Filogenesi delle lingue Indoeuropee

E' senz'altro affascinante la 'caccia all'oca selvaggia' - 

quello che da bambini era l'inseguimento dell'aquilone, 

oppure dei piccioni in una piazza - anche se si sa 

benissimo che si resterà praticamente a mani vuote... Lo 

si fa lo stesso.

In questo articolo sono sintetizzati alcuni punti interessanti, per chi è del campo e per gli orecchianti. (IE sta per IndoEuropeo, PIE per ProtoIndoEuropeo). 

E' senza dubbio interessante che egli ponga molto l'accento sull'importanza probabilmente molto maggiore della metallurgia come veicolo per la diffusione della lingua, rispetto a quello dell'agricoltura e dell'allevamento del bestiame, o al possesso del cavallo...

Quello che è ancora più interessante è che - in fondo - l'autore del blog Dienekes' Antropology Blog, da cui ho ripreso questo articolo, ripone (come me) molta fiducia nelle possibilità risolutive d'indagine dell'Archeogenetica, visto che linguistica e semplice archeologia hanno fallito nel chiarire definitivamente l'origine delle lingue IndoEuropee. (alcune parole dell'articolo sono attive e rimandano ad altri articoli di Dienekes: suggerisco in particolare - agli amanti delle cose sarde - di andare a guardare il link cui rimanda la voce 'metallurgia', nel punto[4])...

Strong (?) linguistic and archaeological evidence for steppe Indo-Europeans

In a new paper in Annual Review of Linguistics, David Anthony and Don Ringe make the archaeological and linguistic case for the steppe IE homeland hypothesis. It is very useful to see the evidence presented concisely in this way. Of course, I don't think that the evidence for the steppe IE hypothesis is "so strong" as it is said to be

 in the paper's abstract.

1)The authors first discuss the phylogeny of IE languages:

It seems clear that the ancestor of the Anatolian subgroup (which includes Hittite) separated from the other dialects of PIE first, so from a cladistic point of view Anatolian is half the IE family (e.g., Jasanoff 2003). Within the non-Anatolian half, it appears that the ancestor of the Tocharian subgroup (whose attested languages were spoken in Xinjiang, today in western China, until approximately the tenth century ce) separated from the other dialects before the latter had diverged much (e.g., Winter 1998, Ringe 2000). It follows that an item inherited by two or more of the daughter subgroups can be reconstructed for “early” PIE only if it is attested in at least one Anatolian language and at least one non-Anatolian language, and such an item can be reconstructed for the ancestor of the non-Anatolian subgroups only if it is attested in one or both of the Tocharian languages and in some other IE language. 

This doesn't seem to be evidence for the steppe hypothesis, but rather for the Anatolian one. The authors hypothesis a pre-4000BC Out-of-Steppe migration into the Balkans (migration 1), but that takes you only into the Balkans and not into all the places in Anatolia where IE languages were spoken historically (right). The hypothesis that pre-4000BC Proto-Anatolians migrated from the steppe must bridge quite a lot of ground to reach the historical Anatolians of the 2nd and 1st millennium BC. It must also explain that the physical anthropological change in Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age is associated with migration of brachycephals which seems incompatible with movements from either the Copper Age Balkans or the Pontic-Caspian steppe that were occupied by gracile and robust dolicho-mesocephals respectively. Migration 1 is of course possible but it is hardly a better explanation for the first-order split of Anatolian vs. post-Anatolian Indo-European than expansions from the Neolithic "womb of nations" that included Anatolia. Arrows 1 and 2 do harmonize with the proposed linguistic phylogeny. But, why would steppe Indo-Europeans first migrate southwest, then east, and then west? What was the cause of this particular sequence of migrations (which is invoked to harmonize the the linguistic evidence)? I am perfectly willing to consider linguistic replacement in Anatolia (it happened at least twice in recorded history, first with Greek and then with Turkish), but the case is not particularly strong that it happened from a pre-4000BC Out-of-Steppe movement via the eastern Balkans. As for the Tocharians, their recorded language of the 1st millennium AD is 4ky removed from movement 2 to the Altai, so even if future discoveries convincingly prove this movement, the yawning gap of 4 thousand years will remain. My analysis of modern Uygurs shows that the Caucasoid element in the Turkic inhabitants of Eastern Turkestan (which presumably includes the Indo-European element) is complex, and perfectly compatible with a non-steppe, but rather West Asian ultimate origin of Tocharians.

2)The authors next discuss the wheel vocabulary (see below). The idea is that wheeled vehicles weren't known when farmers colonized Europe, so if PIE has terminology for wheeled vehicles, then it has to be later. I don't find these arguments convincing, because words change meanings, and PIE doesn't have a word for wheeled vehicle, but for a variety of its components, each of which might have meant something else originally.

