Monday, October 3, 2011
A social prehistory of European languages.
A social prehistory of European languages. Consistent to most views of Indo-European in later Europeanprehistory prehistory,period of human evolution before writing was invented and records kept. The term was coined by Daniel Wilson in 1851. It is followed by protohistory, the period for which we have some records but must still rely largely on archaeological evidence to is a genetic focus. The blanket of related languages acrossEurope marks an equal human spread -- whether of steppe steppe(stĕp), temperate grassland of Eurasia, consisting of level, generally treeless plains. It extends over the lower regions of the Danube and in a broad belt over S and SE European and Central Asian Russia, stretching E to the Altai and S to warriors, Beakerburialists or slashing-and-burning farmers. What if the languages arereconstructed using other premisses than this 'genealogical'view?IntroductionAll language prehistories are hypothetical models largely constructedfrom their premisses. In this paper I will present a prehistory of theEuropean languages based on rather different premisses from thoseusually used, with the goal of exploring some unexamined linkagesbetween prehistoric society and language. The present moment isespecially propitious pro��pi��tious?adj.1. Presenting favorable circumstances; auspicious. See Synonyms at favorable.2. Kindly; gracious.[Middle English propicius, from Old French for such an effort. Within the last decade,several relatively sophisticated models of Indo-European languages havebeen proposed, relating them to social phenomena such as trade and elitedominance and to the ecological and demographic consequences of thespread of agriculture (Renfrew 1987; Ehret 1988; Sherratt & Sherratt1988; Zvelebil & Zvelebil 1988). In a similar vein, I will outline ahypothetical prehistory of European languages, as their evolution mayhave been shaped by successive waves of social change. While the resultsare both speculative and over-generalized, they may serve to stimulateour archaeological imagination by viewing old questions from new angles.Language history involves studying two complementary aspects oflanguage, genetic origins and sociolinguistic so��ci��o��lin��guis��tics?n. (used with a sing. verb)The study of language and linguistic behavior as influenced by social and cultural factors.so processes. In effect, theformer traces the raw material presented to each generation of speakersin terms of its historical derivation, while the latter studies theprocesses of selection and modification which reshape and transmit thismaterial to the next generation. In historical linguistics historical linguisticsn. (used with a sing. verb)The study of linguistic change over time in language or in a particular language or language family, sometimes including the reconstruction of unattested forms of earlier stages of a language. , the onlywork to consider Indo-European languages other than genetically seems tobe that of Trubetzkoy (1939). In archaeology, students of Indo-Europeanhave focused almost exclusively on attempting to trace the historicalcontinuity of Indo-European as a particular group of language lineages;this includes traditional archaeologists as well as bioanthropologicalwork (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1993) and recent archaeological work(Renfrew 1987; 1992) applying processual social models to geneticlinguistic questions. In this paper I will follow an opposite approach,and ignore the question of where modern European languages came from infavour of the question of what happened to them en route. At the presentmoment, this approach affords two advantages. Much important linguisticchange happens through ways other than the simple lineal That which comes in a line, particularly a direct line, as from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. LINEAL. That which comes in a line. Lineal consanguinity is that which subsists between persons, one of whom is descended in a direct line from the other. transmission ofa group's language to its offspring groups. Broadening the topicthus may make linguistic models more accurate and more relevant toprocessual social models. Secondly, the genetic model also carriescertain theoretical and methodological baggage. For instance, it isdifficult to use it prehistorically without also arguing that language,ethnic group and material culture coincide reliably enough for thelatter to serve as an archaeological key to the former over long spansof time; this argument tends to commit the prehistorian to excludingsocial processes in which these phenomena follow different paths (a factlargely responsible for the conspicuous absence of language andethnicity in New Archaeological treatments of European prehistory). Itis liberating to consider language prehistory without the burden oftracing a specific lineage, simply as the prehistory of Europeanlanguages. Reconceptualizing the 'Indo-European problem'How can language patterns such as the Indo-European expansion beconceptualized in social terms? The pervasive influence of the geneticmethod of comparative linguistics Comparative linguistics (originally comparative philology) is a branch of historical linguistics that is concerned with comparing languages in order to establish their historical relatedness. Languages may be related by convergence through borrowing or by genetic descent. must be recognized immediately. Thegenetic method compares languages to determine their structuralsimilarities, which it attributes to a documented or hypothetical commonancestor. It can thus only produce scenarios of original unity followedby subsequent divergence (cf. Renfrew 1987; Thomason & Kaufman 1984;Terrell 1988). Moreover, since we know progressively less about earlierlinguistic landscapes, it is not surprising that we imagine modernlanguages branching from isolated, single ancestors. These facts,combined with archaeological assumptions about the unity of materialculture, linguistic community and ethnic identity, are largelyresponsible for the traditional narrative of large-scale folk migrationsoutward from an Indo-European 'homeland'.While it is true that all languages and cultures have historicalantecedents, sociolinguistic processes can affect the relations betweenthe two in many ways. Linguistic variability gives speakers resourcesfor expressing solidarity and distinction along many dimensions.Speakers continually choose among alternative forms of speech, on scalesfrom the inflection of a vowel to the adoption of a primary linguisticidentity, and linguistic change results from the shifting balance ofthese choices. Language as strategic choice thus responds not only toethnicity but to political, economic and cultural factors as well.Vectors of language replacement, for instance, can include massmigration, migration of limited groups (as in elite dominance models),migration of individuals not organized into groups (as throughintermarriage in��ter��mar��ry?intr.v. in��ter��mar��ried, in��ter��mar��ry��ing, in��ter��mar��ries1. To marry a member of another group.2. To be bound together by the marriages of members.3. ) and shifting language choices among multilingualindividuals for a number of reasons (cf. Ehret 1988). Languages incontact also influence each other through the formation of pidgins andcreoles, the spread of trade or gender-specific languages, and borrowingand convergence among genetically distinct tongues. As Thomason &Kaufman (1988) point out, the effects of language contact can bedramatic. Over historical periods of time, these forces can result inlanguage replacement with or without migrations, in the formation of newlanguages of uncertain ancestry and in the formation of regionallyconvergent linguistic systems, Sprachbund (Hoch 1991: 494).On the micro-scale of tracing individual language histories, thesefactors complicate the task considerably. Without large-scale politicalorganization, causal factors underlying sociolinguistic choices in oneregion may not be important elsewhere. Moreover, speech communities,self-identified ethnic groups, political units and material cultureassemblages may not coincide, even when ethnic identity, language andmaterial style all serve as boundary markers. As Hill (1978) points out,the 'dialect-tribe' model is far from universal; perhaps thelimiting case of divergence between co-residence and languageaffiliation was Bara society in the Upper Orinoco basin, where exogamous ex��og��a��my?n.1. The custom of marrying outside the tribe, family, clan, or other social unit.2. Biology The fusion of two gametes that are not closely related. clans traditionally spoke different languages, resulting normally inmarriages between native speakers of different languages (Jackson 1983).However, the same factors open up the possibility of analysis on themacro-scale. By treating the linguistic map A linguistic map is a thematic map showing the geographic distribution of the speakers of a language, or isoglosses of a dialect continuum of the same language. A collection of such maps is a linguistic atlas. as an array of individualcases which respond to economic, social and political circumstances, wemay be able to formulate hypotheses about how general characteristics ofthe map might change in response to these circumstances even whenindividual cases are indeterminate. For this reason, at the presentstate of knowledge, it is probably more useful to formulate the problemas the prehistory of European languages rather than as the'Indo-European problem'.Social trends affect the linguistic map ultimately through languageextinctions and production, and I suggest that the balance between thetwo can provide a good general gauge of their effects. Normal socialprocesses result in both language extinction and creation, creatinglanguage 'turnover' over time. One effect of this is that, atany point, the linguistic landscape will be populated with a fewrelatively large language families, created through social processeswhich are undirected on the macro-scale (Robb 1991). A secondimplication is that the rate of language turnover due to socialprocesses will change according to according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. the nature of the social processesbehind it. When social processes remain relatively constant, individuallanguage families may rise and fall stochastically, but the overall formof the linguistic map is likely to stay the same. Social evolution onthe continental scale, in contrast, is likely to change both the fatesof individual families and basic features of the map itself -- itspatchiness, grain and time-depth. Over the course of social evolution,then, changes in language ecology -- the fit between language and itssocial environment -- may be observable through trends in languagedemography. Historical parameters for a hypothetical prehistory ofEuropean languagesBoth the spatial and temporal constraints of European languageprehistory are vague. Spatially, in spite of a century of research, theregions where Indo-European languages were spoken 5000 years ago arestill mostly a matter of conjecture. Chronological aspects are uncertainfor several reasons. The time-depth of reconstructed proto-ancestorsdepends, somewhat artificially, upon how much we know about them, andhistoric accounts of Indo-European expansions often do not specify thekind of language spoken indigenously. For instance, it was assumed thatGreek entered Greece early in the 1st millennium until the deciphermentof Linear B demonstrated that a Greek language Greek language,member of the Indo-European family of languages (see Indo-European). It is the language of one of the major civilizations of the world and of one of the greatest literatures of all time. was spoken there earlier.Moreover, the best-known case, Indo-European, is atypical; probably thegreat majority of European language lineages experienced quite differenthistorical trends ending in extinction or survival of only a fewlanguages. What historical evidence exists, however, gives an idea ofthe general form of European language prehistory. The Indo-European (IE)languages were dispersed widely before the 2nd millennium, as IElanguages are historically known in the early and mid 2nd millennium inthe Aegean, southwest Asia Southwest Asia or Southwestern Asia (largely overlapping with the Middle East) is the southwestern portion of Asia. The term Western Asia is sometimes used in writings about the archeology and the late prehistory of the region, and in the United States subregion and south Asia This article is about the geopolitical region in Asia. For geophysical treatments, see Indian subcontinent. South Asia, also known as Southern Asia . On the other hand, theirpenetration is unlikely to have been very thorough before this date, asnon-IE languages are known from much later dates in Italy, Spain, theBaltic and Russian frontier of Indo-European, the Caucasus and Anatolia.(Documented non-IE languages include Etruscan, Basque, Iberian,Tartessian, Estonian, Finnish, Urartian, Sumerian, Hurrian, Hattic andMitannian. Languages which may also have been non-IE include Pictish,Lepontic and Ligurian.) The location of non-IE languages around thefringes of Europe may reflect the contours of an expansion (Mallory1989). However, these areas also either have some early historicinformation available (i.e. the southern and eastern fringes) or mayhave been relatively unaffected by historical linguistic imperialism andhence have preserved linguistic isolates to a later date (i.e. thenortheastern fringe). We really do not know to what extent Europe northof the Alps harboured non-IE islands similar to Basque or Etruscan inlate prehistory. The general historic trend suggested by the IElanguages is of a widespread but patchy early distribution, followed bysubsequent stages of both 'filling in' and expansion at theperiphery. More typical lineages would have followed the conversepattern. At several millennia before the historic record begins,therefore, the map may have included a patchy mixture of languages; theintervening millennia would have seen the rise and consolidation of onegroup of languages and the decline of others.The Palaeolithic/MesolithicPalaeolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers lived at populationdensities much lower than later groups, and networks of nomadic See nomadic computing. groupsoccupied large territories; for instance, Bogucki (1988: 43) postulatesonly 14 Mesolithic 'social territories' in Europe north of theAlps. Moreover, contact with other groups would have been vital forinformation on resources (Gamble 1982; Whallon 1989) and as a source ofmates (Wobst 1974), and hunter-gatherers living at low densitiestypically maintain fluid relations with neighbouring populations asecological insurance against local shortfalls. These considerationssuggest that languages and language families would have been spoken overrelatively wide, flexibly bounded territories. For example, whilehorticulturists in temperate Native North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. spoke dozens oflanguages, Inuit populations from Greenland to Siberia spoke 5-10dialects of only two language families, Eskimo and Aleut (Woodbury1984). Similarly, all Australian languages south of the northern coastbelong to one language family. A second characteristic of populationsliving at low population densities is that they often do not conform to Verb 1. conform to - satisfy a condition or restriction; "Does this paper meet the requirements for the degree?"fit, meetcoordinate - be co-ordinated; "These activities coordinate well" the model of one tribe-one dialect (Hill 1978). Instead, a variety oflinguistic features allow linkages among groups. Languages may bedifferentiated through easily-learned lexical items while sharing acommon phonological system Noun 1. phonological system - the system of phones used in a particular languagephonologic systemtonal system, tone system - the system of tones used in a particular language or dialect of a tone language , multilingualism is widespread, andlinguistic exogamy exogamy(ĕksŏg`əmē): see marriage. is also known. Hunter-gatherer languages sometimesalso form dialect continuums, instead of sharply delimited linguisticzones, as in the North American Boreal Forest boreal forestNounthe forest of northern latitudes, esp. in Scandinavia, Canada, and Siberia, consisting mainly of spruce and pine [Latin boreas the north wind] and Arctic (Rhodes &Todd 1981; Woodbury 1984). Krauss & Golla (1981: 68-9) note:Attempts to classify the Athapaskan languages into historicallymeaningful subgroups have not met with success . . . the principaldifficulty arises from the fact that Athapaskan linguisticrelationships, especially in the Subarctic area, cannot be adequatelydescribed in terms of discrete family tree branches. This is becauseintergroup in��ter��group?adj.Being or occurring between two or more social groups: intergroup relations; intergroup violence.communication has ordinarily been constant, as no NorthernAthapaskan language or dialect was ever completely isolated from theothers for long . . .Whatever the language boundaries, the network of communication in theNorthern Athapaskan dialect complex is open-ended. It is probably worthnoting that, even in 1980, perhaps most Northern Athapaskans live withonly other Athapaskan speakers as neighbors and rarely hear a languagethat is not Athapaskan. People from adjacent communities usually expectto be able to understand one another's speech, if not immediatelythen surely after some practice. Local dialects and languages areimportant as symbols of social identity; but the native expectationthese differences, even across relatively vast differences, will not bebarriers to communication gives the Northern Athapaskan speaker adistinctively open and flexible perception of his social world. As thissuggests, the Palaeolithic language map would probably have featured fewlanguage families, each spoken over a wide region. Pleistocenepopulations may also have suffered periodic 'bottlenecks' dueto glaciations or other climatic changes which would further reducecultural and linguistic diversity. Over the 25,000-30,000 years of theUpper Palaeolithic, the linguistic scene is likely to have undergonecyclical change; individual languages and language families would haveexpanded and contracted while the overall distribution remained more orless constant. Through the accumulation of lineage extinctions involvedin such linguistic turnover, one or another language spoken in the EarlyUpper Palaeolithic would eventually become the ancestor of all modernEuropean languages, fissioning to found a growing language family (Robb1991). The total number of languages spoken at any given point, however,would probably fluctuate around an average tied primarily to populationdensity in that particular millennium. In the Mesolithic, with incipientsedentism and intensive exploitation of more localized resources in someareas, this scenario would begin to evolve towards the broad changesdescribed below. Earlier Neolithic: sedentism, population growth andethnogenesis Ethnogenesis (From Greek: ethnos(nation)+"genesis(birth), Greek: Εθνογένεσις) is the process by which a group of human beings comes to be understood or to understand themselves as ethnically distinct from the Broad homogeneous horizons of Early Neolithic material culture(Impressed Ware/LBK) represent the widespread, rapid diffusion of aNeolithic way of life, if not actual migrations. Renfrew (1987) hasargued that this wave of diffusion carried with it not only a newsubsistence economy A subsistence economy is an economy in which a group generally obtains the necessities of life, but do not attempt to accumulate wealth. In such a system, a concept of wealth does not exist, and only minimal surpluses generally are created, therefore there is a reliance on renewal but the Indo-European languages as well. Whilespecific aspects of this position have been criticized (Zvelebil &Zvelebil 1988; Mallory 1989), Renfrew's use of Ammerman &Cavalli-Sforza's (1984) 'wave of advance' modelaccurately ties language change to the demographic effects ofneolithization. Whether expanding Neolithic populations carried theirlanguages into new territories or acculturating Mesolithic populationsretained theirs, sedentism and population growth would have affectedlanguage distributions in complex ways.Agriculture allows a greatly increased population density at the costof reduced mobility. Four direct effects would have been critical forlanguage. For the first time, local groups would have beendemographically self-sufficient. Subsistence farming subsistence farmingForm of farming in which nearly all the crops or livestock raised are used to maintain the farmer and his family, leaving little surplus for sale or trade. Preindustrial agricultural peoples throughout the world practiced subsistence farming. communities couldalso have satisfied most or all of their material needs within a fewdozen kilometres' range of home. While long-distance trade isalways evident archaeologically to some degree, inter-groupcommunication would have dropped and become narrower in scope, andlong-distance trade may have been mediated through a long series ofimmediate neighbours. Simultaneously, group solidarity would have becomefocused sharply within groups with a stable, concretely boundedmembership and a specific territorial base. These conditions -- theformation of small, self-sufficient territorial groups in a landscape ofrising population density -- would have favoured a wave of ethnogenesisand probably of language formation as well. This is suggested both bycommunicative considerations and by North American linguistic geography linguistic geographyn.The branch of linguistics that involves the study of regional variations of speech forms. Also called dialect geography.linguistic geographer n. .As a communicative signal, the choice of a primary language identity,like cranial cranial/cra��ni��al/ (-al)1. pertaining to the cranium.2. toward the head end of the body; a synonym of superior in humans and other bipeds.cra��ni��aladj. deformation, is relatively inflexible, apparent invirtually all contexts of social life and difficult for adult outsidersto acquire or feign feign?v. feigned, feign��ing, feignsv.tr.1. a. To give a false appearance of: feign sleep.b. . These 'design features' lend it well tothe purpose of symbolizing identities which are general to manycontexts, life-long and exclusive to individuals sharing a commonterritory and history; identities tied to specific situations, contextsor within-group distinctions might be symbolized by more flexiblematerial media or smaller-scale linguistic choices. In the context ofneolithization, language may have been 'activated' as astylistic marker, resulting in differentiation among small tribal groupsdistinguishing and identifying themselves by their local dialects (asLaycock (1982) argues, the dynamics of language change are different inlanguages with few speakers than in widely spoken language, and theprimary motivation underlying Malanesia's famous linguisticdiverity is to use language as a badge of social identity -- even to thepoint that 'the maximum number of persons in Papua New Guinea Papua New Guinea(păp`ə, –y speaking exactly the same language is about 500' (1982: 34).). Onthe macro-scale, the relation between sedentism, population density andlinguistic diversity is well illustrated by the distribution of nativeNorth American languages (Voegelin & Voegelin 1966), in which thesize of language family territories varies inversely with latitude fromArctic and Boreal forest hunter-gatherers to temperate and sub-tropicalhorticulturists; in place of the broad zones of mutual intelligibility In linguistics, mutual intelligibility is a property exhibited by a set of languages when speakers of any one of them can readily understand all the others without intentional study or extraordinary effort. characterizing northern mobile populations, European explorers oftenreported that woodland horticultural groups spoke a different languageevery 50 km (Crawford 1975a; 1978). The Northwest Coast and coastalCalifornia may represent an extreme situation of high local populationdensities and linguistic fragmentation, with, in the Northwest Coast,some linguistic features associated with economic intensification andtrade (shared linguistic features among genetically distinct languages,development of a trade jargon) (Thompson & Kinkade 1991; Hill 1978).Over several millennia of Neolithic life, a given Mesolithic languagemay have had numerous offspring, and the resulting landscape might looklike those of New Guinea or the Amazon