The Steppes, Anatolia, India? Migration, Archaeology, Genomes, and Indo-European

Q4 Arts and Humanities Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.47298/jala.v2-i4-a1
H. H. Hock
{"title":"The Steppes, Anatolia, India? Migration, Archaeology, Genomes, and Indo-European","authors":"H. H. Hock","doi":"10.47298/jala.v2-i4-a1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Around 1000 BC, Indo-European languages were distributed over a wide area, from Xinjiang and India to Ireland and Anatolia (Map 1). Historical-comparative linguists generally assume that the original homeland of the languages must have been smaller and that the later distribution must have resulted from migrations. Early hypotheses, placing the original home in Southwest, South or Central Asia, were based on Bible-based historical perspectives that place the post-deluge cradle near the Iranian high plateau, or on preconceived notions such as the idea that Sanskrit was the ancestor of other Indo-European languages. From the mid 19th century, racial considerations led to a shift farther west, which culminated in the ’Nordic’ homeland proposed by people like Penka, Kossinna and Childe. The association of the Nordic homeland hypothesis with Nazi ideology was a factor in anthropologists’ questioning migration accounts in general, and some archaeologists have proposed that languages can spread through stimulus diffusion, just like various artifacts. Historical comparative linguists and archaeologists with linguistic training, by contrast, have continued to their quest for determining the Indo-European homeland. At present, two major theories compete with each other: The Eurasian Steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis. Neither of these hypotheses, however, is acceptable to Indian/Hindu nationalists, who argue for a homeland in India (modern South Asia).","PeriodicalId":36068,"journal":{"name":"Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47298/jala.v2-i4-a1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Around 1000 BC, Indo-European languages were distributed over a wide area, from Xinjiang and India to Ireland and Anatolia (Map 1). Historical-comparative linguists generally assume that the original homeland of the languages must have been smaller and that the later distribution must have resulted from migrations. Early hypotheses, placing the original home in Southwest, South or Central Asia, were based on Bible-based historical perspectives that place the post-deluge cradle near the Iranian high plateau, or on preconceived notions such as the idea that Sanskrit was the ancestor of other Indo-European languages. From the mid 19th century, racial considerations led to a shift farther west, which culminated in the ’Nordic’ homeland proposed by people like Penka, Kossinna and Childe. The association of the Nordic homeland hypothesis with Nazi ideology was a factor in anthropologists’ questioning migration accounts in general, and some archaeologists have proposed that languages can spread through stimulus diffusion, just like various artifacts. Historical comparative linguists and archaeologists with linguistic training, by contrast, have continued to their quest for determining the Indo-European homeland. At present, two major theories compete with each other: The Eurasian Steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis. Neither of these hypotheses, however, is acceptable to Indian/Hindu nationalists, who argue for a homeland in India (modern South Asia).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大草原,安纳托利亚,印度?移民、考古学、基因组和印欧语系
大约公元前1000年,印欧语系分布在一个广阔的地区,从新疆和印度到爱尔兰和安纳托利亚(地图1)。历史比较语言学家通常认为,这些语言的原始家园一定更小,后来的分布一定是移民的结果。早期的假设,把原始家园放在西南、南亚或中亚,是基于基于圣经的历史观点,认为洪水后的摇篮在伊朗高原附近,或者是基于先入为主的观念,比如梵语是其他印欧语言的祖先。从19世纪中期开始,种族因素导致他们向西迁移,最终形成了Penka、Kossinna和Childe等人提出的“北欧”家园。北欧故土假说与纳粹意识形态之间的联系,是人类学家普遍质疑移民说法的一个因素,一些考古学家提出,语言可以通过刺激扩散传播,就像各种人工制品一样。相比之下,受过语言学训练的历史比较语言学家和考古学家则继续探索确定印欧语系的家园。目前,有两大理论相互竞争:欧亚草原假说和安纳托利亚假说。然而,这两种假设都不能被印度/印度教民族主义者所接受,他们主张在印度(现代南亚)建立一个家园。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology
Journal on Asian Linguistic Anthropology Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Helming Malaysia:Najib Razak’s Metaphors inMalaysian Supply Bills The Semangat and the Mantra in Java, Indonesia Capitalism in Language, and the Digital Era Visibility Dependency of Morphosyntactic Variations: A Study on Malabar Mappila Malayalam Casting Shadows over Malay: Palliating Voice, Palliating the Wayang
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1