But, even if one concedes wheeled vehicles, it's still the case that neither Anatolian nor Tocharian has a repertoire of many terms for wheeled vehicles. So, all the wheel vocabulary proves (if one accepts it at all) is that post-Anatolian or even post-Tocharian languages had wheeled vehicles. This then provides a chronological constraint to the spread of post-Anatolian (or post-Tocharian) IE languages after the invention of wheeled vehicles, but tells us absolutely nothing about where they spread from (and hence the steppe hypothesis) but only when they spread. Thus, the wheel vocabulary is consistent with a whole number of theories that propose a spread of IE languages after the invention of wheeled vehicles and provides no special support for the steppe hypothesis over others.

3) The authors next discuss the lexical borrowings into Proto-Uralic and Proto-Finno-Ugrian. But, this only shows that early Uralic and Finno-Ugrian speakers came into contact with early Indo-Europeans, not that Indo-Europeans originated near Uralic and Finno-Ugrian speakers. Moreover, the authors also mention that PIE shows evidence of contacts with Proto-Kartvelian speakers. By the same line of argument, the PIE homeland should be close to Georgia where Proto-Kartvelian languages were presumably spoken. Indeed, Uralic languages are very widely spoken from Europe to eastern Siberia and the Uralic geographical constraint is much weaker than the Kartvelian one, as there are many parts of Eurasia (including the Pontic-Caspian steppe) that Uralic languages may have been spoken of, but a very small part of Eurasia (the southern Caucasus and northeastern Anatolia) for which any evidence of Kartvelians exists. The authors suggest that a steppe PIE explains both Proto-Uralic and Proto-Kartvelian borrowings as the steppe is between presumable speakers of these two language families. True, but Northeast and Northwest Caucasian speakers lie between Proto-Kartvelians and the steppe. A PIE origin on the steppe must bypass the NW/NE Caucasian speakers to bring Indo-Europeans in contact with Kartvelians, and a PIE origin in highland West Asia must bypass the same to bring them into contact with Uralic speakers. In sum, I don't see at all how the evidence from lexical borrowings favors the steppe hypothesis strongly.

4) The authors next discuss the archaeological implications of placing the homeland on the steppe and discuss how it may have been carried out. I continue to think that the spread of metallurgy is the most obvious candidate for an enabling factor. Having the capacity to build and trade metal objects, or kill people with metal weapons gives one obvious advantages that are unquestionable in every circumstance in the way that flocks of cattle and sheep, horses, and wheeled vehicles are not. Not only Indo-Europeans but also Semitic speakers may have been enabled by metallurgy to spread their languages. Neither Indo-Europeans nor Semites may have been master metallurgists, but metallurgical progress enabled language spread just as other technological innovations (e.g., stirrups, firearms, ocean-worthy boats) did in more recent history.

The authors then criticize past work on phylogenetic modeling of languages and end their article with this sentence:

Work currently in progress by the team of Chang, Hall, Cathcart, and Garrett promises to fill that gap.

An article by these authors is listed in the journal Language website, albeit without the actual text of the article yet:

Ancestry-constrained phylogenetic analysis supports the Indo-European steppe hypothesis 

Will Chang, Chundra Cathcart, David Hall and Andrew Garrett, University of California, Berkeley 

Discussion of Indo-European origins and dispersal focuses on two hypotheses. Qualitative evidence from reconstructed vocabulary and correlations with archaeological data suggest that Indo-European languages originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe and spread together with cultural innovations associated with pastoralism, beginning c. 6500–5500 BP. An alternative hypothesis, according to which Indo-European languages spread with the diffusion of farming from Anatolia, beginning c. 9500–8000 BP, is supported by statistical phylogenetic and phylogeographic analyses of lexical traits. The time and place of the Indo-European ancestor language therefore remain disputed. Here we present a phylogenetic analysis in which ancestry constraints permit more accurate inference of rates of change, based on observed changes between ancient or medieval languages and their modern descendants, and we show that the result strongly supports the steppe hypothesis. Positing ancestry constraints also reveals that homoplasy is common in lexical traits, contrary to the assumptions of previous work. We show that lexical traits undergo recurrent evolution due to recurring patterns of semantic and morphological change.

It's not clear what the article itself shows. If this is simply a criticism of the "old" dates of the first PIE split proposed by Gray/Atkinson and Bouckaert et al., then this does not really support the steppe hypothesis uniquely, but rather argues against the Neolithic Anatolian one. However, there are many hypotheses other than these two (including my Bronze Age expansion of Indo-European languages hypothesis from West Asia which is somewhat related to that of Stanislav Grigoriev) that can accommodate a later split of PIE.

To conclude, I think that archaeology and linguistics have failed to make a convincing case for steppe Proto-Indo-Europeans. It is certainly a respectable and popular theory but the evidence for it is hardly "so strong" as to create serious problems for other hypotheses. Hopefully, archaeogenetics will succeed where archaeology and linguistics (despite their valiant efforts) have failed.
Annual Review of Linguistics Vol. 1: 199-219 (Volume publication date January 2015) DOI: 10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812

David W. Anthony1 and Don Ringe2

The Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives 

Archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence converge in support of an origin of Indo-European languages on the Pontic-Caspian steppes around 4,000 years BCE. The evidence is so strong that arguments in support of other hypotheses should be reexamined.

Link

La lingua indoeuropea.

Molto più probabilmente, invece,  la lingua è l'invenzione più importante dell'Umanità.

(Francisco Villar, "Los Indoeuropeos y los origenes de Europa languaye e historia" - Madrid, Editorial Gredos, 1996).

Il primo grafico sembra illustrare lo spostamento graduale dell'Agricoltura in Europa. Il secondo schema è molto suggestivo della teoria d'origine di M.Gimbutas (kurgan).

Origini della

lingua 

Indo-Europea. 

da F. Villar

da J.P. Mallory

L'identificazione di una sede d'origine delle lingue IndoEuropee  non è solo un esercizio di logica: la vasta varietà di risposte al quesito dipende anche dalla varietà di metodi d'approccio applicati alla soluzione del problema.  E' noto che nel tempo sono state ipotizzate numerose (circa una ventina) e diversissime sedi d'origine delle lingue Indo-europee (una perfino nel Polo!), con l'ipotesi di lingue intermedie oggi scomparse (Proto Indo Europee - PIE) a partire forse da una lingua comune ancora più antica, con l'esito in differenziazioni finali  sempre più marcate determinate dalla crescente distanza tra popolazioni sempre più differenti e dal passare del tempo, fino ad oggi, epoca in cui l'amalgama globale e la rapidità di movimento e di comunicazione sta facendo rapidamente scomparire molte di esse.  La ricerca deve essere interdisciplinare: perché  - l'Archeologia comprende bene la cronologia, ma ha difficoltà con l'identità, - la Linguistica non indaga troppo bene nella cronologia, ma è discretamente precisa nel rilevare l'identità, - la Genetica lavora su cronologie più lunghe e vaghe di quelle storiche, ma è estremamente precisa nell'identificare le identità. - si potrebbe continuare citando le competenze di varie altre discipline, ma questo esempio dovrebbe essere già sufficiente a dimostrare il punto. E' importante tenere presente che - seppure la Genetica sia certamente sempre implicata in qualsiasi argomento riguardi l'uomo - non è corretto parlare di "Indoeuropei" (il che farebbe propendere per una particolare popolazione e per differenze biologiche), bensì di "lingue Indoeuropee" (che hanno certamente implicato varie popolazioni nel corso del loro differenziamento crescente), a partire da una sola piccola popolazione, che probabilmente era 'barbara' ed arretrata rispetto a quelle che aveva intorno, prima di dare inizio all'espansione della propria lingua parlata.

TEORIA DI IGOR M. D’IAKONOV (1985, 1999).

Una delle numerose teorie che si contendono l'identificazione della terra d'origine dell'Indoeuropeo propone come  Madrepatria  dei Protoindoeuropeo-parlanti la penisola Balcanica (Europa orientale meridionale). Questa teoria fu esaurientemente formulata dal linguista e storico russo Igor d'iakonov in una pubblicazione del 1985 dal titolo:  “On the Original Home of the Speakers of Indo-European.” Journal of Indo-European Studies. Volume 13, p. 92.

D’iakonov sostiene in modo piuttosto convincente la sua tesi di fronte a quelle dei due rivali principali quella della femminista lituana Marija Gimbutas [(1973). “The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans: 3500-2500 B.C.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 1, p. 163], che ipotizzava l'origine degli Indoeuropei parlanti nelle steppe russe e quella dei linguisti giorgiani Gamkrelidze, T. V. and V. V. Ivanov, che proponevano un'origine presso l'altopiano armeno [(1985). “The Migrations of Tribes Speaking Indo-European Dialects from their Original Homeland in the Near East to their Historical Habitations in Eurasia.” Journal of Indo-European Studies, Volume 13, p. 49].

D'iakonov esegue una revisione dell'evidenza linguistica e di quella archeologica e conclude che i "Proto Indo europei" (non necessariamente una popolazione, bensì un gruppo linguistico, il che è molto differente) possedevano una economia mista, basata su agricoltura e su allevamento. Critica la teoria di Gimbutas (che si basa su scarse prove archeologiche e sull'ipotesi arbitraria che le popolazioni preistoriche usassero il cavallo come strumento bellico. La sua critica a Gamkrelidze ed Ivanov , oltre che su basi linguistiche, si rivolge agli improbabili percorsi migratori che sostengono per giustificare le lingue Indo Europee storicamente documentate.

D'iakonov sostiene che la regione Balcano-Carpatica possiede tutti i requisiti comunemente attribuiti alla Cultura Proto-Indo-Europea e che se si accetti tale culla originaria, anche la sistemazione di tutte le altre lingue I.E. diviene più semplice, (con l'eccezione di quelle Indo-Iraniche, a cui l'I.E. giunse più tardi).

D’iakonov [“The Paths of History” Cambridge University Press, 1999] spiega che l'espansione delle genti parlanti  Indo-Europeo è potuta avvenire per via della loro prevalenza culturale sulle popolazioni più primitive che le circondavano.

Anche la teoria di D'iakonov ha i suoi critici (ad esempio: J.P. Mallory) ed i suoi punti deboli, quando asserisce:

"However, I would like to note at once - against the opinions of Maria Gimbutas and other authorities of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but in accordance with the later findings of C. Renfrew and J.P. Mallory - that the most ancient Indo-Europeans living in the fifth to third millennia BC, i.e. long before the Iron Age, although already acquainted with horse-drawn chariots, never were nomads. Their movement across Eurasia (presumably via the Balkans) was not a miltary invasion, but a slow spread, caused by a fall in the child mortality rate and, consequently, by an increase in population growth. The reason was that the population speaking the Indo-European proto-language changed to a diet of milk and meat, and had a sufficiently developed agriculture (growing barley, wheat, grapes and vegetables). The surrounding population which lived in the Early Primitive Phase, and thus was by far not so numerous (the population numbers after the change from Primitive to Primitive Communal Phase tend to multiply by two orders of magnitude), adopted the agricultural achievements of the Indo-Europeans, and at the same time also adopted their language; thus the further movements involved not only the original Indo-Europeans but also tribes who had adopted the language and the mores, the latter including the Primitive Communal stage customs which the Indo-Europeans had evolved".

TEORIA DI COLIN RENFREW

Uno degli archeologi di maggior fama della nostra epoca, autore di: “Archaeology and Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins.” ISBN: 0521386756, sostiene in modo convincente che le lingue Indoeuropee  furono diffuse da agricoltori i quali, alla ricerca di nuove terre si sparsero gradualmente attraverso ed al di fuori della Mezzaluna Fertile (in questo caso, fuori dell'Anatolia e dentro l'Europa). Di fatto, aveva osservato questo processo in tutti i casi in cui gli agricoltori si erano spostati, portando con sé la propria lingua a piccoli gruppi (e - in questo caso - portando anche alla diffusione di quell'iniziale "pacchetto mesopotamico" di piante e di animali utili che ne ha cambiato l'areale di distribuzione). Anche la teoria di Renfrew ha i suoi punti di forza ed i suoi punti deboli. Infatti, recentemente egli l'ha leggermente modificata. Adesso sostiene che è nei Balcani (non più in Turchia) che si deve identificare il primo nucleo di lingua ProtoIndoEuropea, in accordo con D'iakonov.

Ma il ProtoIndoEuropeo va considerato uno sviluppo del Pre-ProtoIndoEuropeo, cioé probabilmente di quella lingua che i primi agricoltori - quelli che attraversarono il mare Egeo per stabilirsi in Tessaglia - parlavano originariamente in Turchia. Lì si sarebbe formata la prima comunità ProtoIndoEuropeo-parlante, dalla quale in seguito sarebbero derivate tutte le lingue IndoEuropee storiche a noi note (che appartengono ai vari gruppi celtico, germanico, slavo, baltico, italico, iraniano, illirico, indo-ariano, tocario, greco e trace)), mentre quelle Anatoliche rimaste indietro rappresenterebbero una derivazione locale del ProtoIndoEuropeo (Ittita, Luvio, Palaico). Secondo Renfrew, infatti: [“The Tarim basin, Tocharian, and Indo-European origins: a view from the west,” in V.Mair (ed.),The Bronze Age & Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia (Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph #26, vol.1)]:

"In harmony with the view of Dolgopolsky, and of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, and following Sturtevant (1962), I suggest that the basic division in the early Indo-European languages is between the Anatolian languages on one hand and all the other members of the Indo-European family in the other. Such a view arises directly from the “farming dispersal” hypothesis, since farming came to Europe from Anatolia. It is suggested that all the other branches of the Indo-European languages (except possibly Armenian) were derived from the western branch of the divide (ancestral to the Indo-European languages of Europe, including those of the steppes, and thus also of the Iranian plateau, central Asia, and south Asia) [...] The secondary center, as Diakonoff realized, is the Balkans (around 5000 BCE), and from there one must envisage a division with the bulk of the early Proto-Indo-European languages of central and Western Europe (the languages of “Old Europe” in some terminologies, although emphatically not that of Gimbutas) on the one hand, and those of the steppe lands to the north of the Black Sea on the other (4th millennium BCE)".

(To be continued)