basin, with patchworks oflanguages of different families spoken by a few thousand persons each.The result would be a dramatic increase in the number of languagesspoken compared to the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. The proliferation ofnew languages probably kept language family extinctions to a minimum,except for those actually supplanted by languages associated with anintrusive Neolithic, and many currently recognizable language familiesmay have been 'founded' by ramification ramification/ram��i��fi��ca��tion/ (ram?i-fi-ka��shun)1. distribution in branches.2. a branching.ram��i��fi��ca��tionn.A branching shape or arrangement. from Mesolithicancestors in this period. The Later Neolithic-Bronze Age:intensification, prestige economies and language consolidationThe Late Neolithic, Copper and Bronze Ages have provided the secondand traditionally more popular candidate for Indo-European migrations.Common archaeological features include wide stylistic horizons, economicintensification, the rise of prestige systems in political life and ofan associated iconography of weaponry, and possible changes in kinship.These appear to have taken place within relatively acephalous acephalous/aceph��a��lous/ (a-sef��ah-lus) headless. acephalousheadless. societies.Interpretation of these changes as evidence of expanding patriarchalIndo-European hordes (Gimbutas 1973; 1980) is far unanimous. Otherarchaeologists have ascribed them to the rise of stratified stratified/strat��i��fied/ (strat��i-fid) formed or arranged in layers. strat��i��fiedadj.Arranged in the form of layers or strata. societies(Gilman 1981; 1991), the rise of a prestige-oriented society (Shennan1982), economic intensification (Sherratt 1981) and the consequences ofa male-oriented gender ideology (Robb 1992).Feil (1987) discusses the effects of economic intensification oflanguage groups in Highland Papua New Guinea. Traditional groups in theEastern Highlands lived in small, isolated communities practising mixedsubsistence agriculture; languages among them were typically spoken by afew thousand individuals. In contrast, in the Western Highlands andparticularly around Mount Hagen, culturally similar groups cultivatedsweet potatoes intensively in order to feed pigs for elaborate exchangenetworks. Communities as a whole were larger (although this larger groupsize would have been difficult to discern archaeologically, as therelief from endemic warfare in the exchange-oriented Western Highlandsallowed populations to live in small dispersed settlements, moreconvenient for pig-raising, instead of in the nucleated, often fortified fortified (fôrt´fīd),adj containing additives more potent than the principal ingredient. villages typical of the Eastern Highlands) (Feil 1987). Dialects,languages and language families were significantly larger, and somedialects were spoken by up to almost 70,000 people. The reason for thisgreater size was clear. It was politically advantageous to incorporatemore producers and exchange partners into a larger system, and theresulting success in ceremonial exchange reinforced the ideological tiesbinding groups together. The increased number of speakers of WesternHighlands languages reflects both larger overall group size and moreextensive within-group ties based upon production and exchange. As thissuggests, as regional exchange systems supported by secondary productsdeveloped, fewer languages would have been spoken in the same populationor territory. One consequence of the secondary products revolution(Sherratt 1981) would thus be the gradual consolidation of fewer, largerlanguage groups. Two collateral TABULAR DATA OMITTED effects would tendto magnify mag��ni��fyv.To increase the apparent size of, especially with a lens. this difference over time. As Thorpe & Richards (1984)point out, societies with prestige-oriented economies tend to be moreaggressively expansive than those regulated by pervasive ritualauthority. Secondly, once differentials in intensification andpopulation density existed, larger language groups would bestochastically less likely to become extinct than smaller,less-intensified groups, and would be likely to exert political andeconomic forces over them and to assimilate their speakers if theybecame defunct.Beside the general effects of intensification and prestige economies,several special types of linguistic interaction are relevant to thisperiod.Regional exchange languagesBoth increased long-distance trade and colonization of interstitialareas such as highlands would result in more contact across linguisticfrontiers. Multi-lingualism is common in such situations, and where anumber of groups habitually interact, one language may be recognized asa trade language. In the southeastern United States (Crawford 1975a;1978), for example, French and English observers were often impressed bythe bewildering be��wil��der?tr.v. be��wil��dered, be��wil��der��ing, be��wil��ders1. To confuse or befuddle, especially with numerous conflicting situations, objects, or statements. See Synonyms at puzzle.2. variety of tribal languages they found there. Groupscommunicated through bilingual individuals scattered among villages. Inseveral regions, however, single languages such as Creek exerted acentripetal centripetal/cen��trip��e��tal/ (sen-trip��e-t'l)1. afferent (1).2. corticipetal.cen��trip��e��taladj.1. Moving or directed toward a center or axis. attraction; typically such a language belonged to a groupwhich was centrally located and powerful, had important tradeconnections or led a regional confederation. In these cases, thelanguage took on added political functions and became a common means ofcommunication among speakers of different languages. As a furtherdevelopment, in one case, such a central language spawned a pidgin pidgin(pĭj`ən), a lingua franca that is not the mother tongue of anyone using it and that has a simplified grammar and a restricted, often polyglot vocabulary. .Mobilian trade jargon probably originated before European contact as aChickasaw-based pidgin used in coastal and riverine riv��er��ine?adj.1. Relating to or resembling a river.2. Located on or inhabiting the banks of a river; riparian: "Members of a riverine tribe ... trade on the GulfCoast (Crawford 1975a; 1978; Haas 1975; Dreschel 1977; 1981). Tradelanguages were common throughout North America, including a VirginiaAlgonquian language used by the Powhatan confederacy, a pidginized formof Delaware, Occaneeche, Peoria, Ojibway, Cree, Dakota, Comanche,Navaho, Hupa, and a pidginized version of Chinook Chinook, indigenous people of North AmericaChinook(shĭnk`, chĭ–), Native American tribe of the Penutian linguistic stock. (Goddard 1971;Dreschel 1981; Taylor 1981; Rhodes 1982; Thomason 1983). Some of thesemay represent post-contact developments for trade with Europeans;Delaware pidgin was developed among a Delaware-led confederation tradingwith the Dutch and Swedes (Goddard 1971; Dreschel 1981), while the useof Ojibway and Cree as lingua lingua/lin��gua/ (ling��gwah) pl. lin��guae ? [L.] tongue.lin��guallingua geogra��phica? benign migratory glossitis.lingua ni��gra? black tongue. francas was sponsored by the French andEnglish fur trades respectively (Rhodes 1982). Others, such as the tradejargon used by the Chinook to communicate with trade partners up anddown the coast and with captives incorporated as slaves, probablydeveloped indigenously (Thomason 1983; cf. Dutton 1978; 1983 forindigenously developed New Guinea trade pidgins associated withparticular trade networks).For European prehistory, regional exchange languages may have hadseveral significant effects. When a regional language is present,languages are often status-ranked, with bilingualism becoming one-way(e.g. native speakers of low-status languages learn regional high-statuslanguages but native speakers of the high-status language do not learnother languages) (Rhodes 1982). In times of demographic or politicalchange, a language used for regional communication would thus stand agood chance of supplanting other languages during group fission fission,in physics: see nuclear energy and nucleus; see also atomic bomb. orfusion, spreading it through the conversion and incorporation ofspeakers (Rhodes 1982: 2, 8):Most of the speakers of Ottawa that I have been working with aredescendants not of Ottawa but of Potawatomis and Chippewa, i.e. AmericanOjibwas. . . . we have no guarantees that any of the people we work within the 20th century are speaking the same language as their ancestors,because a language shift can come about, not through a relativelyvisible mass assimilation like the Mancouten (Goddard 1978: 670), but,as in the case of the Chippewa and Potawatomi speakers of Ottawa inMichigan and Ontario, by silently slipping into the trade language.Specific trade networks would provide vectors for expansion, as Sherratt& Sherratt (1988) have suggested for Indo-European. Finally, in suchsituations, linguistic accommodation in syntactic and phonological pho��nol��o��gy?n. pl. pho��nol��o��gies1. The study of speech sounds in language or a language with reference to their distribution and patterning and to tacit rules governing pronunciation.2. features among a region's languages may lead to the formation of aSprachbund in which common morphological and phonological featuresspread among genetically distinct, converging languages. In grammaticalsimplification during contact, features held in common are likely to beretained preferentially, and the resulting convergence may muddlegenetic reconstructions of language relatedness (Thomason & Kaufman1988).Prestige languagesAs Helms (1983) argues, one of the bases of elite power is exoticknowledge, and this may include knowledge of exotic languages,particularly as these would be associated with the ability to trade, toconduct politics and to form external contracts. An elite language maybe introduced by invasion or intermarriage of a small group at thepinnacle of society, as in the 'elite dominance' model(Renfrew 1987; 1992). It may also be created or acquired by a nativegroup, whether definitively dominant or not, as a restricted marker oftheir status and special abilities. Prestige languages may also be usedfor ritual speech within a regional belief system, and in many cases,prestige languages are the internal face of external trade languages.Archaeologically, prestige languages may have been associated withthe visible rise of regional horizons of prestige goods during the LaterNeolithic, Bronze and Copper Ages. As Shennan (1986) notes, such changesmay have spread among neighbouring polities by chain reaction.Linguistically, inter-group prestige chaining may have resulted in rapidspreads of languages, prestigious linguistic features or of thevocabulary of status (such as the IE cognate for 'king' (Latinrex, Celtic rix, Vedic rg), sometimes cited as evidence of archaicIndo-European social structure, cf. Sherratt & Sherratt 1988: note12; and Benveniste 1974).Gender-associated languagesMales and females in most societies speak in different ways aboutdifferent things, and variation seems to derive from the culturalconnotations of gender. In the most extreme case of gendered languagesrecorded, that of the Island Caribs shortly after European contact,males used a recognized, distinct sub-language among themselves whichwomen were forbidden to use when speaking among themselves (Taylor &Hoff 1980; Davis & Goodwin 1990). Similar gender-associatedlanguages are known in other groups such as the Yanomama (Hill 1978),the Chukchi and even within Sumerian society (Diakonoff 1976).Sociolinguistic studies of English (Trudgill 1972) have associatedlevelled gender distinctions in society with reduced speech differences,and gender divergence would presumably pre��sum��a��ble?adj.That can be presumed or taken for granted; reasonable as a supposition: presumable causes of the disaster. also be reflected linguistically.This is probably in fact the case with Island Carib; the men'slanguage probably originated as an Arawak-based trade pidgin with heavyinfluence from mainland Carib languages before being adopted as a gendermarker (Farr 1993).Archaeologically, the 3rd and 2nd millennia see the rise of weaponsymbolism, of hunting art and ploughing symbolism which may be linked toa heightened male gender ideology (Robb 1992). Such an ideology may wellhave been expressed in speech in phonological and paralinguistic par��a��lin��guis��tic?adj.Of or relating to paralanguage or its study.para��lin��guis differences, if not through more extensive linguistic features.Moreover, given that men may have established their claim to prestigeand power through warfare, exchange and inter-group politics, thesethree situations would almost certainly overlap. Knowledge of aninter-group exchange language, for instance, may have both establishedone as elite within the group and allowed gender-specific distinctions(for example Salisbury 1962).In 3rd- and 2nd-millennium Europe, intensification and prestigesystems are well-documented, and trade, prestige and gender-associatedlanguages are likely to have occurred in some areas. As Sherratt &Sherratt (1988) suggest, these developments probably helped spread theIndo-European languages. Bronze Age sociolinguistic developments wouldhave intensified in the later Bronze and Iron Age, as their socialcauses -- economic intensification, increasing polity size, developinggender and social stratification -- accelerated throughout Europe.Increasingly active and mercantile trade along coasts and rivers wouldencourage the formation of trade languages, and control of exotic oresoteric languages may have formed a necessary part of anaristocrat's claim to social position in stratified societies suchas those modelled by Frankenstein & Rowlands (1972). Among thesevaried, localized trends, several continent-wide trends would have beenestablished. First, the size of speaking units would have generallyincreased, resulting in fewer overall language communities and inrelatively greater linguistic stability for economically intensifiedgroups than for unintensified ones. Secondly, increased communicationamong groups, combined with increased differentiation within them, wouldhave begun to cut across linguistic isolation, establishing regionalgroups united by the use of common exchange networks, prestige symbols,gender ideologies, and possibly trade languages or high-statuslanguages. In the long run, such bridging would have encouragedlinguistic homogeneity within a region, both by favouring partial orcomplete language replacement and by motivating lexical and grammaticalborrowing among languages. The overall effect on language distributionswould have been to reduce diversity via extinctions, and to consolidateand expand the survivors. This would have taken place across thelinguistic map; the Indo-European languages would have been only oneamong a number of families developed and spread by these processes.The 1st millennium: historical processesLanguage extinction is an epidemic effect of state organization andcivilization (Robins & Uhlenbeck 1991), and this has probably beenso from the start. European societies on the expanding margins ofcivilizations were affected in many ways (Rowlands et al. 1987). By the3rd millennium Mesopotamian civilizations had established tradingoutposts in the Levant Levant(ləvănt`)[Ital.,=east], collective name for the countries of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean from Egypt to, and including, Turkey. , by the mid 2nd millennium Levantine Le��vant?1?The countries bordering on the eastern Mediterranean Sea from Turkey to Egypt.Le andMycenaean traders ventured throughout the eastern and centralMediterranean, and by the end of the 1st millennium the entireMediterranean and most of Europe north of the Alps had either beenincorporated within the expanding civilized core or been deeply affectedby interactions around its periphery.Among their direct effects, empires forcibly incorporated othersocieties and moved individuals and populations long distances, oftenmixing speakers in situations such as slavery in which the imperiallanguage or another lingua franca such as Aramaic (Paper 1982) was theonly common tongue. Empires spread religious systems, literacy andassociated prestige languages over vast areas. Civilizations exportedmanufactured goods and exotic luxuries, and archaeological horizons suchas the Italian orientalizing period testify to the striking effectsproduced in societies marked by internal prestige competition. Incultural terms, empires often simplify the language map by promoting asingle native language for trade or conversion, as an adjunct to ahomogenized category of 'native'. Quechua, for instance, wasspread by Spanish missionaries to Andean populations who never adoptedit from its original speakers, the Incas (Heath & Laprade 1982). Inpolitical terms, the development of centralized multi-ethnic politieswith developed bureaucracies would have been a key threshold forlinguistic extinctions. In the Roman Empire, for instance, with theexception of Britain (in which romanization was confined to an urbanelite), Latin replaced native languages in regions in which Romanscreated large-scale administrative and industrial structures (Italy,Gaul, Spain, Dacia); it failed to take hold where such structuresalready existed and the linguistic changes they generated had alreadyoccurred (Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa). Asethnohistoric examples demonstrate, the indirect effects of contact withcivilization may precede and carry far beyond actual zones ofcolonization (Wolf 1982; Gailey & Patterson 1988). For instance,native groups trading with the core, such as Celtic aristocrats inFrance (Crumley 1974; Nash 1987; Haselgrove 1987) would also haveexperienced further the effects of economic intensification andpolitical stratification, as well as transmitting them to their ownhinterlands via long-range trade to procure slaves, metals and othercommodities. Roman intervention also both allowed pro-Roman groups suchas the Aedui to dominate their neighbours, resulting in the formation offewer but more powerful native groups on the periphery (Haselgrove 1987:112), and provoked the formation of anti-Roman alliances ofunprecedented size. The formation of large tribal confederacies such asthe Samnites and expansionism ex��pan��sion��ism?n.A nation's practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion.ex��pansion��ist adj. & n. such as the protohistoric movement ofBritons into Britain may reflect such turmoil around the periphery ofthe civilized world.As the history of almost every European country demonstrates, theseeffects combined to reduce linguistic diversity dramatically. In Italy,where the ethnolinguistic record is more complete than in most ofEurope, inscriptional evidence of the 6th-5th centuries BC attests tothe presence of about 12-15 languages belonging to 5-10 branches of atleast four major language families (Celtic, Italic, Greek and Etruscan)(de Voto 1978; Pulgram 1958; 1978). By the end of the first century BConly two languages are attested, Latin and Greek, though others may havecontinued to be spoken for some time. Linguistic change may have takenplace in two distinct phases, though evidence is especially scanty forearlier periods. From early in the 1st millennium, Italian societiesformed a periphery influenced by trade with Greek and Near Easterncivilizations. The only directly documentable linguistic effect of thisis the spread of writing systems and Greek loan words into Etruscan,Latin and Italic dialects (de Voto 1978: 57). However, it is likely thatthe advent of expansionist ex��pan��sion��ism?n.A nation's practice or policy of territorial or economic expansion.ex��pansion��ist adj. & n. and mercantile class-stratified urbansocieties bore linguistic consequences such as the elimination ofsmaller groups via their assimilation into larger ones. The second phasecorresponds to the political and military incorporation of variousItalian societies within the civilized core. As Rome came to dominateItaly, it did not follow a policy of forcible linguistic assimilation,and native tongues such as Oscan and Umbrian are attested byinscriptions dating to several centuries after Roman annexation.However, as the official language of a centralized empire, Latin was thekey to administrative power, to trade and to cultural prestige. It wouldalso have replaced local languages for everyday use in Rome'sItalian colonies, in multi-ethnic cities and large farms increasinglyrun by slave labour, in military service and in the political life ofincreasingly enfranchised subject populations. While other nativeItalian tongues were treated with indifference by the Romans, theybecame increasingly consigned to the role of basilect bas��i��lect?n.The variety of speech that is most remote from the prestige variety, especially in an area where a creole is spoken. For example, in Jamaica, Jamaican Creole is the basilect whereas Standard Jamaican English is the acrolect or prestige in a diglossicsituation and eventually died out, leaving at most some regional imprinton later Italian dialects.Thus historical processes would have both spread languages from thecore outward and caused a wave of language extinctions within and aroundthe margins of civilization. Languages and language families would havebeen directly eradicated by political or cultural take-overs as well aswiped out in the faster and larger-scale social flux around theperiphery. They would have vanished as their speakers were absorbed intomore resilient native groups, or would have been replaced by statelanguages and state-sponsored native languages. Ironically, thelinguistic distribution reported by Classical observers may have evolvedonly shortly before they arrived, and partly as a result of the sameprocesses which brought them there.Conclusions: implications for Indo-European studiesThere are really two distinct trends in European language prehistory.In the first, genetic trend most known European languages can be relatedhistorically within a common language family, Indo-European. In thesecond trend hypothesized here and deriving from sociolinguistic models,after a post-Palaeolithic wave of language formation, from the LaterNeolithic through the present there has probably been an acceleratingreduction in linguistic diversity throughout Eurasia. On themacro-scale, this reflects two key factors, population density andsubsistence, and political organizations of increasing scale. In thisreconstruction of Eurasian language prehistory, relatively few languagegroups occupied large, loosely bounded territories during thePalaeolithic and Mesolithic. Neolithic sedentism and population growthbrought a wave of ethnogenesis in a social context within which languagewould have been a prominent identity marker for new, well-bounded groupstied to small territories. From the Later Neolithic onwards, languageextinctions outstripped replacement; this was linked to the rise ofeconomic intensification, gender and rank stratification andinextricable in��ex��tri��ca��ble?adj.1. a. So intricate or entangled as to make escape impossible: an inextricable maze; an inextricable web of deceit.b. regional economic and political relationships. Historicalprocesses emanating from the first civilizations accelerated this waveof language extinctions greatly. This long-term trend is the primaryreason why only a few language families are spread over vast distancesin Eurasia. That one should be Indo-European rather than another familyseems mostly due to historical accident. An argument could perhaps bemade that Indo-European's location in Old World politicalgeography, along the northern periphery of expanding civilizations andlater partially within this core, was the critical factor. Indo-Europeanthus followed an expansive trajectory similar to the Semitic languages,in contrast to more marginal groups such as Finno-Ugric.While this reconstruction is speculative, it suggests several pointsfor further consideration.Beginning from the premiss that language, social process and materialculture interact dynamically has both theoretical costs and benefits.Taking this premiss seriously may undermine our ability to pursuespecific genetic questions beyond relatively recent prehistory; it maybe simply indeterminable whether a given IE lineage pre-dates the2nd-3rd millennium in a given area, where the IE homeland was, and soon. In return, considering prehistoric languages as formed bysociolinguistic processes may allow us to explain language distributionsusing other models as well as mass migration and based upon generalcharacteristics of the archaeological record rather than strictceramic-ethnic correlations. It also allows us to form interestinghypotheses