COPYRIGHT NOTICE:

David W. Anthony: The Horse, the Wheel, and Language

is published by Princeton University Press and copyrighted, 2007, by Princeton
University Press. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form
by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information
storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher, except for reading
and browsing via the World Wide Web. Users are not permitted to mount this file on any
network servers.
Follow links for Class Use and other Permissions. For more information send email to:
permissions@pupress.princeton.edu
Cn~v:vv xv
Te Promise and Politics
of the Mother Tongue
Axcvs:ovs
Vhcn you look in thc mirror you scc not just your lacc but a muscum.
Although your lacc, in onc scnsc, is your own, it is composcd ol a collagc
ol lcaturcs you havc inhcritcd lrom your parcnts, grandparcnts, grcat
grandparcnts, and so on. Tc lips and cycs that cithcr bothcr or plcasc you
arc not yours alonc but arc also lcaturcs ol your anccstors, long dcad pcr
haps as individuals but still vcry much alivc as lragmcnts in you. vcn
complcx qualitics such as your scnsc ol balancc, musical abilitics, shyncss
in crowds, or susccptibility to sickncss havc bccn livcd bclorc. Vc carry
thc past around with us all thc timc, and not just in our bodics. !t livcs also
in our customs, including thc way wc spcak. Tc past is a sct ol invisiblc
lcnscs wc wcar constantly, and through thcsc wc pcrccivc thc world and
thc world pcrccivcs us. Vc stand always on thc shouldcrs ol our anccstors,
whcthcr or not wc look down to acknowlcdgc thcm.
!t is disconccrting to rcalizc how lcw ol our anccstors most ol us can
rccognizc or cvcn namc. You havc lour grcatgrandmothcrs, womcn sul
cicntly closc to you gcnctically that you scc clcmcnts ol thcir laccs, and
skin, and hair cach timc you scc your rccction. ach had a maidcn
namc shc hcard spokcn thousands ol timcs, and yct you probably cannot
rccall any onc ol thcir maidcn namcs. !l wc arc lucky, wc may nd thcir
birth namcs in gcncalogics or documcnts, although war, migration, and
dcstroycd rcc ords havc madc that impossiblc lor many Amcricans. ur
lour grcatgrandmothcrs had lull livcs, lamilics, and bcqucathcd to us
many ol our most pcrsonal qualitics, but wc havc lost thcsc anccstors so
complctcly that wc cannot cvcn namc thcm. How many ol us can imag
inc bcing so uttcrly lorgottcn just thrcc gcncrations lrom now by our

, Chapter z
own dcsccndcnts that thcy rcmcmbcr nothing ol usnot cvcn our
namcs:
!n traditional socictics, whcrc lilc is still structurcd around lamily, cx
tcndcd kin, and thc villagc, pcoplc oltcn arc morc conscious ol thc dcbts
thcy owc thcir anccstors, cvcn ol thc powcr ol thcir ghosts and spirits.
Zamaniry womcn in rural Madagascar wcavc complicatcd pattcrns on
thcir hats, which thcy lcarncd lrom thcir mothcrs and aunts. Tc pattcrns
dicr signicantly bctwccn villagcs. Tc womcn in onc villagc told thc
anthropologist Mauricc 8loch that thc dcsigns wcrc pcarls lrom thc an
ccstors. vcn ordinary Zamaniry houscs arc sccn as tcmplcs to thc spir
its ol thc pcoplc who madc thcm.
1
Tis constant acknowlcdgmcnt ol thc
powcr ol thosc who livcd bclorc is not part ol thc thinking ol most mod
crn, consumcr culturcs. Vc livc in a world that dcpcnds lor its cconomic
survival on thc constant adoption and consumption ol ncw things. Ar
chacology, history, gcncalogy, and praycr arc thc ovcrowing drawcrs into
which wc throw our thoughts ol carlicr gcncrations.
Archacology is onc way to acknowlcdgc thc humanity and importancc
ol thc pcoplc who livcd bclorc us and, obliqucly, ol oursclvcs. !t is thc only
disciplinc that invcstigatcs thc daily tcxturc ol past livcs not dcscribcd in
writing, indccd thc grcat majority ol thc livcs humans havc livcd. Archac
ologists havc wrcstcd surprisingly intimatc dctails out ol thc silcnt rcmains
ol thc prclitcratc past, but thcrc arc limits to what wc can know about
pcoplc who havc lclt no writtcn accounts ol thcir opinions, thcir convcrsa
tions, or thcir namcs.
!s thcrc a way to ovcrcomc thosc limits and rccovcr thc valucs and bc
licls that wcrc ccntral to how prchistoric pcoplc rcally livcd thcir livcs:
id thcy lcavc clucs in somc othcr mcdium: Many linguists bclicvc thcy
did, and that thc mcdium is thc vcry languagc wc usc cvcry day. ur lan
guagc contains a grcat many lossils that arc thc rcmnants ol surprisingly
ancicnt spcakcrs. ur tcachcrs tcll us that thcsc linguistic lossils arc ir
rcgular lorms, and wc just lcarn thcm without thinking. Vc all know
that a past tcnsc is usually constructcd by adding t or cd to thc vcrb
(kickkickcd, missmisscd) and that somc vcrbs rcquirc a changc in thc
vowcl in thc middlc ol thc stcm (run ran, sing sang). Vc arc gcncrally not
told, howcvcr, that this vowcl changc was thc oldcr, original way ol mak
ing a past tcnsc. !n lact, changing a vowcl in thc vcrb stcm was thc usual
way to lorm a past tcnsc probably about vc thousand ycars ago. Still, this
docs not tcll us much about what pcoplc wcrc thinking thcn.
Arc thc words wc usc today actually lossils ol pcoplcs vocabulary ol
about vc thousand ycars ago: A vocabulary list would shinc a bright light
Te Mother Tongue
on many obscurc parts ol thc past. As thc linguist dward Sapir obscrvcd,
Tc complctc vocabulary ol a languagc may indccd bc lookcd upon as a
complcx invcntory ol all thc idcas, intcrcsts, and occupations that takc up
thc attcntion ol thc community.
2
!n lact, a substantial vocabulary list has
bccn rcconstructcd lor onc ol thc languagcs spokcn about vc thousand
ycars ago. Tat languagc is thc anccstor ol modcrn nglish as wcll as
many othcr modcrn and ancicnt languagcs. All thc languagcs that arc
dcsccndcd lrom this samc mothcr tonguc bclong to onc lamily, that ol thc
!ndouro pc an languagcs. Today !ndouro pc an languagcs arc spokcn
by about thrcc billion pcoplcmorc than spcak thc languagcs ol any
othcr languagc lamily. Tc vocabulary ol thc mothcr tonguc, callcd Proto
!ndouro pc an, has bccn studicd lor about two hundrcd ycars, and in
thosc two ccnturics crcc disagrccmcnts havc continucd about almost
cvcry aspcct ol !ndouro pc an studics.
8ut disagrccmcnt produccs light as wcll as hcat. Tis book argucs that
it is now possiblc to solvc thc ccntral puzzlc surrounding Proto!ndo
uro pc an, namcly, who spokc it, whcrc was it spokcn, and whcn. Gcncra
tions ol archacologists and linguists havc argucd bittcrly about thc
homcland qucstion. Many doubt thc wisdom ol cvcn pursuing it. !n thc
past, nationalists and dictators havc insistcd that thc homcland was in
thcir country and bclongcd to thcir own supcrior racc. 8ut today !ndo
uro pc an linguists arc improving thcir mcthods and making ncw discov
crics. Tcy havc rcconstructcd thc basic lorms and mcanings ol thousands
ol words lrom thc Proto!ndouro pc an vocabularyitscll an astonish
ing lcat. Tosc words can bc analyzcd to dcscribc thc thoughts, valucs,
conccrns, lamily rclations, and rcligious bclicls ol thc pcoplc who spokc
thcm. 8ut rst wc havc to gurc out whcrc and whcn thcy livcd. !l wc can
combinc thc Proto!ndouro pc an vocabulary with a spccic sct ol ar
chacological rcmains, it might bc possiblc to movc bcyond thc usual limi
tations ol archacological knowlcdgc and achicvc a much richcr knowlcdgc
ol thcsc partic u lar anccstors.
! bclicvc with many othcrs that thc Proto!ndouro pc an homcland
was locatcd in thc stcppcs north ol thc 8lack and Caspian Scas in what
is today southcrn Ukrainc and Russia. Tc casc lor a stcppc homcland is
strongcr today than in thc past partly bccausc ol dramatic ncw archaco
logical discovcrics in thc stcppcs. To undcrstand thc signicancc ol an
!ndouro pc an homcland in thc stcppcs rcquircs a lcap into thc compli
catcd and lascinating world ol stcppc archacology. Steppe mcans wastc
land in thc languagc ol thc Russian agricultural statc. Tc stcppcs
rcscmblcd thc prairics ol North Amcricaa monotonous sca ol grass
o Chapter z
lramcd undcr a hugc, dramatic sky. A continuous bclt ol stcppcs cxtcnds
lrom castcrn uropc on thc wcst (thc bclt cnds bctwccn dcssa and 8u
charcst) to thc Grcat Vall ol China on thc cast, an arid corridor running
scvcn thousand kilomctcrs across thc ccntcr ol thc urasian contincnt.
Tis cnormous grassland was an ccctivc barricr to thc transmission ol
idcas and tcchnologics lor thousands ol ycars. Likc thc North Amcrican
prairic, it was an unlricndly cnvironmcnt lor pcoplc travcling on loot. And
just as in North Amcrica, thc kcy that opcncd thc grasslands was thc
horsc, combincd in thc urasian stcppcs with domcsticatcd grazing
animalsshccp and cattlcto proccss thc grass and turn it into usclul
products lor humans. vcntually pcoplc who rodc horscs and hcrdcd cattlc
and shccp acquircd thc whccl, and wcrc thcn ablc to lollow thcir hcrds
almost anywhcrc, using hcavy wagons to carry thcir tcnts and supplics.
Tc isolatcd prchistoric socictics ol China and uropc bccamc dimly
awarc ol thc possibility ol onc anothcrs cxistcncc only altcr thc horsc was
domcsticatcd and thc covcrcd wagon invcntcd. Togcthcr, thcsc two inno
vations in transportation madc lilc prcdictablc and productivc lor thc
pcoplc ol thc urasian stcppcs. Tc opcning ol thc stcppcits translor
mation lrom a hostilc ccological barricr to a corridor ol transcontincntal
communicationlorcvcr changcd thc dynamics ol urasian historical dc
vclopmcnt, and, this author contcnds, playcd an important rolc in thc rst
cxpansion ol thc !ndouro pc an languagcs.
Lixcuis:s ~xu Cn~uvixis:s
Tc !ndouro pc an problcm was lormulatcd in onc lamous scntcncc by
Sir Villiam Joncs, a 8ritish judgc in !ndia, in 1786. Joncs was alrcady
widcly known bclorc hc madc his discovcry. Filtccn ycars carlicr, in 1771,
his Grammar of the Persian Language was thc rst nglish guidc to thc
languagc ol thc Pcrsian kings, and it carncd him, at thc agc ol twcntyvc,
thc rcputation as onc ol thc most rcspcctcd linguists in uropc. His trans
lations ol mcdicval Pcrsian pocms inspircd 8yron, Shcllcy, and thc uro
pc an Romantic movcmcnt. Hc rosc lrom a rcspcctcd barristcr in Valcs to
a corrcspondcnt, tutor, and lricnd ol somc ol thc lcading mcn ol thc king
dom. At agc thirtyscvcn hc was appointcd onc ol thc thrcc justiccs ol thc
rst Suprcmc Court ol 8cngal. His arrival in Calcutta, a mythically alicn
placc lor an nglishman ol his agc, was thc opcning movc in thc imposi
tion ol royal govcrnmcnt ovcr a vital yct irrcsponsiblc mcrchants colony.
Joncs was to rcgulatc both thc cxccsscs ol thc nglish mcrchants and thc
rights and dutics ol thc !ndians. 8ut although thc nglish mcrchants at
Te Mother Tongue ,
lcast rccognizcd his lcgal authority, thc !ndians obcycd an alrcady lunc
tioning and ancicnt systcm ol Hindu law, which was rcgularly citcd in
court by Hindu lcgal scholars, or pandits (thc sourcc ol our tcrm pundit).
nglish judgcs could not dctcrminc il thc laws thc pandits citcd rcally
cxistcd. Sanskrit was thc ancicnt languagc ol thc Hindu lcgal tcxts, likc
Latin was lor nglish law. !l thc two lcgal systcms wcrc to bc intcgratcd,
onc ol thc ncw Suprcmc Court justiccs had to lcarn Sanskrit. Tat was
Joncs.
Hc wcnt to thc ancicnt Hindu univcrsity at Nadiya, bought a vacation
cottagc, lound a rcspcctcd and willing pandit (Rmalocana) on thc lac
ulty, and immcrscd himscll in Hindu tcxts. Among thcsc wcrc thc !edas,
thc ancicnt rcligious compositions that lay at thc root ol Hindu rcligion.
Tc Fig !eda, thc oldcst ol thc \cdic tcxts, had bccn composcd long bclorc
thc 8uddhas lilctimc and was morc than two thousand ycars old, but no
onc kncw its agc cxactly. As Joncs porcd ovcr Sanskrit tcxts his mind
madc comparisons not just with Pcrsian and nglish but also with Latin
and Grcck, thc mainstays ol an cightccnth ccntury univcrsity cducation,
with Gothic, thc oldcst litcrary lorm ol Gcrman, which hc had also
lcarncd, and with Vclsh, a Ccltic tonguc and his boyhood languagc which
hc had not lorgottcn. !n 1786, thrcc ycars altcr his arrival in Calcutta,
Joncs camc to a startling conclusion, announccd in his third annual dis
coursc to thc Asiatic Socicty ol 8cngal, which hc had loundcd whcn hc
rst arrivcd. Tc kcy scntcncc is now quotcd in cvcry introductory tcxt
book ol historical linguistics (punctuation minc):
Tc Sanskrit languagc, whatcvcr bc its antiquity, is ol a wondcrlul
structurc: morc pcrlcct than thc Grcck, morc copious than thc Latin,
and morc cxquisitcly rcncd than cithcr, yct bcaring to both ol thcm
a strongcr anity, both in thc roots ol vcrbs and in thc lorms ol
grammar, than could possibly havc bccn produccd by accidcnt, so
strong indccd, that no philologcr could cxaminc thcm all thrcc,
without bclicving thcm to havc sprung lrom somc common sourcc,
which, pcrhaps, no longcr cxists.
Joncs had concludcd that thc Sanskrit languagc originatcd lrom thc
samc sourcc as Grcck and Latin, thc classical languagcs ol uro pc an civi
lization. Hc addcd that Pcrsian, Ccltic, and Gcrman probably bclongcd
to thc samc lamily. uro pc an scholars wcrc astoundcd. Tc occupants ol
!ndia, long rcgardcd as thc cpitomc ol Asian cxotics, turncd out to bc
longlost cousins. !l Grcck, Latin, and Sanskrit wcrc rclativcs, dcsccndcd
lrom thc samc ancicnt parcnt languagc, what was that languagc: Vhcrc
8 Chapter z
had it bccn it spokcn: And by whom: 8y what historical circumstanccs
did it gcncratc daughtcr tongucs that bccamc thc dominant languagcs
spokcn lrom Scotland to !ndia:
Tcsc qucstions rcsonatcd particularly dccply in Gcrmany, whcrc pop u
lar intcrcst in thc history ol thc Gcrman languagc and thc roots ol Gcr
man traditions wcrc growing into thc Romantic movcmcnt. Tc Romantics
wantcd to discard thc cold, articial logic ol thc nlightcnmcnt to rcturn
to thc roots ol a simplc and authcntic lilc bascd in dircct cxpcricncc and
community. Tomas Mann oncc said ol a Romantic philosophcr (Schlc
gcl) that his thought was contaminatcd too much by rcason, and that hc
was thcrclorc a poor Romantic. !t was ironic that Villiam Joncs hclpcd to
inspirc this movcmcnt, bccausc his own philosophy was quitc dicrcnt:
Tc racc ol man . . . cannot long bc happy without virtuc, nor activcly
virtuous without lrccdom, nor sccurcly lrcc without rational knowlcdgc.
3
8ut Joncs had cncrgizcd thc study ol ancicnt languagcs, and ancicnt lan
guagc playcd a ccntral rolc in Romantic thcorics ol authcntic cxpcricncc.
!n thc 1780s J. G. Hcrdcr proposcd a thcory latcr dcvclopcd by von Hum
boldt and claboratcd in thc twcnticth ccntury by Vittgcnstcin, that lan
guagc crcatcs thc catcgorics and distinctions through which humans givc
mcaning to thc world. ach partic u lar languagc, thcrclorc, gcncratcs and
is cnmcshcd in a closcd social community, or lolk, that is at its corc
mcaninglcss to an outsidcr. Languagc was sccn by Hcrdcr and von Hum
boldt as a vcsscl that moldcd community and national idcntitics. Tc
brothcrs Grimm wcnt out to collcct authcntic Gcrman lolk talcs whilc at
thc samc timc studying thc Gcrman languagc, pursuing thc Romantic
conviction that languagc and lolk culturc wcrc dccply rclatcd. !n this sct
ting thc mystcrious mothcr tonguc, Proto!ndouro pc an, was rcgardcd
not just as a languagc but as a cruciblc in which Vcstcrn civilization had
its carlicst bcginnings.
Altcr thc 1859 publication ol Charlcs arwins Te Origin of Species, thc
Romantic conviction that languagc was a dcning lactor in national idcn
tity was combincd with ncw idcas about cvolution and biology. Natural
sclcction providcd a scicntic thcory that was hijackcd by nationalists and
uscd to rationalizc why somc raccs or lolks rulcd othcrssomc wcrc
morc t than othcrs. arwin himscll ncvcr applicd his thcorics ol tncss
and natural sclcction to such vaguc cntitics as raccs or languagcs, but this
did not prcvcnt unscicntic opportunists lrom suggcsting that thc lcss
t raccs could bc sccn as a sourcc ol gcnctic wcakncss, a rcscrvoir ol bar
barism that might contaminatc and dilutc thc supcrior qualitics ol thc
raccs that wcrc morc t. Tis toxic mixturc ol pscudoscicncc and
Te Mother Tongue ,
Romanticism soon produccd its own ncw idcologics. Languagc, culturc,
and a arwinian intcrprctation ol racc wcrc bundlcd togcthcr to cxplain
thc supcrior biologicalspirituallinguistic csscncc ol thc northcrn uro
pc ans who conductcd thcsc scll congratulatory studics. Tcir writings and
lccturcs cncouragcd pcoplc to think ol thcmsclvcs as mcmbcrs ol long
cstablishcd, biologicallinguistic nations, and thus wcrc promotcd widcly
in thc ncw national school systcms and national ncwspapcrs ol thc cmcrg
ing nationstatcs ol uropc. Tc policics that lorccd thc Vclsh (including
Sir Villiam Joncs) to spcak nglish, and thc 8rctons to spcak Frcnch,
wcrc rootcd in politicians nccd lor an ancicnt and purc national hcritagc
lor cach ncw statc. Tc ancicnt spcakcrs ol Proto!ndouro pc an soon wcrc
moldcd into thc distant progcnitors ol such raciallinguisticnational stc rco
typcs.
4
Proto!ndouro pc an, thc linguistic problcm, bccamc thc Proto!ndo
uro pc ans, a biological population with its own mcntality and pcrsonal
ity: a slim, tall, lightcomplcxioncd, blondc racc, supcrior to all othcr
pcoplcs, calm and rm in charactcr, constantly striving, intcllcctually
brilliant, with an almost idcal attitudc towards thc world and lilc in gcn
cral.
5
Tc namc ryan bcgan to bc applicd to thcm, bccausc thc authors
ol thc oldcst rcligious tcxts in Sanskrit and Pcrsian, thc Fig !eda and
.esta, callcd thcmsclvcs Aryans. Tcsc Aryans livcd in !ran and cast
ward into AlghanistanPakistan!ndia. Tc tcrm ryan should bc con
ncd only to this !ndo!ranian branch ol thc !ndouro pc an lamily. 8ut
thc !edas wcrc a ncwly discovcrcd sourcc ol mystical lascination in thc
ninctccnth ccntury, and in \ictorian parlors thc namc Aryan soon sprcad
bcyond its propcr linguistic and gcographic conncs. Madison Grants Te
Passing of the Great Face (1916), a bcstscllcr in thc U.S., was a virulcnt
warning against thc thinning ol supcrior Amcrican Aryan blood (by
which hc mcant thc 8ritishScots!rishGcrman scttlcrs ol thc original
thirtccn colonics) through intcrbrccding with immigrant inlcrior raccs,
which lor him includcd Polcs, Czcchs, and !talians as wcll as Jcwsall ol
whom spokc !ndouro pc an languagcs (Yiddish is a Gcrmanic languagc
in its basic grammar and morphology).
6
Tc gap through which thc word ryan cscapcd lrom !ran and thc
!ndian subcontincnt was providcd by thc Fig !eda itscll: somc scholars
lound passagcs in thc Fig !eda that sccmcd to dcscribc thc \cdic Aryans
as invadcrs who had conqucrcd thcir way into thc Punjab.
7
8ut lrom
whcrc: A lcvcrish scarch lor thc Aryan homcland bcgan. Sir Villiam
Joncs placcd it in !ran. Tc Himalayan Mountains wcrc a popu lar choicc
in thc carly ninctccnth ccntury, but othcr locations soon bccamc thc
zc Chapter z
subjcct ol animatcd dcbatcs. Amatcurs and cxpcrts alikc joincd thc
scarch, many hoping to provc that thcir own nation had givcn birth to
thc Aryans. !n thc sccond dccadc ol thc twcnticth ccntury thc Gcrman
scholar Gustav Kossinna attcmptcd to dcmonstratc on archacological
grounds that thc Aryan homcland lay in northcrn uropcin lact, in
Gcrmany. Kossinna illustratcd thc prchistoric migrations ol thc !ndo
Gcrmanic Aryans with ncat black arrows that swcpt cast, wcst, and
south lrom his prcsumcd Aryan homcland. Armics lollowcd thc pcn ol
thc prchistorian lcss than thirty ycars latcr.
8
Tc problcm ol !ndouro pc an origins was politicizcd almost lrom thc
bcginning. !t bccamc cnmcshcd in nationalist and chauvinist causcs, nur
turcd thc murdcrous lantasy ol Aryan racial supcriority, and was actually
pursucd in archacological cxcavations lundcd by thc Nazi SS. Today thc
!ndouro pc an past continucs to bc manipulatcd by causcs and cults. !n
thc books ol thc Goddcss movcmcnt (Marija Gimbutass Ci.ili.ation of
the Goddess, Rianc islcrs Te Chalice and the Blade) thc ancicnt !ndo
uro pc ans arc cast in archacological dramas not as blondc hcrocs but as
patriarchal, warlikc invadcrs who dcstroycd a utopian prchistoric world
ol lcmininc pcacc and bcauty. !n Russia somc modcrn nationalist political
groups and ncoPagan movcmcnts claim a dircct linkagc bctwccn thcm
sclvcs, as Slavs, and thc ancicnt Aryans. !n thc Unitcd Statcs whitc
suprcmacist groups rclcr to thcmsclvcs as Aryans. Tcrc actually wcrc
Aryans in historythc composcrs ol thc Fig !eda and thc .estabut
thcy wcrc 8ronzc Agc tribal pcoplc who livcd in !ran, Alghanistan, and
thc northcrn !ndian subcontincnt. !t is highly doubtlul that thcy wcrc
blondc or bluccycd, and thcy had no conncction with thc compcting
racial lantasics ol modcrn bigots.
9
Tc mistakcs that lcd an obscurc linguistic mystcry to crupt into racial
gcnocidc wcrc distrcssingly simplc and thcrclorc can bc avoidcd by any
onc who carcs to avoid thcm. Tcy wcrc thc cquation ol racc with lan
guagc, and thc assignmcnt ol supcriority to somc languagcandracc
groups. Promincnt linguists havc always plcadcd against both thcsc idcas.
Vhilc Martin Hcidcggcr argucd that somc languagcsGcrman and
Grcckwcrc uniquc vcsscls lor a supcrior kind ol thought, thc linguistic
anthropologist Franz 8oas protcstcd that no languagc could bc said to bc
supcrior to any othcr on thc basis ol objcctivc critcria. As carly as 1872
thc grcat linguist Max Mullcr obscrvcd that thc notion ol an Aryan skull
was not just unscicntic but antiscicntic, languagcs arc not whitc
skinncd or longhcadcd. 8ut thcn how can thc Sanskrit languagc bc con
ncctcd with a skull typc: And how did thc Aryans thcmsclvcs dcnc
Te Mother Tongue zz
Aryan: According to thcir own tcxts, thcy conccivcd ol Aryanncss as
a religiouslinguistic catcgory. Somc Sanskritspcaking chicls, and cvcn
pocts in thc Fig !eda, had namcs such as 8albtha and 8r
.
bu that wcrc
lorcign to thc Sanskrit languagc. Tcsc pcoplc wcrc ol nonAryan origin
and yct wcrc lcadcrs among thc Aryans. So cvcn thc Aryans ol thc Fig
!eda wcrc not gcnctically purcwhatcvcr that mcans. Tc Fig !eda was
a ritual canon, not a racial manilcsto. !l you sacriccd in thc right way to
thc right gods, which rcquircd pcrlorming thc grcat traditional praycrs in
thc traditional languagc, you wcrc an Aryan, othcrwisc you wcrc not. Tc
Fig !eda madc thc ritual and linguistic barricr clcar, but it did not rcquirc
or cvcn contcmplatc racial purity.
10
Any attcmpt to solvc thc !ndouro pc an problcm has to bcgin with thc
rcalization that thc tcrm Proto- Indo- Eu ro pe an rclcrs to a languagc com
munity, and thcn work outward. Racc rcally cannot bc linkcd in any prc
dictablc way with languagc, so wc cannot work lrom languagc to racc or
lrom racc to languagc. Racc is poorly dcncd, thc boundarics bctwccn
raccs arc dcncd dicrcntly by dicrcnt groups ol pcoplc, and, sincc thcsc
dcnitions arc cultural, scicntists cannot dcscribc a truc boundary bc
twccn any two raccs. Also, archacologists havc thcir own, quitc dicrcnt
dcnitions ol racc, bascd on traits ol thc skull and tccth that oltcn arc
invisiblc in a living pcrson. Howcvcr racc is dcncd, languagcs arc not
normally sortcd by raccall racial groups spcak a varicty ol dicrcnt lan
guagcs. So skull shapcs arc almost irrclcvant to linguistic problcms. Lan
guagcs and gcncs arc corrclatcd only in cxccptional circumstanccs, usually
at clcar gcographic barricrs such as signicant mountain rangcs or scas
and oltcn not cvcn thcrc.
11
A migrating population did not havc to bc gc
nctically homogcncous cvcn il it did rccruit almost cxclusivcly lrom a
singlc dialcct group. Anyonc who assumes a simplc conncction bctwccn
languagc and gcncs, without citing gcographic isolation or othcr spccial
circumstanccs, is wrong at thc outsct.
Tnv Luvv ov :nv Mo:nvv Toxcuv
Tc only aspcct ol thc !ndouro pc an problcm that has bccn answcrcd to
most pcoplcs satislaction is how to dcnc thc languagc lamily, how to
dctcrminc which languagcs bclong to thc !ndouro pc an lamily and
which do not. Tc disciplinc ol linguistics was crcatcd in thc ninctccnth
ccntury by pcoplc trying to solvc this problcm. Tcir principal intcrcsts
wcrc comparativc grammar, sound systcms, and syntax, which providcd
thc basis lor classilying languagcs, grouping thcm into typcs, and othcrwisc
P
R
O
T
O
-
I
N
D
O
-
E
U
R
O
P
E
A
N

L
i
t
h
u
a
n
i
a
n

L
a
t
v
i
a
n

O
s
c
a
n

U
m
b
r
i
a
n

W
e
l
s
h

C
o
r
n
i
s
h

B
r
e
t
o
n

G
a
u
l
i
s
h

R
u
s
s
i
a
n

B
y
e
l
o
r
u
s
s
i
a
n

U
k
r
a
i
n
i
a
n

O
l
d

C
h
u
r
c
h

S
l
a
v
o
n
i
c

B
u
l
g
a
r
i
a
n

I
c
e
l
a
n
d
i
c

O
l
d

N
o
r
s
e
F
a
r
o
e
s
e

N
o
r
w
e
g
i
a
n

O
l
d

S
w
e
d
i
s
h

O
l
d

D
a
n
i
s
h

O
l
d

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

O
l
d

F
r
i
s
i
a
n

O
l
d

D
u
t
c
h

O
l
d

L
o
w

G
e
r
m
a
n

O
l
d

H
i
g
h

G
e
r
m
a
n

L
o
w

G
e
r
m
a
n

G
e
r
m
a
n

Y
i
d
d
i
s
h

I
r
i
s
h

G
a
e
l
i
c

S
c
o
t
t
i
s
h

G
a
e
l
i
c

M
a
n
x

G
o
t
h
i
c

B
A
L
T
I
C

S
L
A
V
I
C

G
E
R
M
A
N
I
C

C
E
L
T
I
C

I
T
A
L
I
C
A
L
B
A
N
I
A
N

S
o
u
t
h

S
l
a
v
i
c

E
a
s
t

S
l
a
v
i
c

N
o
r
t
h

G
e
r
m
a
n
i
c

W
e
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
i
c

E
a
s
t

G
e
r
m
a
n
i
c

G
o
i
d
e
l
i
c

B
r
y
t
h
o
n
i
c

O
s
c
o
-
U
m
b
r
i
a
n

T
o
c
h
a
r
i
a
n

A

T
O
C
H
A
R
I
A
N

T
o
c
h
a
r
i
a
n

B

D
a
r
d

O
l
d

P
r
u
s
s
i
a
n

D
a
r
d
i
c

W
e
n
d
i
s
h

I
N
D
O
-
I
R
A
N
I
A
N

P
o
l
i
s
h

S
i
n
d
h
i
W
e
s
t

S
l
a
v
i
c

I
n
d
i
c

R
o
m
a
n
y

C
z
e
c
h

A
N
A
T
O
L
I
A
N

U
r
d
u

S
l
o
v
a
c

H
i
n
d
i

S
l
o
v
e
n
e

B
i
h
a
r
i
S
a
n
s
k
r
i
t

S
e
r
b
o
-
C
r
o
a
t
i
a
n

H
i
t
t
i
t
e

A
s
s
a
m
e
s

B
e
n
g
a
l
i
M
a
c
e
d
o
n
i
a
n

L
u
w
i
a
n

M
a
r
t
h
i

A
R
M
E
N
I
A
N

L
y
d
i
a
n

G
u
j
a
r
a
n
t
i

L
y
c
i
a
n

P
u
n
j
a
b
i

I
r
a
n
i
a
n

S
i
n
g
h
a
l
e
s
e

S
w
e
d
i
s
h

D
a
n
i
s
h

P
a
s
h
t
o

E
n
g
l
i
s
h

H
E
L
L
E
N
I
C

B
a
l
u
c
h
i

D
u
t
c
h

F
r
i
s
i
a
n

M
i
d
d
l
e

D
u
t
c
h

P
H
R
Y
G
I
A
N

A
v
e
s
t
a
n

K
u
r
d
i
s
h

F
l
e
m
i
s
h

O
l
d

P
e
r
s
i
a
n

S
o
g
d
i
a
n

A
f
r
i
k
a
a
n
s

G
r
e
e
k

P
a
h
l
e
v
i

P
e
r
s
i
a
n

L
a
t
i
n
o
-
F
a
l
i
s
c
a
n

F
a
l
i
s
c
a
n

P
o
r
t
u
g
u
e
s
e

L
a
t
i
n

U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n

P
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
:

I
L
L
Y
R
I
A
N

T
H
R
A
C
I
A
N

S
p
a
n
i
s
h

C
a
t
a
l
a
n

P
r
o
v
e
n
c
a
l

R
u
m
a
n
i
a
n

F
r
e
n
c
h

I
t
a
l
i
a
n

R
h
a
e
t
o
-
R
o
m
a
n
c
e

Te Mother Tongue z
dcning thc rclationships bctwccn thc tongucs ol humanity. No onc had
donc this bclorc. Tcy dividcd thc !ndouro pc an languagc lamily into
twclvc major branchcs, distinguishcd by innovations in phonology or pro
nunciation and in morphology or word lorm that appcarcd at thc root ol
cach branch and wcrc maintaincd in all thc languagcs ol that branch (g
urc 1.1). Tc twclvc branchcs ol !ndouro pc an includcd most ol thc
languagcs ol uropc (but not 8asquc, Finnish, stonian, or Magyar), thc
Pcrsian languagc ol !ran, Sanskrit and its many modcrn daughtcrs (most
important, Hindi and Urdu), and a numbcr ol cxtinct languagcs including
Hittitc in Anatolia (modcrn Turkcy) and Tocharian in thc dcscrts ol Xin
jiang (northwcstcrn China) (gurc 1.2). Modcrn nglish, likc Yiddish
and Swcdish, is assigncd to thc Gcrmanic branch. Tc analytic mcthods
invcntcd by ninctccnthccntury philologists arc today uscd to dcscribc,
classily, and cxplain languagc variation worldwidc.
Historical linguistics gavc us not just static classications but also thc
ability to rcconstruct at lcast parts ol cxtinct languagcs lor which no
writtcn cvidcncc survivcs. Tc mcthods that madc this possiblc rcly on
rcgularitics in thc way sounds changc insidc thc human mouth. !l you
collcct !ndouro pc an words lor hundred lrom dicrcnt branchcs ol thc
languagc lamily and comparc thcm, you can apply thc myriad rulcs ol
sound changc to scc il all ol thcm can bc dcrivcd by rcgular changcs
lrom a singlc hypothctical anccstral word at thc root ol all thc branchcs.
Tc prool that Latin kentum (hundrcd) in thc !talic branch and Lithua
nian shimtas (hundrcd) in thc 8altic branch arc gcnctically rclatcd cog
natcs is thc construction ol thc anccstral root km
.
tom. Tc daughtcr
lorms arc comparcd sound by sound, going through cach sound in cach
word in cach branch, to scc il thcy can convcrgc on onc uniquc scqucncc
ol sounds that could havc cvolvcd into all ol thcm by known rulcs. (! cx
plain how this is donc in thc ncxt chaptcr.) Tat root scqucncc ol sounds,
il it can bc lound, is thc prool that thc tcrms bcing comparcd arc gcnc
tically rclatcd cognatcs. A rcconstructcd root is thc rcsiduc ol a succcss
lul comparison.
Figure 1.1 Tc twclvc branchcs ol thc !ndouro pc an languagc lamily. 8altic
and Slavic arc somctimcs combincd into onc branch, likc !ndo!ranian, and
Phrygian is somctimcs sct asidc bccausc wc know so littlc about it, likc !llyr
ian and Tracian. Vith thosc two changcs thc numbcr ol branchcs would bc
tcn, an acccptablc altcrnativc. A trcc diagram is mcant to bc a skctch ol broad
rclationships, it docs not rcprcscnt a complctc history.
z, Chapter z
I
A
N
A
T
O
L
IA
N
BALTI
SLAVI
CELTI
I
R
A
N I A
N
I
R
A
N
I
A
N
T
O
C
H
A
R
IAN
I
N
D
I
C
A
N
A
T
O
L
IA
N
BALTI C
SLAVI C
G
R
E
E
K
I
T
A
L
I
C
G
E
R
M
A
N
I
C
C
E
L
T
I
C
CELTIC
Figure 1.2 Tc approximatc gcographic locations ol thc major !ndouropcan
branchcs at about 400 8C.
Linguists havc rcconstructcd thc sounds ol morc than ltccn hundrcd
Proto!ndouropcan roots.
12
Tc rcconstructions vary in rcliability, bc
causc thcy dcpcnd on thc surviving linguistic cvidcncc. n thc othcr hand,
archcological cxcavations havc rcvcalcd inscriptions in Hittitc, Myccnacan
Grcck, and archaic Gcrman that containcd words, ncvcr sccn bclorc, dis
playing prcciscly thc sounds prcviously rcconstructcd by comparativc lin
guists. Tat linguists accuratcly prcdictcd thc sounds and lcttcrs latcr lound
in ancicnt inscriptions conrms that thcir rcconstructions arc not cntircly
thcorctical. !l wc cannot rcgard rcconstructcd Proto!ndouropcan as
litcrally rcal, it is at lcast a closc approximation ol a prchistoric rcality.
Tc rccovcry ol cvcn lragmcnts ol thc Proto!ndouropcan languagc is
a rcmarkablc accomplishmcnt, considcring that it was spokcn by nonlitcr
atc pcoplc many thousands ol ycars ago and ncvcr was writtcn down. Al
though thc grammar and morphology ol Proto!ndouropcan arc most
important in typological studics, it is thc rcconstructcd vocabulary, or
lcxicon, that holds out thc most promisc lor archacologists. Tc rccon
structcd lcxicon is a window onto thc cnvironmcnt, social lilc, and bclicls
ol thc spcakcrs ol Proto!ndouropcan.
For cxamplc, rcasonably solid lcxical rcconstructions indicatc that
Proto!ndouropcan containcd words lor ottcr, bcavcr, woll, lynx, clk,
rcd dccr, horsc, mousc, harc, and hcdgchog, among wild animals, goosc,
cranc, duck, and caglc, among birds, bcc and honcy, and cattlc (also cow,
Te Mother Tongue z
ox, and stccr), shccp (also wool and wcaving), pig (also boar, sow, and piglct),
and dog among thc domcstic animals. Tc horsc was ccrtainly known to
thc spcakcrs ol Proto!ndouro pc an, but thc lcxical cvidcncc alonc is
insucicnt to dctcrminc il it was domcsticatcd. All this lcxical cvidcncc
might also bc attcstcd in, and comparcd against, archacological rcmains to
rcconstruct thc cnvironmcnt, cconomy, and ccology ol thc Proto!ndo
uro pc an world.
8ut thc protolcxicon contains much morc, including clustcrs ol words,
suggcsting that thc spcakcrs ol P! inhcritcd thcir rights and dutics
through thc lathcrs bloodlinc only (patrilincal dcsccnt), probably livcd
with thc husbands lamily altcr marriagc (patrilocal rcsidcncc), rccognizcd
thc authority ol chicls who actcd as patrons and givcrs ol hospitality lor
thcir clicnts, likcly had lormally institutcd warrior bands, practiccd ritual
sacriccs ol cattlc and horscs, drovc wagons, rccognizcd a malc sky dcity,
probably avoidcd spcaking thc namc ol thc bcar lor ritual rcasons, and
rccognizcd two scnscs ol thc sacrcd (that which is imbucd with holincss
and that which is lorbiddcn). Many ol thcsc practiccs and bclicls arc
simply unrccovcrablc through archacology. Tc protolcxicon ocrs thc
hopc ol rccovcring somc ol thc dctails ol daily ritual and custom that ar
chacological cvidcncc alonc usually lails to dclivcr. Tat is what makcs thc
solution ol thc !ndouro pc an problcm important lor archacologists, and
lor all ol us who arc intcrcstcd in knowing our anccstors a littlc bcttcr.
A Nvw Soiu:iox vov ~x iu Pvoniv:
Linguists havc bccn working on culturallcxical rcconstructions ol Proto
!ndouro pc an lor almost two hundrcd ycars. Archacologists havc argucd
about thc archacological idcntity ol thc Proto!ndouro pc an languagc
community lor at lcast a ccntury, probably with lcss progrcss than thc lin
guists. Tc problcm ol !ndouro pc an origins has bccn intcrtwincd with
uro pc an intcllcctual and political history lor considcrably morc than a
ccntury. Vhy hasnt a broadly acccptablc union bctwccn archacological
and linguistic cvidcncc bccn achicvcd:
Six major problcms stand in thc way. nc is that thc rcccnt intcllcctual
climatc in Vcstcrn acadcmia has lcd many scrious pcoplc to qucstion thc
cntirc idca ol protolanguagcs. Tc modcrn world has witncsscd incrcas
ing cultural lusion in music (8lack Ladysmith Mombasa and Paul Simon,
Pavarotti and Sting), in art (PostModcrn cclccticism), in inlormation scr
viccs (NcwsGossip), in thc mixing ol populations (intcrnational migra
tion is at an alltimc high), and in languagc (most ol thc pcoplc in thc
zo Chapter z
world arc now bilingual or trilingual). As intcrcst in thc phcnomcnon
ol cultural convcrgcncc incrcascd during thc 1980s, thoughtlul acadcmics
bcgan to rcconsidcr languagcs and culturcs that had oncc bccn intcrprctcd
as individual, distinct cntitics. vcn standard languagcs bcgan to bc sccn
as crcolcs, mixcd tongucs with multiplc origins. !n !ndouro pc an studics
this movcmcnt sowcd doubt about thc vcry conccpt ol languagc lamilics
and thc branching trcc modcls that illustratcd thcm, and somc dcclarcd
thc scarch lor any protolanguagc a dclusion. Many ascribcd thc similari
tics bctwccn thc !ndouro pc an languagcs to convcrgcncc bctwccn ncigh
boring languagcs that had distinct historical origins, implying that thcrc
ncvcr was a singlc protolanguagc.
13
Much ol this was crcativc but vaguc spcculation. Linguists havc now
cstablishcd that thc similaritics bctwccn thc !ndouro pc an languagcs
arc not thc kinds ol similaritics produccd by crcolization and convcr
gcncc. Nonc ol thc !ndouro pc an languagcs looks at all likc a crcolc.
Tc !ndouro pc an languagcs must havc rcplaccd non!ndouro pc an
languagcs rathcr than crcolizing with thcm. l coursc, thcrc was intcr
languagc borrowing, but it did not rcach thc cxtrcmc lcvcl ol mixing and
structural simplication sccn in all crcolcs. Tc similaritics that Sir Vil
liam Joncs notcd among thc !ndouro pc an languagcs can only havc
bccn produccd by dcsccnt lrom a common protolanguagc. n that point
most linguists agrcc.
So wc should bc ablc to usc thc rcconstructcd Proto!ndouro pc an
vocabulary as a sourcc ol clucs about whcrc it was spokcn and whcn. 8ut
thcn thc sccond problcm ariscs: many archacologists, apparcntly, do not
bclicvc that it is possiblc to rcliably rcconstruct any portion ol thc Proto
!ndouro pc an lcxicon. Tcy do not acccpt thc rcconstructcd vocabulary
as rcal. Tis rcmovcs thc principal rcason lor pursuing !ndouro pc an
origins and onc ol thc most valuablc tools in thc scarch. !n thc ncxt chap
tcr ! ocr a dclcnsc ol comparativc linguistics, a bricl cxplanation ol how
it works, and a guidc to intcrprcting thc rcconstructcd vocabulary.
Tc third problcm is that archacologists cannot agrcc about thc an
tiquity ol Proto!ndouro pc an. Somc say it was spokcn in 8000 8C,
othcrs say as latc as 2000 8C, and still othcrs rcgard it as an abstract
idca that cxists only in linguists hcads and thcrclorc cannot bc assigncd
to any onc timc. Tis makcs it impossiblc, ol coursc, to locus on a spc
cic cra. 8ut thc principal rcason lor this statc ol chronic disagrccmcnt
is that most archacologists do not pay much attcntion to linguistics.
Somc havc proposcd solutions that arc contradictcd by largc bodics ol
linguistic cvidcncc. 8y solving thc sccond problcm, rcgarding thc qucs
Te Mother Tongue z,
tion ol rcliability and rcality, wc will advancc signicantly toward solv
ing problcm numbcr 3thc qucstion ol whcnwhich occupics chaptcrs
3 and 4.
Tc lourth problcm is that archacological mcthods arc undcrdcvclopcd
in prcciscly thosc arcas that arc most critical lor !ndouro pc an origin
studics. Most archacologists bclicvc it is impossiblc to cquatc prchistoric
languagc groups with archacological artilacts, as languagc is not rccctcd
in any consistcnt way in matcrial culturc. Pcoplc who spcak dicrcnt lan
guagcs might usc similar houscs or pots, and pcoplc who spcak thc samc
languagc can makc pots or houscs in dicrcnt ways. 8ut it sccms to mc
that languagc and culturc are prcdictably corrclatcd undcr somc circum
stanccs. Vhcrc wc scc a .ery clear matcrial culturc lronticrnot just dil
lcrcnt pots but also dicrcnt houscs, gravcs, ccmctcrics, town pattcrns,
icons, dicts, and drcss dcsignsthat persists lor ccnturics or millcnnia, it
tcnds also to bc a linguistic lronticr. Tis docs not happcn cvcrywhcrc. !n
lact, such ethno- linguistic lronticrs sccm to occur rarcly. 8ut whcrc a robust
matcrial culturc lronticr docs pcrsist lor hundrcds, cvcn thousands ol
ycars, languagc tcnds to bc corrclatcd with it. Tis insight pcrmits us to
idcntily at lcast some linguistic lronticrs on a map ol purcly archacological
culturcs, which is a critical stcp in nding thc Proto!ndouro pc an
homcland.
Anothcr wcak aspcct ol contcmporary archacological thcory is that
archacologists gcncrally do not undcrstand migration vcry wcll, and mi
gration is an important vcctor ol languagc changcccrtainly not thc
only causc but an important onc. Migration was uscd by archacologists
bclorc Vorld Var !! as a simplc cxplanation lor any kind ol changc ob
scrvcd in prchistoric culturcs: il pot typc A in lcvcl onc was rcplaccd by
pot typc 8 in lcvcl two, thcn it was a migration ol 8pcoplc that had
causcd thc changc. Tat simplc assumption was provcn to bc grossly in
adcquatc by a latcr gcncration ol archacologists who rccognizcd thc myr
iad internal catalysts ol changc. Shilts in artilact typcs wcrc shown to bc
causcd by changcs in thc sizc and complcxity ol social gathcrings, shilts
in cconomics, rcorga nization in thc way cralts wcrc managcd, changcs in
thc social lunction ol cralts, innovations in tcchnology, thc introduction
ol ncw tradc and cxchangc commoditics, and so on. Pots arc not pcoplc
is a rulc taught to cvcry Vcstcrn archacology studcnt sincc thc 1960s.
Migration disappcarcd cntircly lrom thc cxplanatory toolkit ol Vcstcrn
archacologists in thc 1970s and 1980s. 8ut migration is a hugcly impor
tant human bchavior, and you cannot undcrstand thc !ndouro pc an
problcm il you ignorc migration or prctcnd it was unimportant in thc
z8 Chapter z
past. ! havc tricd to usc modcrn migration thcory to undcrstand prchistoric
migrations and thcir probablc rolc in languagc changc, problcms dis
cusscd in chaptcr 6.
Problcm 5 rclatcs to thc spccic homcland ! dclcnd in this book, locatcd
in thc stcppc grasslands ol Russia and Ukrainc. Tc rcccnt prchistoric ar
chacology ol thc stcppcs has bccn publishcd in obscurc journals and books,
in languagcs undcrstood by rclativcly lcw Vcstcrn archacologists, and in a
narrativc lorm that oltcn rcminds Vcstcrn archacologists ol thc old pots
arc pcoplc archacology ol lty ycars ago. ! havc tricd to undcrstand this
litcraturc lor twcntyvc ycars with limitcd succcss, but ! can say that So
vict and postSovict archacology is not a simplc rcpctition ol any phasc ol
Vcstcrn archacology, it has its own uniquc history and guiding assump
tions. !n thc sccond hall ol this book ! prcscnt a sclcctivc and unavoidably
impcrlcct synthcsis ol archacology lrom thc Ncolithic, Coppcr, and
8ronzc Agcs in thc stcppc zonc ol Russia, Ukrainc, and Kazakhstan,
bcaring dircctly on thc naturc and idcntity ol carly spcakcrs ol !ndo
uro pc an languagcs.
Horscs gallop onstagc to introducc thc nal, sixth problcm. Scholars
noticcd morc than a hundrcd ycars ago that thc oldcst wcll documcntcd
!ndouro pc an languagcs!mpcrial Hittitc, Myccnacan Grcck, and thc
most ancicnt lorm ol Sanskrit, or ld !ndicwcrc spokcn by militaristic
socictics that sccmcd to crupt into thc ancicnt world driving chariots
pullcd by swilt horscs. Maybc !ndouro pc an spcakcrs invcntcd thc char
iot. Maybc thcy wcrc thc rst to domcsticatc horscs. Could this cxplain
thc initial sprcad ol thc !ndouro pc an languagcs: For about a thousand
ycars, bctwccn 1700 and 700 8C, chariots wcrc thc lavorcd wcapons ol
pharaohs and kings throughout thc ancicnt world, lrom Grcccc to China.
Largc numbcrs ol chariots, in thc dozcns or cvcn hundrcds, arc mcntioncd
in palacc invcntorics ol military cquipmcnt, in dcscriptions ol battlcs, and
in proud boasts ol loot takcn in warlarc. Altcr 800 8C chariots wcrc
gradually abandoncd as thcy bccamc vulncrablc to a ncw kind ol warlarc
conductcd by disciplincd troops ol mountcd archcrs, thc carlicst cavalry. !l
!ndouro pc an spcakcrs wcrc thc rst to havc chariots, this could cxplain
thcir carly cxpansion, il thcy wcrc thc rst to domcsticatc horscs, thcn this
could cxplain thc ccntral rolc horscs playcd as symbols ol strcngth and
powcr in thc rituals ol thc ld !ndic Aryans, Grccks, Hittitcs, and othcr
!ndouro pc an spcakcrs.
8ut until rcccntly it has bccn dicult or impossiblc to dctcrminc whcn
and whcrc horscs wcrc domcsticatcd. arly horsc domcstication lclt vcry
lcw marks on thc cquinc skclcton, and all wc havc lclt ol ancicnt horscs is
Te Mother Tongue z,
thcir boncs. For morc than tcn ycars ! havc workcd on this problcm with
my rcscarch partncr, and also my wilc, orcas 8rown, and wc bclicvc wc
now know whcrc and whcn pcoplc bcgan to kccp hcrds ol tamcd horscs.
Vc also think that horscback riding bcgan in thc stcppcs long bclorc
chariots wcrc invcntcd, in spitc ol thc lact that chariotry prcccdcd cavalry
in thc warlarc ol thc orga nizcd statcs and kingdoms ol thc ancicnt
world.
L~xcu~cv x:ixc:iox ~xu Tnoucn:
Tc pcoplc who spokc thc Proto!ndouro pc an languagc livcd at a criti
cal timc in a stratcgic placc. Tcy wcrc positioncd to bcnct lrom innova
tions in transport, most important ol thcsc thc bcginning ol horscback
riding and thc invcntion ol whcclcd vchiclcs. Tcy wcrc in no way supcrior
to thcir ncighbors, indccd, thc surviving cvidcncc suggcsts that thcir
cconomy, domcstic tcchnology, and social orga nization wcrc simplcr than
thosc ol thcir wcstcrn and southcrn ncighbors. Tc cxpansion ol thcir lan
guagc was not a singlc cvcnt, nor did it havc only onc causc.
Ncvcrthclcss, that languagc did cxpand and divcrsily, and its daughtcrs
including nglishcontinuc to cxpand today. Many othcr languagc lam
ilics havc bccomc cxtinct as !ndouro pc an languagcs sprcad. !t is possiblc
that thc rcsultant loss ol linguistic divcrsity has narrowcd and channclcd
habits ol pcrccption in thc modcrn world. For cxamplc, all !ndouro pc an
languagcs lorcc thc spcakcr to pay attcntion to tcnsc and numbcr whcn
talking about an action: you must spccily whcthcr thc action is past, prcs
cnt, or luturc, and you must spccily whcthcr thc actor is singular or plural.
!t is impossiblc to usc an !ndouro pc an vcrb without dcciding on thcsc
catcgorics. Conscqucntly spcakcrs ol !ndouro pc an languagcs habitually
lramc all cvcnts in tcrms ol whcn thcy occurrcd and whcthcr thcy involvcd
multiplc actors. Many othcr languagc lamilics do not require thc spcakcr
to addrcss thcsc catcgorics whcn spcaking ol an action, so tcnsc and num
bcr can rcmain unspccicd.
n thc othcr hand, othcr languagc lamilics rcquirc that othcr aspccts
ol rcality bc constantly uscd and rccognizcd. For cxamplc, whcn dc
scribing an cvcnt or condition in Hopi you must usc grammatical mark
crs that spccily whcthcr you witncsscd thc cvcnt yourscll, hcard about
it lrom somconc clsc, or considcr it to bc an unchanging truth. Hopi
spcakcrs arc lorccd by Hopi grammar to habitually lramc all dcscrip
tions ol rcality in tcrms ol thc sourcc and rcliability ol thcir inlormation.
Tc constant and automatic usc ol such catcgorics gcncratcs habits in thc
:c Chapter z
pcrccption and lraming ol thc world that probably dicr bctwccn pcoplc
who usc lundamcntally dicrcnt grammars.
14
!n that scnsc, thc sprcad
ol !ndouro pc an grammars has pcrhaps rcduccd thc divcrsity ol hu
man pcrccptual habits. !t might also havc causcd this author, as ! writc
this book, to lramc my obscrvations in a way that rcpcats thc pcrccptual
habits and catcgorics ol a small group ol pcoplc who livcd in thc wcstcrn
urasian stcppcs morc than vc thousand ycars ago.