Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-r8w4l Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T19:33:20.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Proto-Indo-Anatolian, the “Anatolian Split” and the “Anatolian Trek”: A Comparative Linguistic Perspective

from Part I - Early Indo-European and the Origin of Pastoralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2023

By
Alwin Kloekhorst
Edited by
Kristian Kristiansen ,
Guus Kroonen  and
Eske Willerslev
Kristian Kristiansen
Affiliation:
Göteborgs Universitet, Sweden
Guus Kroonen
Affiliation:
Universiteit Leiden
Eske Willerslev
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen
Get access

Summary

Since the so-called “Ancient DNA Revolution” of the past decade, which has yielded many new insights into the genetic prehistory of Europe and large parts of Asia, it can no longer be doubted that the Indo-European languages spoken in Europe and Central and South Asia were brought there from the late fourth millennium BCE onward by population groups from the Pontic–Caspian steppes who had belonged to the archaeologically defined Yamnaya culture.1 We may therefore assume that the population groups bearing the Yamnaya culture can practically be equated with the speakers of Proto-Indo-European, the reconstructed ancestor of the Indo-European languages of Europe and Asia, and that the spread of the Indo-European language family is a direct consequence of these migrations of Yamnaya individuals into Europe and Asia.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited
Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics
 , pp. 42 - 60
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adiego, I. J. 2007. The Carian language. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allentoft, M. E., et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature 522: 167–172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Anthony, D. W. 2013. Two IE phylogenies, three PIE migrations, and four kinds of steppe pastoralism. Journal of Language Relationship (Вопросы языкового родства) 9: 1–21.Google Scholar
Anthony, D. W., et al. 2022. The Eneolithic cemetery at Khvalynsk on the Volga River. Prähistorische Zeitschrift 97: 22–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachhuber, C., 2013. James Mellaart and the Luwians: A culture-(pre)history. In: Mouton, A., Rutherford, I., & Yakubovich, I. (ed.), Luwian identities. Culture, languages and religion between Anatolia and the Aegean, 279–304. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Beekes, R. S. P. 2003. The origin of the Etruscans. Amsterdam: KNAW.Google Scholar
Bonechi, M. 1990. Aleppo in età arcaica; a proposito di un’opera recente. Studi Epigrafici e Linguistici sul Vicino Oriente Antico 7: 15–37.Google Scholar
Bouckaert, R., et al. 2012. Mapping the origins and expansions of the Indo-European language family. Science 337: 957–960.Google Scholar
Brixhe, C. 1988. La langue des inscriptions épichoriques de Pisidie. In Arbeitman, Y. L. (ed.), A linguistic happening in memory of Ben Schwartz, 131–155. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Brixhe, C. 2008. Phrygian. In Woodard, R. D. (ed.), The ancient languages of Asia Minor, 69–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bryce, T. 2009. The Routledge handbook of the peoples and places of ancient Western Asia. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carpelan, C., & Parpola, A.. 2001. Emergence, contacts and dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan in archaeological perspective. In: Carpelan, Christian, Parpola, Asko, & Koskikallio, Petteri (ed.), Early contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and archaeological considerations, 55–150. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Carruba, O. 1970. Das Palaische. Texte, Grammatik, Lexikon (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 10). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Collinder, B. 1934. Indo‑uralisches Sprachgut: die Urverwandtschaft zwischen der indoeuropäischen und der uralischen (finnischugrisch‑samojedischen) Sprachfamilie. Uppsala: A.–B. Lundequistska.Google Scholar
Collinder, B. 1954. Zur indo-uralischen Frage. Språkvetenskapliga Sällskapets i Uppsala Förhandlingar Jan. 1952–Dec. 1954, 79–91.Google Scholar
Čop, B., 1975. Die indogermanische Deklination im Lichte der indouralischen vergleichenden Grammatik. Ljubljana: SAZU.Google Scholar
Damgaard, P. de B., et al. 2018. The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia. Science 360: eaar7711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darbyshire, G., Mitchell, S., & Vardar, L.. 2000. The Galatian settlement in Asia Minor. Anatolian Studies 50: 75–97.Google Scholar
Dergačev, V. A. 2007. O skipetrax, o lošadjax, o vojne: etjudy v zaščity migracionnoj koncepcii M. Gimbutas. St. Petersburg.Google Scholar
Diakonoff, I. M. 1984. The pre-history of the Armenian people. Delmar: Caravan.Google Scholar
Eichner, H. 1973. Die Etymologie von heth. mehur, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31: 53–107.Google Scholar
Gimbutas, M. 1973. The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans 3500−2500 B.C. Journal of Indo-European Studies 1: 163−214.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
Gusmani, R. 1964–1986. Lydisches Wörterbuch. Mit grammatischer Skizze und Inschriftensammlung. Heidelberg: Winter (1964). With Ergänzungsband Lfg. 1 (1980), Lfg. 2 (1982), Lfg. 3 (1986).Google Scholar
Gusmani, R. 1989/1990. Lo stato delle ricerche sul milíaco. Incontri linguistici 13: 69–78.Google Scholar
Haak, W., et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature 522: 207–211.Google Scholar
Hoffner, H. A. Jr., & Melchert, H. C.. 2008. A grammar of the Hittite language. Winona Lake (Ind.): Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Janhunen, J. 2009. Proto-Uralic: What, where and when?. In: Ylikoski, J. (ed.), The quasquicentennial of the Finno-Ugrian Society, 57–78. Helsinki: Tiedekirja.Google Scholar
Jones, E. R., et al. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians. Nature Communications 6: 8912.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2006. Initial laryngeals in Anatolian. Historische Sprachforschung 119: 77–108.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2008a. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2008b. Some Indo-Uralic aspects of Hittite. Journal of Indo-European Studies 36: 88–95.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2012. The language of Troy. In: Kelder, J., Uslu, G., & Şerifoğlu, Ö.F. (ed.), Troy. City, Homer, Turkey, 46–50. Amsterdam: Allard Pierson Museum.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2013. Ликийский язык [The Lycian language]. In: Koryakov, Y. B. & Kibrik, A. A. (ed.), Языки мира: реликтовые индоевропейские языки Передней и Центральной Азии [Languages of the World: Relict Indo-European languages of Western and Central Asia], 131–154. Moscow.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2014. Accent in Hittite: A study in plene spelling, consonant gradation, clitics, and metrics (Studien zu den Boğazköy-Texten 56). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2018. Anatolian evidence suggests that the Indo-European laryngeals *h2 and *h3 were uvular stops. Indo-European Linguistics 6: 69–94.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2018. The origin of the Hittite ḫi-conjugation. In: van Beek, L. et al., Farnah. Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Sasha Lubotsky, 89–106. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2019. Kanišite Hittite: The earliest attested record of Indo-European (Handbuch der Orientalistik 1.132). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2022a. Anatolian. In: Olander, T. (ed.), The Indo-European Language Family: A Phylogenetic Perspective, 63–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kloekhorst, A. 2022b. Luwians, Lydians, Etruscans, and Troy: the linguistic landscape of northwestern Anatolia in the pre-classical period. In: Hajnal, I. et al. (edd.), The political geography of western Anatolia in the Late Bronze Age. Proceedings of the EAA Conference, Bern, 7 September 2019, 201–227. Budapest: Archaeolingua.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, A., & Pronk, T. C.. 2019. Introduction: Reconstructing Proto‑Indo‑Anatolian and Proto‑Indo‑Uralic. In: Kloekhorst, A. & Pronk, T. C. (ed.), The precursors of Proto‑Indo‑European: The Indo‑Anatolian and Indo‑Uralic hypotheses (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 21), 1–14. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, F. 1989. Eight Indo-Uralic Verbs? Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 50: 79–85.Google Scholar
Kortlandt, F. 2002. The Indo-Uralic verb. In: Blokland, R. & Hasselblatt, C. (ed.), Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts (Studia Fenno-Ugrica Groningana 2), 217–227. Maastricht: Shaker.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, K. et al. 2018. Archaeological supplement A to Damgaard et al. 2018: Archaeology of the Caucasus, Anatolia, Central and South Asia 4000–1500 BCE.Google Scholar
Kroonen, G., Barjamovic, G., & Peyrot, M.. 2018. Linguistic supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018: Early Indo-European languages, Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian.Google Scholar
Larsen, M. T. 2015. Ancient Kanesh. A merchant colony in Bronze Age Anatolia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lazaridis, I., et al. 2016. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature 536: 419–424.Google Scholar
Laziridis, I., et al. 2017. Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature 548: 214–218.Google Scholar
Lazaridis, I., et al. 2022. The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe. Science 377.Google Scholar
Lopuhaä, M. 2019. The Anatolian “ergative.” In: Kloekhorst, A. & Pronk, T. C. (ed.), The precursors of Proto‑Indo‑European: The Indo‑Anatolian and Indo‑Uralic hypotheses (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 21), 131–150. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Luraghi, S. 2017. The syntax of Anatolian: The simple sentence. In: Klein, J. et al. (ed.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 41.1), 274–291. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, J. P. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans: Languages, archaeology and myth. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Mallory, J. P., & Adams, D. Q. (ed.). 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European culture, London: Fotzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Matasović, R. 2009. Historical evolution of the world’s languages. In: V. Muhvic-Dimanovski & L. Socanac (ed.), Linguistics (Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems), 511–522.Google Scholar
Mathieson, I., et al. 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature 555: 197–203.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2003a. The dialectal position of Lydian and Lycian within Anatolian. In: Giorgieri, Mauro, Salvini, Mirjo, Tremouille, Marie-Claude, & Vannicelli, Pietro (ed.), Licia e Lidia prima dell’ellenizzazione. Atti del Convegno internazionale, Roma, 11−12 ottobre 1999, 265−272. Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2003. Language. In: Melchert, H. C. (ed.), The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One, Near and Middle East Volume 68), 170–210. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2003. Prehistory. In: Melchert, H. C. (ed.), The Luwians (Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section One, Near and Middle East Volume 68), 8–26. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2008. Lycian. In: Woodard, R. D. (ed.), The ancient languages of Asia Minor, 46–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2011. The PIE verb for “to pour” and medial *h3 in Anatolian. In: Jamison, S. et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the 22nd UCLA Indo-European Conference, 127–132. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. 2020. Hittite Historical Phonology after 100 Years (and after 20 years). In: Kim, R.I. et al. (edd.), Hrozný and Hittite: The First Hundred Years. Proceedings of the International Conference Held at Charles University, Prague, 11–14 November 2015, 258–276. Leiden-Boston: Brill.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. C. Forthcoming. The position of Anatolian. In: Weiss, M. & Garrett, A. (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morpurgo Davies, A. 1982/83. Dentals, rhotacism and verbal endings in the Luwian languages. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft 96: 245–270.Google Scholar
Norbruis, S. 2021. Indo-European Origins of Anatolian Morphology and Semantics. Innovations and Archaisms in Hittite, Luwian and Lycian. Amsterdam: LOT.Google Scholar
Oettinger, N. 2017. The morphology of Anatolian. In: Klein, J. et al. (ed.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 41.1), 256–273. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Olander, T. 2017. Drinking beer, smoking tobacco and reconstructing prehistory. In: Hansen, B. S. S. et al. (ed.), Usque ad Radices. Indo-European studies in honour of Birgit Anette Olsen, 605–618. Copenhagen: Musum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
Orozco, S. P. 2007. La lengua Sidética, Ensayo de síntesis. Kadmos 46: 125–142.Google Scholar
Payne, A. 2010. Hieroglyphic Luwian. An introduction with original texts. 2nd rev. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Pedersen, H. 1933. Zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft des Indoeuropäischen mit dem Ugrofinnischen. Liber Semisaecularis Societatis Fenno-Ugricae, 308–325. Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura.Google Scholar
Pereltsvaig, A., & Lewis, M. W.. 2015. The Indo-European controversy. Facts and fallacies in historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peyrot, M. 2019. Indo-Uralic, Indo-Anatolian, Indo-Tocharian. In: Kloekhorst, A. & Pronk, T. C. (ed.), The precursors of Proto‑Indo‑European: The Indo‑Anatolian and Indo‑Uralic hypotheses. (= Leiden Studies in Indo-European 21), 186–202. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 1987. Archaeology and language. The puzzle of Indo-European origins. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2000. 10,000 or 5000 years ago? Questions of time depth. In: Renfrew, C., McMahon, A., & Trask, L. (ed.), Time depth in historical linguistics, 413–439. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C. 2003. Time depth, convergence theory, and innovation in Proto-Indo-European: “Old Europe” as a PIE linguistic area. In: Bammesberger, A. & Venneman, T. (ed.), Languages in prehistoric Europe, 17–48. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Rieken, E. 2016. Zum luwischen Ursprung von LÚta/uḫ(uk)kanti: “Kronprinz”. In: Marquardt, H., Reichmuth, S., & García Trabazo, J. V. (ed.), Anatolica et Indogermanica. Studia linguistica in honorem Johannis Tischler septuagenarii dedicata (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Band 155), 267–277. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Rieken, E. 2017. The dialectology of Anatolian. In: Klein, J. et al. (ed.), Handbook of comparative and historical Indo-European linguistics (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 41.1), 298–308. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Sammallahti, P. 1988. Historical phonology of the Uralic languages with special reference to Samoyed, Ugric and Permic. In: Sinor, D. (ed.), The Uralic languages: Description, history and foreign contacts, 478–554. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Singer, I. 1981. Hittites and Hattians in Anatolia at the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Journal of Indo-European Studies 9: 119–134.Google Scholar
Svyatko, S. V., et al. 2017. Stable isotope palaeodietary analysis of the Early Bronze Age Afanasyevo Culture in the Altai Mountains, Southern Siberia. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 14: 65–75.Google Scholar
Wang, C.-C., et al. 2019. Ancient human genome-wide data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds with eco-geographic regions. Nature Communications 10: 590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wegner, I. 2000. Einführung in die hurritische Sprache. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Yakar, J. 1981. The Indo-Europeans and their impact on Anatolian cultural development. Journal of Indo-European Studies 9: 94–112.Google Scholar
Yakar, J. 2011. Anatolian chronology and terminology. In: Steadman, S. R. & McMahon, G. (ed.), The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia 10,000–323 B.C.E., 56–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×