about language--society interactions in prehistory. Forinstance, broad archaeological horizons at the beginning and the end ofthe Neolithic probably both represent periods of linguistic change, butof very different kinds. Two further points concern archaeological andhistorical sources of evidence on ancient languages. If thereconstruction here is correct, the ethnolinguistic record known fromClassical observers and generally late inscriptional evidence should betreated with all the caution due to any ethnohistory eth��no��his��to��ry?n.The study of especially native or non-Western peoples from a combined historical and anthropological viewpoint, using written documents, oral literature, material culture, and ethnographic data. . For instance, itseems unlikely that only one language, Gaulish, would have been spokenin a territory the size of France peopled by small decentralizedsocieties. The ethnolinguistic record probably reflects both the lack oflinguistic interest of Classical observers and historical processesaffecting linguistic patterns and coinciding with their arrival. Thelate prehistoric record, if we could observe it, would probably showmuch greater diversity within groups like Celtic, and possibly many moreislands of non-IE languages. Finally, language has always been read intothe archaeological record through proxy concepts such as ethnicity.Somewhat counter-intuitively, using social processes as a linkingconcept may allow more articulation between linguistic process andarchaeological evidence rather than less. Substantial work has been doneon material culture as communicative media, and language may beintegrated in these models. For instance, it may be possible to verifytrends such as ethnogenesis or prestige-related intensification or tounderstand when communities will draw linguistic boundaries tightly orrelax them, as well as to predict concurrent or divergent social trendsin other, archaeologically visible media such as ceramics. Hypothesesabout linguistic behaviour and social processes, even if not entirelyverifiable, can thus contribute towards a complete model of prehistoricsocieties.Acknowledgements. I am grateful to Starr Farr and Alex Barker fordiscussion of the Island Carib and Mobilian linguistic situations, toE.W. Robb for general discussion of linguistic matters, and to GeoffEmberling, Lynn Fisher and C. Loring Brace for critical discussion ofthe manuscript. All sins of omission and commission remain my own work.ReferencesAMMERMAN, A. & L. CAVALLI-SFORZA. 1984. The Neolithic transitionand the genetics of populations in Europe. Princeton (NJ): PrincetonUniversity Press.BENVENISTE, E. 1974. Indo-European language and society. London:Faber & Faber. BOGUCKI, P. 1988. Forest farmers and stockherders:early agriculture and its consequences in north-central Europe.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). .CAVALLI-SFORZA, L., A. PIAZZA & P. MENOZZI. 1993. Demicexpansions and human evolution, Science 259: 639-46.COOPER, R. (ed.). 1982. Language spread: studies in diffusion andsocial change. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press Indiana University Press, also known as IU Press, is a publishing house at Indiana University that engages in academic publishing, specializing in the humanities and social sciences. It was founded in 1950. Its headquarters are located in Bloomington, Indiana. .CRAWFORD, J. 1975a. Southeastern Indian languages, in Crawford(1975b): 1-120.(Ed.). 1975b. Studies in southeastern Indian languages. Athens (GA):University of Georgia Press The University of Georgia Press or UGA Press is a publishing house and is a member of the Association of American University Presses.Founded in 1938, the UGA Press is a division of the University of Georgia and is located on the campus in Athens, Georgia, USA. .1978. The Mobilian trade language. Knoxville (TN): University ofTennessee Press The University of Tennessee Press (or UT Press), founded in 1940, is a university press that is part of the University of Tennessee. External linkUniversity of Tennessee Press .CRUMLEY, C. 1974. Celtic social structure. Ann Arbor (MI): Museum ofAnthropology. Anthropological Paper 54.DAVIS, D. & R.C. GOODWIN. 1990. Island Carib origins: evidenceand nonevidence, American Antiquity 55: 37-48.DE VOTO, G. 1978. The languages of Italy Italy currently has one national language: Standard Italian. Alongside Italian and its inevitable regional varieties are innumerable local Romance languages, many of which pre-date the establishment of Italian. . Chicago (IL): University ofChicago Press The University of Chicago Press is the largest university press in the United States. It is operated by the University of Chicago and publishes a wide variety of academic titles, including The Chicago Manual of Style, dozens of academic journals, including .DIAKONOFF, I.M. 1976. Ancient writing and ancient written language:pitfalls and peculiarities in the study of Sumerian, in S.J. Lieberman(ed.), Sumerological studies in honor of Thorkild Jacobsen: 99-121.Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.DRESCHEL, E. 1977. Metacommunicative functions of Mobilian Jargon, anAmerican Indian pidgin of the lower Mississippi River Main article: Mississippi River The Lower Mississippi River is the portion of the Mississippi River downstream of Cairo, Illinois. From the confluence of the Ohio River and Upper Mississippi River at Cairo, the Lower flows just under 1600 region, in G.Gilbert (ed.), Pidgin and creole languages: 433-44. Honolulu (HI):University of Hawaii Press The University of Hawaiʻi Press is a university press that is part of the University of Hawaiʻi. . 1981. A preliminary sociolinguisticcomparison of four indigenous pidgin languages of North America The languages of North America reflect not only that continent's indigenous peoples, but the European colonization as well. The most widely spoken languages in North America (which includes Central America and the Caribbean islands) are English, Spanish, and French, and, especially withnotes towards a sociolinguistic typology typology/ty��pol��o��gy/ (ti-pol��ah-je) the study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. typologythe study of types; the science of classifying, as bacteria according to type. in American Indian linguistics,Anthropological Linguistics 23: 93-112.DUTTON, T. 1978. Language and trade in central and southeast Papua,Mankind 11: 341-53.1983. Birds of a feather Birds Of a Feather - (BOF) (From the saying "Birds of a feather flock together") An informal discussion group, scheduled on a conference program or formed ad hoc, to consider a specific issue or subject. : a pair of rare pidgins from the Gulf ofPapua Coordinates: The Gulf of Papua is a 400 kilometer wide region on the south shore of New Guinea. , in E. Woolford & W. Washabaugh (ed.), The social context ofcreolization: 77-105. Ann Arbor (MI): Karoma.EHRET, C. 1988. Language change and the material correlates oflanguage and ethnic shift, Antiquity 62: 564-73.FARR, S. 1993. Gender and ethnogenesis in the early colonial LesserAntilles. Paper prepared for the 15th Congress of the InternationalAssociation for Caribbean Archeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico San Juan (IPA: [saŋ hwaŋ]) (from the Spanish San Juan Bautista, "Saint John the Baptist") is the capital and largest municipality on Puerto Rico. .FEIL, D. 1987. The evolution of Highland Papua New Guinea societies.New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of (NY): Cambridge University Press.FRANKENSTEIN, S. & M. ROWLANDS. 1972. The internal structure andregional context of early Iron Age society in southwest Germany,Bulletin of the Institute of Archaeology The Institute of Archaeology is an academic department of University College London (UCL), in the United Kingdom. The Institute is located in a separate building at the north end of Gordon Square, Bloomsbury. , University of London For most practical purposes, ranging from admission of students to negotiating funding from the government, the 19 constituent colleges are treated as individual universities. Within the university federation they are known as Recognised Bodies 15:73-112.GAILEY, C. & T. PATTERSON. 1988. State formation and unevendevelopment, in J. Gledhill, B. Bender & M. Larsen (ed.), State andsociety: 77-90. London: Unwin Hyman.GAMBLE, C. 1982. Interaction and alliance in Palaeolithic society,Man 17: 92-107.GILMAN, A. 1981. The development of social stratification in BronzeAge Europe The Bronze Age in Europe succeeds the Neolithic in the late 3rd millennium BC (late Beaker culture), and spans the entire 2nd millennium BC (Unetice culture, Urnfield culture, Tumulus culture, Terramare culture, Lusatian culture) in Northern Europe lasting until ca. 600 BC. , Current Anthropology 22: 1-24.1991. Trajectories towards social complexity in the later prehistoryof the Mediterranean, in T. Earle (ed.), Chiefdoms: power, economy,ideology: 146-68. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.GIMBUTAS, M. 1973. The first wave of Eurasian steppe pastoralistsinto Copper Age Europe, Journal of Indo-European Studies The Journal of Indo-European Studies (JIES) is a journal of Indo-European studies, established in 1973. It aims to serve "as a medium for the exchange and synthesis of information relating to the anthropology, archaeology, mythology, philology, and general cultural history 5: 277-338.1980. The Kurgan Kurgan(krgän`), city (1989 pop. 356,000), capital of Kurgan region, W Siberian Russia, on the Tobol River. Wave 2 (c. 3400-3200 BC) into Europe and thefollowing transformation of culture, Journal of Indo-European Studies 8:273-315.GODDARD, I. 1971. The ethnohistorical implications of early Delawarelinguistic materials, Man in the Northeast 1: 14-26.HAAS, M. 1975. What is Mobilian?, in Crawford (1975b): 257-65.HASELGROVE, C. 1987. Culture process on the periphery: Belgic Gauland Rome during the late Republic and early Empire, in Rowlands et al.(1987): 104-24.HEATH, S.B. & R. LAPRADE. 1982. Castilian colonization andindigenous languages: the cases of Quechua and Aymara, in Cooper (1982):118-47.HELM, J. (ed.). 1981. Handbook of North American Indians 6:Subarctic. Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.HELMS, M. 1983. Ulysses' sail. Princeton (NJ): PrincetonUniversity Press.HILL, J. 1978. Language contact systems and human adaptations,Journal of Anthropological Research 34: 1-26.HOCH, H. 1991. Principles of historical linguistics. 2nd edition. NewYork (NY): Mouton moutonlamb pelt made to resemble seal or beaver. de Gruyter.HOLM, J. 1988. Pidgins and creoles. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.JACKSON, J. 1983. The fish people: linguistic exogamy and Tukanoanidentity in norhtwest Amazonia. New York (NY): Cambridge UniversityPress.KRAUSS, M. & V. GOLLA. 1981. Northern Athapaskan languages, inHelm (1981): 67-85.LAYCOCK, D. 1982. Melanesian linguistic diversity: a Melanesianchoice? in R.J. May & H. Nelson (ed.), Melanesia: beyond diversity1: 33-8. Canberra: Research School of Pacific Studies, AustralianNational University.MALLORY, J. 1989. In search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames& Hudson.NASH, D. 1987. Imperial expansion under the Roman Republic, inRowlands et al. (1987): 87-103.PAPER, H. 1982. Language spread: the ancient Near Eastern world, inCooper (1982): 107-17.PULGRAM, E. 1958. The tongues of Italy. Cambridge (MA): HarvardUniversity Press The Harvard University Press is a publishing house, a division of Harvard University, that is highly respected in academic publishing. It was established on January 13, 1913. In 2005, it published 220 new titles. . 1978. Italic, Latin, Italian: 600 BC to AD 1260.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitatsverlag.RENFREW, C. 1987. Archaeology and language: the puzzle ofIndo-European origins. London: Cape.1992. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity, Man 27: 445-78.RHODES, R. 1982. Algonquian trade languages, in Papers of the 13thAlgonquian Conference: 1-10. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.RHODES, R. & E. TODD. 1981. Subarctic Algonquian languages, inHelm (1981): 52-66.ROBB, J. 1991. Random causes with directed results: the Indo-Europeanspread and the stochastic loss of lineages, Antiquity 65: 287-91.1992. Gender ideology and social evolution in prehistoric Italy.Paper presented at the Society for American Archeology meetings,Pittsburgh.ROBINS, R. & E. UHLENBECK (ed.). 1991. Endangered languages. NewYork (NY): St Martin's Press.ROWLANDS, M., M. LARSEN & K. KRISTIANSEN. 1987. Centre andperiphery in the ancient world. New York (NY): Cambridge UniversityPress.SALISBURY, R. 1962. Notes on bilingualism and linguistic change inNew Guinea, Anthropological Linguistics 4(7): 1-13.SHENNAN, S. 1982. Ideology, change and the European Bronze Age, in I.Hodder (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 155-61. New York(NY): Cambridge University Press.1986. Interaction and change in third millennium BC western andcentral Europe, in J. Cherry & C. Renfrew (ed.), Peer polityinteraction: 137-48. New York (NY): Cambridge University Press.SHERRATT, A. 1981. Plough and pastoralism PastoralismArcadiamountainous region of ancient Greece; legendary for pastoral innocence of people. [Gk. Hist.: NCE, 136; Rom. Lit.: Eclogues; Span. Lit. : aspects of the secondaryproducts revolution, in I. Hodder, G. Isaac & N. Hammond (ed.),Pattern of the past: 261-305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.SHERRATT, A. & S. SHERRATT. 1988. The archaeology ofIndo-European: an alternative view, Antiquity 62: 584-95.TAYLOR, A. 1981. Indian lingua francas, in C. Ferguson & S. Heath(ed.), Language in the USA: 175-95. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.TAYLOR, D. & B. HOFF. 1980. The linguistic repertory of theIsland Carib in the seventeenth century: the men's language -- aCarib pidgin?, International Journal of Linguistics The Journal of Linguistics is a peer-reviewed journal in linguistics, and the official publication of the Linguistics Association of Great Britain. It has been published by Cambridge University Press since 1965, and covers all branches of theoretical linguistics. 46: 301-12.TERRELL, J. 1988. History as a family tree, history as an entangledbank: constructing images and interpretations of prehistory in the SouthPacific, Antiquity 62: 642-57.THOMASON, S. 1983. Chinook jargon in areal and linguistic context,Language 59: 820-70.THOMASON, S. & T. KAUFMAN. 1988. Language contact, creolizationand genetic linguistics. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press "UC Press" redirects here, but this is also an abbreviation for University of Chicago PressUniversity of California Press, also known as UC Press, is a publishing house associated with the University of California that engages in academic publishing. .THOMPSON, L. & M.D. KINKADE. 1990. Languages, in W. Suttles(ed.), Handbook of North American Indians 7: Northwest coast: 30-51.Washington (DC): Smithsonian Institution Press.THORPE, I. & C. RICHARDS. 1984. The decline of ritual authorityand the introduction of beakers into Britain, in R. Bradley & J.Gardiner (ed.), Neolithic studies: 67-78. Oxford: British ArchaeologicalReports. British series 133.TRUBETZKOY, N. 1939. Gedanken uber das Indogermanenproblem, ActaLinguistica Copenhagen 1: 81-9.TRUDGILL, P. 1972. Sex, covert prestige, and linguistic change in theurban British English of Norwich, Language in Society 1: 179-95.VOEGELIN, C. & F. VOEGELIN. 1966. Map of North American Indianlanguages. Seattle (WA): University of Washington Press.WHALLON, R. 1989. Elements of cultural change in the UpperPalaeolithic, in P. Mellars & C. Stringer (ed.), The humanrevolution: 433-54. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Edinburgh University Press is a university publisher that is part of the University of Edinburgh in Edinburgh, Scotland. External linksEdinburgh University Press .WOBST, H.M. 1974. Boundary conditions for Paleolithic social systems:a simulation approach, American Antiquity 39: 147-78.WOLF, E. 1982. Europe and the people without history. Berkeley (CA):University of California Press.WOODBURY, A. 1984. Eskimo and Aleut languages, in D. Damas (ed.),Handbook of North American Indians 5: Arctic: 49-63. Washington (DC):Smithsonian Institution Press.ZVELEBIL, M. & L. ZVELEBIL. 1988. Agricultural transition andIndo-European dispersals, Antiquity 62: 574-83.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment