Book contents
- The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited
- The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Re-theorizing Interdisciplinarity, and the Relation between Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics
- Part I Early Indo-European and the Origin of Pastoralism
- Part II Migratory Processes and Linguistic Dispersals between Yamnaya and the Corded Ware
- Part III The Cultural and Linguistic Significance of Bell Beakers along the Atlantic Fringe
- Part IV The Bronze Age Chariot and Wool Horizons
- Part V Kinship Systems, Marriage, Fosterage, Free, and Unfree
- Concluding Reflections
- Index
- References
1 - Re-theorizing Interdisciplinarity, and the Relation between Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics
from Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 April 2023
Book contents
- The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited
- The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Re-theorizing Interdisciplinarity, and the Relation between Archaeology, Linguistics, and Genetics
- Part I Early Indo-European and the Origin of Pastoralism
- Part II Migratory Processes and Linguistic Dispersals between Yamnaya and the Corded Ware
- Part III The Cultural and Linguistic Significance of Bell Beakers along the Atlantic Fringe
- Part IV The Bronze Age Chariot and Wool Horizons
- Part V Kinship Systems, Marriage, Fosterage, Free, and Unfree
- Concluding Reflections
- Index
- References
Summary
We are currently experiencing what could be called the “third science revolution” (Kristiansen 2014). The implications of this revolution are reshaping not only archaeological discourse, but – even more fundamentally – the nature and perception of interdisciplinarity (Stutz 2018). The current reconfiguration offers unique new opportunities for collaboration across the sciences and humanities, as we will show, but can also provoke a strong emotional response. This is apparent from the at times fierce debates about the role of science in archaeological, archaeogenetic, and perhaps especially archaeolinguistic interpretation (Gray, Atkinson, & Greenhill 2011 vs. Pereltsvaig & Lewis 2015; Ion 2017 and 2019; Ribeiro 2019; Sørensen 2016). We also see old debates about the role of historical linguistics in archaeology resurfacing (Hansen 2019).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Indo-European Puzzle RevisitedIntegrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics, pp. 3 - 10Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2023
References
Adams, W. Y., Von Gerven, D. P., & Levy, R. S.. 1978. The retreat from migrationism. Annual Review of Anthropology 7: 483–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alinei, M. 2000. Continuità dal Mesolitico all’età del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche. Bologna: Mulino.Google Scholar
Allentoft, M. E., et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522(7555): 167–172.Google Scholar
Anthony, D. W. 1990. Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92(4): 895–914.Google Scholar
Anthony, D. W. 2007. The horse, the wheel, and language: How Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped the modern world. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. 2017. Darwinism tested by the science of language. In Bowern, Claire, Horn, Laurence, & Zanuttini, Raffaella (ed.), On looking into language: structures, relations, analyses, 443–455. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Arponen, V. P. J., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Grimm, S., Groß, D., Hinz, M., Knitter, D., Müller-Scheesel, N., Ott, K., & Ribeiro, A.. 2019a. Environmental determinism, and archaeology. Understanding and evaluating determinism in research design. Archaeological Dialogues, 1–11.Google Scholar
Arponen, V. P. J., Dörfler, W., Feeser, I., Grimm, S., Groß, D., Hinz, M., Knitter, D., Müller-Scheesel, N., Ott, K., & Ribeiro, A.. 2019b. Two cultures in the times of interdisciplinary archaeology: A response to commentators. Archaeological Dialogues 26(1): 19–24.Google Scholar
Arponen, V. P. J., Grimm, S., Käppel, L., Ott, K., Thalheim, B., Kropp, Y., Kittig, K., Brinkmann, J., & Ribeiro, A.. 2019c. Between natural and human sciences: On the role and character of theory in socio-environmental archaeology. The Holocene 29(10): 1671–1676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, J. 2014. The material constitution of humanness. Archaeological Dialogues 21(1): 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, T. J. 2019. A stranger in a strange land: A perspective on archaeological responses to the palaeogenetic revolution from an archaeologist working amongst palaeogeneticists. World Archaeology 51(4): 586–601.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. Genetic and linguistic affinities between human populations in Eurasia and West Africa. Human Biology 75(3): 331–344.Google Scholar
Crevels, M. & Muysken, P.. 2020. Language dispersal, diversification, and contact. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demoule, J. P. 2014. Mais où sont passés les Indo-Européens? Le mythe d’origine de l’Occident. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Diaz-Andreu, M. & Champion, T.. 1996. Nationalism and archaeology in Europe. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
Ebbesen, K. 2009. The origins of the Indo‑European languages. De Indoeuropæiske sprogs oprindelse. Copenhagen: Attika.Google Scholar
Eisenmann, S., Bánffy, E., van Dommelen, P., Hofmann, K. P., Maran, J., Lazaridis, I., Mittnik, A., McCormick, M., Krause, J., Reich, D., & Stockhammer, P. W.. 2018. Reconciling material cultures in archaeology with genetic data: The nomenclature of clusters emerging from archaeogenomic analysis. Scientific Reports 8: 13003.Google Scholar
Frieman, C. J. & Hofmann, D.. 2019. Present pasts in the archaeology of genetics, identity, and migration in Europe: A critical essay. World Archaeology 51(4): 528–545.Google Scholar
Fuhrholt, M. 2018. Massive migrations? The impact of recent aDNA studies on our view of third millennium Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 21(2): 159–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrholt, M. 2019. Re-integrating archaeology: A contribution to aDNA studies and the migration discourse on the 3rd millennium BC in Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 85: 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia Quintela, M. V. 2001. Dumézil. Une Introduction. Suivie L’Affaire Dumezil. Paris: Editions Armeline.Google Scholar
Gray, R. D. & Atkinson, Q. D.. 2003. Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426: 435–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, R. D., Atkinson, Q. D., & Greenhill, S. J.. 2011. Language evolution and human history: What a difference a date makes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 366(1567): 1090–1100.Google Scholar
Green, R. E., et al. A draft sequence of the Neandertal genome. Science 328(5979): 710–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haak, W., et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522(7555): 207–211.Google Scholar
Hakenbeck, S. 2019. Genetics, archaeology and the far right: An unholy Trinity. World Archaeology 51(4): 517–527.Google Scholar
Hansen, S. 2019. Noch einmal: Abschied von den Indogermanen. In Hansen, S., Molodin, V. I., & Mylnikova, L. N. (ed.), Mobility and migration: Concepts, methods, results, 44–60. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Publishing.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in action. Ethnoarchaeologial studies of material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hornborg, A. 2014. Political economy, ethnogenesis, and language dispersals in the prehispanic Andes: A world-system perspective. American Anthropologist 116(4): 810–823.Google Scholar
Ion, A. 2017. How interdisciplinary is interdisciplinarity? Revisiting the impact of aDNA research for the archaeology of human remains. Current Swedish Archaeology 25: 177–198.Google Scholar
Ion, A. 2019. Who are we as historical beings? Shaping identities in the light of the archaeogenetics “revolution.” Current Swedish Archaeology 27: 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iversen, R. & Kroonen, G.. 2017. Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and archaeological perspectives on how Indo-European was implemented in southern Scandinavia. American Journal of Archaeology 121(4): 511–525.Google Scholar
Källen, A., Mulcare, C., Nybom, A., & Strand, D.. 2019. Archaeogenetics in popular media. Contemporary implications of ancient DNA. Current Swedish Archaeology 27: 69–91.Google Scholar
Knipper, C., Mittnik, A., Massy, K., Kociumaka, C., Kucukkalipci, I., Maus, M., Wittenborn, F., Metz, S. E., Staskiewicz, A., Krause, J., & Stockhammer, P. W.. 2017. Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe. PNAS 114(38): 10083–10088.Google Scholar
Krause, J. (& Trappe, T.). 2019. Die Reise unserer Gene: Eine Geschichte über uns und unsere Vorfahren. Berlin: Propyläen.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 1991. Prehistoric migrations: The case of the Single Grave and Corded Ware cultures. Journal of Danish Archaeology 8(1): 211–225.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2014. Towards a new paradigm? The third science revolution and its possible consequences in archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology 22: 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2017. The nature of archaeological knowledge and its ontological turns. Norwegian Archaeological Review 50: 120–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2019. Who is deterministic? On the nature of interdisciplinary research in archaeology. Archaeological Dialogues 26(1): 12–14.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. 2022. Towards a new prehistory: Re-theorising genes, culture and migratory expansions. In Daniels, M. (ed.), Homo migrans: Modelling mobility and migration in human history, 31–54. (IEMA Distinguished Monograph Series). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. In press. A history of interdisciplinarity in archaeology: The three science revolutions, their implementation and impact. In Diaz-Andreu, M. (ed.), Handbook of the History of Archaeology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K., et al. 2017. Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware culture in Europe. Antiquity 91(356): 334–347.Google Scholar
Lansing, J. S., et al. 2017. Kinship structures create persistent channels for language transmission. PNAS 114(49): 12910–12915.Google Scholar
Lehman, W. P. 1993. Theoretical bases of Indo-European linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lincoln, B. 1999. Theorizing myth. Narrative, ideology, and scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mallory, F. 2021. The case against linguistic palaeontology. Topoi 40: 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, J. P. & Adams, Douglas Q. (ed.). 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: Language, archaeology, and myth. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Mittnik, A., et al. 2019. Kinship-based social inequality in Bronze Age Europe. Science 366(6466): 731–734.Google Scholar
Montelius, O. 1903. Die typologische Methode. In Montelius, O., Die älteren Kulturperioden im Orient und in Europa. Stockholm.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, V., et al. 2019. The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia. Science 365(6457): eaat7487.Google Scholar
Nicholls, G. K. & Gray, R. D.. 2008. Dated ancestral trees from binary trait data and their application to the diversification of languages. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) 70(3): 545–566.Google Scholar
Olander, T. 2018. Connecting the dots: The Indo-European family tree as a heuristic device. In Goldstein, David M., Jamison, Stephanie W., & Vine, Brent (ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Annual Indo-European Conference, 181–202. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Otte, M. 1999. Did Indo-European languages spread before farming? Current Anthropology 40(1): 73–77.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A. & Lewis, M. W.. 2015. The Indo-European controversy: Facts and fallacies in historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Racimo, F., Sikora, M., Vander Linden, M., Schroeder, H., & Lalueza-Fox, C.. 2020. Beyond broad strokes: sociocultural insights from the study of ancient genomes. Nature Reviews Genetics 21: 355–366.Google Scholar
Racimo, F., Woodbridge, J., Fyffe, R., Sikora, M., Sjögren, K.-G., Kristiansen, K., & Vander Linden, M.. 2020. The spatiotemporal spread and impact of human migrations during the European Holocene. PNAS 117(16): 8989–9000.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, M., et al. 2010. Ancient human genome sequence of an extinct Palaeo-Eskimo. Nature 463: 757–762.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reich, D. 2018. Who we are and how we got here: Ancient DNA and the new science of the human past. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1973. Before civilization: The radiocarbon revolution and prehistoric Europe. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1977. Space, time and polity. In Friedman, J. & Rowlands, M. J. (ed.), The Evolution of Social Systems, 89–114. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo-European origins. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ribeiro, A. 2019. Science, data, and case-studies under the third science revolution. Some theoretical considerations. Current Swedish Archaeology 27: 115–132.Google Scholar
Schrader, O. 1883. Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte: Linguistisch-historische Beiträge zur Erforschung des indogermanischen Altertums. Jena: Hermann Costenoble.Google Scholar
Shnirelman, V. A. 2001. The value of the past: Myths, identity and politics in Transcaucasia. Senri Ethnological Studies 57. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.Google Scholar
Sjögren, K.-G., Price, T. D., & Kristiansen, K.. 2016. Diet and mobility in the Corded Ware of Central Europe. PLoS ONE 11(5): e0155083.Google Scholar
Sjögren, K.-G., Olalde, I., Carver, S., Allentoft, M. E., Knowles, T., Kroonen, G, Pike, A. W. G., Schröter, P., Brown, K. A., Robson-Brown, K., Harrison, R. J., Bertemes, F., Reich, D., Kristiansen, K., & Heyd, V.. 2020. Kinship and social organization in Copper Age Europe: A cross-disciplinary analysis of archaeology, DNA, isotopes, and anthropology from two Bell Beaker cemeteries. PLoS ONE 15(11): e0241278.Google Scholar
Stutz, L. N. 2018. A future for archaeology: In defense of an intellectually engaged, collaborative and confident archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 51(1/2): 48–56.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T. F. 2017. The two cultures and a world apart: Archaeology and science at a new crossroads. Norwegian Archaeological Review 50(2): 101–115.Google Scholar
Sørensen, T. F. 2017. Archaeological paradigms: Pendulum or wrecking ball? Norwegian Archaeological Review 50(2): 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veeramah, K. R. 2018. The importance of fine-scale studies for integrating paleogenomics and archaeology. Current Opinion in Genetics & Development 53: 83–89.Google Scholar
White, H. 1987. The content of the form. Narrative discourses and historical representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Witzel, M. 2012. The home of the Aryans. In Hinze, A. & Tichy, E. (ed.), Anusantatyi: Festschrift fuer Johanna Narten zum 70. Geburtstag (Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, Beihefte NF 19), 283–338. Dettelbach: J. H. Roell.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by