Indo-European languages
m (→Where do they come from?) |
(→The surviving branch: eco-feminist pseudohistory: alternate explanation) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Early accounts of the Aryans make the frequently seen but [[correlation is not causation|unreliable assumption]] that language is co-extensive with [[race]]. Myths of Aryan conquerors are founded on a belief that it was some kind of superiority of technology or military ability that enabled Indo-European speakers to replace previous cultures, rather than attracting them by the merits of their [[culture]]. | Early accounts of the Aryans make the frequently seen but [[correlation is not causation|unreliable assumption]] that language is co-extensive with [[race]]. Myths of Aryan conquerors are founded on a belief that it was some kind of superiority of technology or military ability that enabled Indo-European speakers to replace previous cultures, rather than attracting them by the merits of their [[culture]]. | ||
| − | Was it some prowess or [[war]]like virtue of the [[Aryan]]s -- apparently what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, attested in that form in [[India]], in the Greek superlative ''aristoi'' (''ἄριστοι''), the ''best'' people, (i.e. [[aristocracy|aristocrats]]); also in the names of the countries [[Iran]], and maybe, [[Ireland]] (''Éire'') that spread their language across five continents? It's suggested that they were the first to master horseback riding, wagons, and chariots as military technologies. They spread their language everywhere by prowess and technology. There is a [[feminism|feminist]] counternarrative here, from [[Robert Graves]], [[Marija Gimbutas]], and many others: that the Aryans were barbaric, cruel conquerors who put the [[utopia]]n [[civilization]] of the [[Goddess]] to the torch, and imposed a cruel [[patriarchy]]. In [[Riane Eisler]]'s ''The Chalice and the Blade'', Aryan conquests are also seen as auguring the imposition of male domination over what once was a peaceful feminist utopia.<ref name="Lewis">Martin W. Lewis, [http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/why-the-indo-european-debate-matters-and-matters-deeply Why the Indo-European Debate Matters and Matters Deeply], GeoCurrents</ref> | + | Was it some prowess or [[war]]like virtue of the [[Aryan]]s -- apparently what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, attested in that form in [[India]], in the Greek superlative ''aristoi'' (''ἄριστοι''), the ''best'' people, (i.e. [[aristocracy|aristocrats]]); also in the names of the countries [[Iran]], and maybe, [[Ireland]] (''Éire'')<ref>There is an alternative etymology that holds that ''Eire'' derives from *''pih-wer-'', the "fat" or "fertile" country; compare Greek ''Pieria''. Initial *''p-'' is routinely lost in Celtic; cf. English ''father'', Latin ''pater'', Irish ''athair''.</ref> that spread their language across five continents? It's suggested that they were the first to master horseback riding, wagons, and chariots as military technologies. They spread their language everywhere by prowess and technology. There is a [[feminism|feminist]] counternarrative here, from [[Robert Graves]], [[Marija Gimbutas]], and many others: that the Aryans were barbaric, cruel conquerors who put the [[utopia]]n [[civilization]] of the [[Goddess]] to the torch, and imposed a cruel [[patriarchy]]. In [[Riane Eisler]]'s ''The Chalice and the Blade'', Aryan conquests are also seen as auguring the imposition of male domination over what once was a peaceful feminist utopia.<ref name="Lewis">Martin W. Lewis, [http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/why-the-indo-european-debate-matters-and-matters-deeply Why the Indo-European Debate Matters and Matters Deeply], GeoCurrents</ref> |
==="Old Europe" was no utopia=== | ==="Old Europe" was no utopia=== | ||
Revision as of 03:54, 27 March 2014
| We will control what you think with |
| Here's how we do it |
The Indo-European languages are a widely distributed family of languages, all descended from a hypothetical and partially reconstructable ancestor, the Proto-Indo-European language. Languages of this family, native to Europe or Asia, were spoken in historical times from Iceland to Sri Lanka. They have spread by colonialism to become the dominant languages of North America, South America and Australia, and are widely present in Africa as well.
Despite being what would first seem a dry etymological subject, the study of Indo-European has been repeatedly politicized. In the period after World War II, several Indo-European scholars (e.g., Roger Pearson, Jean Haudry and the influential Georges Dumézil[1]) and writers influenced by Indo-European studies (e.g. Alain de Benoist) were accused of having sympathies for Fascism or Nazism. It was alleged that their political beliefs may have influenced their studies.[2] Stefan Arvidsson speculated that the fact that many Indo-European scholars identify themselves as the descendants of the ancient Indo-Europeans may explain why the field of Indo-European studies has also been ideologically abused.[3] David Anthony remarked that "Indo-European linguistics and archaeology have been exploited to support openly ideological agendas for so long that a brief history of the issue quickly becomes entangled with the intellectual history of Europe."[4][5]
Contents |
Their startling discovery
A variety of writers had observed that languages such as Russian appeared to be related to Greek and Latin; Mihkail Lomonosov noted the similarities between Russian, Greek, Latin, and the Baltic ("Courlandic") languages in his 1755 Russian Grammar, inviting us to "(i)magine the depth of time when these languages separated! ... Polish and Russian separated so long ago! Now think how long ago [this happened to] Kurlandic! Think when [this happened to] Latin, Greek, German, and Russian! Oh, great antiquity!" But it was Sir William Jones, a British judge stationed in India, who noticed the strong similarity between Sanskrit and Classical Greek:[6]
“”The Sanskrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists.
|
It was, in fact, quite a startle for white Britons to discover that brown heathens were speaking a language closely akin to Ancient Greek. British attitudes towards India and its culture during the colonial period tended towards two extremes. Indophilia[7] was manifest in orientalist art, architecture, and painting; Goethe and Ralph Waldo Emerson were both familiar with the Bhagavad Gita. There was also Indophobia[8], associated with evangelical Christianity; Macaulay dismissed Sanskrit literature as "...medical doctrines which would disgrace an English Farrier - Astronomy, which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school - History, abounding with kings thirty feet high reigns thirty thousand years long - and Geography made up of seas of treacle and seas of butter"[9][10]
The two branches of the Aryan myth
The Indo-European languages are one of history's success stories. As such, their origin and the reasons for their spread have given rise to speculation of varying quality. Notoriously, this included the ideology of Nazi Germany, whose monstrous genocide tainted the name of Aryan which may have been one of the names the speakers of the ancient language knew themselves by. An idea arose -- a fairly plausible one, actually -- that since their languages spread so far, the speakers of this language must have been mighty conquerors; the territorial spread of the languages is a relic of their prehistoric empire. The myth of the Aryan conqueror, the master race, has sprouted two branches, one of which is mostly dead: that one's Nazism.
The living branch involves feminist pseudohistory, and great gobs of fascinating woo, mostly about the utopian grandeur of an alleged age when women ruled: and the underground survival of Goddess worshippers beneath the boot of a tyrannical patriarchy. This flourishing branch also takes clues from Margaret Murray's pseudohistorical books on witchcraft, alleged to be surviving pagans persecuted by Christians. The themes of patriarchal conquerors, matriarchy, and underground pagan or Goddess worship could be relocated by fantasy novelists to settings from Mycenaean Greece (Mary Renault, The King Must Die), Arthurian Britain (Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon), seventeenth century Britain (John Buchan, Witch Wood), twentieth century Britain (Robin Hardy, dir., The Wicker Man). twentieth century America (Thomas Tryon, Harvest Home), and a post-apocalyptic future (Robert Graves, Seven Days In New Crete). Once you accept the idea of a secret, underground tradition of pagan or Goddess worship, none of these scenarios are historically implausible.
The surviving branch: eco-feminist pseudohistory
Early accounts of the Aryans make the frequently seen but unreliable assumption that language is co-extensive with race. Myths of Aryan conquerors are founded on a belief that it was some kind of superiority of technology or military ability that enabled Indo-European speakers to replace previous cultures, rather than attracting them by the merits of their culture.
Was it some prowess or warlike virtue of the Aryans -- apparently what the Indo-Europeans called themselves, attested in that form in India, in the Greek superlative aristoi (ἄριστοι), the best people, (i.e. aristocrats); also in the names of the countries Iran, and maybe, Ireland (Éire)[11] that spread their language across five continents? It's suggested that they were the first to master horseback riding, wagons, and chariots as military technologies. They spread their language everywhere by prowess and technology. There is a feminist counternarrative here, from Robert Graves, Marija Gimbutas, and many others: that the Aryans were barbaric, cruel conquerors who put the utopian civilization of the Goddess to the torch, and imposed a cruel patriarchy. In Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, Aryan conquests are also seen as auguring the imposition of male domination over what once was a peaceful feminist utopia.[12]
"Old Europe" was no utopia
In fact, at least some of the cultures some scholars believe represent pre-Indo-European populations were quite warlike; the late Cucuteni[wp] and Cernavoda cultures[wp] built large settlements with fortress like stockade cities in its later period, and grave remains indicate a highly stratified society. High status graves contained anti-personnel weapons like porphyry maces.[13] The archeological record shows large, concentrated hill fort[wp] settlements built along a circular plan, with palisades or stockades.
The Cucuteni apparently practiced metalsmithing in these settlements, mostly in arsenical bronze;[wp] the health consequences of this technology suggests that it was practiced mostly by slaves or low-status individuals in these compounds. Indeed, in Cucuteni-Tripyllian (Tripolye) settlements, burials of infants and children are sometimes found beneath the floors of buildings, suggesting that they may have been put there as human sacrifices.[13]
Female status among the Kurgan people
By contrast, in the kurgan graves we find female skeletons given 'warrior' burials with bronze weapons and wheeled vehicles as grave goods; one sixth of such high status graves belonged to women; not exactly equality, but more than can be said for most of the ancient world.[14] Goddess figures and female warriors were also associated with the later population of the Indo-European homeland and are depicted in Scythian art[wp]. Ancient Greek legends make the area north and east of the Black Sea, the Colchis of antiquity, one of the locations of the legendary Amazons.[12]
Old Europe was not a feminist utopia. Women could hold high social status in the Kurgan cultural areas, but no comparable finds have been made for pre-IE cultures. In fact, it's likelier that the Indo-Europeans were horse breeders and traders as well as warriors, who established a trade network that stretched from the Balkans to east of the Black Sea. Their mobility and wealth, as much as their military prowess, persuaded people to adopt their language as a second language over a wide area. Any wars fought were local and minor; and the culture they displaced was no utopia.
Where do they come from?
If you admire these guys, you might want to claim your own country as their homeland. There are a variety of nationalistic claims; Nazi Germany notoriously claimed to be the Aryan homeland; and strains of Hindu nationalism also assert that the Sanskrit language is indigenous to India.
The overwhelming current scholarly consensus places the Indo-European homeland in the area of the Black Sea; a minority say Anatolia, many say that the steppes of central Asia are the Indo-European homeland.[15]
How deep can we dig into the history of language?
Another vein of rich speculation seeks to relate Indo-European to other reconstructed protolanguages. Historical linguistics is founded on a principle called the comparative method[wp]. A relationship between two languages cannot be established only by discovering words that seem to resemble each other; they must be shown to derive from a common ancestor. There must be a consistent set of sound changes from a (partially) reconstructable protolanguage. Historical linguistics does not simply seek to demonstrate the possibility that two languages might be related; it means to show specifically how, and arrange languages cladistically on a family tree.
The possibility of a relationship between the several languages of the Indo-European family was noticed early on by comparing word lists; but given the possibility of borrowing, onomatopoeia, and chance resemblances, comparing lists words is an insufficiently rigorous method of determining language classifications. The comparative method attempts to add testable hypotheses and greater certainty to the uncovering of language families. It depends on an insight from a group of late nineteenth century philologists called the Neogrammarians[wp] such as Karl Brugmann, who observed that sound changes were regular and could be reconstructed as the application of phonetic laws on the original forms. As such, the comparative method involves:
- Compiling lists of cognate words;
- Establishing lists of corresponding phonemes within the sets of cognates;
- Discovering which sets are in "complementary distribution" -- to identify whether the environment of surrounding sounds makes a difference in the operation of the phoneme correspondence rules;
- Reconstructing the phonemes of the hypothetical source proto-language; and
- Classifying the sound structure of the reconstructed language.
By doing this, linguists hope to establish the cladistics of the tree of descent of the current languages from the proto-language, much like biologists reconstruct the family tree of species. The take home point in all of this is that establishing a relationship between two languages is a bit more complicated than comparing lists of words. There's a method involved, designed to exclude borrowings and coincidence, and comparing lists of words is only step one.
See also
External links
- Martin W. Lewis, The Vexatious History of Indo-European Studies, part 1. (GeoCurrents, 2013); part 2.
- Martin W. Lewis's lecture on Indo-European origins.
Notes
- ↑ Arvidsson, Stefan (2006), Aryan Idols: Indo-European Mythology as Ideology and Science, translated by Sonia Wichmann, Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 2, 3, 241 ff., 306
- ↑ Arvidsson 2006. Bruce Lincoln. Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship (1999).
- ↑ Arvidsson 2006:3, 308, 320
- ↑ David Anthony 1995 "Nazi and Eco-Feminist Prehistories: Ideology and Empiricism in Indo-European Archaeology. In Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (82-96) Ed. P.Kohl and Fawcett. Cambridge University Press.
- ↑ Portions of this text are adapted from the Wikipedia article on Indo-European studies.
- ↑ Bill Poser, Indo-European Practice and Historical Methodology.
- ↑ See the Wikipedia article on indophilia.
- ↑ See the Wikipedia article on indophobia.
- ↑ Thomas Babington Macaulay, Minute on Indian Education, 1835
- ↑ Come on. You know you want to read about those thirty-foot kings, and what it's like to sail over the sea of butter. (The seafood must be to die for.)
- ↑ There is an alternative etymology that holds that Eire derives from *pih-wer-, the "fat" or "fertile" country; compare Greek Pieria. Initial *p- is routinely lost in Celtic; cf. English father, Latin pater, Irish athair.
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 Martin W. Lewis, Why the Indo-European Debate Matters and Matters Deeply, GeoCurrents
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 David W. Anthony, "Nazi and eco-feminist prehistories", in Philip J. Kohl, ed., Nationalism, Politics and the Practice of Archaeology (Cambridge, 1995; ISBN 0521558395), pp. 94 - 95.
- ↑ David Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World (Princeton, 2007; ISBN 0-691-05887-3)
- ↑ http://ukrainianweek.com/History/88577