (> Hung. Lengyel Polish) , motivated as opener of new fields. As etymologists have recognized, the specialized meaning fallow land of Slavic languages must have preceded the more general meaning of land of Germanic ones. Now, while it is evident that this semantic sequence necessarily implies an earlier Neolithic development for the Slavs than for the Germanic people, the traditional scenario makes this implication altogether unconceivable even for Germanic people (not to speak of Slavs!), as we have to assume the arrival of the PIE invaders only in the Copper Age! In Renfrews chronology, although it is not at all clear as to how and when Slavic languages are formed, this priority of Slavic Neolithic over the Germanic LBK is at least possible.

21

NEOLITHIC: *PROTOSLAVIC *LDO FALLOW LAND ~ PROTOGERMANIC *LANDALAND GERMANIC NEOLITHIC A1 SLAVIC Protoslav. *ldo Rodung, Neuland Russ. ljad mit jungem Holz bewachsenes Feld, Neubruch, Rodeland, Ukr. ljado, BRuss. lado Neuland, Cr., Serb. ldina, ledna Neuland, Slovn. ledna, Czech lada, lado Brache, Slovk lado, OSorb. lado Brache etc. Russ. ljach Polish, Cr., Serb. Leanin Polish etc. (> Hung. Lengyel Polish), Germ., Engl., Du., Icel., Norw. Swed. etc. land

NEOLITHIC A2 NEOLITHIC B

From Neolithic enclosure, village to Chalcolithic fortification: zaun town dunum; hortus garten grad The semantic development from enclosure, garden, through town to fortification occurs twice in Europe, in two partially overlapping areas, and with two different lexical families, as shown by the following Table. FROM NEOLITHIC FORTIFICATION ENCLOSURE, VILLAGE TO CHALCOLITHIC BALTO-SLAVIC Lith. gardas enclosure, OSl. grad, Bulg. gra, Cr. Serb. graa, Slovn. (acc.) grja, Ru. gora, Ukr. Bru. hora all enclosure; Cz. hrze garden-wall, Slovk. hrdza idem, Pol. grodza hedge, OSlav. grad, ograd, OSlav. Bulg. etc. gradina Pol. ogrd, Cz. zahrada, Ru. ogorod, all garden 22

6.7

CELTIC GERMANIC-1 EARLY NEOL. Germ. zaun enclosure, hedge dial. Engl tine enclose, enclosure, OIcel. tn enclosure, dial. Swed. tun idem etc., Du. tuin garden, orchard, OEngl. tun garden

GERM.-2 Germ. Garten, Engl. garden, AIcel. garr hedge, garden

GREEK, ITALIC Grk. chrtos hedge, court; Lat. hortus orchard

NEOL.

Engl. town, OIcel. tn town

CHALC. Gallic dunum fort

OSlav. grad, Cr.Serb. Slovn. grad, Czech hrad, Pol. grd, Sorb. grod, Ru. grod, Ukr. hrod, all town OSlav. grad, Ru. grad, Czech hrad, Pol. grd; Cr., Serb. grdina, Slovn. gradna, Bulg. gradite, Czech hradite, Ru. gorodie, all castle, fortification

Now the first part of this semantic sequence (from enclosure to garden and to village) can be explained adequately only if placed against a Neolithic scenario, while the subsequent passage to fortification is a typical development of the Metal Ages. However, in the framework of the traditional scenario the whole semantic sequence does not make any sense, as no cultural development of this kind can be witnessed after the Copper Age. To make it even more difficult, the areal distribution of both word families implies a direct, territorial continuity from Neolithic to Metal Ages. Also in Renfrews model the sequence cannot be explained in any precise and satisfactory way, since the formation of Slavic languages within the Balkanic Neolithic Complex is left to the imagination, and more important that of the Celts in the West remains just as problematic and contradictory as in the traditional model. Only in the PCT is there is a perfect coincidence between the two sets of data: the grad sequence, in the Slavic area, corresponds exactly to the extraordinary stability and continuity of Neolithic cultures in South-Eastern Europe, characterized first by tells formation (the only ones in Europe!), and later by fortified villages. While the appearance of only the initial stages of the sequence in Latin hortus and Germanic Garten/garden corresponds with a much less stable Neolithic in both areas. Also the Celtic development (dunum) fits the model, as it would show the dependence of Celtic Neolithic on the Germanic LBK, and the originality of the Celtic contribution to the cultural development of Western and Central Europe in the Metal Ages.

The Slavic ethnogenesis in the framework of the PCT1

7.1 Introduction Three preliminary remarks are in order: (A) the Slavic area corresponds to almost half of Europe. As such it is the continents largest, and the only one that includes three climatic zones (subarctic, continental and Mediterranean) and almost all ecological zones: arctic, tundra, coniferous forest, mixed forest, steppe-forest, steppe, semi-desertic, Mediterranean, alpine. (B) In spite of their huge extension, Slavic languages are much less differentiated than, for example, the Germanic or the Romance.
1

This section summarizes parts of the two chapters of my book (Alinei 2000) devoted to the Slavic area.

23

(C) Slavic languages have also a unique, asymmetric areal distribution: while Southern Slavic languages (Slovenian, Serbian, Croatian, Macedonian and Bulgarian) form a homogeneous bloc, sharing several common features, for Northern Slavic languages it is necessary to distinguish between a Western branch (including Czech, Sorbian and Polish), and an Eastern one (including Russian, Ucrainian and Belo-Russian), as each of the two branches shares different features with Southern Slavic. An adequate theory of Slavic ethnogenesis will have to provide a satisfactory and coherent explanation for these three fundamental aspects of Slavic: enormous extension, extraordinary homogeneity, and areal asymmetry between South and North. 7.2 The traditional theory of Slavic ethnogenesis The old version of the traditional theory assumed, as is known, the arrival of the Slavs in historical times, following their alleged great migration in the 5th and 6th centuries of our era, from an unknown area. It claimed that this is the reason for their large extension and phenomenal homegenity. Even though this radical thesis is now maintained only by a minority (represented by Schenker), its more recent, variously modified version, at present favoured by the majority of Slavists, does not differ substantially from it: for what is now admitted is simply the presence of the Slavs in the Bronze and Iron Age in a small area of Eastern Europe. So that the arrival of the Slavs is now placed eralier, i.e. in the Bronze or in the Iron Age, while the great migration would still have taken place in historical times. In short, only the last, huge wave of the Slavic migration would be dated so recently. Though as we have seen in the preceding sections the real cause for the assumption of such a short chronology for the origins of the Slavs lies in the ignorance of some basic modern developments concerning both linguistics and other historical sciences, Slavic specialists tend to justify it also by appealing to the recent dates of the earliest attestations of Slavic languages (9th century, when the missionaries Cyril and Methodius invented the glagolitic alfabet (from which derives the cirillic one), and translated parts of the Bible and of the orthodox lithurgy into what is called Church Slavic), as well as those of the earliest mentions of Slavic people, in the works of the historians of the 5th and 6th centuries. However, overwhelming evidence, which I have illustrated in detail in my books (Alinei 1996, 2000), proves that the date of the earliest attestations and the earliest mentions of historians have absolutely no relevance for the problem of dating the birth of a language or of a people. Writing is an entirely separate phenomenon from speaking, connected as it is to the forming of highly developed stratified societies, with a dominating elite needing writing to exercise its full power, and thus to a very recent development of European history. Its appearance can thus vary from place to place. To give only three examples: (i) Baltic and Finnic languages are attested much later than Slavic, yet nobody even among traditionalists has ever thought that Baltic has arrived into Europe around that time; (ii) for Finnic, the Uralic Continuity Theory now universally accepted (see above) claims a Palaeolithic origin; (iii) even more absurdly, the first attestations or the first mentions in writings of most European substandard dialects belong to modern times, yet nobody dares think they have arrived or formed so recently. Therefore, we cannot consider the argument of the earliest attestations and earliest mentions as a serious one. We will return to this point further. As to the prehistoric presence of Slavs in Europe, for a long time the preferred theory was that the earliest Slavs could be identified with the so called Lusacian culture 24

of the Middle and Final Bronze and Iron age, typical of the Polish area and forming a part of the Urn Fields area (see for ex. Neustupn-Neustupn 1963, 195). At present most specialists agree (cp. Mallory 1989, 78) with slight variations on the opinion that the minimal area occupied by Slavs in the Iron or Bronze Age is that indicated for example by Bruer (1961 I, 29): from Eastern Galice to the upper Don, through Volinia, Podolia, the area on the two shores of Middle Dneper (Kiev, ernigov), Poltava, Kursk and Orel. To the North would live the Balts, and to the North of the Balts the Finnic people. To the South there would be Iranians (Scythians) and (from the 7th century on) Sarmatians. On the Black Sea the coastal cities would be Greek and to the East of the Slavs the Iranians would extend to the Uralic Mordvins, in the area of Tambov. For Mallory, the area would be slightly larger, i.e. between the Elbe and Middle Dneper (Mallory 1989, 78). The earliest horizon to which Mallory arrives is that of the Trzciniec culture, of the Middle Bronze (second third of the 2nd millennium), extending from the Oder to the Middle Dneper, and sharing the main features of the Corded Ware and Battle Axe Culture. In this vision he follows many Polish and Russian scholars, who give particolar attention not only to the Trzciniec culture, but also to Battle Axe cultures such as those of Komarovo in the Carpathian area, and of Belugrudovo in Ucraine, on the Dneper (cp. Telegin 1994, 403-405). These cultures are considered the origin of the Lusacian one, so that we could say that in comparison with the preceding generation, present scholars have gone one step down in the archaological stratigraphy, reaching the earliest possibile level permitted by the general chronology of the kurgan canonic theory. Despite the controversy on Trzciniec (which Gimbutas and Baltic scholars claim for themselves!), Mallory concludes: It is difficult to deny that there existed a geographical centre weighted between the Vistula and Dnieper which is most commonly agreed to be Proto-Slavic and which appears to display a continuity of cultural development from about 1500 BC (or earlier) to the historical appearance of the earliest Slavic peoples (Mallory 1989, 81). In more general terms, Mallory admits that A long geographical stasis for the Slavs [...] is probably the model that would be most readily accepted by linguists who see in the Slavic language group little reason to assume that they have moved much since their development from Proto-IndoEuropean (Mallory 1989, 81)2. Before Trzciniec, in short, we would have the mysterious realm of the OldEuropeans, all speaking one or more pre-IE languages. 7.3 Objections to the traditional theory Let us now test this theory against the three points we have made at the outset: the enormous extension, the extraordinary homogeneity and the geographical asymmetry of the Slavic languages. And let us begin by the last point, which I think has gone unnoticed by traditional scholars. 7.3.1 The areal asymmetry of the Slavic areal distribution As a specialist in geolinguistics, I have always been surprised by the fact that Slavic specialists have failed in noticing or appreciating the extraordinary diagnostic value from a geolinguistic point of view of the asymmetric configuration of the Slavic area. Even more so since the cause of this asymmetry is quite well-known, and explicitly stated in all handbooks for first-year students of Slavic: Northern Slavic does not form a
2

For a similar position see Andersen (1993, 443).

25

single unit, but each of its two branchings the Western and the Eastern shares different features with Southern Slavic. Now, from a geolinguistic point of view, there is just one explanation possible for this peculiar and transparent areal configuration: Southern Slavic must form the earlier core, while the two Northern branchings must be a later development, each with its proper history and identity. No other explanation is possible, unless one challenges the very raison detre of IE and Proto-Slavic reconstruction, besides common sense. Needless to say, this simple remark demolishes the whole construction of the Slavic homeland in Middle Eastern Europe and of the Slavic migration in traditional terms, as well as all of its corollaries. But let us check the other two points, before developing it further within the framework of the PCT. 7.3.2 The Slavic enormous expansion The only evidence for a great migration of Slavs in historical times that traditional scholars can possibly claim lies in a literal reading of the mentions of medieval historians, such as the Thracian Priscus of Panion (5th century), the Greek Procopius of Cesarea (6th century) and the Goth Jordanes (6th century), or those of the Church (e.g. Conte 1990, 33-34). But it is quite evident that such mentions do not point unambiguously to an invasion or migration of Slavs, but can just as simply be taken as to refer to pre-existing Slavs, the presence of which even traditional scholars now admit. When, for example, John of Ephesos, bishop of Constantinopolis under Justinian (527-65) mentions the innumerable raids into the Bizantine territori by the damned people of the Slavs he damns them because they were still pagan, and not because they are arriving! And when, in his De rebus Gethicis Jordanes describes the location of the Venedi, and writes that they inhabited the area From the source of the Visla river and on incommensurable expanses, he does not give the slightest indication of a recent arrival of theirs, but simply describes a statu quo. And I challenge Slavic specialists to find any indication of a recent arrival of the Slavs in their area in other medieval sources. Not only, but when earlier historians, living in the centuries preceding the supposed arrival of the Slavs, write that the population of the Carpatian Basin offered a drink called medos (Proto-Slavic med drink produced with honey) the Byzantine ambassadors directed to the court of Attila (king of the Huns), and that a part of the funeral rituals for Attilas death was called strava (medieval name of a Slavic funeral ritual), only a biased reader can find evidence in this for the first infiltrations of Slavs in the Carpatian area, especially as they seem to have left not trace of their coming! (Neustupn-Neustupn 1963, 196). The much simpler truth is that the Slavs were there from remote times. For, again, the first mention of peoples in writing depends on the birthday of writing, and not on the birthday of peoples! In short, if such an enormous expansion of the Slavs both to the South and to the North from their alleged homeland in Middle-Eastern Europe had really taken place, the most important evidence we should expect to find would be archaeological. Which is entirely missing. Just as we miss any discussion of this point in Mallorys book and certainly not by accident, given the fact that Mallory is an archaeologist. I fail to see, then, how an archaeologist can advance the hypothesis of a massive expansion that involves half of Europe, and is capable of entirely changing its linguistic identity, without the slightest archaeological evidence: unless it is a curious case of underestimation of ones own science. 26

Another fundamental objection to this thesis lies in the fact that, following the traditional scenario, we would have to assume that this great migration involved also the Southern Slavic area: an absolute impossibility, as we have just seen. If there has been a migration, it must have proceded from South northwards. A third, fundamental objection to this thesis is the contradiction between the idea of a medieval migration and the total disappearance of the presumed pre-existing languages. Not even modern mass migration and colonization, despite the enormous technological and cultural difference between the migrants and the indigenous people, have caused the total extinction of all autocthonous languages in the New World. The ideal of the extinction of all alleged pre-Indo-European languages because of a Copper Age IE migration is already hard enough to admit, given the same reason, plus the fact that research on pre-Indo-European has never produced any serious result (Alinei 1996, 2000). How can we accept such an idea for the Early Middle Ages, and for the highly civilized areas of Southern Eastern prehistoric Europe? What and where would the preIndo-European substrate be in Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia? Unless we associate this late migration to a gigantic genocide a phantascientific hypothesis this hypothesis does not belong to serious scientific thinking. 7.3.3 The homogeneity of the Slavic languages Unquestionably, the homogeneity of the Slavic languages, which contrasts so strikingly with the internal differentiation of Germanic, Romance and Celtic, for example, can only be explained in two ways: by positing: (A) a very high degree of cultural and social stability for a very long period, or (B); a most rapid expansion of the Slavs, the tempo of which would have prevented the original Slavic language (Proto-Slavic) from changing in the new areas. Something like what happened, for instance, to the English language of the Pilgrims when they migrated to America, for its rapid expansion into the new continent produced much fewer dialectal differences despite its enormous area than, say, British English shows in the island of England. The traditional theory was indeed coherent with this approach, when it assumed the arrival of the Slavs in historical times, following their great migration. This scenario did indeed involve a sort of blitz-invasion of most Eastern Europe, which in turn would explain the homogeneity of the Slavic languages as they are now. But in the modified scenario now current for Slavic specialists, envisaging a chronological gap of two millennia from the first arrival in the Bronze age, and the later migration of historical times, how can this argument still hold? Rather than beeing stable, the two millennia of the Bronze, Iron Age and the beginning of our era form on the contrary one of the most turbulent periods of European prehistory, protohistory and history: Celts, Greeks, Romans, Illyrians and other people (including Slavs themselves, if we accept this theory!), were constantly on the war path, occupying other peoples territories, and greatly influencing their languages and cultures, as the numerous Celtic, Greek and Latin loanwords in the Slavic languages abundantly witness. 7.3.4 The demographic explosion of the Slavs, preceding their great migration Neither version of the traditional theory can provide a satisfactory answer to the twofold question underlying the hypothesis of the great Slavic migration in the Early Middle Ages: What prehistorical or historical circumstances would have brought the Slavic people first to their demographic explosion and then to their great migration, both of 27

which made them into the dominating population of Eastern Europe, from North to South, and the most numerous group in Europe? Neither archaeology nor history gives us the slightest piece of evidence for such events which, as we have already noticed, would have caused nothing less than the almost total disappearance of the previous populations and of their languages. Notice that we followed the traditional theory we wold have to assume not only that the Proto-IE people would arrive with the kurgan culture from the Ukrainian steppes, in the Copper Age, while the Slavs would arrive in Central Eastern Europe in the Bronze Age; but also, and especially, that after their arrival they would multiply like ants, and would then occupy almost the whole of Eastern Europe, from the arctic area and the tundra to the shores of the Black Sea. Can such a preposterous thesis be in all seriousness advanced, in the 21st century, with the progress made in so many scientific fields such as archaeology, anthropology, general linguistics, and without a single piece of evidence? If we then also recall that the core area of the Slavs was the South and not the North as the geolinguistic picture irrefutably indicates what remains of this construction? The diagnostic value of the etymological semantic change from Slav to slave A last argument against the traditional view of the Slavic ethnogenesis, and in my opinion just as strong as it is new, can be found in the historical events involving Slavs in the very period of their historical appearance in Europe. As is known, most western European words designating the notion of slave derive from the Latin word sclavus, originally meaning Slavic: not only English slave, but also German Sklave, Dutch slaaf, Danish slave, Swedish slaaf, Welsh slaf, Breton sklav, French esclave, Spanish esclavo, Portuguese escravo, Italian schiavo, Albanian skllaf, Modern Greek sklavos, etc. The word has also entered Spanish Arabic, where it has become saklabi or siklabi, plural sakaliba, with the meaning of eunuch. In Italy, Lat. sclavus has developed into schiavo in the dialect of Florence, which eventually has become standard Italian. But in Northern Italian dialects, in particular in the dialects of Veneto, through regular phonetic developments, sclavus Slav as well as slave has become first sciavo, then sciao, and finally ciao, the Italian informal greeting, now internationally known3. As to the semantic change from the notion of slave to a simple greeting, it can be easily explained by comparing the very similar development by which in certain parts of central Europe the word servus, originally meaning servant, has become a common greeting. Why is all of this important for the traditional theory of the ethnogenesis of the Slavs? Because of the passage from the meaning of Slav to the notion of slave, and its great historiacl significance. Let us see this in greater detail. There is a whole collection of medieval sources, which would take too long to list, but which have been systematicaly studied by the three fundamental studies on the history of Lat. sclavus (Aebischer 1936, Verlinden 1943, 1955), which shows that the earliest attestations of the word sclavus date back to the Early Middle Ages: precisely when the Slavs, in the traditional scenario, should undertake their great migration. Indeed we find the meaning slave associated to the word sklavos sklavus generally
Interestingly, the same development, but completely independent of the Northern Italian one, took place in South Eastern Italian dialects, where schiau has the same origin and the same meaning as ciao. Notice that South Eastern Italy was also an area of very early Slavic influence, through importation of slaves (cp. Aebischer 1936, 487).
3

7.3.5

28

used in Byzantine Greek and Late Latin documents of the 10th century of our era, and most philologists and historians who have discussed the problem are inclined to read slave instead of Slav in many earlier attestations. Still earlier, the first attestations of the word in the sense of Slavic can also be found in Greek, in the 6th century of our era. According to Vasmer himself, for example, the attestation of sclavos in Agathias (6th century) already has the meaning of slave (Aebischer 1936, 485). How do scholars explain the semantic development from Slavic to slave? All historical sources irrefutably show that the Slavic area was the main reservoir of slaves in the whole period of Early Middle Ages, beginning probably in the 6th century, and with a peak around the 10th. This preference for slaves of Slavic origin so strong as to make Slavs the slaves by anthonomasia has been easily explained: in that period Slavic people were the only ones who were still pagan, and this detail is most important as it explains why, by choosing them, early medieval slave traders mostly Venetian, Genoese and Jewish did not violate the new principles of the Societas christiana, introduced by Pope Gregory the Great at the end of the 6th century, according to which baptized people must be excluded from slavery. So we obtain a safe dating for the word sclavus, in the sense of slave, which will be approximately the period between the sixth and tenth centuries. Now, as this period is precisely the one in which the supposed great migration of the Slavs should take place, the question arises: how can huge migrating groups that were supposed to be aggressively busy occupying half of Europe, from the Arctic area to the Black Sea, submerging and extinguishing all previous populations, have at the same time been chosen as the European slaves par excellence? This would clash against all that we know and that history abundantly shows , about the characters of ethnic and racial groups systematically reduced to slavery. In fact, if Slavs in the Early Middle Ages became the historical slaves of Europe, this implies that in that period, rather than being migrating to new territories and exterminating pre-existing people, they were known to have beeen stable in their territories, to be hard workers, and especially to be without much possibility to defend themselves from slave raiders and slave owners. Without leaving the traditional theory, we now move to the most recent variant of it. 7.4 Trubaevs theory A place a part deserves the theory of the Russian scholar Oleg Trubaev, certainly one of the most serious and original Slavists of our times, and author of a not yet completed monumental etymological dictionary of Slavic languages. Though his theory, unfortunately, does not completely abandon the traditional chronological framework, its structural components, as we shall see, are new and come very close to the PCT. 7.4.1 Extension to South of the Proto-Slavic homeland Trubaevs main thesis, which mutatis mutandis forms the basis of the PCT, is that prehistoric Slavs occupied not only the middle area of Central Europe, but also the Danube basin. Several arguments, to be added to mine, have led him to this conclusion: (1) The version about the Slavs coming from somewhere originated long time ago in a misunderstanding of the silence of the Greek and Roman authors about the Slavs as such (Trubaev 1985, 227). Trubaev here refers to the old version of the traditional theory, according to which Slavs would have arrived in the 6th century.

29

(2) The absence of any memory of the arrival of the Slavs in the Slavic written or oral record may be an indication of their (and their ancestors!) original stay in Central Oriental Europe in large numbers (idem, 206). (3) Both in the oldest, 12th century Russian chronicle (the so called Narration of the past times) (Conte 1990, 9), and in the oral tradition represented by Russian byliny, the permanence of Slavs on the Danube is remembered (Trubaev 1985, 204-5). What else, if not a memory of the old stay on the Danube, appears [...] in the old songs about the Danube among the Eastern Slavs who, it should be remembered, never lived on the Danube [...] during their written history and never took part in the Balcanic invasions of the Early Middle Ages (ibidem). More over, already B.A. Rybakov had maintained that the history of Eastern Slavs began in the South (idem, 225). The Middle Dneper area remains important, but it is not excluded that in some previous period [...] [it] was only a [peripheral] part of a greater and otherwise shaped territory. This would be also confirmed y the high percentage of anthropological Mediterranean types among Eastern Slavs and Poles (idem, 225, n. 20). In fact, in the middle of the first millennium the Right Bank Ukraine must already be a part of the periphery of the ancient Slavic area (idem, 242). (4) Many scholars have anticipated Trubaevs thesis: Budimir, supported by numerous ex-Yugoslavian scholars, claimed a greater proximity of Ancient Slavs to the Balkanic region than traditionally thought; Kopitar sought the Proto-Slavic homeland on the Danube and in Pannonia; Niederle admitted the existence of Slavic enclaves in Thracia and in Illyiria already at the beginning of our era; and both Niederle and afrik considered as Slavic terms like Vulka, Vrbas, Tsierna e Pathissus (s. further) (idem, 223, 227, 229). (5) According to Trubaev, even the historian Jordanes collocation of the Veneti to the North of the Sclaveni, and Anti to their East, implies the Slavic presence in the South (idem, 228). (6) Hungarian place names, in Pannonia and on the Tisza, are Slavic, as J. Stanislav has demonstrated (idem, 228). The regions river names, such as Tisza (Rum. Tisa, Germ. Theiss, to be compared with Plinius place name Pathissus, composed with the Slavic prefix po-; Maros (Rum. Mure, in Herodotus Mris, from PIE *mori sea, but with a Slavic suffix); the suffix -s, common to river names such as Szamos (Rum. Some) and Temes, certainly derives from a Slavic suffix -sjo- (idem, 228-9). (7) Trubaev then underlines the importance of the contacts between common Slavic and the different IE linguistic groups, and of the respective isoglosses (often, however, without being able to exploit them owing to the traditional chronology!): (a) The Slavo-Latin isoglosses, appearing in the social sphere (Lat. hospes ~ Slav. *gospod, Lat. favere ~ Slav. *govti), in the construction terminology (Lat. struere ~ Slav. *strojiti), in that of landscape (Lat. paludes ~ Slav. *pola voda); of agriculture (Lat. pomum < *po-emom ~ Slav. *pojmo (Russ. pojmo handful) (idem, 216. And see also 217: grn, kladivo, molty). Within the PCT these isoglosses can be dated, at the latest, to the beginning of Neolithic, when the contacts between the Italid culture of the Cardial/Impresso Ware on the Adriatic Eastern coast and the South Slavic Starevo culture were certainly very close. (b) The Slavo-Illyrian isoglosses (Doksy, Czech place name, Daksa, Adriatic island, and Hesichius gloss: Epirotic dksa; Dukla, mountain pass in the Carpatians, Duklja in Montenegro, Doklea (Ptolemy); Licicaviki, Polish tribal name, to be compared to Illyr. *Liccavici (Illyr. anthroponym Liccavus, Liccavius) and Southern Slavic place name Lika (Trubaev 1985, 217-8). These isoglosses can be better explained in the light of the PCT, as from this vantage point the Illyrians were not only a people contiguous to the 30

Slavs, but , later, they also formed an elite group that dominated a part of the Southern Slavic territory for a period. (c) Slavo-Iranian contacts, which, as we have seen, according to Trubaev should not precede the middle of the 1st millennium (idem, 241). (8) Criticizing the excessive restriction of the earliest Slavic area Trubaev finally recalls Brckners humorous warning: Dont do to anybody what would not please you. The German scholars would love to drown all the Slavs in the Pripet swamps, and the Slavic scholars all the Germans in the Dollart [] a quite pointless endeavour: there would not be enough room for them; better drop the matter and dont spare Gods light for either of them (idem, 206). 7.4.2 The problem of the Balto-Slavic relationship Trubaev also discusses at length the various theories on the Balto-Slavic relationship and maintains in my opinion quite rightly that any serious theory on Slavic ethnogenesis must first address the problem of the relationhip between Baltic and Slavic (Trubaev 1985, 210). He does not support the newest of such theories, namely the one that considers Baltic as a the earliest stage of Slavic but, on the basis of the evident discontinuity between the two groups, and of their remarkable differences in lexicon, phonetics and morphology, he prefers the oldest theory of an earlier unity of the languages, with successive, secondary relationships and contacts of a different type (idem, 212). Very important, however, and in my opinion pointing rather to the newest theory of Slavic derivation from Baltic than to oldest theory of an ancient unity, are Trubaevs remarks on the affinities, sometime extraordinary, between Baltic and Thracian place names: e.g. the Thr. river name Krss ~ OPruss. Kerse; Thr. town name Edessa ~ Balt. Vedosa, river of the high Dneper; Thr. Zaldapa ~ Lith. eltup etc. (idem, 215, with more examples). Irrespective of the chronology, this similarity seems to enhance the thesis of a derivation of Slavic from Baltic and would permit a new approach and a new solution of the Thracian problem (s. further). From a geolinguistic point of view, in any case, it would be perfectly plausible that the Thracian area in the South and the Baltic area in the North would have formed the periphery of the Slavic area (where the archaic phase, as usual, would have been preserved), whereas the center of the area (again, as usual in geolinguistics) would have been the most innovative, i.e. the most influenced by the various adstrata and superstrata. 7.4.3 Baltic and Slavic place names As is known, Trubaevs research on Slavic and Baltic place names is fundamental, and seems to confirm a substancial coincidence between the Slavic earliest area and the area where place names are exclusively or prevailingly Slavic. First of all, the Baltic character of river names of the Upper Dneper would exclude the Slavic presence to the North of the Pripet. The area of maximal Slavic concentration would be that between the Oder and the Dneper area (idem, 206). Trubaev, however, also expresses important methodological reservations, on the unconditional use of place names for the determination of an original ethnic area. The most homogenous toponomastic areas are often those of recent colonization, and not those of the earliest settlements (idem, 209, con bibl.). Also within the framework of Krahes so called ancient European river names (and similarly Schmidts, Udolphs and others, 220 ff.), the specific Slavic contribution has now been ascertained (ibidem), which allows us to state with absolute certainty that Slavs were present in Eastern Europe from ancient times. Needless to say, 31

ancient for Trubaev does not have the same meaning as for the PCT, but once the myth of the IE invasion has been eliminated, Trubaevs argument remains valid, and the adjustment of chronology follows automatically. Fundamental, to show how close he comes to the PCT, is the following statement: We find the compact IE onomastic area only in Europe, and that the diagnostic value of this fact for the problem of the localization of the Proto-Indo-Europeans can hardly be overestimated (idem 223). To conclude, Trubaev is mistaken only with regrads to the basic question, namely that which opposes continuity to invasion, as appears from his agreement with Bknyi: I agree, in general, with the opinion that ... there is no reason to admit the development in the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods of linguistic communities whose traces survive till historical times (idem, 244, quotation from Bknyi 1978, 16). The truth is, as we have seen, that the PCT has very strong arguments, both interdisciplinary and linguistic, to admit such a development, and to advance a theory of Slavic ethnogenesis quite similar to that by Trubaev, but much more concrete and realistic, in that it shows a much greater convergence with the archaeological record and with the global cultural anthropological picture. 7.5 The Slavic ethnogenesis in the PCT

7.5.1 Palaeolitic and Mesolitihc I omit an illustration of human settlements in Eastern Europe in the Upper Palaeolitic, as well as in the last phases of Wrm glaciation and at the beginning of the Post-glacial (ca. 11000-7000 b.C.) (Tringham 1971, 36), and I begin with Mesolithic: the first period in which the archaeological record permits to reconstruct an adequate global picture of Europe. According to the majority of archaeologists, the different lithic industries of East-European Mesolthic can be attributed to two different human populations (e.g. Tringham 1971, 36-7), corresponding to the two basic cultures of Eastern Europe: the South-West of Eastern Europe, characterized by the microlithic industry (sometimes improperly called tardenoisian), common to the rest of Europe, and the Northern part of Eastern Europe, characterized by the Swiderian industry (e.g. Sulimirski 1970, 30 ff.). As I have recalled above, Uralic specialists, both archaeologists and linguists, see the Swiderian culture as coinciding with the definitive settlements of the Uralic groups in Northern Europe, so that if we take this as a solid assumption (which it seems to be, given the uninterrupted continuity of this area with later cultures which have been attributed with certainty to the different Uralic groups) the microlithic culture, common to the rest of Europe, could only be considered as corresponding to the sphere of IE influence in Mesolithic. Naturally, both in Palaeolithic and in Mesolithic it is necessary to consider the consequences that the glaciations first and the deglaciation later must have had on the distribution of populations. When the glacial cap covered North-Eastern Europe, the Northern frontier of the Uralic as well as of the Balto-Slavic groups of the North must have been somewhere in Middle Eastern Europe (see fig. 6 above); their Southern frontier, however, would have still be formed by the Black Sea, the Greek peninsula and the Adriatic. In this more restricted area, Balto-Slavs and Uralic people would have been side to side, the former in the West, the latter in the East. Within the Balto-Slavic area, the Balts would have occupied the Northern part, by definition more isolated and conservative. If we then project Proto-Greeks on the Greek peninsula (given the certainty of the Greek presence in the Mycenean Greece of the 2nd millennium b.C, the numerous stratigraphies showing continuity from Neolithic to 32

Bronze, the stability of the Greek Neolithic shown by the formation of tells, and the uninterrupted continuity, from Upper Palaeolithic to the Final Neolithic, shown by the recently discovered Franchthi stratigraphy); and if we recognize also in the tells of the Southern Slavic area a guarantee of uninterrupted continuity from Neolithic on (s. further), we must then necessarily see only the Northern frontier of the Balto-Slavic area as fluctuating, as it would be conditioned by the glacial cap and by the mobile character of Mesolithic hunting and gathering populations. In the postglacial scenario (that of human populations following the retreat of the ice, already admitted for Uralic people), we could immagine the Balts settling on the shores of the now formed Baltic Sea, with the Slavs behind them, and the Uralic people ahead of them proceding north-eastwards. The Slavic postglacial area would then form a kind of triangle, the Southern corner of which would correspond to Macedonia, the western frontier of which would pass along the Italid Dalmatia, and delimit the rest of ex-Yugoslavia, Hungary, exCzechoslovakia, and Southern Poland, and the Eastern frontier of which would delimit Bulgaria, Romania, Western Ukraine, Belorussia and parts of Middle Russia. Northern neighbors of the Slavs would be Balts and Uralic people, South-Western neighbors the Italids of Dalmatia, of the Eastern Alps and of a Po Valley much larger than now, emerging from Northern Adriatic. North-Western neighbors would be Germans, while on the Eastern side their neighbors would be Altaic and, much later, Iranian elites (parts of the Scythians). The slight differentiation of Slavic languages and the demographic increase of Slavic people as consequences of the stability and the success of South-Eastern European Neolithic cultures In contradiction with Renfrews main thesis, prehistorians of South-Eastern Europe never miss to underline that in most cases it is possible to ascertain the continuity of Neolithic cultures from Mesolithic (see further). Moreover, they remark that for a long time the two economies could have coexisted in the same area, as Mesolithic hunters and gatherers lived on the river and the lakes shores, on sand dunes or at the foot of mountains, avoiding precisely the lss plains that were chosen by farmers (Tringham 1971, 35). The synchronism and the complementarity of the two economies enhances thus the thesis of the linguistic unity of the area, and of its continuity from Mesolithic. In the light of this consideraton we can then address the most conspicuous problems of the Slavic ethnogenesis, represented by the enormous span of their area, by the demographic density underlying it, and by the little differentiation of their languages. And we have already seen that it is impossible, without falling into flagrant contradictions, to attribute these aspects to a historical migration of the Slavs. Within the PCT framework this problems, in all of its complexity, can easily be solved in total harmony with the archaeological record, simply by recalling the main features of Neolithic cultures of South-Eastern Europe. First of all, as it is known, the process of the neolithization of Europe began precisely in the Balkanic peninsula, first in the Aegean area and then inland, in the middle of the 7th millennium. From here, in the course of about 2500 years, the new economy spread along the Danube, to reach Eastern and Central Europe by the 5th millennium b.C. But the first, great Neolithic cultural complex of the Balkans, with all its subsequent developments, is usually subdivided in three main groups (see e.g. Lichardus and Lichardus 1985, 242, 253, 311 ff.), which can be identified, with greater or lesser ease, with as many linguistic groups: 7.5.2

33

(1) The Thessalian and Southern Macedonian culture of Proto-Sesklo, followed by Sesklo and Dimini, identifiable with the Greek group; (2) The Painted Ware cultures of Anzabegovo-Vrnik in Northern Macedonia, Starevo in Serbia, Krs/Cri in Hungary and Romania, and Karanovo I in Bulgaria; followed later by Vina (Serbia, Hungary and Romania), Veselinovo (Bulgaria), Dudeti e Boian (Romania), identifiable with Southern Slavic; (3) The Albanian Painted Ware cultures of Vashtemi-Podgornie e Kolsh, followed by those of akran and the more recent Maliq, to the last of which Albanian prehistorians themselves attribute the origins of Illyrian. The fact that these three cultural facies originally formed a unitary block, far from representing an objection to the identification of three different language groups, provides, rather, a further argument in its favour. Since this original block, in fact, represents the earliest neolithized area of Europe, where the impact of the new economy introduced by the Asiatic farmers must have been the greatest, the new Balkanic culture would have first submerged the pre-existing ethnolinguistic frontiers; and in a second phase, by the time the indigenous Mesolithic populations began to actively participate in the adoption of the new economy, the old ethnolinguistic frontiers would emerge again with the succcessive cultures. Which would of course reflect the original frontiers between Greeks, Slavs and Illyrians. More over, as we shall see shortly, the original homogeneity of this Neolithic Balkanic block can also explain the formation of the so called Balkanic Sprachbund, characterized by a number of peculiar Geek, Albanian, Southern Slavic and Rumanian isoglosses, until now without any satisfactory explanation. These isoglosses can be much more rationally placed in this Neolithic complex rather than in a modern context, and their coming into existence could be connected with the first wave of foreign migrants from the Middle East. Returning now to the strikingly low degree of differentiation of Slavic languages, let us recall that one of the most conspicuous phenomenon of the Balkanic Neolithic is the formation of the so called tells. As is known, tells are artificial hills, typical of the Arab (whence the name) and Iranian (called then tepe) areas, produced by the agglomeration of debris of prehistorical and proto-historical villages on the same site. In the South-Eastern area, these formation are called, locally or as place names, magula or tumba in Greece, mogila in Bulgaria, gmila/mgila in Serbia, gamle/mgule in Albania. But the word, with the meaning of tumulus, tumb, is diffused also in the rest of the Slavic area slava (Russ. mogla, Ukr. moha, Slovn. gomla, Czec. Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogia) and in Romania (Rum. mgur). Unfortunately, its etymology is not certain. But given its areal distribution, Vasmers proposal to connect it with Proto-Slavic *mogo, in the sense of dominating site, seems quite plausible. Tell are, of corse, prehistoric sites of exceptional importance, not only for the significance of theior stratigraphies, but also as signs of an uninterrupted continuity, both cultural and ethnic (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 229). Continuity, of course, that must have been also linguistic! While tells are very common in the Near and Middle East, where Neolithic cultures have an extraordinary and well-known duration and stability, in Europe they appear only in the Balkans, and only to the South of the Danube (DP, s.v. tell), and thus only in the Greek, Albanian and Southern Slavic area. In the last one, the tells are primarily Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian and Bosnian, but that does not imply that in the contiguous areas within the same cultural orbit the situation would be different. Here then lies the reason for the little differentiation of Slavic languages (and mutatis mutandis for Greek): the cultural

34

stability and continuity from Mesolithic and Neolithic to the proto-history of the populations of these areas. At the same time, the enormous success of what we can now call the Slavic Neolithic, which includes not only the tells cultures of the Balkanic area, but also the extremely rich Neolithic cultures of the Russian, Ukrainian and Eastern Middle European plains (for example Tripolye, see above and below), provides for the first time in the history of research an adequate explanation for the demographic explosion of the Slavic populations, implied by both the size of their area and the little differentiation of their languages. 7.5.3 The two Northern Slavic areas: Western and Eastern In the Northern area which is now Slavic Neolithic has been introduced by two different (Southern Slavic) groups of the Painted Ware culture: (A) in the present Ukraine and Moldova, coming from the lower Danube and from the Balkans, farming groups have created the Neolithic cultures of Bug-Dnestr and successively of Tripolye (Telegin 1994, 376), which we have illustrated in an earlier section as frontier Slavic cultures, facing the Altaic ones of Crimea and to the East of the Dneper, quite different ethnically and culturally (Chernykh 1992, 37-42); (B) in the Carpatian basin, farming has been introduced by (Southern Slavic) groups of the Krs/Cri culture, coming from Hungary and Romania (Telegin 1994, 376). The new culture that emerges in this area is that of Lengyel. From the Carpatian basin this culture spread to Southern Slovakia, lower Austria, Southern Moravia, Southern Poland, Slesia, Bohemia, Southern Germany. This initial difference in the origin of the two new cultural areas (two different branches of the (Southern Slavic) Balkanic complex, plus the differences that come from their separate development, provide a perfectly adequate explanation, in my opinion, for the coming to exist of the two Northern Slavic groups. As we have seen, Western and Eastern Slavic are not branchings of one and the same Northern Slavic, but two language groups each with a different connection with Southern Slavic. 7.5.4 The Metal Ages Also for the birth of metallurgy the Slavic Balkanic area must have played a fundamental role. Recent archaeological research has demonstrated that the most ancient European metallurgy which in itself begins in Anatolia comes from the area that the Russiam archaeologist Evgenij N.Chernykh, the main specialists on this topic, has called the Balkano-Carpatian metallurgic province. The most ancient mines are found in Serbia and Bulgaria. Within the same cultural area we also see, earlier than in any other European area and with greater evidence, the first appearance of the formation of super-regional lite (Lichardus-Lichardus 1985, 497). Precisely as it had happened for the Neolithic innovations, and along the same routes followed by the new farming economy, from this Balkanic focus area metallurgy spread to the North, i.e. to the Carpatian basin and to the Ukrainian area of Tripolye. Tripolye, in turn, introduced metallurgy among the Asiatic nomadic pastoralists, who developed it in profoundly original manners, achieving that unmistakeable metallurgical production of high artistic value which is typical of them, in contrast with the much more functional and industrial-like European metallurgy. In a context of geographical contiguity and mutual exchange, the (Altaic, as we now know) pastoral warlike cultures of Asiatic steppes, in particolar the Yamnaya or kurgan culture, in turn introduced into Eastern Europe their own fundamental 35

innovations: horse-riding and a patriarcal and warlike ideology that also European lateNeolithic societies were now ready to adopt. The European re-interpretation of these economic and ideological elements, which manifests itself with the Corded Ware and Battle Axe cultures, has nothing to do with the earliest appearance and early differentiaton of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, as Gimbutas claimed, but simply represents the emerging of new lites among already differentiated IE groups, in which pastoralism, horse-riding and patriarcal and warlike ideology are integrated in that original form of mixed farming, typical of Europe, which will eventually lead to the birth of Greek, Etruscan and Latin urban civilizations. And in this new context, the most ancient metallurgical cultures of Europe, that of the Balkanic area, must be seen as Southern Slavic; while Western Slavic will be the Czech metallurgical cultures, and Eastern Slavic Tripolye, which introduces metallurgy into the Altaic area. Summarizing, the linguistic Slavic area coincides first with the Painted Ware culture (excluding the Albanian one) and with its subsequent extensions to North-West and North-East, and later with the whole Balkano-Carpatian Chalcolithic metallurgical Province, to which also the Ukrainian culture of Tripolye participates. Later, not only Tripolye but the entire metallurgical province undergo the influence of the Yamnaya/kurgan culture, the expansion of which in the whole of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe one of the main aspects of the Metal Age in Europe does not bring IE influences, but Turkic ones. In fact, all Balkanic cultures Karanovo 6Gulmenia in Bulgaria and Romania (famous for its tells); Salcua, GradesnicaKrivodol, Vina-Plonik 2 and Bubanj-Hum 1 in central Balkans; Sopot-Lengyel and Lasinja between Slovenia and Hungary (Lichardus and Lichardus 1985, 367); followed by Cernavoda 3, 2 and Ezero in Bulgaria, and by Cotofeni, Baden, Kostolac e Vuedol in the Eastern, Central and North-Western Balkans, and in the Carpatian basin (idem, 394), although they were differentiated enough to represent Slavic dialects, towards the end of Chalcolithic they were united again owing to the general influence of the Yamnaya/kurgan steppe culture (idem, 384, 398, 405), shown by the new common features: pit graves and mounds (kurgan), horse raising and horse riding, patriarcal ideology, formation of an aristocratic elite of warriors, battle axes, corded decorations. Cultural traits that have their linguistic parallel in the enormous number of Turkic loanwords in horse terminology and in other semantic spheres, as we shall see shortly. 7.5.5 The problem of the Thracians: a new hypothesis The reconstruction of the prehistoric context in which the Thracians slowly emerge has been attempted several times, and lastly by Hoddinott (1981), but in my opinion without noticeable novelties. Even the most recent discoveries, in fact, confirm what we alread know: the Thracian power is just one of the many manifestations of the new stratified societies and of the new elites of a military and superegional type which characterize Chalcolithic and Bronze, and the formation of which was triggered by the incursions of the kurgan groups and their successors, coming from the Asiatic steppes. In the new PCT vision, this twofold, but in itself meager result produces the following commentary: (A) we must keep in consideration that the immediate neighbors of the Thracians ancestors whoever they were were these intrusive kurgan groups; and (B) in the light of the equation of the kurgan people with the Turkic group, the existence of the Turkic Thrace of historical times, the Turkic original character of the Bulgarians, and the so many aspects of the close relationship bwetween Anatolia, the Agean Sea and the Balkans become much more relevant than we have suspected until now (see chapter III of Alinei 2000). A single example: the typical shape of the sica, the national 36

weapon of the Thracians (a knife with a curved blade and a sharp point, similar to a zanna di cinghiale (cp. Plinius H.N. XII 1: apri dentium sicas, and see the illustration in Rich 1869), used by Thracian gladiators in Rome, is typical of centro-Asiatic metallurgy. Another commentary is triggered by Hoddinotts conclusion, which identifies the earliest sure manifestation of the Thracians in the Bronze Age Carpatian culture of Otomani-Wietenberg (in Transylvania, Hungary, Eastern Slovakia). According to the most recent research, this culture represents a continuation of the Baden and Vuedol cultures, and through the latter, is connected to the steppe cultures (see above and cp. for example DP s.v. Vuedol). In the light of the preceding remarks, then, on one hand we could conclude that also Thracians underwent the same Turkic influences as most other Southern Slavic languages; on the other as both Baden and Vuedol in the framework of the PCT can be read as Slavophone cultures, we could advance the hypothesis that the Thacianas were a Slavic group, which would have been subject to stronger Turkic influences than the other Slavic languages, and eventually extinguished. A final remark: Herodotus, as is known, describes the Thracians as the most numerous people after the Indians. Mallory comments that it is a sad irony they have left no modern descendant of their language (Mallory 1989, 72). But is it really so? First of all, if it is hard to admit that a numerous people might completely extinguish, it is even less likely that this pre-existing people would have left no traces in the archaeological record. And since, as we have seen, the demographic explosion of the Slavs must be placed in Neolithic, we could then advance the hypothesis that Thracians was the name that Herodotus gave to the Slavs, owing to the fact the Thracians were one of the most powerful and representative elites of Slavic speaking Eastern Europe, seen with Herodotus inevitably colonialist eyes. In a first approximation, then, the Thracians would appear to be a Southern Slavic geo-variational group, out of which came a Bronze age elite, first dominating then extinguished. This hypothesis could be further developed and refined in the light of the results of research on the Thracian language which, with the caution due to the scarcity of materials, can be so summarized: (1) Thracian is an IE satem language, like Baltic and Slavic; (2) as discovered by Trubaev (see above), Thracian place names show a surprising similarity with the Baltic ones; (3) in some cases, however, Thracian affinities seem stronger with Slavic: the Thr. place-name suffix -dizos e -diza, for example, to which the meaning of fortress has been attributed on the basis of the comparison with Gr. tekhos wall (IEW 244), has a much closer counterpart in the metathetic forms of OSl. zido, zydati to build zyd, zid wall, than in the Baltic ones (also methatetic), meaning to form. And the vocalism of the Thr. river name Strymn and place name Strym seems closer to Pol. strumie brook and OSlav. struja stream than to Latv strume stream (IEW 1003). The most plausible hypothesis would be then that Thracian was a conservative type of Slavic, still preserving Baltic features and spoken by a peripheral group of Southern Slavs, somehow parallel to the Northern peripheral Balts (following the geolinguistic well-known rule, according to which the center innovates, and the periphery preserves).

37

7.6

Slavic archaeolinguistics: an outline

7.6.1 Palaeolitihc: the Slavic lexicon shared by the other IE languages Within the framework of the PCT, the common IE or Proto-IE lexicon must go back to the origins of Homo loquens, and therefore assuming the now current theory to Middle Palaeolithic. It will include terms which have cognates in all or almost all IE languages, such as the following ones: The grammatical part of IE lexicon: (1) 1st pers. sing. Pron. : Russ. Ukr. BRu. Slovk. Pol. Sorb. ja, OSlav. jaz, Bulg. az jaz, Serb. Cr. j, Slovn. jz, Czech j, Polab. joz jo; (2) 2nd pers. sing. pron.: Russ. BRu. OSlav. Czech Pol. Ukr. ty, Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovn. ti; (3) 2nd pers. pl. pron.: Russ. Ukr. OSlav. vy, Bulg. vi, Serb. Cr. Slovn. v, Pol. wy; refl. pron.: Russ. Ukr. sja, Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovn. Czech Sorb. se, Slovk. sa, Pol. si; prepositions: Russ. Ukr. BRu. OSlav. Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovn. Czech Slovk. Pol. Sorb. po (cp. Lat. pono, Gr. ap); (4) Russ. Ukr. OSlav. Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovn. iz, Czech Slovk. Pol. Sorb. z (cp. Lat. ex); (5) Verb I am, you are he/she/it is: Russ. esm, OSlav. jesm;, Bulg. sm, Serb. Cr. jesam, Slovn. sem, Czech jsem, Slovk. som etc.; Russ. es, OSlav. jesi, etc.; Russ. est, Ukr. jest, BRu. jo, OSlav. jest, Serb. Cr. Czech Pol. jest, etc. Lexical part: (1) two: Russ. Ukr. Bulg. Czech Slovk. dva, OSlav. dva, Serb. Cr. Slovn. dv, Pol. Sorb. dwa; (2) both: Russ. Bulg. ba, Ukr. ob, BRu. obdva, OSlav. Serb. Cr. Czech Slovk. Pol. oba, Slovn. ob, Sorb. hobj dwa; (3) name: Russ. mja, Ukr. imj, BRu. imj, Bulg. me, Serb. Cr. im, Slovn. im, Czech jmno, Slovk. meno, Pol. imi , Sorb. m, Polab. jeima; (4) water: Russ. Ukr. BRu. Bulg. vod, Serb. Cr. vda, Slovn. vda, Czech Slovk. voda, Pol. Sorb. woda; (5) sun: Russ. slnce, Ukr. snce, Bulg. slnce, Serb. Cr. snce, Slovn. slnce, Czech slunce, Slovk. slnce, Pol. soce, Sorb. syco; (6) wind: Russ. vter, Ukr. vter, OSlav. vetr, Bulg. vtr, Serb. Cr. vjetar, Slovn. vter, Czech vtr, Slovk. vietor, Pol. wiatr, Sorb. wjet; (7) month: Russ. msjac, Ukr. msac, OSlav. mesc, Bulg. msec, Serb. Cr. mjesec, Czech msc, Slovk. mesiac, Pol. miesic, Sorb. mjasec; (8) woman: Russ. Bulg. en, Ukr. BRu. on, OSlav. Czech Slovk. ena, Serb. Cr. na, Slovn. na, Pol. ona, Sorb. ona; (9) to sit: Russ. sidt, Ukr. sydty, BRuss. sidzc, OSlav. sdti, Bulg. sedj, Serb. Cr. dial. sjditi, Slovn. sedti, Czech sedti, Slovk. sediet, Pol. siedzie, Sorb. seje; (10) pedere: Russ. bzdet, Ukr. pezdty, Bulg. pzdj, Serb. Cr. bzdjeti, Slovn. p\zdti, Czech bzdti, Pol. bzdzie; (11) to stay: Russ. stojt, Ukr. stojty, OSlav. stojati, Bulg. stjati, Slovn. Czech stti, Slovk. stt, Pol. sta, Sorb. stoja; (12) to sew: Russ. it, Ukr. ty, BRu. yc, Bulg. ija (cucio), Serb. Cr. iti, Slovn. Czech Slovk. it, Pol. szy, Sorb. y, Polab. sait; (13) live: Russ. ivj, Ukr. yvj, OSlav. iv, Bulg. Czech Slovk. iv, Serb. Cr. Slov. v, Pol. ywy, Sorb. ywy;

38

(14) new: Russ. Ukr. novyj, OSlav. nov, Bulg. nov, Serb. Cr. nv, Slovn. nv, Czech nov, Pol. Sorb. nowy; (15) sister: Russ. BRu. Bulg. sestr, Ukr. OSlav. Czech Slovk. Polab. sestra, Serb. Cr. sstra, Slovn. sstra, Pol. siostra, Sorb. sota. Needless to say this list is purely indicative, and could be easily extended. Final Palaeolithic and Mesolithic: the Slavic lexicon appears to be already differentiated On the basis of the following words, the differentiation of Slavic (sometime still BaltoSlavic) from the other IE groups can be dated to a period preceding the beginning of Mesolithic: (1) magic: Russ. BRu. ary (arovty to bewitch, to charm), Ukr. ar (aruvaty), OSlav. ar, Serb. Cr. r, Slovn. ra witchcraft, Czech r m., ra f. idem, Slovk. ary (pl.), Pol. czar; Lith. kras magic. It is a pan-Slavic and Baltic specialization of an IE word, which could be dated to the Upper Palaeolithic, when magic rituals probably began. (2) bear (literally honey-eater): Russ. medvd, Ukr. medvd, OSlav medvd, Bulg. medvd, Serb. Cr. mdvjed, Slovn. mdved, Czech medvd, dial Pol. miedwied, Sorb. mjadwje. As we have seen in a preceding section, this noa name of the bear, replacing the PIE tabooed one (cp. Lat. ursus), is exclusively Slavic. This name, as well as the Baltic one (prob. hairy) and the Germaic one (the brown), can only have been created after the beginning of religious-magic thinking; (3) snake, dragon (literally earthling): Russ. Ukr. Bulg. zmij, OSlav. zmja, Serb. Cr. zmja, Slovn. zmja, Czech zmije, Slovk. Sorb. zmija, Pol. mija. This noa name of the snake is also exclusively Slavic, and proves that Slavic detached itself from the other IE languages when religious thinking began. Probably akin to this (cp. Vasmer) is the name of dragon in fairy tales: Russ. BRu. Bulg. (slowworm) Pol. smok, Slovn. smk, Czech zmok, Slovk. zmok kobold; (4) bird: Russ. ptca, Ukr. ptca, OSlav. ptica, Bulg. ptca, Serb. Cr. ptica, Slovn. ptca, Czech ptk, Slovk. vtk, Pol. Sorb. ptak. Here too we are probably dealing with a noa name of the bird, and with a later Palaeolithic specialization of the common PIE word for flying, which involves Baltic as well; (5) dog: Russ. ps, Ukr. BRu. Czech Slovk. pes, OSlav. ps, Bulg. ps, Serb. Cr. pas, Slovn. p\s, Pol. pies, Sorb. pjas. Whatever the origin of this pan-Slavic word (see Vasmer s.v. for the various hypotheses), current knowledge on the Mesolithic origin of dog domestication allow us to date it to Mesolithic; (6) hawk goshawk: Russ. jstreb, Ukr. jstrib, Serb. Cr. jastrijeb, Slovn. jstreb, Czech jastab, Slovk. jastrab, Pol. jastrzb, Sorb. jasteb. Exclusively Slavic name of IE origin (Vasmer); (7) net: Russ. st, Ukr. sit, BRu. se Czech st, Slovk. siet, Pol. sie, Sorb. se. Fishing is first attested in Upper Palaeolithic, and reaches a higl level in Mesolithic The Slavic name of the fishing net is different from the Baltic one, which seems to indicate a pre-Mesolithic differentiation of Slavic from Baltic; (8) weir: Russ. Ukr. BRu. Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovk. Pol. jaz, Czech jez, Polab. jaz canal. Since the earliest records of weirs are Mesolithic, and the meaning of the Baltic cognate terms is different, this example tends to confirm that by Mesolithic times Baltic and Slavic were already differentiated; 7.6.2

39

(9) berry: Russ. Bulg. Slovn. jgoda, Ukr. BRu. jhoda, Serb. Cr. Pol. jagoda, Czech Slovk. jahoda, Polab. jagdi (pl.). Cp. Lith. oga, Latv. uga idem; the Balto-Slavic exclusivity points to an Upper Paleolithic dating (gathering); (10) wood: Russ. ls, Ukr. lis, BRu. Czech Slovk. les, OSlav. ls, Bulg. les, Serb. Cr. lijes, Slovn. ls, Pol. las, Sorb. lso, Polab. los (Vasmer s.v., Buck 1.41). This family does not have convincing connections with Baltic, and the semantic development from wood in the sense of group of trees to building material is a typical result of the beinning of forest exploitation in Mesolithic; (11) limit, border, dial. thicket, grove (from the notion of half, middle): Russ. Ukr. BRu. me, OSlav. meda, Bulg. med, Serb. Cr. ma, Slovn. mja, Czech meze, Slovk. medza, Pol. miedza, Sorb. mjaza. The passage from the PIE notion of half, middle (cp. Lat. medius) to that of wood is characteristic of Baltic; the subsequent one to border, of Slavic; (12) near, nearby (from a verb meaning press, squeeze, cp. It. presso near < premere press): Russ. bliz, bliz, Ukr. blyz, Bulg. blzo, blzu, Serb. Cr. blzu, Slovn. blz, blzi, blzu, dial. Pol. blizo; (13) family, stock, offspring; to generate, birth: Russ. rod, Ukr. rid, BRu. Bulg. Serb. Cr. Slovn. Czech Slovk. Sorb. rod; Russ. rodna fatherland, Ukr. rodna family, BRu. rdzina idem, Bulg. rodna native place; Russ. rodty to generate, rodty, OSlav. roditi, Bulg. rodj, Serb. Cr. rditi, Slovn. rodti, Czech roditi, Slovk. rodit, Pol. rodzi, Sorb. roi, Slovn. redti to feed, to raise. It also becomes the name of Christmas (Russ. rodestv and cognates), an obvious Christianization of the (Neolithic) winter solstice celebration for the suns (re)birth (Alinei 1997). Its attestation in Baltic can be explained as result of cultural diffusion. Neolithic or slightly later is probably also the personification of the rodovize as goddesses of procreation and destiny (Alinei 1997c); (14) daughter in law, wife, bride: Russ. nevsta (-tka daughter in law), Ukr. nevsta woman, wife, bride, BRu. nevsta, Bulg. nvjesta wife, bride, daughter in law, sister in law, Slovn. nevsta idem, Czech nevsta wife, daughter in law, Slovk. nevesta, Pol. niewiasta woman, female (Vasmer s.v.). This name appears to be a noa name for the daughter in law, replacing the PIE name (cp. Lat. nurus), and must reflect a magicoreligious conception of the role of the daughter in law for the husbands family, which, to my knowledge, has not yet been adequately studied; (15) old: Russ. stryj, Ukr. starj, OSlav. star, Bulg. Serb. Cr. star, Slovn. str, Czech Slovk. star, Pol. Sorb. stary. This meaning is exclusively Slavic, as the same adjective in other IE languages means big, strong. Lexical concordances between contiguous areas: isoglosses or loanwords? Mesolithic examples In the first volume of my book (Alinei 1996) I assumed that the differentiation process of PIE which is dated to sometime during Middle Palaeolithic must have been extremely slow and involve larger groupings, before obtaining the historically known language proto-groups. Though with a completely different chronology, this conception is also that of the traditional theory (cp. e.g. Porzig 1954, Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1995). As a result of the closer study of lexical materials I did for my second volume (Alinei 2000), this idea must be partially revised. If these larger groupings based on lexicon (phonetic and other isoglosses form a different problem) had really been the intermediate stages of the differentiation process, following a rigid pattern of binary tree branching; in other words if they had an exclusively genetic character, we should expect to find much more evident and regular traces of them in the linguistic record. Instead, 40 7.6.3

these lexical groupings are quite scarce, datable to different periods, and covering different areas. The only groupings that show systematic regularity and chronological coherence in the IE lexical record of which I have carefully surveyed the European part are those that form the separate lexicon of the different traditional IE language groups: Italic, Germanic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic, Greek etc. This must mean that the only really important and stable cultural differentiation of PIE has been that into the traditionally known separate groups, and that therefore there were no really important intermediate stages with larger units preceding this stage. We must then assume that the so called isoglosses, with varying dates and varying scopes, which involve contiguous IE languages groups, do not have a genetic character, but are rather the results of diffusion processes, which took place in various periods, with various provenances and therefore also various areal distributions, depending on the focus and the spread of each cultural referent. In other words, rather than with isoglosses, we must be dealing with (groups of) loanwords. Within this framework, then, we must keep two things into consideration: (A) as I have already noted (Alinei 1996, 611 ff.), contrary to common thinking in linguistics, loanwords can also be associated with prehistoric cultural diffusion, because we must assume that products and innovations also in prehistory might have travelled with their original name. And given the fact that archaeology has recently shown that longdistance movement of materials begins with Upper Palaeolihic (Gamble 1986, 331337), there is absolutely no reason to exclude that certain loanwords might also have such a date. (B) On the other hand, prehistorians (see e.g. Kozowski and Otte 1994, 5153, 101, Nuez 1997, 94-95) have underlined the impossibility of contacts between Western and Eastern Europe in the last Glacial, owing to the proglacial basins between the icecap in the North and the Alps in the South. This remark obliges us to place the numerous concordances between Balto-Slavic and Germanic in the Post-Glacial period, i.e. in the Mesolithic. Lexical innovations covering the Balto-Slavic and the Germanic area (occasionally the Celtic one) The study of lexical concordances between Balto-Slavic and Germanic has long attracted specialists (cp. Dini 1997, 117 ff.), but its main results, in my opinion, have not been conveniently exploited, owing to the mistaken chronology of both the traditional theory. The same could be said of Renfrews, if this was a really lingistic theory (which is not). To illustrate its importance for the PCT I will refer to the main study of this topic, which is Stangs (1972)4. It is this author, in fact, who has first noted that within the lexicon common to the three groups the prevailing semantic fields are those of flora, fauna and nature on the one hand, and of carpentry on the other (Stang 1972, 72-73). Both semantic spheres, then, point to a collocation of these lexical concordances in the Mesolithic, that is when the new post-Glacial climate and the new landscapes resulting from it determined, among other things, the emerging of the so called Forest Cultures, based on the importance of forest and wood exploitation and thus on carpentry. Besides, as I have already remembered, it is only in the Mesolithic, with the withdrawing of glaciers, that the plains of Central Europe opened themselves to contacts between the different European groups, which earlier were blocked by ice and proglacial basins. The only question that he PCT cannot yet answer, at least in the present phase, is which of the three groups the Baltic, the Slavic or the Germanic one might have been the active one in the spreading of the loanwords underlying the existence of such huge
4

. I have not been able to consult Nepokupnyj 1989 (cit. in Dini 1997, 119).

41

lexical and cultural areas; and wheher it was always the same of the three groups, or they alternated. Irrespective of the origin of these loanwords, however, it must be rememebered that among the most important Mesolithic cultures so far discovered in Europe (and also extremely well studied) are precisely the specialized fishing cultures of the northern Germanic and Baltic area and those that exploited the forests of Middle Europe. Forest tree felling and wood industry (1) Uniting only Baltic (not Slavic) and Germanic, and therefore most likely of Germanic origin and connected with the first great Forest Cultures and their carpentry activities, are a few lexical innovations based on the PIE root *deru- tree, wood (IEW 214-217). In the Germanic area this root is represented by Engl. tree, and by Germ. -der -ter for plant names, from which come, subsequently, names of wooden manufacts, at times extended to Celtic, such as Engl. trough, Germ. Trog; MIr. drochta barrel, drochat bridge. In an area extended to Baltic (and from here to the Finnic languages), there appears then the already mentioned innovation of tar, typical of Mesolithic. The record includes: OIcel. Icel. tjara, Fer. Norw. tjra, Swed. tjra, Dan. tjre, OEngl. tierwe (f.), teoru (n.), OFris. tera, MlG. tere, MNeth. ter(re), tarre, Germ. Neth. teer, Engl. tar, Lith. derv, Latv. darva, Finn. terva. The Mesolithic invention of tar permitted the creation of composite tools, also typical of Mesolithic. Some words of this area still evoke the ancient technique: OIcel. tjorr sword, but literally wooden handle, attached with tar, dial. Swed. tjr, tjor, tjur piece of resinous wood from an old pine or fir, curved part of the bow. Here it should be recalled that in two other European areas the same technological innovation is designated by a similar relationship between the name of a tree and the product extracted by it: Lat. pinus pine and pix pitch (IEW 794, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995, 543); Lat. (Celtic loanword) betulla birch and bitumen tar. The relationship between betulla and bitumen is exactly the same as manifested in the German compound birkenteer. The diversity of the tar name in three different areas of Europe proves, as we have already noted above, that in Mesolithic the main IE differentiation had already taken place. (2) The semantic passage from PIE *leudh- to grow (said of vegetation) (IEW 684) to the meaning of folk, people, community , shared by Germanic and Balto-Slavic, might have been determined by the innovative context of forest and population growth after deglaciation: OIcel. ljor people, folk, person (Lapp. livd, lud crowd), AS. liud, OFris. lid, MNeth. lt, OHG. liud people, OEngl. lode, OFris. liode liude, asass. liudi, MNeth. liede, lude, luide, OHG. liute folk, persons; OSlav. ljudije (pl.) free community, Lith. liaudis people, Latv. udis folk, people (ANEW s.v. ljor). Much later must be the development of Lat. liberi sons and freemen, and Gr. eletheros free, implying an opposition to no longer free individuals, and therefore a context of very advanced social stratification. The Lat. male god of growth Liber also shows a late development; (3) Lith. aldij, eldij pirogue, boat, OSlav. aldiji, ladiji boat, dial. Norw. olda large trough, often made out of a tree etc.; probably a term of Mesolithic navigation, which was probably diffused in the area of the great Mesolithic fishing cultures of Northern Europe; (4) Lith. balenas beam; dial. Russ. bolozno thick plank (Vasmer), Slovn. blaznas idem, OHG. balko idem etc.; (5) Lith. drnga lever, long carriage, dragas large wooden bar, OSlav. drog piece of wood, stick, OIcel. drengr stick, wooden bar etc.;

42

(6) Lith. drebenas rubble, ruins, OSlav. drobiti to break, crush, smash, Goth. gadraban to dig ecc; (7) Lith. grindis floor plank, grsti to plak, pave, grand large plank, Latv. gruodi idem, grst to pave, plank, Slav. *grda beam, OIcel. grind fence, loom, rack etc.; (8) Lith. stbaras dry trunk, OSlav. stobor column, dial. Norw. stavar pole, Dan., dial. Swed. staver idem etc; (9) Lith. stlas table, pastlas support, pedestall, Pruss. stalis table, Russ. stol idem, Serb. Cr. stl table, chair, Pol. stl table, Czech stl table etc.; Goth. stls chair, throne, OIcel. Icel. stll, Fer. stlur, Norw. Swed. Dan. stol, OEngl. OFris. OS. stl, OHG. stuol, Germ. Stuhl, Neth. stoel etc., all chair. As I have shown in Alinei (1996), while the PIE root *st-, *st\- to stay (IEW 1004) provides one of the clearest examples of the original semantic universe of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, its development to the meaning of chair and table, on the basis of the type *st-lo-, must necessarily go back to the period in which sedentism was already rooted, and therefore, at the earliest, to the Northern European Mesolithic. The technical, as well as semantic, starting point could be the notion of support, base, attestated in Lith. pastlai base for beehive, and the most recent outcome the notion of throne of Goth. stls, and OSlav. stol. The fluctuation between chair and table, typical of the Slavic and North-Germanic area, confirms that stand in a vertical position and not sit was the main semantic feature; (10) Lith. strl, Latv. stra, Russ. strela, Serb. Cr. strijla, OHG. strla, MHG. strl(e), etc. all arrow (for the Mesolithic dating of the arrow and of its IE names see above); (11) Lith. stulbas pole, pillar, OSlav. stlba klimax, OIcel. stolpi pole, pillar etc.; (12) Lith. bas rod, staff, dry branches, abti to fence, to brake OIcel. kefli round piece of wood, kafli skittle, nail, stake, post etc. Flora, fauna and others (1) Though without clear connection with PIE roots (cp. IEW 619), the name of roe shows a typical Central and Eastern North-European (and thus Mesolithic) areal distribution: OIcel. Icel. hrogn, Fer. Norw. rogn, Swed. rom, Dan. rogn, Engl. roe, Orkn. raan, Shetl. rang, MEngl. rowe, rowne, MNeth. roge, roch, OHG. hrogo, rogan; in Baltic Lith. kurkula, krakula (pl.), Latv. kur~kulis have changed to mean frogspawn. Certainly akin (IEW 619) are Slovn. krk idem, slovk. krak idem, Russ. krjak idem, Pol. (s)krzek idem, Serb. okrijek frog. Another fish name, exclusive of the Germanic area, seems to be connected to the same family: OIcel. Icel. hrygna salmon, female trout, Norw. rygna, Swed. rygna, ryna; dial. Germ. rgel, rgling, rogner female fish. (2) A similar distribution and a similar cultural context is shown by the name of the arctic goose: OIcel. Icel. Norw. gagl, Norw. gaul, gogl wild goose, dial. Swed. gagel type of goose, Engl. gaggles flight of geese, Scots gawlin type of sea bird; Lith. ggalas crane, gagalas drake, Latv. gaigale seagull, OPruss. gegalis diver, Russ. ggol qukente (ANEW s.v. gagl). (3) OIcel. ogr, MHG. ag; Lith. aers, Latv. asar(i)s, aseris perch. (4) OIcel. gaukr, aat. gouh cuculo etc.; Lith. gegu, Latv. dzeguze, Pruss. geguse, Czech ehule, Pol. geglka. (5) OIcel. istr istra fat wrapping of entrails, MLG. inster entrails of a disemboweled animal etc.; Pruss. instran fat, Lith. sios womb, entrails, Latv. ekas entrails.

43

(6) OHG. humbal, Swed. humla etc. bumble-bee etc.; Lith. kamn, Latv. kamane, Pruss. camus, Russ. Slovn. melj, Pol. czmiel idem. (7) OHG. aspa; Lith. pu, Latv. apse, pruss. abse, Slav. *osa aspen. (8) Goth. dailjan; Lith. dailti, OSlav. dliti to divide. (9) Goth. graban; Latv. grebt, OSlav. pogreti, Serb. Cr. grpsti, Pol. grzeba dig, excavate. (10) OIcel. heill, OHG. heil healthy; Pruss. kails health!, OSlav. cl healthy, wholesome, whole. (11) Goth. mag may, OHG. OS. mag idem etc.; Lith. mgti to want etc., Latv. mgt to be able etc., OSlav. moti idem, Serb. Cr. mgu, Pol. mog idem. (12) Goth. naus dead people, OIcel. nr dead etc.; Lith. nov death, Latv. nve idem, OSlav. nav dead, Slovn. nvje souls of non-baptized children. (13) From the PIE root *gwer- etc. heavy (IEW 476) comes the name for the innovation of the milling stone in the whole area of Northern Europe: OIcel. kvern, Icel. kvrn, Fer. kvrn, Norw. Dan. kvern, Swed. kvarn, Orkn. Shetl. kwern, Lapp. kvrdna, Goth. quairnus, OEngl. cweorn, OFris. quern, OS. quern(a), MNeth. querne, queern, OHG. quirn(a), MHG. kurn, krne; OSlav. rny, Lith. grna; OIr. grvan, MIr. bru, W. breuan (ANEW s.v. kvern). Milling begins long before Neolithic! (14) Limited to Germanic and Slavic is the passage from the notion of curve (PIE *dhel-, IEW 245) to the name of the valley: Goth. dals, OIcel. dalr, Dan. Swed. dal, OEngl. dl, MEngl. dale, Neth. dal, OHG. tal, Serb. Cr. dolina, dol, Czech Russ. dolina (Buck 1.24). 7.6.4 Lexical innovations due to the Neolithic revolution The presence of the Slavs in their historical area already in Neolithic and consequently also in the earlier periods , can be argued in the light of several semantic developments. We return first to one we sketched in an earlier section. The lexical family of Proto-Slavic *ldo fallow land, Hung. lengyel Polish, Germ. land, Swed. linda The Hungarian ethnonym Lengyel Polish (name of the homonym Neolithic culture) is a loanword from the Slavic name of Poland and of Polish *ldnin Neulandbewohner, later abbreviated to (Ru.) Ljach (Vasmer s.v., EWU s.v. lengyel). Hungarian specialists consider it one of the ancient loanwords preceding the Honfoglals occupation of homeland, and as such belonging to the prehistory. How can this opinion be reconciled with the thesis of the arrival of the Slavs in historical times? On the other hand, the Slavic term is also attested in Serb. and Cr. (antiquated) Leanin Polish and (< Hung.) Lenel idem, in Byz. Gr. Lenzanenoi (pl.), in Crim. Tat. lh Polish (Vasmer s.v. ljach, cp. EWU), as well as in Arab laudzaaneh Polish. All these lexemes come from the Proto-Slavic name of fallow land *ldo Rodung, Neuland (Russ. ljad mit jungem Holz bewachsenes Feld, Neubruch, Rodeland, Ukr. ljado, BRuss. lado Neuland, ORuss. ljadina etc., Bulg. lda, ledin Aue, Bergwiese, Serb. and Cr. ldina, ledna Neuland, Slovn. ledna, Czech lada, lado Brache, Slovk. lado, Pol. ld Land, USorb. lado Brache, LSorb. ldo); to the Swedish name for the same notion (linda fallow land) and to the Germanic name for land, country (Goth. Germ. Engl., Du., Icel., Fer., Norw., Swed. etc. land (Vasmer s.v., cp. Stang 1971, 33, ANEW s.v. land). Baltic, represented in the same family by OPRuss. lindan (acc. s.) valley, does not partecipate to this semantic isogloss. As I have already noted aove, etymologists have recognized that the specialized meaning of fallow land in Slavic languages must have preceded the more general meaning of land of Germanic ones. In the traditional scenario it is simply impossible 44

to explain this chronological sequence which implies a Slavic priority over Germanic. In Refrews, it is impossible to explain how from a typically early Neolithic notion of fallow land which following his premises shoud be PIE, and not Slavic! such a constellation of different meanings, including Polish and land, might have developeded, and in such different languages as Hungarian and Slavic. In the scenario of the PCT, on the contrary, the nature of this lexical family becomes illuminating, and for these reasons: (1) it shows the diffusion of the rotation of fallowed fields, a fundamental technique for the origins and the development of farming, in two different ethno-linguistic areas, that of the Slavs (the first European people, with the Greeks and the other Balkans people, who adopted farming) and that of the Germans (already differentiated from Germanic), who learned it from their Eastern neighbors; (2) it proves, then, the Slavic presence in the area already in Early Neolithic; (3) in particular, it proves the coexistence of Western Slavs (Poles, Czechs and Slovakians) and Germans in the crucial Carpathian area, where Western ad Eastern Europe meet, in the period of the development of Lengyel, LBK and TRB (the last one responsible of the introduction of farming in Scandinavia), which the PCT attributes, respectively, to Western Slavs and to Germans; (4) the passage from fallow land and newly broken up field to land and country, with the further development of inhabitant of a newly tilled land and of Polish, reflect quite closely the history of Neolithic developments, from East to West, and, at the same time, the chronological gap between the Balkanic complex and the LBK; (5) the technique of fallowing is attested precisely in the LBK culture of Germany and in the Lengyel culture of Central-Eastern Europe, that is precisely in the area that stretches from Germany to Hungary, through former Czechoslovakia and southern Poland; (6) the fact that the typical Neolithic notion of fallow land concentrates in the Slavic area, and appears only marginally in the Germanic one, confirms the Slavic priority in Neolithic development; (7) the absence of these meanings in Baltic confirms that Baltic was already separated from Slavic in Neolithic; (8) the passage from breaker of new fields to Polish (appearing, besides in Slavic, also in Hungarian (Lengyel), confirms the presence of Poles in the area already in Neolithic. To fully appreciate the value of this analsis, however, it is necessary to recall the extraordinary and well-known stability of the LBK culture (the first Neolithic culture of Germany) and the importance of the role of fallowing in the earliest Neolithic cultures. Tringham, for example, has remarked that if the LBK had not used the rotating fallow technique for its new settlements, these would certainly have determined the formation of tells, exactly like in the Balkans. The emblematic example is the site of Bylany in Bohemia, one of the most important Neolithic stations of Europa, with its 21 phases of habitation (Tringham 1971, 115). Other examples (1) barley: Russ. jamn, Ukr. jamn, Bulg. emk, Serb. Cr. jemen, Slovn. Czech jemen, Slovk. jame, Pol. jczmie, Sorb. jacm'e, Polab. jmn. This is an exclusively Slavic name, which some scholars connect to Gr. akost; (2) flour, meal: Russ. mlevo, mlivo, Ukr. mlyvo, BRu. mlivo, Serb. Cr. meljivo, Slovn. melvo, Czech melivo. The affinity of this lexical family with Germanic, represented by Germ. mehl, and with Illyrian, represented by Alb. miell, permits the dating of this isogloss to the period of the earliest Balkanic Neolithic and of its diffusion in Germany; (3) rye: OSlav. r, Serb. Cr. ra, Czech re, Pol. re, Russ. ro; Lith. rugiai, Latv. rudzi, Pruss. rugis; OIcel. rugr, Dan. rug, Swed. rg, OEngl. ryge, MEngl. Engl. rye, 45

Neth. rog, OS. roggo, OHG. rocko, roggo, Germ. Roggen. As this word is considered a loanword from an unknown language (Buck 8.45), in the scenario of PCT we could see it as a loanword introduced by the oriental farmers, which the earliest Slavic Neolithic cultures would have spread into the Germanic area of the LBK. Archaeological research has noted the presence of a fairly large number of rye grains [...] in several settelements of the Linear Pottery (Wisaski 1970, 426); (4) threshing flail: Russ. cp, Ukr. cip, Bulg. Czech Slovk. cep, Pol. Sorb. cepy (pl.), Polab. cepoi (pl.). Slavic agricultural specialization of an earlier IE technical term (cp. Lat. scopa, scpus, scamnus, Gr. skpn, Goth. skip etc.); (5) billy-goat: the family of Russ. Ukr. Czech dial. Slovk. Pol. cap, Slovn. cp, attested also in Hung czp, Rum. ap, and in It. dialects (Latium zappo), probably derives deriva from Illyrian (Alb. geg. tsap: Meyer 1891, 387, cp. Vasmer s.v.). Irrespective of what its ultimate origin might be, this word clearly reflects the early Neolithic unity of the Balkans, due to the introduction here of the first wave of MiddleEastern farmers; (6) wool, hair of an animal: Russ. erst wool (dial. also goose feathers), Ukr. erst, Slovn. Czech srst hair of an animal, Slovk. srst, Pol. sier. The relationship of this family with other IE words having a different meaning (cp. IEW) implies a Slavic Neolithic specialization; (7) dog, puppy: Bulg. kue dog, Serb. Cr. kua, kue, Slovn. k\k, Pol. kuczuk, Ukr. kotuha, Slovk. kotuha, all dog, dial. Russ. kutya doggy, puppy, attested also in Alb. kut dog, as well as in Hung. kutya, Vog. ktuw, Syr. kian, Est. kutsikas; Osm. kuukuu, and in Italian dialects (Tosc. kua, Umbr. guccia, kucciatella, kucciala, kucciola, kucciarella, March. kucciola kucciavella, all puppy etc.). Probably another Neolithic loanword introduced in Eastern and Southern Europe with farming. (8) cheese: OSlav. syr, Russ, Ukr. BRu. Slovk. syr, Bulg. srene, Serb. Cr. sir, Slovn. sr, Czech sr, Pol. ser, Sorb. sera. Attested also in Baltic (Lith. sris cheese, Latv. srs salty, bitter, sour), this word appears to be a Neolithic specialization of an IE adjective that in Germanic means sour: OIcel. srr acido, OHG. sr, Germ. sauer, Neth. zuur etc. (Vasmer). Its passage to milk products is attested also in Alb. hirr whey (ibidem) and probably also in Lat. serum (which would then be a Slavic loanword); (9) loom: Russ. Ukr. krsno, OSlav. krosno liciatorium, Bulg. krosn, Serb. Cr. Pol. USorb. krosna, Slovn. krsna, Czech krosna support, Slovk. krosn loom. This word family, connected to a typical Neolitic technology, is exclusively Slavic, as the Baltic cognate words mean chair (Vasmer s.v.); (10) wall: Proto-Slavic develops the name of this notion from that of stone (cp. Germ. Stein, Engl. stone): Russ. sten, Ukr. stin, Bulg. sten, Serb. Cr. stijna, Slovn. stna, Czech stna, Slovk. stena, Pol. ciana, Sorb. sna; (11) wooden plow, made out of a forked branch: Russ. soch, to be compared to Ukr. BRu. Bulg. soch, Serb. Cr. sha, Slovn. sha, Czech Slovk. Pol. Sorb. socha, all pole, or forked branch and the like (Vasmer s.v.). It is certainly connected with the invention of the plow in Middle Neolithic; (12) cup: irrespective of its origin, which is obscure, the Slavic family of Russ. a dish, goblet, glass (aka cup), Ukr. BRu. a cup, OSlav. aa glass, Bulg. a idem, Slovn. a idem, Serb. Cr. aa idem, Czech e, Slovk. aa, Pol. czasza, Polab. cos can only reflect the beginning of pottery typical of Neolithic. In the light of our knowledge on the introduction of Neolithic from Middle East, a connection with an

46

Eastern language (cp. Ar. sa cup > It. tazza, fr. tasse, Germ. Tasse etc. idem) would be quite plausibile; (13) ORuss. selo village, field, Russ. sel, Bulg. sl village, Serb. Cr. slo village, Slovn. slo locality, OSlav. selo dwelling, field, Czech selo village, field, Pol. sioo village; Lith. sal village, Latv. sola idem; OIcel. salr dwelling, large room, Swed. Dan. Norw. sal hall, large room, Goth. saliws, dwelling, OHG. sal construction, hall, Long. sala large room, Germ. Saal etc. idem. We have here first a Slavic innovation, connected with the development of the first Neolithic villages (cp. the relationship between field and village, and note that the innovation is still close to the original meaning kept by Lat. solum soil); then a later Germanic innovation, connected to the LBK culture and to its typical long rectangular houses (large room, hall); (14) peasants house: Russ. Ukr. izb (dim. istopka), OSlav. istba, Bulg. Serb. Cr. zba, Slovn. zba, jspa Stube, jspica room, Czech jisba Stube, room, Slovk. Pol. izba, Sorb. pa, Polab. jzba. In the traditional scenario the controversy between an origin from Germ. Stube or from Lat. *exstufa (Slavic scholarship seems to ignore that the derivation of Germ. Stube from Lat. *exstufa is unquestionable), because both etymologies involve considerable difficulties (cp. Vasmer s.v.). In the light of the PCT the problem can be solved by refusing both of them, and accepting as a real etymology instead what has been wrongly considered a folk-etymology: the diminutive istopka (attested in the form istobka in the Nestorian Chronicle, cp. Vasmer) can certainly come from *iz-topiti to warm up, Ukr. topti, Serb. Cr. tpiti, Slovn. topti, Czech topiti, Slovk. topit, Pol. topi, Sorb. topi (Vasmer s.v. topt). In any case, for a Neolithic term a geochronological sequence such as Latin > Germanic > Slavic could not be reconciled with the real prehistoric development. While a Slavic innovation, based on IE materials (the above mentioned verb has connections in Old Indian, Iranian and Baltic (Vasmer), is perfectly plausible; (15) funerary mound: Russ. mogla, Ukr. mohya, Church Sl. mogyla, Bulg. mogla, Serb. Cr. gmila, mgila, Czech Slovk. mohyla, Pol. mogia, Polab. mla tomb, to which must be added Alb. mgule, and the Rum. loanword mgur (Vasmer s.v.). Term of unknown origin (but possible Slavic origin) which, as we have seen, is also used locally as a place name to designate the prehistoric tells of the Neolithic settlements of the area. (16) I would place here also OSlav. tyseti, tysoti, Pol. tysic, Czech tisc, Serb. Cr. tisua, Slovn. tiso; Lith. tkstantis, Latv. tkstuots; Goth. usundi, OIcel. sund, OHG. thsund etc., all thousand. Irrespective of the word origin, only the new Neolithic economy, with the high numbers associated to stock raising and to the storage of farming products, could have produced the need to develop such a notion (see also Alinei 1996). 7.6.5 From Neolithic to the Metal Ages: the Slavic lexical family of grad As we have briefly seen in one of the preceding sections, the Slavic lexical family represented by OSlav. grad and by its developments has an exact parallel in CentralWestern Europe, where Germ. Zaun, dial. Swed., ODan. tun etc. hedge, fence, Neth. tuin, AS. tun etc. orch-yard, garden, Engl. town, dial. Engl. tine to fence, OIcel. tn etc. town and Gaul dunum, OIr. dn, etc. forteress show the same semantic sequence. And they both reflcct the same pattern of development from the beginning of Neolithic through the Metal Ages. More over, also its relationships with Lat. hortus and with Goth. -gards, OIcel. garr, Germ. Garten etc. can be read in a productive way in the light of the PCT. In the 47

Slavic languages, in fact, we have the meaning of fence (Proto-Slav. *gorda, OSlav. grad, Russ. gora, Ukr. BRu. hora, Bulg. gra (f.), Serb. Cr. graa, Slovn. (acc.) grja, all fence, Czech hrze garden wall, Slovk. hrdza idem, Pol. grodza hedge, as well as Lith. gar~das fence, hedge, Alb. gardh hedge, OIcel. geri fenced field (Vasmer s.v. gorod); as well as that of garden (OSlav. grad, ograd, OSlav. and Bulg. gradina (> Rum. grdin), Pol. ogrd, Czech zahrada, Russ. ogorod), comparable to Lat. hortus orch-yard; the meaning of town (OSlav. grad, Serb. Cr. Slovn. grad, Czech hrad, Pol. grd, Sorb. grod, Casciub. gard, Polab. gord, Russ. grod town, Ukr. hrod); and finally that of caste, forteress fortification (OSlav. grad (> Russ. grad), Czech hrad, Pol. grd; Serb. Cr. grdina, Bulg. gradite, Czech hradite, Russ. gorodie). Even if we could not argue it from the course of prehistory, that orch-yard was the original meaning of the family can also be demonstrated by the fact that this is the only meaning that covers the whole area and is shared by all three groups: PSl. *grad, Lat. hortus and Gm. -gards. Whereas the other two semantic innovations town and castle are exclusively Slavic. In contrast with the family of Zaun tuin town dunum, however, in which the different semantic developments correspond each to a different area resp. German, Dutch, English, Celtic, the Slavic lexeme went through the whole cultural sequence, from cultivated field through village to fortified settlement. Typically, the Celtic dunum development reflects the aggressive character of Celtic elites, which during the Metal Ages were able to colonize Central Europe and Italy. In the Slavic area, the fortification of previous settlements, or the foundation of new settlements in easily defendable sites were first the result of the necessity to defend Neolithic groups from the aggressive pastoral groups (as was the case of Tripolye with regards to its Altaic neighbors), and then of the antagonism between akin or foreign elites, which is typical of the stratified societies of the Metal Ages. If we then recall the hypothesis advanced by specialists in oriental languages (cp. Alinei 1996, 618), according to which the lexical family of hortus, -gards, grad can be connected to an Afro-Asiatic language, we could easily place the introduction of this word within the scenario of the introduction of farming from the Middle East: the loanword would have landed in the Balkanic area and in Southern Italy with the first waves of farmers, eventually re-absorbed by the autochthonous Indo-Europeans. Starting from the Balkans, and following the expansion of the new economy, the word would have first acquired the meaning of stable village, typical of Southern Slavic the area of the millenary tells later spread to Eastern Slavic, while the expansion of farming in the Western Slavic and in the Germanic area, with Lengyel and the LBK, besides expanding the word old meaning (Germ. -gards, garr), would eventually lead to the innovation fortification, castle, especially characteristic of Western Slavic. 7.6.6 Metal Ages: loanwords and innovations (1) metallic mineral: Russ. Ukr. rud, OSlav. Czech Slovk. Pol. Sorb. ruda, Serb. Cr. Slovn. rda. This term, which represents an exclusively Slavic semantic development from the PIE word for red, must be associated with the earliest metallurgy, which developed in the Slavic area. As I argued in my second volume (Alinei 2000, 948-9) Lat. rude raw copper (neuter of the adj. rudis) could easily be a loanword from Slavic; (2) the three groups of Slavic horse names, represented by Russ. kobla mare (cp. Lat. caballus, in my opinion a probable loanword from Slavic), kmon horse and kon idem, of obscure origin (see the different hypotheses in Vasmer), are certainly

48

associated with the introduction of horse domestication and horse riding from the Asiatic steppes (Serednyi Stog and Yamnaya cultures); (3) the Slavic name of the new wheel plough, which replaced the ancient forked-branch plow, certainly belong to this period. It was borrowed from Germanic: Russ. plg, Ukr. pluh, OSlav. plug, Bulg. Serb. Cr. plug, Slovn. plg, Czech Slovk. pluh, Pol. Sorb. pug, Polab. plug (Vasmer s.v.). As I have shown elsewhere (Alinei 1997d), this word is of probabile Celtic origin, and its attestations in Northern Italy and especially in Albanian (in Albania specialists have ascertained that the plow was introduced by Celts), confirms this thesis. Both in the Germanic and in the Slavic area, the wheel plow seems to have been introduced by the TRB culture (within the PCT a culture carrying strong Celtic influences); (4) The Slavic word family represented by OSlav. skot, Russ. skot, Serb. Cr. Pol. Czech skot, all cattle, has a Germanic pendant in the word family of Goth. skatts money, OHG. skaz money, wealth, Germ. Schatz treasure, OFris. sket money and cattle. If the phonetic problem underlined by Vasmer (s.v.) could be solved, the greater antiquity of stock raising in Eastern Europe would support the hypothesis of a loanword from Slavic, already advanced by several scholars, with a passage from cattle to wealth identical to that attested in Latin, from pecus cattle or pecunia money. The cultural context of the passage could be identified in the growing importance of cattle raising for the development of private property, and thus of social stratification and lite forming typical of this period; (5) beer, hydromel and other alcoholic drinks except for wine: Russ. ol, OSlav. ol, Bulg. olovna, Slovn. l, lovina brewers yeast, Lith. als, Latv. alus, OPuss. alu hydromel; OIcel. ol, Dan. l, Swed. l, OEngl. ealu, Engl. ale. As traces of fermented drinks have been found in the Corded Ware culture (Sherratt 1991), this isogloss could be attributed to the influence of this culture in the Central and Eastern European area. If the focus of the Corded Ware is Baltic (Gimbutas), or Balto-Slavic (cp. Alinei 2000), then the Germanic forms would be loanwords (not so Vasmer); (6) the Germanic family of *kuningaz king (cp. Engl. king, Germ. Knig, Neth. koning etc.) has expanded (besides the Uralic area: Finn. Est. kuningas king) also to the Balto-Slavic area, where it has acquired different meanings: Russ. knjaz prince, groom, Ukr. knjaz, OSlav. kn(d)z head, king, Bulg. knez mayor, Serb. Cr. Slovn. knz prince, Slovk. kaz priest, Pol. ksidz, Sorb. knz lord, Lith. knigas priest, Latv. kungs lord (Vasmer). This loanword might also be attributed to the influence of the TRB culture, responsible for many innovations, technical as well as social and ideological; (7) evil witch: Russ. (baba) jag, Ukr. BRu. (baba)-jah, Ukr. jazi-(bba) witch, hairy caterpillar, ja witch, Bulg. ez torment, torture, Serb. Cr. jza chill, Slovn. jza anger, OCzech jz lamia, Czech jezinka Waldfrau, evil woman, Pol. jdza fury, witch. Notice the probable origin from PIE (Vasmer), and the exclusion of Baltic. Religion historians place the birth of evil magical beings specialized in the context of stratified societies. 7.6.7 The Balkanic Sprachbund in the light of the PCT Lastly, it is worth illustrating how the PCT can revise the intepretation of one of the major and well studied phenomena of South-Eastern Europe: the so called Balkanic Sprachbund, i.e the ensemble of genetically different languages (namely Rumanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Albanian, often Greek, and sometimes also Hungarian and Southern Italian), belonging to five different linguistic groups, which, in spite of their 49

differences, share many important linguistic features. Emanuele Banfi (1985) has recently illustrated its history and various aspects. The discovery of this anomalous linguistic similarity was made by linguists such as A. Schleicher, Fr. Miklosich, H. Schuchardt, H. Pedersen, P. Skok and others, but the scientific notion of Sprachbund or linguistic league, in the sense of a complex of isoglosses shared by contiguous but genetically different languages, is more recent, as it was advanced by the founders of linguistic structuralism, the Russian N.S. Trubeckoy and the Russian-American R. Jakobson. Not all isoglosses are present in all five languages, and a few extend to Southern Italian; others, especially lexical, cover the whole Carpatian basin and extend to Ukraine (Banfi 1985, 113). The main so called Balkanisms are: in phonetics and phonology (i) the presence of a neutral vowel (which spreads to Southern Italy); in morphology: (ii) coincidence of genitive and dative, (iii) future with will, (iv) analytical comparaison, (v) numerals from 11 to 19 with on and ten (extended to Hungarian), (vi) preservation of vocative; in syntax: (vii) loss of infinitive, (viii) postposed article and (ix) duplication of object; in lexicon (x) a great number of common loanwords from Greek, Latin, Slavic, Turkish (and Turkic) and Albanian; in iconymy or motivations (xi) a great number of common idioms. Obviously, also in this case the great change in the chronology caused by the PCT does not modify the heritage of knowledge acquired by historical and comparative linguistics, but simply adds a much greater depth to the traditional stratigraphy, allowing, in certain cases, the solution of otherwise unsolvable problems. I will examine, as examples of a new interpretation of the Balkanic Sprachbund, the problem of the postposed article and of some lexical isoglosses. The postposted article In the Balkanic area, the postposed article a very peculiar phenomenon appears in Bulgarian, Macedonian, Rumanian and Albanian. In order to identify its origin, we must first of all recal that in Europe the areas characterized by the postposed article are three: the one of the Balkans, the Scandinavian and the Basque. In the last one, there is no doubt that the phenomenon is independent. Also in the Scandinavian area, it probably represents a local innovation, which has not involved the other, continental and insular, Germanic languages. Only in the Balkans it is shared by languages belonging to (parts of) different groups: Slavic, Illyrian and Neolatin. Now, since the remaining Slavic languages not only do not have the postposed article, but they do not even have the article altogether, postposition of the article, as an innovation, can hardly be attributed to the Slavic languages that do show it. Neolatin languages, unlike Latin, do have the article, but always the preposed one, so Rumanian cannot be its origin either. Illiryan which is the ancestor of Albanian has been the language of a powerful elite that dominated the Balkanic area and beyond, and as such could very well be the cause of the spread of this phenomenon beyond its focus area. But apart from the fact that it is very poorly documented, it cannot have had this role since its lexicon is very poorly represented in the common Balkanic lexicon characteristic of the Balkanic Spracbund (Banfi 1985, 106 ff.). From the dominating language(s) of a Sprachbund we would expect a major lexical contribution. The only remaining hypothesis is that the active role for this innovation has been that of an unknown language, spoken by the imigrating farmers of the Middle East who 50

introduced Neolithic into the area, and who would have had a unifying influence on the languages of the Balkans, precisely as happened later to Byzantium (Banfi). The postoposed aeticle, in other words, would have been spread along with that so called Balkanic originary lexicon (Banfi 1985, 83-85), for which scholars have not been able to find adeguate etymologies, and that within the PCT, rather than originary lexicon, would represent the lexicon of a peri-IE adstratum language. Lexicon The greatest support to the thesis of an early Neolithic origin of the Balkanic Sprachbund, however, comes from the examination of its lexicon, the only language component that, with the proper methods, can be dated with sufficient precision (Alinei 1996). Seen in this light, Greek terms for notions such as tile, glass, window keramivda, pothvri and paraquron , diffused as they are in the whole of the Balkanic area (Alb. qeramidhe, Bulg. keramida garamida, Serb. eramida, Rum. crmid, besides Turk. keramit, perhaps to be connected with the originary language; Alb. potir, Bulg. potir, Serb. putir, Rum. potir; Bulg. partir, Alb. parathr), appear to reflect the earlier neolithicization of Greece, in comparison with the rest of the Balkans. Recall that the modern dwelling typology begins with Neolithic, and that baking techniques connected with pottery are one of the fundamental acquisitions of the same period. The two Turkic terms for the notions of the shepherd and of head of the shepherds oban (from Pers. ubn), and ba are diffused, respectively, in the Balkans and in the Balkano-Carpatian area: Serb. and Croat. oban, MGr. tsopnis, Alb. obn and Rum. cioban; Alb. ba, DRum. Megl. baci, Arum. baciu, bagiu, Serb. and Croat. ba, Hung. bacs, bacsa, bacs (Skok s.v. ba), Pol. baca Tatra mountain shepherd, head of the young shepherds, reg. Czec. baa shepherd. The traditional explanation of an Ottoman influence for these Turkic loanwords is difficult to admit. Very rarely colonial masters of historical nations have introduced changes that reach the lower social strata which, on the contrary, they had all reasons to segregate and to isolate from progress. Traditional figures such as the shepherd, the mountain shepherd, the head of the shepherds, are totally alien to their direct interests. On the contrary, such loanwords would be more esaily understable if connected to the introduction of specialized stock raising in the Balkans, by the kurgan culture of the IV millennium or by their later successors. A more recent layer of the lexicon common to the Balkanic languages can be found in Latin loanwords, among which I choose to illustrate Lat. filianus god-son: it appears in Serb. and Cr. piljan, Alb. fijan, Rum. fin, Arum. hiln. As I have shown elsewhere (Alinei 1992a and 1996 cap. IV), in Italy and in Corsica filiano belong to two diagnostic terminological systems for the social relationship internationally known as comparazgo. The pair <filiano/filiana> appears only in two variants: the one I called Ausonian (because it is attested in lower Latium and in northern Calabria, besides the area around Ajaccio in Corsica), associated to the pair <padrino/padrina> for godfather and god-mother, and therefore typically patriarcal, and datable to the Bronze Age; and the other that I have called Etruscan (for the areal distribution in high Latium and in Corsica), combined with the pair <compare comare> for god-parents, datable to the Iron Age. Of the two systems, it is probably the Etruscan which spread to the Balkans, during the Etruscan orientalizzante period: for precisely the pair <compare/comare> for the god-parents appears in Alb. kumbr/kumbre, in Bulg. kum/kum, Serb. and Cr. kum/kma) and Rum. cumtru/cumtr. In more general terms, many Latin loanwords in Albanian and in Southern Slavic languages must be reintepreted as due to a pre-Roman Latin influence, that is as reflections of the very close and well-studied contacts between the Italian peninsula and the Balkans in prehistory. 51

In short, the PCT permits to explain the forming of the Balkanic Sprachbund much less in terms of the traditional historical contexts (which, however, are not denied), than in those of prehistoric ones, from the first neolithization of Europe, which took place in the Balkans, to the introduction of metallurgy, in which the Balkans, again, played the primary role, to the Bronze and Iron age, in which the influences of other, contiguous dominating elites must have alternated in the spread of their innovations within the Balkanic area.

Conclusion

To conclude, the PCT appears to be not only an obligatory working hypothesis as an explanation for the ethnolinguistic development of Europe (and parts of Asia), but also to provide a set of new methods and reading keys which, once applied to the linguistic and archaeological record, prove to be far superior to both the traditional and to Renfrews theory.

52

REFERENCES Aebischer, Paul (1936), Les premiers pas du mot sclavus esclave, in Archivum Romanicum, 20: 484-490. Alinei, Mario (1992), Onomasiologia strutturale: Il sistema lessicale del padrinaggio nei dialetti italiani e corsi (Convegno ALE e ALiR, Torino 1987), in Quaderni di Semantica XIII, pp. 195-222, e Bollettino dellAtlante Linguistico Italiano, III Serie, 11-16 (1987-1992), pp 5-14. Alinei, Mario (1996), Origini delle lingue dEuropa, vol. I - La teoria della continuit, Bologna, Il Mulino. Alinei, Mario (1997a), Nol, map and commentary, in Atlas Linguarum Europae I 5, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca di Stato, Rome. Alinei, Mario (1997b), Il timone, fra navigazione e agricoltura, e lorigine celtica di lat. plaumoratum, in Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi I dialetti e il mare, in onore di Manlio Cortelazzo, Unipress, Padova, pp. 245-256. Alinei, Mario (1998), Towards an invasionless model of Indoeuropean origins: the continuity theory, in A.A.V.V. Papers from the EEA Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997 - Vol. I Pre-and Protohistory - Ed. M. Pearce And M. Tosi - pp. 31-33. Alinei, Mario (2000a): Origini delle lingue dEuropa. Vol. II: Continuit dal Mesolitico al Ferro nelle principali aree europee, Bologna, Il Mulino. Alinei, Mario (2000b), An alternative model for the origins of European peoples and languages: the continuity theory, in Quaderni di Semantica, XXI, pp. 21-50. Alinei, Mario (2001), European dialects: a window on the prehistory of Europe, in Lingua e stile, XXXVI, pp. 219-240. Alinei, Mario (2002), Towards a Generalized Continuity Model for Uralic and Indoeuropean Languages, in K. Julku (ed.), The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia IV, Oulu 18.8-20.8.2000, Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Oulu, pp. 9-33. Alinei, Mario (in press d), Continuity from Paleolithic of Indo-European and Uralic populations in Europe: the convergence of linguistic and archaeological frontiers, in Proceedings of the XIVth Congress of the UISPP (Lige, September 2-8, 2001). Ammerman, A.J., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. (1984), The Neolithic transation and the genetics of population in Europe, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. ANEW = Jan de Vries, Altnordisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, 2nd ed., E.J.Brill, Leiden, 1977 Bagolini Bernardino, Fulvia Lo Schiavo (eds.) (1996), The Copper Age in the Near East and Europe, Colloquium XIX, Metallurgy: Origins and Technology, The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, 10, Forl (Italia) 8-14 September 1996, A.B.A.C.O, Forl. Ballester, Xaverio (1999), Alinei, ossia: Indoeuropei, gente ordinaria. Perch no? RID 23, 311-318. Ballester, Xaverio (2000): Sulle origini delle lingue indoeuropee, in Quaderni di Semantica. Vol. XXI: p. 7-20. Ballester, Xaverio (2001), Alinei II: la sintesi emergente, in RID 25, 373-385. Banfi, Emanuele (1985), Linguistica balcanica, Zanichelli, Bologna. Bknyi S. (1978), The earliest waves of domestic horses in East Europe, JIES 6, 17 ff. 53

Bruer, Herbert (1961, 1969), Slavische Sprachwissenschaft, 3 voll: I. Einleitung, Lautlehre; II. Formenlehre; III. Formenlehre, Walter De Gruyter & Co., Berlin. Buck, C.D. (1949), A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indoeuropean Languages. A contribution to the History of Ideas, Chicago. Burkitt, Miles and V. Gordon Childe (1932), A Chronological Table of Prehistory, in Antiquity 6, pp. 185-205. Cavalli-Sforza L.L., A.Piazza, P. Menozzi, J.Mountain (1988), Reconstruction of Human Evolution: bringing together Genetic, Archaeological and Linguistic Data, in Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences USA, 85, pp. 6002-6006. Cavalli-Sforza L.L., P. Menozzi, A.Piazza (1994), The History and Geography of Human Genes, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Cavazza, Franco (2001), Lezioni di indoeuropeistica con particolare riguardo alle lingue classiche (sanscrito, greco, latino, gotico), I. I nomi degli Indoeuropei, loro protolingua e loro protopatria. La glottogenesi. Cultura e societ indoeuropea. Le lingue indoeuropee, Edizioni ETS, Pisa. Chernykh, Evgenij N. (1992), Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Chernykh, Evgenij N. (1996), The Dawn of Mining and Metallurgy in Eastern Europe: The New Discoveries, in Bagolini-Lo Schiavo, pp. 85-93. Childe, V. Gordon (1925), The Dawn of European Civilization, 1st edition (6th revised ed., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1957). Conte, Francis (1990), Gli slavi. Le civilt dellEuropa centrale e orientale, Einaudi, Torino (transl. from French of Les Slaves. Aux origines des civilisations dEurope, Albin Michel, Paris, 1986). Contini M., N.Cappello, R.Griffo, S.Rendine, A.Piazza (1989), Golinguistique et gogntique: une dmarche interdisciplinaire, in Golinguistique 4, 129197. Costa, Gabriele (1998), Le origini della lingua poetica indoeuropea. Voce, coscienza e transizione neolitica, Leo S. Olschki Editore, Firenze. DELL = Ernout,A., A. Meillet, Dictionnaire tymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots, 2 voll., Paris, 1959-1960, 4th ed. Dini, Pietro U. (1997), Le lingue baltiche, Firenze, La Nuova Italia (Lingue dEuropa 5). DP = Leroi-Gourhan, Andr (ed.) (1988), Dictionnaire de la prhistoire, PUF, Paris (ed. it. a cura di M.Piperno, Einaudi, Torino, 1991). EWU = Etymologisches Wrterbuch des Ungarischen, Akadmiai Kiad, Budapest, 1993-1997, 3 voll. Gamble, Clive (1986), The Palaeolithic Settlement of Europe, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Gamkrelidze T.V., V.V. Ivanov (1995), Indo-European and the Indo-Eurpoeans. A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-Language and a ProtoCulture, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York (trad. from Indoevropejskij Jazik i Indoevropejcy, Tbilisi, Publishing House of the Tbilisi State University, 1984). Gimbutas, Marija (1963), The Indoeuropeans, archeological problems, in American Anthropologist, n 65, pp. 815-36. Gimbutas, Marija (1970), Proto-Indo-European culture: the Kurgan culture during the 5th to the 3rd millennia B.C., in G. Cardona, H.M. Koenigswald and A. Senn (eds.), Indo-European and Indo-Europeans, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 155-198. 54

Gimbutas, Marija (1973a), Old Europe c.7000-3500 BC., the earliest European cultures before the infiltration of the Indo-European peoples, in Journal of IndoEuropean Studies I, pp. 1-20. Gimbutas, Marija (1973b), The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the IndoEuropeans 3500-2500 B.C., in Journal of Indo-European Studies I, pp. 163-214. Gimbutas, Marija (1977), The first wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralists into Copper Age Europe, Journal of Indo-European Studies 5, pp. 277-338. Gimbutas, Marija (1979), The three waves of the Kurgan people into Old Europe, in Archives suisses danthropologie gnrale 43, pp. 113-17. Gimbutas, Marija (1980), The Kurgan wave migration (c. 3400-3200 B.C.) into Europe and the following transformation of culture, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8,pp. 273-315. Guilaine, Jean, Salvatore Settis (eds.) (1994), Storia dEuropa II, Preistoria e antichit, part I, Einaudi, Torino. Husler, Alexander (1996), Invasionen aus der nordpontischen Steppen nach Mitteleuropa im Neolithicum und in der Bronzezeit: Realitt oder Phantasieprodukt ?, in Arch. Inf. 19, 75-88. Husler, Alexander (1998), berlegungen zum Ursprung der Indogermanen, in K. Julku e K. Wiik (eds.), The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia (Turku 30.5-1.6.1997), Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Turku. Husler, Alexander (2003), Nomaden, Indogermanen, Invasionen. Zur Entstehung eines Mythos, Orientwissenschaftliche Hefte 5. Mitteilungen des SFB Differenz und Integration 3, Orientwissenschaftliches Zentrum der Martin-Luther-Universitt Halle-Wittenberg. Hoddinott, R.F. (1981), The Thracians, Thames and Hudson, New York IEW = Pokorny, Julius, Indogermanisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, 1959-1969, Bern/Mnchen, 2 voll. Kozowsky, Janusz K. e Marcel Otte (1994), Il Paleolitico superiore in Europa, in Guilaine and Settis (eds.), 29-102. Lichardus Jan et Marion Lichardus-Itten (1985), La protohistoire de lEurope. Le Nolithique et le Chalcolithique entre la mer Mditerranee et la mer Baltique, PUF, Paris. Mallory, J.P. (1989), In search of the Indo-Europeans, Language, Archaeology and Myth, Thames and Hudson, London 1989. Meinander, Carl Fredrik (1973), Studies in the Antrhopology of the Finno-Ugrian Peoples, Helsinki. Menozzi P. , A. Piazza, L. Cavalli Sforza (1978), Syntetic Maps of Human Gene Frequencies in Europeans. These maps indicate that early farmers of the Near East spread to all of Europe in the Neolithic, in Science, 201, 786-792. Meyer, Gustav (1891), Etymologisches Wrterbuch der albanesischen Sprache, Strassburg, Verlag von K.J. Trbner Neustupn E. and J. (1963), La Cecoslovacchia prima degli Slavi, Il Saggiatore, Milano. Nuez, Milton G. (1987), A model for the early settlement of Finland, in Fennoscandia archaeologica IV, 3-18. Nuez, Milton G. (1989), More on Finlands settling model, in Fennoscandia archaeologica VI, 90-98. Nuez, Milton G. (1996), The Early Settlement of Northern Fennoscandia: When and Whence, in Faravid (Acta Societatis Historicae Finlandiae Septentrionalis XVIII-XIX). 55

Nuez, Milton G. (1997), Finlands settling model revisited, in Reports of the Early in the North Project, in Helsinki Papers in Archaeology, No. 10, 93-102. Nuez, Milton G. (1998), Old and new ideas about the origins of the Finns and Saami, in The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I (Turku 30.5.1.6.1997), ed. Kysti Julku & Kalevi Wiik, ed. ass. Merja rel, Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Turku, 151-160. Otte, Marcel (1994), Diffusion of Modern Languages in Prehistoric Eurasia, NewDelhi: Preprint WAC 4. Otte, Marcel (1995), Diffusion des langues modernes en Eurasie prhistorique, in C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris. T. 321, srie II a, p. 1219-1226. Pictet, A. (1859-63), Les origines de Indo-europennes ou les Aryas primitif. Essai de palontologie linguistique, Paris. Pinker Steven, (1994), The language Instinct, The New Science of Language and Mind, Penguin Books. Poghirc, Cicerone (1992) Pour une concordance fonctionnelle et chronologique entre linguistique, archologie et anthropologie dans le domaine indo-europen, in R. Beekes, A. Lubotsky, J. Weitenberg (eds.), Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie, pp. 321-333, Innsbruck. Poliakov, Lon (1974), The Aryan myth. A history of racist and nationalist ideas in Europe, Translated by Edmund Howard, Sussex University Press, ChattoHeinemann, London. Porzig, Walter (1954), Die Gliederung des Indogrmanischen Sprachgebiets,Carl Winter, Heidelberg. Renfrew, Colin (1987), Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London. Rich, Anthony (1869), Dizionario delle antichit greche e romane, corredato di 2000 incisioni tratte dallantico, rappresentanti tutti gli oggetti darte e dindustria in uso preso i greci e i romani, Milano. Rimantiene, Rimute (1992), The Neolithic of the Eastern Baltic, in Journal of World Prehistory, 6, pp. 97-143. Rmer, Ruth (1985), Sprachwissenschaft und Rassenideologie in Deutschland, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Mnchen. Rna-Tas, Andrs (1999), Hungarians and Europe in the Early Middle Age. An Introduction to Early Hungarian History, Central European University Press, Budapest-New York. Schuchardt, Hugo (1971), Slawo-deutsches und Slawo-italienisches, Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Mnchen. Sherratt, A. (1981), Plough and Pastoralism: Aspects of the Secondary Products Revolution, in Hodder, I., Isaac, G., and Hammond, N. (eds.), Pattern of the Past, Cambridge university Press, Cambridge, pp. 261-305 Stang, Chr. S. (1971), Lexikalische Sonderbereinstimmungen zwischen dem Slavischen, Baltischen und Germanischen, Oslo, Bergen, Troms, Universitetsforlaget Sulimirski, Tadeusz (1970), Prehistoric Russia. An outline, John Baker, Humanities Press, London. Sykes, Brian (2001), The seven daughters of Eve, Corgi Books, London. Telegin, Dmitrij Jakovlevi (1994), Storia e cultura delle popolazioni dellEuropa orientale nella fase iniziale dellet dei metalli, in Guilaine and Settis (eds.), pp. 373-413. 56

Tobias, Philip V. (1996), The evolution of the brain, language and cognition, in F. Facchini (ed.), Lithic Industries, Language and Social Behaviour in the First Human Forms, vol. 4 of Colloquium VIII, A.B.A.C.O., Forl, 1996, 87-94. Trigger, Bruce G. (1989), A history of archaeological thought, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ... Sidney. Tringham, Ruth (1971), Hunters, fishers and farmers of Eastern Europe 6000-3000 B.C., Hutchinson University Library, London. Trubaev, O.N. (1985), Linguistics and Ethnogenesis of the Slavs: The Ancient Slavs as Evidenced by Etymology and Onomastics , JIES 13, 203-256. UEW = Rdei, Karoly, Uralisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, 3 voll., Otto Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden, 1988-1991. Vasmer, Max (1955-1976), Russisches Etymologisches Wrterbuch, Carl Winter, Heidelberg, 3 voll. Verlinden, C. (1943), Lorigine de sclavus = esclave, in Archivum Latinitatis Medii Aevi, 17: 97-128. Villar, Francisco (2000), Indoeurepeos y no indoeuropeos en la Hispania prerromana, Salamanca. Villar, Francisco (2001), La complessit dei livelli di stratificazione indoeuropea nellEuropa occidentale, in G. Bocchi e M. Ceruti (eds.), Le radici prime dellEuropa. Gli intrecci genetici, linguistici, storici, Bruno Mondatori, Milano, pp. 209-234. Wisanski, Tadeusz (1970), Preface, 7-13, Conclusion 421-449, in Wisanski (ed.), The Neolithic in Poland, Wrocaw, Warszawa, Krakw.

57

Mario Alinei (2002)

Towards a generalised continuity model for Uralic and Indoeuropean languages

published in: The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia IV, Oulu 18.8-20.8.2000, edited by Kysti Julku, Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Oulu 2002, pp. 9-33

1. Introduction
In my opinion, in the last thirty years there have been two major breakthroughs in the research on European origins: (1) the development of the Uralic continuity theory, starting in the years Seventies (e.g. Meinander 1973) and continuing to this date (e.g. Nuez 1987, 1989, 1996, 1997), and (2) Colin Renfrew's successful criticism of the traditional IE Chalcolithic invasion theory (Renfrew 1987). The Uralic continuity theory anticipates many of the critical arguments against the invasion model, albeit only for the Uralic languages, and represents the first claim of uninterrupted continuity of a European people from Paleolithic, thus opening the way to a similar solution for IE. Colin Renfrew has shown the failings and the contradictions of the traditional IE theory, though in my opinion his proposed Neolithic dispersal theory lends itself, in turn, to similar questioning. Whether or not my evaluation is correct, after the elimination of the traditional theory as a viable reconstruction of IE origins, two alternative theories are now confronting each other: the Neolithic dispersal theory (from now on NDT), first presented in 1987 by Colin Renfrew and now supported by many scholars, and the Paleolithic continuity theory (from now on PCT), first independently presented by Marcel Otte (e.g. Otte 1995), by Alexander Husler (e.g. Husler 1998), and by myself (Alinei 1996, 2000) in the years Nineties, and the support of which is now growing. To my knowledge, the first detailed presentation of the generalised PCT is my book in two volumes, the first of which came out in 1996 (Origini delle lingue dEuropa 1: La teoria della continuit, Il Mulino, Bologna), and the second of which has just appeared (Origini delle lingue dEuropa 2: Continuit dal Mesolitico allet del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche, Il Mulino, Bologna). A shorter English version is in preparation.

2. The generalised Paleolithic Continuity Theory

I will now try to summarise some of the main points of the Continuity Theory as I have presented it in my two books, but at the same time I would like to stress that it is not easy to condense 2000 pages in an article. 2.1 Questions of theory and method I will begin with the illustration of some theoretical and methodological principles I have used to address the problem of European linguistic origins.

2.1.1 Lexical self-dating Any theory of linguistic origins makes use of the so called Linguistic Archaeology (better name than the traditional Linguistic Paleontology), which aims, basically, at a periodisation of the linguistic record. Owing to the too short chronology, however, traditional IE studies have not been able to fully develop this periodisation system, and in particular to make full use of one of the simplest and most powerful dating methods inherent to it, which I have tried to make explicit and have called lexical self-dating. According to this method, names of datable notions (i.e. tools, techniques, social institutions and the like) can be automatically assumed to have been created at the moment of the given innovation. In other words, the lexicalisation of datable referents can be assumed to have the same date as that of the referent. As a consequence, lexical self-dating, applied with the due constraints (see further), is a powerful enough tool to produce a lexical periodisation system, parallel to that of archaeologists and prehistorians, but at the same time much more detailed than theirs. Here are some international example, taken from Italian (but their equivalent and their date can be considered as approximately the same in other European languages), and from Latin, and which are ranged from modern to ancient times: modern inventions: televisione 1961); astronave spaceship (1961), radio (1918), cinema (1918), automobile (1892); macchina car (for automobile: 1918), aeroplano (1898) e aereo (1918), telefono (1878); film (for camera) (1889), (in cinema) (1918), ; treno (1826), telegrafo (1805). Modern dances: rock and roll (1957), fox trot (1915), samba (1890), tango (1836), polka (ca. 1831), mazurka (ca. 1800), valzer (1781). New World products: patata (1525), pomodoro tomato (ante 1597), granturco Indian corn (1542) , tabacco (1550-58), cioccolato (1606; in Spanish chocolate is first attested in 1580). Medieval inventions: occhiali glasses (1305-6: similar dates for French lunettes, German Brille, English spectacles and glasses. University terminology (universities started in the Middle Ages): Medieval Latin universitas, facultas 'type of study', vacatio 'holiday', appear in the 13th century, baccalarius baccalaureus 'advanced student in the 14th. Feudal institutions: Medieval Latin exarchatus (Ravenna) (end of 4th century), exercitus 'army' (6th ), feodum (8th ), cancellarius 'chancellor' (8th ), mariscalcus 'marshal (11th ), curtis 'royal and palatial court (9th ), 'tribunal' (11th ), minister (7th ), palatinus 'paladin (8th ), vassallus (8th ), vestitura 'investiture' (8th ), villa 'royal residence' (8th ), dux duke ducalis, ducatus (8th ), comes,-itis 'count' (10th ), marchisus 'marquis' (10th , corrogata, from which Fr. corvee (9th ), caballarius feudal knight (end of 11th c.). Church institutions: Late Latin basilica (4th ), dominica (dies) (from which It. Domenica, Fr. dimanche, Sp. domingo etc. ) (4th ), ecclesia (from which It. Chiesa, Fr. glise etc.) (4th ), episcopus (from which It. vescovo, Engl. bishop etc.), evangelium (from which It. vangelo) (4th ), heremita (5th ), monachus (4th ), pascha (from which It. Pasqua etc.) (4th ), praesbyter (from which It. prete, Eng . priest etc.) (2nd ), sabbatum (from which It. sabato) (4th ), soror (da cui It. suora nun) (4-5th), missa (from which It. messa, Engl. Mass etc.) (6th ), monasterium (6th ), oratorium (6th ), ordo 'religious order (6th), parochia, -ale, -anus (6th), immunitas (6th ), ministerium (6th ); more terms belong to a later period, when the Church became a secular power: synodus (8th ),

cappella (8th ), cappellanus (9th ), domus 'cathedral' (8th ), eleemosyna (from which It. elemosina, fr. aumne, ingl. Alm) (8th ), claustrum (9th ), patronus (saint) (10th ), etc. The same principle can be and has been applied albeit not systematically- to the names of metals, metal techniques and metal instruments, obviously dating to the Metal Age. Because of the assumption of a Chalcolithic PIE, however, traditional Linguistic Archaeology has limited its dating research to Chalcolithic and to some basic terms of Neolithic, and thus has not studied systematically all the numerous terms that designate farming tools and techniques, types of earthen ware, weaving, house construction and the like, in principle all dating to Neolithic; and names of earlier innovations, such as fire, navigation, hunting, fishing, burying, the use of skin, magico-religious terms for animals and other natural and human phenomena, production of tar, etc., all datable, in principle, to Paleolithic and Mesolithic. Finally, no dating has ever been proposed for terms referring to the most elementary aspects of nature (such as water wind sun moon, animal and plant names etc.) and life (such as eating drinking sleeping dying), as well as for the grammatical terms that are essential for relating human beings to one another and to the surrounding world (personal pronouns, prepositions, conjunctions, adverbs and the like). In terms of periodisation, these terms should be projected back to the beginning of Homo loquens (irrespective of the question whether this coincides with Homo sapiens sapiens or with earlier species). So, for example, the formation of a common IE personal pronoun such as *eg-, *eg(h)om, *ego (Pokorny 291) (from which Lat. ego, It. io, Fr. je, Sp. yo etc., Gr. eg, Engl. I, Germ. ich, Scand. jag, etc., Slovn., Russ., Pol. ja etc., Lith. , Latv. es, etc.) should be considered as the awakening of human consciousness in a specific group labelled Homo loquens indoeuropaeus, parallel to Homo loquens uralicus, Homo loquens altaicus etc., and as such could only be dated back to the beginning of language. Otherwise, we would be forced to assume that Homo loquens went through the cognitive structuring of the world several times during his development! Of course, any original lexicalisation can be replaced by new ones, and the possibility of such a replacement would considerably weaken the method I have illustrated, if we could not eliminate the risk of dating lexical later replacements, rather than the original word. Fortunately, there are at least three methods to eliminate such a risk: (A) the most well-known, and the most frequently used method in historical linguistics is the one I have used in the exemplification, namely written attestations. Obviously, this method is limited to history, i.e. to the presence of written language, and therefore has no value for prehistory. (B) For prehistoric phases, a guarantee of antiquity is provided by the results of the comparative method: if a given prehistoric notion has the same name in a representative number of cognate languages, then it presumably belongs to the common vocabulary and thus can be considered as the original name. (C) A new method, which I have illustrated in my first volume (Alinei 1996), and which I can only briefly summarise here. It is based on the semantic congruence of the motivational history of the given word. Consider a word such as It. penna pen, which results from a semantic change from It. penna feather'. Since we can easily prove that in the Middle Ages goose feathers were used as writing tools, the semantic congruence of the sequence <feather > pen> represents an adequate guarantee that the word penna for pen is the original one, and not a later replacement.

2.1.2 The relationship between culture and language The relationship between culture and language, more specifically between prehistoric cultures and language areas, forms a well-known problem of research on language origins. For its solution, I have profited a great deal from the pioneer work done by Uralic archaeologists and linguists, even though their methodology has not been made explicit. I have based myself on a twofold consideration: (1) it is of course impossible to posit a one-to-one relationship between a specific language and a specific culture, but it is legitimate to posit the presence of a linguistic aspect in any new culture, in the sense that since any culture necessarily begins within a linguistic area, at least in its initial phase it will speak a specific language. Only in its later phases, if successful, can a culture expand beyond the original linguistic area and so lose its initial identity with the original language. This phenomenon can repeatedly be observed, at any time and in any area: Renaissance spoke Italian in its initial stage, and only later, when it spread to other areas, gave birth, for example, to a German and a French Renaissance. The same applies to Romanesque, to Gothic, to Baroque, even to Scandinavian design, which after its initial phase has certainly influenced modern design the world over. Today, we speak of the danger that what we call the American culture might submerge the different European cultures, by which we implicitly admit that the former speaks the American language, and the latter the different European languages. In short, not only is it absolutely justified to assume the linguistic character of any given culture, but we do it all the time also in ordinary discourse. In the light of this observation, research aiming at identifying the linguistic character of a given culture is perfectly justified, provided we can avail ourselves of a proper method, capable of capturing it. (2) Linguists have given insufficient attention to the heuristic value of the chrono-topological charts that archaeologists normally use to represent the cultural sequence in a given area. These charts are characterised by columns, which represent the cultural sequence in a given territory, and by rows, which represent archaeological periods (fig. 1), and thus provide a synthetic view of the cultural development and differentiation in a given area during a given period. The more detailed the differentiation of the area, the greater is the value of the chart for our knowledge. It is interesting to note that these charts were introduced in the field by Gordon Childe the founder of modern archaeology--, and since Childe was originally a philologist, well acquainted with language trees, the hypothesis can be advanced that in creating the new chart he had been inspired by the language tree. Whatever the case, careful scrutiny of these charts reveals that: (A) the territories that are specified by each column and thus are represented by a specific cultural sequence, are not subjectively chosen by the archaeologist, or by local geographic conventions, but are governed by the very character of each cultural sequence, which is by definition unique. In other words, each territory is uniquely determined by each cultural sequence, which, as it were, has shaped the territory, and can be identified with it. (B) When an interruption of the linear sequence of a column/territory occurs, owing to the development or intrusion of a new and important culture that eventually spreads over larger territories, and thus over several columns of the chart (as is the case for example for cultures such as Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Urnfields, Hallstatt and the like), this phenomenon has usually a transitory character: in the following stages the new, wider culture fragments itself again, and the identity of each territory re-emerges, sometimes to appear more

fragmented. (C) By carefully comparing the columns of each chart with the local linguistic areas, and by cross-checking and cross-linking the different charts that cover the whole of Europe, at the same time making use of the available known factors (e.g. the already established correspondences between certain Uralic languages and certain cultures), and of the best diagnostic areas (see the next section), in a sort of gigantic puzzle, it is possible to reach some major conclusions for the different areas of Europe. The overlapping of the different correspondences and cross-links progressively obtained for the different prehistoric periods increases the global solidarity of the results, confirming the final picture for the whole of Europe.

Fig. 1: The first prehistoric chart, published by Gordon Childe in The Danube in Prehistory, 1929

2.1.3 Diagnostic areas: the North, mountain areas and islands In attributing linguistic labels to the cultural areas of prehistoric Europe, some European archaeological areas can be given a diagnostic value, and thus a higher status in the research. These areas are: (A) the areas of Uralic cultures, most of which can now be attributed with certainty to the Uralic languages or dialects, owing to the pioneer work of the Uralic specialists; (B) Northern areas in general, which differ from the rest of Europe in that they were peopled only after deglaciation, i.e. ca. 10.000 BP, and thus have a much shorter and simpler prehistory than the remaining areas. Attributing a language label to these areas is at times a rather straightforward procedure, as proved by the Uralic continuity theory. (C) Alpine areas, for the same reason as Northern Europe, have also been peopled only in Mesolithic times. Moreover, their subsequent

development is even simpler than that of Northern Europe, owing to their unique nature; (D) Islands, in particular the small ones and those far from the continent. These also have been peopled in recent times, and owing to their isolation have undergone a very linear and uncontroversial line of development. In general terms, the heuristic value of these diagnostic areas for the problem of the attribution of linguistic labels to European prehistoric areas to can be described as offering a considerable degree of certainty, to which the research can be anchored. They thus function as constants in a complex of variables. In the survey of European areas that will follow, some of these diagnostic areas and their value will be underlined. 2.1.4 There is no more need for IEs to arrive from somewhere than for any other people From any point of view, whether archaeological, anthropological, linguistic or epistemological, there is no more need for the Ies to arrive from somewhere, than there is for Uralic people, or for any other people in the world. The first peopling of Eurasia by Homo sapiens sapiens is unquestionably the simplest and most logical starting point for all Euroasiatic languages, just as it is assumed to be for Uralic and for most world languages (exceptions confirming the rule). 2.1.5 The major role of substandard dialects in the reconstruction of the prehistoric picture of Europe Once any large-scale, ethnic invasion has been eliminated from our scenario, the only genuine picture of the ethnic and linguistic distribution of prehistoric Europe is provided by the distribution and by the linguistic features of substandard dialects spoken in the different regions, often without any written form. Their substandard character must be seen as the relic of their subordination to elites in Bronze and Iron Age, and not (only) to national elites of medieval or modern times. Going back from substandard dialects to proto-languages, it becomes possible to reconstruct the differentiation process undergone by the widely spread prehistoric communities of hunters and gatherers. Incidentally, the use of the word dialect in a purely geovariational sense, quite frequent in Anglo-American literature, and often referring to written languages (by definition elitaire), is highly misleading, and should be avoided. The word should be restricted to designate substandard, folk variants, while terms such as lingueme, geovariations or lects should be used for the geographic fragmentation of proto-languages (Alinei 1980). In the framework of the PCT, focus on substandard dialects replaces the exclusive attention given to the location of historical people as they emerge from preand proto-history. Also the NDT has acritically inherited this approach. Proper consideration for the stratified character of Metal Age societies should, instead, provide the correct approach: since societies of proto-historical times already had a very strong elitaire character, ethnic groups emerging in these times usually represent the expansion movement of the most powerful elites, and not autochthonous people. At the most, in their expansion they might have been able to exercise a linguistic influence on the subordinate ethnic groups they conquered or assimilated, the heirs of which are represented by substandard dialects. A good example of this wrong approach is shown by the current interpretation of the Celts: as they emerge in proto-history, they appear to

cover a vast territory, from France to Bohemia and northern Italy. Automatically, their ancestors are projected onto, or within, the same territory, in a very naive and unsophisticated application of the continuity approach and the retroactive method. The truth is that in the Bronze and Iron age, when most societies are highly stratified, the Celtic have become the most powerful and prestigious among them, extending their economic and social dominion or influence way beyond their original home in Northern Western Europe. 2.2 Questions of fact I will now illustrate a few major points of fact, which seem to point to a Paleolithic continuity of the extant populations of Europe. 2.2.1 Archaeological evidence of continuity Modern archaeology has definitively ascertained the absence of any large-scale invasion in European prehistory, and the basic continuity of European Metal Ages from at least Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic. Prof. Renfrew also has had to revise his first model of Neolithic demic diffusion to adjust it to the conclusions reached by Marek Zvelebil and other scholars on the transition from Mesolithic to Neolithic (Renfrew 1999, forthcoming). Unfortunately, in order to replace the Neolithic demic diffusion with a convergence and contact acculturation process, the NDT has lost some of its original simplicity and elegance. Moreover, as I will try to show, some major problems block the way to an acceptance of this model. 2.2.2 Genetic evidence points to Paleolithic Although genetic research has often reached contradictory conclusions with regards to linguistic origins, two major results can be considered as ascertained by means of both classic and DNA research, and both provide a twofold confirmation of the basic assumption of Paleolithic continuity of IE: (A) the basic identity of the world genetic populations with the world linguistic phyla, as argued by Cavalli Sforza and his school, confirmed by other genetists, and admitted by most interdisciplinary scholars. Needless to say, this conclusion implies synchronism of the linguistic differentiation, including that of IE, with the genetic differentiation of Homo sapiens sapiens, and thus the identification of Paleolithic as the main background of both processes. (B) The much higher significance of the Paleolithic genetic contribution to European populations (80%), compared to that of Neolithic (20%), as now recognised also by Colin Renfrew (Renfrew forthcoming). Prof. Renfrew is of course right in commenting that most linguists would hesitate to make linguistic correlations for so early a date (ibidem), but we should add that all Uralic linguists already make just these linguistic correlations for Paleo- and Mesolithic, and we should also remind ourselves that even Neolithic is early enough to frighten most traditional historical linguists. What is now required is to convince IE linguists to reach Paleolithic, rather than to focus on a problematic period and on a problematic process of Indoeuropean dispersal.

2.2.3 Paleoanthropological and cognitive evidence for the antiquity of human language and languages On the problem of language origin, there is a growing consensus, based on independent evidence from various fields, that language origins are much earlier than it was ever thought. Phillip V. Tobias, one of the leading authorities in paleoanthropology, has recently written: the ability for spoken language has been a characteristic of the hominids at least since the emergence of the genus Homo in the Later Pliocene, about 2.5 myr. However, We know that about 2 1/2 myr ago there was a great cladogenetic split in hominid phylogeny. Hominids were faced by one of these evolutionary choices. The new question then arises: Did brains capable of articulated language first appear before or after the split? If they arose after the split, then it is a special uniquely derived trait, an autapomorphic trait, of the genus Homo. We have on the other hand to countenance the possibility that this faculty might have appeared before rather than after the bifurcation. If it arose in an advanced A. africanus before the split, it is likely that the propensity to speak would have been handed on to both or all lineages derived from the split. Several lines of evidence suggest that the rudiments of speech centres and of speaking were present already before the last common ancestral hominid population spawned Homo and the robust australopythecines (Brocas bulge in A.africanus; tool-making perhaps by a derived A.africanus and a hint of an inferior parietal lobule in one endocast, SK 1585, of A.robusts). Both sets of shoots would then have inherited the propensity for spoken language. The function would probably have been facultative in A.robusts and A.boisei, but obligate in Homo (Tobias 1996, 94). This conclusion, of extraordinary importance for our evaluation of the antiquity of language, has been reached on the basis of independent evidence also in the field of cognitive sciences, by Steven Pinker, in a masterly book on language instinct, inspired by Chomskys theory of language (Pinker 1994): a form of language could first have emerged [...] after the branch leading to humans split off from the one leading to chimpanzees. The result would be languageless chimps and approximately five to seven million years in which language could have gradually evolved (Pinker 1994, 345). In short, language would indeed be innate in humans, but only as the result of a much longer evolution than traditionally thought, beginning with some Australopithecus. While Tobias and Pinkers independent research proves the great antiquity of language, at the same time providing an adequate solution to the problem of reconciling evolutionary theory with Chomskys well-founded innatism, the new dating of language origin confronts traditional historical linguists with a radical change in their views about language development and language differentiation. I will return to this point in the following section as well as in my conclusion. 2.2.4 Linguistic evidence for Meso- and Neolithic differentiation and for Paleolithic depth The extremely rich IE linguistic record available to scholars, including that of substandard dialects spoken in the different European regions, if examined with a fresh eye and with modern methods, reveals a high degree both of prehistoric depth and geographic differentiation. This is of course the part of my book on which I have concentrated, with thousands of examples, and which I cannot possibly summarise, but I would like to mention at least three general conclusions, with a few representative examples:

(1) The high degree of differentiation of Neolithic terminology in the different IE subfamilies, recognised also by an IE traditionalist such as Francisco Villar: in the common [Indoeuropean] language a lexicon connected to farming does not exist or hardly exists and the common IE terminology for farming is so scarce to allow a dilemma to rise: it is possible that the IEs knowledge of farming was modest, [] but it is even possible that they had no knowledge of farming at all (Villar 1991, p. 81 of It. ed.). While this finding can be easily explained within the continuity framework, it becomes a huge problem once Neolithic intrusive farmers have been assumed to be the Proto-IEs: This hypothesis clashes with the Neolithic thesis according to which IEs would essentially be the inventors of farming, which would be the most important and characteristic activity of their society, and It is unthinkable that the people who invented and diffused farming would not have a rich and specific lexicon to designate the elements and the techniques of farming (ibidem). As a supporter of the Chalcolithic invasion theory, Villar is of course only interested in refuting the NDT, and therefore does not mention the most relevant fact concerning farming terminology: every IE language has its own, extremely rich farming lexicon, most of which is independently coined with IE material. And this fact cannot be explained either with the Chalcolithic invasion or with the Neolithic dispersal, while it is a direct consequence of the pre-Neolithic differentiation of IE implied by the PCT. (2) The differentiation of IE final Paleolithic and Mesolithic terminology, which owing to the too short chronology of current views has not been the object of studies until now. There are scores of examples, out of which I choose two. Table 1 shows the different IE names for bury and grave -- which, as is known, only began in Upper Paleolithic (cemeteries begin still later, in Mesolithic) --, as opposed to dying, for which there is a word in the common IE vocabulary: TABLE 1 NAMES FOR DIE AND BURY
MIDDLE/LOWER PALEOLITHIC Common IE *mer- 'die' BEGINNING OF RITUAL BURIAL IN UPPER PALEOLITHIC Grk. tpto; Lat. sepelre OIr. adnaicim; Swed. jorda; Engl. bury; OIcel. grafa; OSlav. pogreti; Lith. (pa)laidoti, pakasti; Latv. aprakt, apbedt etc., all 'bury' Most IE languages show different words also for 'grave' and cemetery

Examined at their face value, these data indicate quite simply-- IE differentiation before Upper Paleolithic. Table 2 shows the terms for the production of tar from trees, a typical Mesolithic invention:

TABLE 2 NAMES OF TAR

MESOLITHIC: BEGINING OF TAR PRODUCTION FROM TREES, AND DIFFERENT NAMES OF TAR: Germanic: Engl. tar, Germ. Teer, Du. teer, Dan. tjre, Swed. tjra, Norw. Tjra 'tar' (> Finn. terva.) etc; OIcel. tjorr 'wooden haft glued to a weapon': Latin pix, picis 'pitch': Celtic bitumen 'tar':

< Germ. *ter tree < Lat. pinus pine < Celt. betulla beech

Evidence of this kind is inevitably ignored by traditional IE research, and it forms a major block for the NDT, while it can be quite simply explained within the framework of the CT,. (3) Not only the IE record, but also substandard dialects and oral and folk traditions throughout Europe have preserved countless relics of an archaic, totemic conception of nature and human life, which I have illustrated both in my research for the Atlas Linguarum Europae (Alinei 1983, 1986, 1996, 1997a, Barros Ferreira & Alinei 1990) and in a number of studies (e.g. Alinei 1984, 1985, 1988, 1997b, 1997c). Table 3 shows that the common name for bear was replaced by so-called noa names owing to a magico-religious conception of natural and human life, which begins to be attested only in Upper Paleolithic. The different noa names for bear in many IE sub-families prove that by Upper Paleolithic, when the first attestations of bear cult appear in Europe, IE was already differentiated. TABLE 2 NAMES OF BEAR
MIDDLE PALEOLITHIC: Common IE *rko-s 'bear' (cp. Lat. ursus, Grk rktos etc.). FIRST ATTESTATIONS OF BEAR CULT IN UPPER PALEOLITHIC: DIFFERENT NOA NAMES OF 'BEAR, REPLACING THE TABOOED ONE: Germanic 'brown': OIcel. bjorn, Dan. bjrn, Swed. bjorn, AS. bera, Engl. bear, OHG. bero, br, Du. beer; Slavic 'honey eater': OSlav. medvjed, Cz. medved, Pol. niedzwiedz, Russ. Medved, (> lit. meka); Baltic probably 'hairy': Lith. lokys, Latv. lacis, OPruss. clokis; Celtic 'good calf': OIr. mathgamain, Ir. mathghamhain (from maith 'good' and ghamain 'calf'). Different noa names of animals, different totemic names for animals, different zoomorphic names for natural and human phenomena also in most European substandard dialects.

10

2.3 A survey of European areas I will now briefly review the main European areas as they can be seen in the light of the PCT, at the same time pointing to the problems that the NDT encounters in the same areas. I will begin with Southern Europe (fig. 2), which plays a fundamental role in the NDT. For it is here, according to this theory, that the earliest farmers coming from Anatolia have supposedly introduced IE, as well as farming, into Europe, in particular into the areas of the the three main Neolithic cultures of the Balkans Complex, the Mediterranean Impresso/Cardial Ware and the central European LBK.

Fig. 2: The three earliest Neolithic cultures of Europe: the Balkans Complex (chequered), the Impresso/Cardial Ware (black) (both VII millennium b.C), and the LBK (grey) (V millennium b.C.).

11

2.3.1 The Italic area The Continuity theory reverses this assumption, by arguing that the first farmers who arrived in Southern Europe and introduced farming techniques were not Proto-IEs, but non-IE people, whose linguistic contribution was simply that of a superstratum on the already IE autochthonous people. The evidence for this claim is provided by geolinguistics: precisely in Southern Europe there is a well-known concentration of non-IE elements, which contradicts the basic tenet of the NDT. For following the NDT, we would expect the non-IE substratum to be concentrated both in Northern Europe and in those areas of Southern Europe where the intrusive farmers had a minor, or later influence. Prof. Renfrew is partly aware of the problem, and in a recent article (Renfrew 1988) has attempted to solve it by envisaging Greek loanwords from surrounding nonIE languages. Unfortunately, even if this hypothesis were sufficient to solve the problem for Greece which it is not (Alinei forthcoming a)- the major problem is that also Southern Italy and the islands are characterised by highly peculiar phonetic features namely the retroflex or cacuminal rendering of /l/, /d/ and /tr/- which are totally alien to Latin phonology, and which are usually considered a typical trace of the so called Mediterranean, non-IE substratum. The following figure shows the distributional area of these retroflex sounds (fig. 3). Notice that this area comes very close to that of the earliest spread of the Impresso/Cardial Ware that is Southern Italy and the islands-, and that this is in total contradiction with what the NDT predicts, namely that the concentration of non-IE features ought to appear especially in the areas not or little touched by the Impresso/Cardial culture. But the oppposite is true: not only do we not find any trace of non-IE influences in the areas not or little touched by the Impresso/Cardial Ware, but we find them only precisely where the impact of this culture was the earliest and the greatest! Only if we assume the Continuity Theory, and thus the reverse hypothesis that the autochthonous people were IE, and the intrusive farmers were non-IE, can we explain the coincidence between the area of retroflex sounds and that of the earliest spread of Impresso/Cardial. In the PCT framework, the separation of an Italic subfamily (which in my book I have called Italide) from the rest of IE can be dated back at least to the final Paleolithic Epigravettian culture (fig. 4), from which, in Mesolithic and in about the same area, first the Sauveterrian then the Castelnovian cultures developed, and finally from these, in Neolithic, the Impresso/Cardial culture. This would be seen as the result of the intrusion of farming from a non-IE area, followed by the assimilation of the newcomers by the Mesolithic autochthonous Ies. The well-known regional fragmentation of the Impresso/Cardial culture would reflect the previous differentiation of the Italic subfamily. Consider that this model is further confirmed by the archaeological record of a highly diagnostic island such as Corsica, which was peopled only in Mesolithic by Castelnovian groups, and for which recent archaeological research has excluded any later large-scale immigration (Lewthwaite1983, Camps 1988). Greece (Alalia) and Rome (Aleria) certainly did not alter its prehistoric picture (Camps 1988). In Corsica, therefore, the dialects spoken would have to be considered as variants of a pre-Roman Latin, precisely what we expect by adopting the PCT. For the important linguistic evidence of this claim I refer to my book (Alinei 2000, ch. XV) and to a more recent article (Alinei forthcoming b).

12

Fig. 3 Distribution area of retroflex sounds in Italy, traditionally considered as non-IE.

Fig. 4 A differentiated Italic subfamily (Italide in the writers terminology) could be identified much earlier than in the period of the Neolithic Impresso/Cardial Ware, as shown by the distribution area of the Paleolithic Epigravettian culture (ca. XXV-XV millennium b.C.), as well as by the subsequent Mesolithic cultures.

13

2.3.2 The frontier between Italic and Germanic and the internal frontiers of Italic in the Western Alps Another argument for Italic continuity from Meso- and Paleolithic can be found in the striking coincidence between archaeological and linguistic frontiers in the Western Alps region. Observe the distribution area of Romance substandard dialects in Western Switzerland and adjacent regions (fig. 5). In this small region no less than four different groups of substandard Romance dialects namely Franco-Provenal, Occitan, ol and Gallo-Italic, meet the regional variety of German called Swiss-Deutsch. This corresponds exactly to the frontiers of the French, Swiss-Romance and Italian cultures of respectively Cortaillod, Chassey and Lagozza, all deriving from Impresso/Cardial, on the one hand, and the Swiss German culture Pfyn, derived from the LBK, on the other (fig. 6). Moreover, the same coincidence appears both on the Ligurian coast, where the frontier between the French Chassey and the Italian Square Mouth Vase culture corresponds exactly to that between Occitan and Gallo-Italic, and inland, in the Western Italian Alps, where the frontier between Occitan and Gallo-Italic which is located to the East of the political frontier- corresponds exactly -once again- to the frontier between Chassey and the Square-Mouth Vase. So what we see here is the coincidence of Middle Neolithic archaeological frontiers not only with the linguistic frontiers between Italic and Germanic which could be explained also in terms of Renfrews NDT-, but also with the frontiers of the internal differentiation of the Italic group, which can be adequately explained only in terms of the PCT, because it implies a much earlier beginning of Italic differentiation than the NDT would allow. 2.3.3 The Celtic area In North-Western Europe, the continuity framework allows the attribution of all cultures of the area to the Celts, starting at least from Mesolithic times, and thus, for example, from the earliest megalithic structures of Brittany, of the VI millennium b.C., in the fishing settlements of the islands of Tviec and Hodic. Then the concentration of the earliest megalithic monuments on the Atlantic faade (V millennium b.C.), and their later spread westwards (IV and III millennium b.C.) (fig. 7) can be identified, respectively, with the Celtic nuclear area, and with the first major Celtic expansion eastwards and southwards, which would be followed by the Bell Beaker as an internal development of megalithic cultures. The megalithic spread, in turn, would have introduced into Western Europe a typical Celtic phenomenon such as the so called lenition of unvoiced consonants between vowels (fig. 8). Also traditionally, consonantal lenition is attributed to a Celtic influence. Its identification with the Gallic expansion of proto-historical and historical times, however, does not account for the appearance of the phenomenon in Denmark, in southern Sweden, in Corsica and in Sardinia. The explanation provided by the PCT, on the contrary, is based on the close coincidence of the areas interested by both phenomena, and thus has a more general value. Note that as to the origins of megalithism, Renfrew himself asks: Why, in a specific area -western Europe- do we find such a concentration of megalithic tombs, while in other regions of Europe and the Near East there are hardly any comparable monuments? Does this distribution not suggest a spread from a single centre of the idea of collective burial in built tombs? (Renfrew 1973, 156).

14

Fig. 5: Linguistic differentiation in Western Alps: four groups of substandard Italic dialects, and one Germanic.

Fig. 6: Four Middle Neolithic cultures meet in the same alpine area: Cortaillod, Chassey and Lagozza, all derived from Impresso/Cardial Ware (Italic for both the NDT and for the CT), and Pfyn, derived from the LBK (Germanic for both theories).

15

Fig. 7: Spread of megalithism.

Fig. 8: Distribution area of lenition of unvoiced consonants between vowels.

16

Forced by the constraints of his own theory, Renfrew answers that the concentration of megalithic tombs on the Atlantic is not due to this 'single spread', but to the existence of an Atlantic faade, on which the farmers coming from East would eventually be forced to stop and to amass. Yet, the dating of the different megalithic monuments clearly indicates a spread from West to East and not viceversa! In short, the NDT has to rely on exactly the same scenario of the so called coming of the Celts from East into their area as the traditional theory, producing exactly the same intractable problem: at no time and in no place can this supposed arrival of the Celts be detected. In the new version of his theory Prof. Renfrew now assumes that the Bell Beaker is the first manifestation of the Celts , which implies that Megalithism and the preceding cultures of Western Europe were pre-IE: a very strong claim, which, again, has no straightforward justification in the archaeological record of the area, and which incidentally-contradicts his own reading of megalithism. Moreover, three diagnostic areas point to the reconstruction of the Celtic expansion I have just summarised: (A) the Isle of Man, between Ireland and Scotland, where the Celtic language Manx was spoken until recently. Its archaeological record shows an uninterrupted line of cultural development from Mesolithic to the Middle Ages (there was neither Roman occupation nor early Christian influence), which implies the continuity of the local language throughout the same period. Moreover, the cultural development of the island shows exactly the mixture of Irish and Scottish elements, plus local innovations, which characterises Manx, a language that belongs to the same Goidelic subfamily as the Gaelic languages of Ireland and Scotland. (B) The small island of Arran in Scotland (Firth of Clyde), where Gaelic is spoken, and (C) that of Rousay in the Orkney, where at present Scots, but originally Celtic was spoken. As precisely Colin Renfrew has shown, the archaeological record of these two islands permits to observe the uninterrupted continuity of the present farms from the Neolithic ones, and at the same time the strict relationship between megalithic monuments and ploughable fields (Renfrew 1987b, 134 ff) (v. map in Renfrew 1987b, 135). In fact, what we observe here is the uninterrupted continuity of the material culture from Neolithic to the present date. Nothing, then, could have brought Celtic languages into these three islands, during the period of the assumed Neolithic dispersal. 2.3.4 The Germanic area The attribution of the LBK culture to the Germanic group is shared by both theories (fig. 9). But major differences emerge in the interpretation of the preceding cultures, and consequently of the following ones. In the light of the PCT, the highly specialised fishing cultures of Mesolithic northern Europe and postglacial Scandinavia would naturally be assumed to be Germanic and Uralic. The Maglemosians who peopled Scandinavia after the deglaciation would then be Germanic (fig. 10). This reconstruction would finally explain the well-known, and until now problematic, absence of non-Scandinavian and non-Uralic elements in Scandinavian place-names as well as in the fishing and hunting terminology of the area. In the NDT, which also in this case coincides with the traditional theory, the Mesolithic fishing cultures of Northern Scandinavia must be assumed to be pre-IE, and to have survived until the definitive introduction of farming into Scandinavia with the Battle Axe cultures, that is until the Bronze Age. However, it would still remain a mystery how these highly

17

developed cultures whose fishing tools and techniques have survived to this day- could have vanished without leaving any trace in the toponymy, and why Nordic Bronze Age sophisticated lites would have chosen to become fishermen in the forbidding areas of Northern Norway, and could have done so without adopting at least some of the pre-IE terminology.

Fig. 9: Distribution area of the LBK.

Some Uralic specialists (e.g. Viik this volume) now propose a variant of the NDT, according to which the whole Scandinavia and even Northern Europe was peopled by Uralic people prior to the arrival of the IEs, conceived in terms of the NDT. The role of the pre-IEs in Northern Europe would then be assumed by the Uralic people. However, while this variant of the NDT encounters the same problems I have already pointed out, it is also contradicted by the sequence of cultural development in Northern Europe. If studied globally, and with the methods which have made the Uralic continuity theory possible, this reveals: (A) the formation of proglacial bacins precisely in the middle of northern Europe, between the icecap and the Alps, which made communications and exchange between western and eastern Europe very difficult if not impossible in the course of the last Glacial, as underlined by several prehistorians (Nunez, Kozowski and Otte 1994). In the light of this observation, the hypothesis that Uralic people would have occupied the whole of northern Europe is not a realistic one. (B) More important, the existence of at least one permanent cultural frontier largely coinciding with the present language frontier between Baltic and Uralic: this frontier appears clearly already in Mesolithic times, dividing the Uralic culture of Kunda from the Nemunas culture; then it continues, dividing the Uralic culture of Narva

18

from the neolithic culture of Nemunas; and finally it divides the Pit and Comb Ware, Early Comb Ware and Typical Comb Ware from the Globular Amphora and the Corded Ware (which only for a short period occupied also Estonia). Since Uralic specialists in my opinion quite correctly- consider it unquestionable that the sequence from Kunda to the Comb Ware forms the background for the development of the Uralic languages, it would be contrary to the same logic, and in fact to any logic, to attribute to Uralic also the cultures to the south of this frontier, especially in view of the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that the Globular Amphora and Corded Ware are certainly IE, and probably already Baltic. This, plus the preceding point, make it altogether impossible to postulate that Uralic occupied the whole of northern Europe. (C) The cultural sequence of Northern Western Europe, from the end of Paleolithic to the Bronze Age, shows unquestionably exclusive characters, besides absence of any discontinuity. All this makes their attribution to different IE subfamilies much more plausible than to Uralic. The importance of the Uralic influences in Scandinavia is, of course, beyond any question. But these must have come from Finland, either by land or by see. Maglemose remains beyond any possible attribution to Uralic, and therefore its role in the peopling of Scandinavia should be read in a Germanic key, whatever are the complexities of the outcome of its eventual meeting and mixing with the Uralic groups.

Fig. 10: The peopling of Fennoscandia after deglaciation in the light of the CT.

19

2.3.5 The Baltic area The arguments I have just summarised can also be used to briefly illustrate the Baltic area. In the framework of the PCT, the cultures of Nemunas, Globular Amphora and Boat Axes, which are separated by the already mentioned permanent frontier from the Uralic cultures of Kunda, Narva, Pit and Comb Ware, Early Comb Ware and Typical Comb Ware, can be most productively attributed to the Baltic sub-family. This hypothesis is enhanced by recent archaeological research that has proved the continuity of the Boat Axes culture from the previous ones (see also Zadroska in this volume). In the light of the archaeological record, the position of the linguistic frontier between Baltic and Uralic in prehistory should be placed more to the west than the present one, i.e. in Latvia. In turn, this would explain the evident Uralic features of Latvian. 2.3.6 The Slavic area As is well-known to European archaeologists, the Neolithic of South-Eastern Europe is characterised by the formation of tells, that is by artificial hills resulting from the remains of successive settlements on the same site during millennia. Many of these tells continue until the end of the Metal Ages. As such, tells not only prove cultural and linguistic continuity through millennia, but are also an indication of extraordinary stability. Within the framework of the CT, this picture of continuity and stability of South-Eastern Europe explains perfectly well the little internal differentiation of Slavic, compared to that of the other IE subfamilies, and in turn implies continuity of Slavic, Illyrian and Greek from Mesolithic, in conformity with the archaeological record. In the new version of the NDT, on the contrary, Prof. Renfrew has to postulate an IE Balkans Sprachbund, which would represent the first stimulus to further IE differentiation through convergence and contact (Renfrew 1999). This scenario, however, is in total contrast with the above mentioned formation of tells, which implies stability and continuity. Notice, moreover, that while the newly postulated IE Balkans Sprachbund is a speculative construct, there exists a real, well-known and well-studied Balkans Sprachbund, which, however, is characterised, among other things, by features totally alien to the IE languages of the Balkans, such as postposition of the article. Once again, these features can be explained only in terms of the non-IE superstratum brought in by the intrusive farmers. 2.3.7 The Altaic area In the Continuity framework, all cultures that develop in the steppe area (fig. 11), from Seredny Stog (IV millennium b.C) to the Middle Ages, and which are characterised by nomadic horse-riding stock-raisers, can most productively be interpreted as Altaic in origin. Curiously, no one seems to have noticed that kurgan is a Turkic word with a wide diffusion area in Southern Europe, and not an IE word, and that the use of building kurgan on burial sites has always been one of the most characteristic features of Altaic nomadic populations of the steppes, from the moment they can be identified in history. Among other things, the Altaic origin of these steppe cultures would explain the presence of the numerous ancient Turkic loanwords for horse terminology in both branches of Samoyed, as well as in Slavic, and the spread of Turkic neolithic terminology in South-Eastern European languages. Moreover, it would eliminate some of the contradictions of the traditional reconstruction of Iranian prehistory, well-known to specialists (Alinei 2000)

20

Fig. 11: The cultural area of nomadic horse-riding stock-raisers in prehistory.

2.3.8 The Uralic area In the Uralic area, the generalised continuity model produces a more coherent picture, with a better synchronism of IE and Altaic prehistoric developments with Uralic loanwords from the different IE and Altaic languages. In general terms, my claim is that it is impossible to assume an advanced stage of Uralic differentiation already in Mesolithic, as the Uralic continuity theory necessarily does, and at the same time project a Proto-IE still compact, or almost so, in Neolithic times. More concretely, it is impossible to correlate Arian loanwords with Proto-Finnic-Permic; Baltic ones with Finnic and Lappish; Germanic with Finnic; and Scandinavian with Finnish, as all specialists in Uralic languages do, without assuming a higher or equal degree of differentiation of IE, compared to that of Uralic. Another contradiction that the NDT cannot solve is the rich record of loanwords from IE languages that Uralic languages show specifically for farming terminology. These loanwords not only differ in the different Uralic subfamilies, but they come from already differentiated IE languages, namely from Baltic, from Germanic and from Slavic. In short, the scenario presently accepted by both traditionalists and followers of the ND model contradicts much of what we know about the relationship between the two families in terms of loanwords. More plausibly, Uralic and IE must have began their differentiation and their contacts during their common diaspora from Africa, and their respective subfamilies must have continued to exchange loanwords after their settlements in Europe, with a decided increase of IE loanwords in Neolithic times.

3. Conclusion
To conclude, the CT offers a very straightforward solution of all the major problems which have invalidated the credibility of the traditional theory, and which in my opinion

21

weaken the NDT as well. The only problem which hinders the CT for the moment is the one mentioned by Prof. Renfrew, namely the hesitation of many linguist to correlate the linguistic record to early periods of human prehistory. But since Uralic specialists have already taken this step, there is no reason why IE and other specialists should not follow the same path, in the light of so many arguments that impose this change. In fact, I would like to define this change as a sort of belated adjustment of historical linguistics to the Darwinian revolution, which on the one hand would impose on linguistics the use of the uniformitarian principle, namely the present is the key to the past, and on the other it would synchronise the development of all of our languages with the entire evolutionary history of Homo sapiens sapiens, if not of earlier species. It is my deep conviction that Uralic historical linguistics has begun a new chapter of the history of our field by making this adjustment for the first time.

22

REFERENCES Alinei, Mario (1980b), Dialect: A Dialectical Approach, in Dialekt und Dialektologie, Ergebnisse des internationalen Symposions "Der Theorie des Dialekts" (Mahrburg/Lahn 1977), hrsg. von J. Gschel, P. Ivic, K. Kehr, Wiesbaden, pp. 11-42 Alinei, Mario (1983b), "Arc-en-ciel", in ALEuropae I, 1, Assen, Cartes 6-9, Commentaire, pp. 47-80. Alinei, Mario (1984), Dal totemismo al cristianesimo popolare. Sviluppi semantici nei dialetti italiani ed europei, Alesssandria. Alinei, Mario (1985), Evidence for Totemism in European Dialects, in International Journal of American Linguistics 51 (dedicated to Eric Pratt Hamp), pp. 331334. Alinei, Mario (1986), "Belette", in Atlas Linguarum Europae I, 2, Assen/Maasstricht, pp.145-224. Alinei, Mario (1988), Slavic baba and other 'old women' in European dialects. A semantic comparison, in Wokol jezyka. Rozprawy i studia poswiecone pamieci profesora M. Szymczaka, Wroclaw, pp. 41-51 Alinei, Mario (1992), The problem of dating in historical linguistics, SLE Presidential Lecture, in Folia Historica Linguistica, XII/1-2, Societas Linguistica Europea, 1991 [1992] pp. 107-125. Alinei, Mario (1996), Origini delle lingue d'Europa. Vol. I: La Teoria della Continuit, Il Mulino, Bologna Alinei, Mario (1997a), Nol. Commentaire et cartes, in Atlas Linguarum Europae I, pp. 253-291 Alinei Mario (1997b); Magico-religious motivations in european dialects: a contribution to archaeolinguistic, in Dialectologia et Geolinguistica, 5, pp. 330 Alinei Mario (1997c); L'aspect magico-religieux dans la zoonymie populaire, in Les zoonymes (Publications de la Facult des Lettres, Arts, et Sciences Humaines de Nice, Nouvelle srie, n. 38), pp. 9-22. Alinei, Mario (2000), Origini delle lingue d'Europa. Vol. II: Continuit dal Mesolitico allet del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche, Il Mulino, Bologna. Alinei, Mario (forthcoming a), An alternative model for the origins of European peoples and languages: the continuity theory, in Quaderni di Semantica. Alinei, Mario (forthcoming b), Le conseguenze per la linguistica corsa delle nuove teorie sulle origini indoeuropee, in Actes du Congrs INTERREG 2, Giugno 2000. Barros Ferreira, Mario Alinei, 'Coccinelle', ALE I 4, Cartes 42-44, Commentaires, pp. 99-199, Van Gorcum & Co., Assen. Camps, Gabriel (1988), Prhistoire d'une le. Les origines de la Corse, Editions Errance, Paris Husler, Alexander (1998), berlegungen zum Ursprung der Indogermanen, in K. Julku e K. Wiik (curr.), The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia (Turku 30.5-1.6.1997), Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Turku. Kozowsky, Janusz K. e Marcel Otte (1994), Il Paleolitico superiore in Europa, in Guilaine, Jean, Salvatore Settis (edd.), Storia d'Europa, 2 voll., Einaudi, Torino, Vol. I (Preistoria e antichit), pp. 29-102.

23

Lewthwaite, James (1983), The Neolithic of Corsica, in Scarre, Christopher (Ed.) (1983), Ancient France. Neolithic societies and their landscape 6000-2000 bc, pp. 146-183. Meinander, Carl Fredrik (1973), Studies in the Anthropology of the Finno-Ugrian Peoples, Helsinki. Nuez, Milton G. (1987), A model for the early settlement of Finland, in Fennoscandia archaeologica IV, 3-18. Nuez, Milton G. (1989), More on Finland's settling model, in Fennoscandia archaeologica VI, 90-98. Nuez, Milton G. (1996), The Early Settlement of Northern Fennoscandia: When and Whence, in Faravid (Acta Societatis Historicaae Finlandiae Septentrionalis XVIII-XIX). Nuez, Milton G. (1997), Finland's settling model revisited, in Reports of the Early in the North Project, Helsinki Papers in Archaeology, No. 10, 93-102. Nuez, Milton G. (1998), Old and new ideas about the origins of the Finns and Saami, in The Roots of Peoples and Languages of Northern Eurasia I (Turku 30.5.1.6.1997), ed. Kysti Julku & Kalevi Wiik, ed. ass. Merja rel, Societas Historiae Fenno-Ugricae, Turku, 151-160. Otte, Marcel (1995), Diffusion des langues modernes en Eurasie prhistorique, C.R. Acad. Sc. Paris, t. 321, srie II a, 1219-1226. Pinker, Steven, (1994), The language Instinct, The New Science of Language and Mind, Penguin Books. Renfrew , Colin (1973), Before civilization. The radio-carbon revolution and prehistoric Europe, Penguin Books. Renfrew, Colin (1987a), Archaeology and Language. The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins, London. Renfrew, Colin (1989), Word of Minos: the Minoan contribution to Mycenean Greek and the Linguistic Geography of the Bronze Age Aegean, in Cambridge Archaeological Journal, VIII, 239-264). Renfrew, Colin (1999), Time Depth, Convergence Theory, and Innovation in ProtoIndo-European: 'Old Europe' as a PIE Linguistic Area, in JIES 27, pp. 257-293. Renfrew, Colin (forthcoming), Indo-European Origins: Towards a Synthesis Tobias, Philip V. (1996), The evolution of the brain, language and cognition, in AAVV Facchini (ed.), in vol. 4 of AAVV (1996), Colloquium VIII: "Lithic Industries, Language and Social Behaviour in the First Human Forms", edited by Fiorenzo Facchini, A.B.A.C.O., Forl, 1996, 87-94 Villar, Francisco (1991), Los indoeuropeos y los orgines de Europa. Lenguaje y historia, Gredos, Madrid (trad. It. Gli indoeuropei e le origini dellEuropa, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1997). Wiik, Kalevi (forthcoming), On European lingua francas, in Proceedings of Roots IV (Oulu, August 17-20, 2000) Zadroska, Ilga (forthcoming), The East Baltic at the Crossroads of Prehistory, in Proceedings of Roots IV (Oulu, August 17-20, 2000).

24