The Horse the Wheel and Language

The tribes Europeans encountered in their colonial ventures in Africa, South Asia, the Pacific, and the Americas were at first assumed to have existed for a long time.  They often claimed antiquity for themselves.  But many tribes are now believed to have been transient political communities of the historical moment.  Like the Ojibwa, some might have crystallized only after contact with European agents who wanted to deal with bounded groups to facilitate the negotiation of territorial treaties.  And the same critical attitude toward bounded tribal territories is applied to European history.  Ancient European tribal identities — Celt, Scythians, Cimbri, Teoton, and Pict — are now frequently seen as convenient names for chamelon-like political alliances that had no true ethnic identity, or as brief ethnic phenomena that were unable to persist for any length of time, or even as entirely imaginary later inventions.

That is from David W. Anthony’s The Horse The Wheel and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppe Shaped the Modern World.  In particular this book focuses on the origin of the Indo-European language group and the relationship between archeology and linguistics.  He is also skeptical of Jared Diamond’s well-known thesis that early Europe had much diffusion of innovation in the East-West direction.  Recommended.

Comments

Benedict Anderson's book Imagined Communities has the theme that one important force in creating or congealing political identities/imagined traditions were the administrative needs from the interface between indigenous people and another polity.

If you've found that book interesting, you may like Empires of the Word: http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Word-Language-History-World/dp/0066210860

Which is one of the best books on the subject. This book has one of the best most methodical approaches to historical linguistics I've seen, without sacrificing the quality of prose and interesting narrative. One of its great merits is that it is much more about description rather than putting forth new propositions. I find it is a problem when books (such as Jared Diamond's work) intertwine presentation of "facts" with the analysis of them. It is especially harmful to people who are not experts. I will claim some mild authority to determine this as a current linguistics student.

This book covers the history of the world with language change as the window.

I very very highly recommend it.

"Cruithni" was, I understand, a Q-Celtic (e.g. Irish) name for the P- Celtic-speaking Britons. Replace the "C/Q" sound by a "P/B" sound and you hear the meaning pretty clearly.

dearieme,

There is no question that "Cruithni" is a word referring to at least some of the Picts, probably
those of the lowlands of Scotland. The real question is whether or not the Picts spoke a non-Indo-
European language or some variation of Celtic, probably p-Celtic or Brythonic related to Welsh or not.
Many claim that "Cruithni" is an Old Irish word, that is q-Celtic, just to confuse things further, although
it may well have been yet another name given by outsiders. Most of the apparent words in their language
that appear to be Celtic appear to be p-Celtic, but there are odd elements that appear to be non-Indo-European,
including the matrilinearity of their society.

Dennis Morgan,

You are out of date. This is the theory of Colin Renfrew, but few buy it now. The Aryans-Indo-Europeans swept
out of Ukraine or thereabouts on their chariots, bearing partiarchial gods and wheels and horses, and eventually
iron as well. There is probably a link here with the discussion above. If Renfrew is right, then the Picts
probably spoke some sort of Celtic, the Aryan languages having gradually diffused much earlier, with this stuff
described in this new book, which agrees with the older, traditional stories, simply telling about an invasion
into central and western Europe by a particular group of Indo-Europeans who conquered other Indo-Europeans who
were already there, having diffused there much earlier with the spread of the neolithic revolution. Personally,
I tend to agree with this new/old view that these later invaders were Indo-European conquerors of older, non-
Indo-European groups, such as the Picts who lost their language and got absorbed into the modern Scots, with
only the Basques holding out and preserving their pre-Indo-European language (which is true in any case, whichever
of these theories is true).

David Anthony's book blends mind-numbing detail of archaeological evidence with wild evidence-free speculation about language. I find his arguments utterly unconvincing. At best, he provides a bit of information about strands of cultural continuity in the areas he is interested in, but is very obvious biases make the book nearly useless as a tool for learning anything.

This is in dramatic contrast to Nick Ostler's book (Empire of the Word). Nick presents what evidence there is and explains where there is reasonable doubt and then finally ends up with interesting conclusions.

1. Quote: " [Renfrew's] theory [of an Anatolian homeland for Proto-Indo-European]....is beset with a whole host of problems, not least...is that it requires a fantastically early date for the breakup of PIE -- a full three millennia before the earliest known wheeled vehicles. This date can only be maintained by wilfully ignoring the comparative linguistic evidence....", Benjamin W Fortson IV, Indo-European Language and Culture (Blackwell 2004) p. 42.

2. David Anthony at least takes the linguistic evidence _seriously_. He makes a _serious_ attempt to reconcile both the archaeology and the historical linguistics. The discussions above ignore, eg, (a) Tocharian (b) the Indo-Iranian language groups.

Correction: more like 6500 years later.

"They likely had a word for rotate, but that is not quite equivalent is it?"

Actually *ret- is glossed as "to roll / run" by Pokorny. But let's take it to "rotate"; what else but a wheel rotates to any noteworthy purpose? and how do we get from the Latin present active rotŠ to rota ('wheel'), thence to rotate -- if these people who rode (there it is again) ratha (Sk. 'chariots') didn't have caranÌ£ahÌ£('wheels', < *kwel-)? why does German 'Rad' mean precisely 'wheel'? No better proofs can be put forward for any other people or culture of that era. So, it's pretty clear you don't want the IEs to have invented the wheel, and that's your own ideological problem. But to help you out in that, you'd be on safer ground if you dragged our own 'wheel', and its root *kwel- 1, into question, for that is glossed merely as "to turn", a little less distinct than *ret- and its derivatives, so closely bound up with the concept of the wheel. Of course, we wouldn't have a word for 'wheel' if it weren't for *kwel- 1, which makes nonsense of your belief -- and it is a belief, for there is plenty of hard evidence available -- that they had no word for wheel; and apparently you are unaware of the process of nominalization, that is, where a thing is characterized by what it does instead of receiving a completely far-fetched name unrelated to its function; obviously the concept of "turning" must by far precede a "thing which turns" for a relatively advanced goal like transporting food and soldiers in combat. Anyway it seems the Aryans did a lot of turning and rotating and charioteering without even possessing a word for a flat circular mass attached to axles and a bed used for the transport of men and goods.

Well, leftists and deniers are compelled to beg the issue to dodge anything they perceive, or have been taught to perceive, as remotely threatening to their worldview, where whites are "mutts" with no history but one of exploitation, where we're all really Africans at bottom and the Chinese invented everything. Nothing new.

"Anthony and others have overstated their case on this single word."

Hey, that single word speaks for itself. There wasn't much to life back then; a vocabulary of 100 words would describe most of the content of their daily lives, outer & inner. House; family; wagon; tool; wife; child; animal; water; rain; God. This is why little roots like *ret- have so many derivatives; they're simply recycled in the diffusion of increasingly complex fragment societies, and very often within each of those societies are pressed into service for multiple phenomena, doubling & even tripling the derivatives in use, with speakers completely unaware they're being redundant.

Comments for this post are closed