Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-26T19:00:54.274Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is there a Prehistory of Linguistics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

Colin Renfrew ,
Theodora Bynon ,
Merritt Ruhlen ,
Aron Dolgopolsky  and
Peter Bellwood
Colin Renfrew
Affiliation:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3ER
Theodora Bynon
Affiliation:
School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Thornhaugh Street, Russell Square, London, WC1H 0XG
Merritt Ruhlen
Affiliation:
4335 Cesano Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306, USA
Aron Dolgopolsky
Affiliation:
Hebrew Language Department, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31999, Israel
Peter Bellwood
Affiliation:
Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There are few aspects of human behaviour more fundamental than our ability to use language. Language plays a key role in the study of any living human society, and of all historical communities which have left us written records. In theory it could also throw enormous light on the development and relationships of prehistoric human communities. But here there is a huge and obvious problem: what evidence can there be for human languages in the pre-literate, prehistoric age? In other words, what hope is therefor a prehistory of linguistics? There is no easy answer, yet it is hard to accept that any account of human prehistory can be considered adequate without some knowledge of prehistoric languages and linguistic relationships, if only at the broadest scale.

The list of questions we might wish to pose stretches back to the period of the very earliest hominids. When did our human ancestors first begin to talk to each other? Was language acquisition sudden or gradual? Did human language arise in one place, and then spread and diversify from- that point? Or did it emerge independently, among separate groups of early humans in different parts of the world?

Leading on from this is the study of ethnicity and ethnogenesis. Since the end of the nineteenth century one of the biggest problems facing prehistoric archaeologists has been the identification and interpretation of archaeological cultures and cultural groups. Do these have any social or ethnic reality? Is it right to speak of a Beaker ‘folk’? Was the Bandkeramik colonization the work of one people or of many? These questions would be so much easier to resolve if only we could trace the prehistory of languages, and could establish, for instance, whether all Bandkeramik and Beaker users spoke the same or a related language.

Such possibilities may seem exciting and hopeful to some, irredeemably optimistic to others. Whatever view we take, they clearly merit serious discussion. In the present Viewpoint, our third in the series, we have asked five writers — two archaeologists (Renfrew & Bellwood), three linguists (Bynon, Ruhlen & Dolgopolsky) — to give their own, personal response to the key question ‘Is there a prehistory of linguistics?’ Can we, from the evidence of archaeology, linguistics (and now DNA studies), say anything positive about langtiage in prehistory?

Type
Viewpoint
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 257 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1995

Access options

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

References

Bellwood, P., 1991a. The Austronesian dispersal and the origins of languages. Scientific American 265, 88–93.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P., 1991b. Prehistoric cultural explanations for widespread language families. Paper presented to the conference ‘Archaeology and Linguistics: Understanding Ancient Australia’, Darwin, 8–12 July.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P., 1994. An archaeologist's view of language macrofamily relationships. Oceanic Linguistics 33, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellwood, P., in press a. Prehistoric cultural explanations for the existence of widespread language families, in Understanding Ancient Australia: Perspectives from Archaeology and Linguistics, eds. McConvell, P. & Evans, N.. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P., in press b. Early agriculture and the dispersal of the Southern Mongoloids, in Prehistoric Mongoloid Dispersals, eds. Akazawa, T. & Szathmary, E.. Tokyo: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P., in press c. The origins and spread of agriculture in the Asian-Pacific region, in The Origins and Spread of Agrictdture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. Harris, D.. London: University College Press.Google Scholar
Bellwood, P., Fox, J.J. & Tryon, D. (eds.), 1995. The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, RSPAS, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Bengtson, J.B. & Ruhlen, M., 1994. Global etymologies, in On the Origin of Languages, by Ruhlen, M.. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 277–336.Google Scholar
Blust, R.A., 1984–1985. The Austronesian homeland: a linguistic perspective. Asian Perspectives 26, 45–68.Google Scholar
Blust, R.A., in press. The prehistory of the Austronesianspeaking peoples: a view from language. Journal of World Prehistory.Google Scholar
Bomhard, A.R. & Kerns, J.C., 1994. The Nostratic Macrofamily: A Study in Distant Linguistic Relationship. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brosnahan, L.F., 1963. Some historical cases of language imposition, in Language in Africa, ed. Spencer, J.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 7–24.Google Scholar
Bynon, T., 1977. Historical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, L., 1988. Review of Language in the Americas, by Joseph H. Greenberg. Language 64, 591–615.Google Scholar
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Piazza, A., Menozzi, P. & Mountain, J., 1988. Reconstruction of human evolution: bringing together genetic, archaeological and linguistic data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 85, 6002–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cavalli-Sforza, L.L., Piazza, A. & Menozzi, P., 1994. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clauson, G., 1973. Nostratic. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 46–55.Google Scholar
Comrie, B., 1989. Language Universals and Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Diamond, J., 1992. The Third Chimpanzee. New York (NY): HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Dixon, R.M.W., in press. The Languages of Australia. New edition, first edition 1980. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dolgopolsky, A.B., 1989. Problems of Nostratic comparative phonology, in Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, ed. Shevoroshkin, V.. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 90–98.Google Scholar
Dutton, T., 1995. Language contact and change in Melanesia, in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives, eds. Bellwood, P., Fox, J.J. & Tryon, D.. Canberra: Department of Anthropology, RSPAS, Australian National University, 192–213.Google Scholar
Fried, M., 1975. The Notion of Tribe. Menlo Park: Cummings.Google Scholar
Gamkrelidze, T.V. & Ivanov, V.V., 1995. Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans. Translated into English by Nichols, Johanna. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Geiger, T., 1963–1965. Die ältesten Gewässernamen-Schichten im Gebiet des Hoch- und Oberrheins. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 14–16, passim.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H., 1963. The Languages of Africa. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H., 1987. Language in the Americas. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H., forthcoming. Indo-European and its Closest Relatives. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J.H., Turner, C.G. II & Zegura, S.L., 1986. The settlement of the Americas: a comparison of linguistic, dental, and genetic evidence. Current Anthropology 27, 477–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayward, K.M., 1989. The Indo-European language and the history of its speakers: the theories of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov. Lingua 78, 37–86.Google Scholar
Illich-Svitych, V.M., 1971–1984. Opyt sravnenija nostraticheskix jazykov. (3 vols.) Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
Illich-Svitych, V.M., 1990. Nostratic reconstructions (translated and arranged by M. Kaiser), in Prolo-Languages and Proto-Cultures, ed. Shevoroshkin, V.. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 138–67.Google Scholar
Klein, R.G., 1992. The archaeology of modern human origins. Evolutionary Anthropology 1, 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krahe, H., 1949–1964. Articles on Old European river names. Beiträge zur Namenforschung 1–15, passim.Google Scholar
Krahe, H., 1954. Sprache und Vorzeit: europäische Vergangenheit nach dem Zeugnis der Sprache. Heidelberg: Quelle und Meyer.Google Scholar
Krahe, H., 1964. Unsere ältesten Flussnamen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Lewis, B., 1977. Egypt and Syria, in The Cambridge History of Islam, eds. Holt, P.M., Lambton, A. & Lewis, B.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 175–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallory, J.P., 1989. In Search of the Indo-Europeans. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Mallory, J.P., 1994. The homelands of the Indo-Europeans. Paper presented at World Archaeology Congress, New Delhi.Google Scholar
Moore, J.H., 1994a. Putting anthropology back together again: the ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory. American Anthropologist 96, 925–48.Google Scholar
Moore, J.H., 1994b. Ethnogenetic theory. National Geographic Research and Exploration 10, 10–23.Google Scholar
Morpurgo-Davies, A., 1989. Discussion after C. Renfrew, Models of change in language and archaeology. Transactions of the Philological Society 87, 166–70.Google Scholar
Nichols, J., 1992. Linguistic Diversity in Space and Time. Chicago (IL) & London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicolaisen, W.F.H., 1972. Great Britain and Old Europe \with further references]. Namn och bygd 3, 85–102.Google Scholar
Pawley, A.K. & Ross, M., 1993. Austronesian historical linguistics and culture history. Annual Review of Anthropology 22, 425–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polomé, E.C., 1991. Linguistics and archaeology: differences in perspective in the study of prehistoric cultures, in Language Typology 1988: Typological Models in Reconstruction, eds. Lehmann, W.P. & Hewitt, H-J.J.. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 111–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1987. Archaeology and Language, the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1989. Models of language and archaeology. Transactions of the Philological Society 87, 103–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1991. Before Babel: speculations on the origins of linguistic diversity. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1992a. Archaeology, genetics and linguistic diversity. Man 27, 445–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1992b. World languages and human dispersals: a minimalist view, in Transition to Modernity: Essays on Power, Wealth and Belief, eds. Hall, J.A. & Jarvie, I.C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 11–68.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1994. World linguistic diversity. Scientific American January 1994, 104–10.Google ScholarPubMed
Renfrew, C., in press. Language families and the spread of farming, in The Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. Harris, D.. London: University College Press.Google Scholar
Ringe, D.A. Jr, 1995. ‘Nostratic’ and the factor of chance. Diachronica 12, 55–74.Google Scholar
Rosenkranz, B., 1966. Fluss und Gewässernamen in Anatolien. Beiträge zur Namenforschung NF. 1, 124–44.Google Scholar
Rowlands, M., 1994. Childe and the archaeology of freedom, in The Archaeology of V. Gordon Childe, ed. Harris, David. London: University College Press, 35–54.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, M., 1991. A Guide to the World's Languages, vol. 1: Classification. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, M., 1994a. The Origin of Language. New York (NY): John Wiley.Google Scholar
Ruhlen, M., 1994b. On the Origin of Languages. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhlen, M., 1994c. Amerind T'A?NA ‘child, sibling’, in On the Origin of Languages, by Ruhlen, M.. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhlen, M., 1995. Proto-Amerind numerals. Anthropological Science (Tokyo) 103, 209–25.Google Scholar
Sokal, R.R., Oden, N.L. & Wison, C., 1991. New genetic evidence supports the origin of agriculture in Europe by demie diffusion. Nature 351, 143–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starostin, S., 1989. Nostratic and Sino-Caucasian, in Explorations in Language Macrofamilies, ed. Shevoroshkin, V.. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 42–66.Google Scholar
Szemerényi, O., 1989. Concerning Professor Renfrew's views on the IE homeland. Transactions of the Philological Society 87, 156–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tovar, A., 1982. Die lndoeuropäisicrung Westeuropas. (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Sprachwissenschaft: vortrage und kleinere Schriften 28.) Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Trombetti, A., 1905. L'unità d'origine del linguaggio. Bologna: Treves.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N., 1928. ‘Sprachbund’ in Actes du Premier Congrès International de Linguistes. Leiden: A.W. Sijthoff.Google Scholar
Trubetzkoy, N.S., 1939. Gedanken über das Indogermanenproblem. Ada Linguistica 1, 81–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, C.G. II, 1989. Teeth and prehistory in Asia. Scientific American (February), 88–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Upham, S., 1994. Nomads of the Desert West: a shifting continuum in prehistory. Journal of World Prehistory 8, 113–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vennemann, T., 1994. Linguistic reconstruction in the context of European prehistory. Transactions of the Philological Society 92, 215–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar