1990 On Indo-Europeanization (original) (raw)
Originalpublikation: Journal of Indo-European Studies 18./1-2.1990 (= Proceedings Dublin 1989, part II,ed. E, Polomé), 141-155. Originalseitenzahlen und Zusätze/Korrekturen hier in doppelten Klammern […].
On Indo-Europeanization
Stefan Zimmer, Freie Universität Berlin
Summary
After a critical survey of previous Indo-European Cultural Studies methodology, the author demonstrates the usefulness of recent anthropological and linguistic theories for the development of a modern hypothesis on Proto-Indo-European.
Primary Indo-Europeanization is regarded as the process of emergence of the Proto-IndoEuropean language by Pidgin-Creole processes, and of the Proto-Indo-European people from a colluvies gentium. Secondary Indo-Europeanization covers different ways of spread and subsequent disintegration of Proto-Indo-European. Several types are distinguished here. The article is intended to clarify terminological and methodological aspects of current discussion. Future investigation must pay more attention to anthropology and historical sociolinguistics.
§ 1 Historical Linguistics the Basis of Indo-European Cultural Studies
Indo-Europeanization is a term widely used in several branches of historical research. Comparative linguists have for more than one hundred years discussed the ways and methods of expansion of the different Indo-European languages, very often assuming large-scale population movements and radical changes. The effects of substratum languages, and sometimes ad- and superstrata, too, have been widely drawn upon, but oddly enough, these three terms have never been defined in a historically and sociologically proper way.
Indo-European Comparative Grammar has provided us with the linguistic basis of the problem. The following have been the ways of research for more than hundred years: 1{ }^{1}
- It was assumed that lexical items reconstructible in Proto-Indo-European should tell us about the natural environ[142]ment of the community speaking this language. Thus, thousands of words in dozens of dead and living languages have been studied with all their attestations, often in fragmentary or cryptic texts. Most notorious were the so- called ‘beech-’ and ‘salmon-arguments’. The long dispute about the reliability of this ‘linguistic palaeontology’ is not yet finished, but approaching its inevitable end - with a negative result, of course (see Untermann 1989). The inference from a given word as to the reality of the concept designed, from denominans to denotatum is in no way conclusive.
- Presumed loan-words of non-Indo-European origin in Proto-Indo-European or vice versa have been adduced for pointing to prehistorical contacts of speech communities, and then for the geographical position of these respective peoples. But one irresolvable problem remains which is sufficient to prove the non-reliability of this method: every word reconstructible in Proto-Indo-European, irrespective of its ultimate origin, has to be regarded as Proto-Indo-European, so that a decision is not possible (cf. e.g. the Proto-IndoEuropean words for ‘wine’, ‘lion’, ‘silver’).
- Names of mountains and rivers are very often retained, even if the population or the language spoken in the region changes. So, theories like Hans Krahe’s ‘Alteuropäische Hydronymie’ or Hans Kuhn’s ‘Nordwestblock’ came into being. It must be kept in mind, however, that there is no way of distinguishing between accidental similarities and genetic relations in those names given their poor status in regard to lexical meaning, their unrecordedness in times early enough for sound etymologizing, and the impossibility of putting the names studied and interpreted in a statistical relation to all conceivable and simply often unrecorded names of a given region and period.
- A further way of finding out the earliest location of Proto-Indo-European was the hypothesis that the relative geographical positions of historically recorded Indo-European languages should display some indications of their prehistorical positions. Obviously enough, this is far from certain. You have only to look to Tocharian, the easternmost IndoEurope[143]an language being a centum-language, or to the Iranian family where the
- 1{ }^{1} A recent collection of relevant items is contained (with ample bibliography) in Gamkrelidze-Ivanov 1984. ↩︎
westernmost language, Ossetic, is linguistically an East-Iranian language, and the easternmost, Baloči, a West-Iranian one.
§ 2 Linguistics and Problems of Language Expansion
If all this is nearly sufficient to preclude any trustworthy theory about the original home of the Proto-Indo-Europeans, it is all the more impossible to find out many items of a more abstract order such as ‘social structure’, ‘religion’, ‘ideology’. 2{ }^{2} Already the most ancient peoples speaking Indo-European tongues were remarkably different in respect to religion, social organization and civilization.
I do not deny, however, that they had a number of non-linguistic common traits too similar to be regarded as accidental. Inherited features do exist, especially in cases where a common lexical element can be established. But such cultural items which can be accepted with sufficient probability as of Common Indo-European age are extremely few, e.g. “Father Sky” (perhaps implying “Mother Earth”, but her attestation is far less certain) and the goddess “Dawn”, the prominent role of “hospitality” and “truth” in social life, and political organization by patrilinear extended families. All this is, to be sure, in no way extraordinary among human societies. We are not able to say whether a certain cluster of cultural and social peculiarities is characteristic for one historical (or prehistorical) people as long as not all other human groups and their respective cultures are sufficiently studied in this respect. It is therefore safer to keep to the original meaning of the word ‘Indo-European’ as a purely linguistic term. Consequently, ‘Indo-Europeanization’ cannot mean more than the transmission or adoption, by whatever means, of a certain given, reconstructed or reconstructable language belonging genetically to the Indo-European language family from one social community to or from another. [144]
There are, however, a number of problems which are still puzzling and large enough to keep the study of Indo-European Social History alive:
How could the postulated ethnic group speaking Proto-Indo-European have come into existence, and what are the linguistic procedures by which this language was formed?
- 2{ }^{2} For more details, see Zimmer 1990a. ↩︎
How do we explain the undeniable spread of Indo-European languages in Asia and Europe? What are the social dynamics of prehistory?
What are the peculiarities of social change in each particular case? Are there extralinguistic features to be connected necessarily with one or more languages?
§ 3 Archaeology and Anthropology
Some archaeologists speak of prehistorical complexes labelled ‘cultures’ as being IndoEuropean or not, and try to determine archaeological data specific enough to prove IndoEuropeanization. For them, Indo-Europeanization means the impact of a given culture allegedly Indo-European on another non-Indo-European culture or, vice versa, the adoption of an Indo-European culture by an adjacent non-Indo-European one.
In the case of Professor Gimbutas’ Kurgan theory, the best known of its kind, IndoEuropeanization is the process by which a large number of Eastern and Central European Neolithic civilizations adopt a completely different way of life under the powerful impact of “patriarchal, horse-riding steppe pastoralists” who were “fighting on horse-back with dagger, spear, shield, bow and arrows” imposing their “patrilocal and patrilinear social structure” as well as their “patriarchal sky-oriented pantheon of gods” on their “Old European” subjects who originally “were sedentary, matrifocal, peaceful, art-loving, and possessed of(!) a matriarchal earth- and water-bound pantheon of goddesses”. 3{ }^{3} It is hardly necessary to enumerate more of these often astonishingly detailed cultural peculiarities [145] ascribed to the two civilizations proposed. One would very much like to get substantial proof for at least some of the items mentioned, but even the existence of those “mighty waves” is far from confirmed, as Professor Mallory has underlined in his new book: “almost all of the arguments for invasion and cultural transformations are far better explained without reference to Kurgan expansions, and most of the evidence so far presented is either totally contradicted by other evidence or is the result of gross misinterpretation of the Cultural history of Eastern, Central and Northern Europe (Mallory 1989: 185).”
- 3{ }^{3} Citation combined from Gimbutas 1980 and 1986. ↩︎
I have the impression that the discussion between historical linguists and archaeologists has become almost pointless in the last decades. There may be a way out of this situation by calling upon another branch of human studies, viz. anthropology (in the American sense of the word). Anthropologists are not yet sufficiently heard, I think, in the recent resurge of discussion about Proto-Indo-European language, people, and civilization. Here, I do not refer to the work of those French sociologists who propose e.g. to understand the development of medieval European society in the light of Dumézil’s theory, but to anthropological, sociological and ethnological studies on ancient and archaic societies all over the world which can offer, from the richness of their methods and descriptions, more than only one model for the understanding of the process of Indo-Europeanization. They can also tell us what kind of data should be relevant and important, and how to classify and interpret them.
§ 4 The colluvies gentium concept
In all these problems, it is Anthropology which has to my mind contributed most to the furthering of Indo-European studies - quite unremarked I presume, because most IndoEuropeanists have not yet realized the full impact anthropological insights could have - and for me do have - on Indo-European Studies.
In Zimmer 1990b, I tried to substantiate this statement. It may be convenient to summarize my argumentation in a few sentences:
- The ethnogenesis of the Proto-Indo-European people is best understood by applying the concept of colluvies gentium [146] first presented by Wilhelm Mühlmann (1962, 1964, 1985). Any, if not all new societies start as a most heterogenous group of people: displaced folk of all kinds, adventurers, outlaws, refugees, outcasts and uprooted persons.* At the fringes of one or more established i.e. sedentary agrarian [[or urban]]
[Here, Roger Pearson, member of the editorial Committee of JIES, felt compelled to add the following footnote without consulting me. The homogenity referred to was more ideologiocal than real, I presume.]] "As an anthropologist, while acknowledging this tendency amongst turbulent Germanic war-bands, Islamic Arab conquerors and Jewish disapora communities, I feel it is important to remember that in tribal and pre-tribal societies new settlements commonly resulted and result from a divison within existing communities necessitated
societies, those folk gather, having chosen, voluntarily or involuntarily, a freer, more or less nomadic life style, and they constantly attract new members.
2. The further fate of such a group depends on internal power structures brought with them from the original home culture or newly developed among the colluvies.
If one component of the colluvies is preponderant (perhaps relatively large, or rich) it has a good chance of establishing itself, with its own traditions, as the kernel of the future community, thus imposing its own structures of power, rank and probably also language on all the other companions. It goes without saying that all theses structures undergo substantial changes due to influence from the other members of the colluvies. If in the process of ethnogenesis one kernel of tradition plays a dominant role (as e.g. in the case of the Jewish people, the Goths and Langobards, not to mention Rome or the Islamic Arabs), no simultaneous glottogenesis in the strict sense is to be expected because the language of the kernel will become the language of the new community, but sub- and adstratum influences have to be reckoned with.
If on the other hand, no component is prevalent among the numerous constituents of the colluvies, no kernel of tradition can establish itself; new power structures come into being produced by social dynamics starting from the different heterogenous rudiments of tradition. For the linguist, this is the classical situation where the creation of provisional communication means is to be expected: a Pidgin which is not yet a full language, but very quickly can develop into one: a Creole language. [147]
§ 5 Creole Linguistics
Whenever people meet, they communicate. If they come from different societies, they normally don’t have a common language. If the contacts become regular (e.g. by exchange of
- by population pressures. Slavic villages and even Greek city states, for example, regularly established new colonies which were quite homogeneous and cherished their blood ties to the parent settlement over many generations. (Ed. R.P.) 9{ }^{9} ↩︎
goods) or permanent (e.g. by formation of new groups, or establishing settlements), those people need a common system of communication; this is usually - but not necessarily - a sound language. Human beings are able, in such situations, to develop a provisional language within a very short time: Robert Hall speaks in terms of hours and days (1962). The mechanisms of generating such a provisional language - called Pidgin by linguists - are not yet fully understood in detail, but the prominent factor is certainly simplification strategies. The original languages involved are radically simplified by the speakers themselves; they drop intentionally all grammatical elements felt as redundant or not absolutely necessary. The communication partner, in turn, takes up the same strategy, simplifying his own and still further simplifying his partner’s language. 4{ }^{4} We all know of comparable provisional languages: so-called baby talk, foreigner’s talk, Gastarbeiterdeutsch, and so on.
Now, if a new speech community emerges out of longer contacts between people of different origins, the only common language, the Pidgin, becomes the mother language of new generations. This is the turning point for a new development, viz. towards more complex grammatical structures. The new type of language growing out of a provisional Pidgin is called Creole.
In considering known modern Creole languages like Neo-Melanesian (formerly ‘Pidgin English’) or the Caribbean languages, a further development must be kept in mind, viz. relexification. This term designates the tendency of modern Creole languages competing with European languages which enjoy high status (mostly English and French) to assimilate their vocabulary to the lexicon of the adjacent high-status language because the Creole speakers think of their language [148] as a corrupt form of the latter. Sometimes, this error has been even transmitted to anthropologists forgetting a principle of historical linguistics: genetic relationships of languages are determined by grammatical structures, morphophonemics, not by lexical similarities.
§ 6 Creole Linguistics and Historical Grammar
- 4{ }^{4} For details, see Holm 1988 (with literature). ↩︎
There has been some discussion - but not yet enough to my mind - on the relevance of Creole linguistics for historical grammar. Without going into details here, 5{ }^{5} I would like to insist on the usefulness of the concept in discussing language change. It is not the only possible explanation, of course, but very attractive as far as it offers the possibility of connecting social and linguistic change. Perhaps, we may come to possible extralinguistic causes for the linguistic changes we have been exploring. At the same time, we come back to the old substratum theories 6{ }^{6} put forward for a long time, especially in connection with the development of the Celtic languages.
For the community speaking the postulated Proto-Indo-European language (mirrored by our reconstructed Proto-Indo-European), the two possibilities just mentioned have to be reckoned with: either one component of the colluvies was predominant and succeeded in imposing its old language - with certain modifications - as the language of the new group, or no dominant ‘tradition kernel’ existed within the new society, and their new language came into being through the Pidgin-Creole process. It is this second possibility I hold to be more likely. To assume Proto-Indo-European to have been a Creole language could explain the typological and partly also lexical similarities of Proto-Indo-European with other reconstructed proto-languages such as Proto-Semitic, Proto-North-Caucasian, Proto- SouthCaucasian, and so on. [149]
§ 7 ‘Creole’ vs. ‘Natural’ Languages: A Definition
Another argument from general historical linguistics is more convincing:
We know of two types of so-called ‘natural languages’: to the first belong all languages whose origin can be derived genetically from a reconstructed ancestor like Proto-Indo-
- 5 See Manessy 1977, Mintz 1971, Polomé 1979 and 1980.
6 Cf. Hermann Hirt 1894: “Die großen Dialektgruppen der indogermanischen Sprache erklären sich in der Hauptsache aus dem Übertragen der Sprache der indogermanischen Eroberer auf die fremdsprachige unterworfene Bevölkerung und dem Einfluß dieser Sprache auf die Kinder.” This is cited (without reference) by Arens (1955: 407); cf. further many publications of Julius Pokorny and Heinrich Wagner; recently, Campanile 1983. ↩︎
European, Proto-Semitic, Proto-Bantu and so on; the second is constituted by so-called ‘isolated languages’ i.e. languages which are without known relatives, whose history is hidden in the darkness of pre-proto-history like Basque or Burushaski. As far as we know, the history of all natural languages displays without exception a strong tendency towards phonological and morphological simplification. To put it briefly: sound clusters tend to become easier to pronounce, and words tend to become shorter over the centuries. For Creole languages, however, the situation is completely different. Their characteristic is just the development of complex (and still more complex) morphophonemic structures out of the relatively simple elements of their Pidgin predecessors (see Manessy 1979) which in their turn are the débris, the rudiments of earlier grammatical and lexical structures destroyed and lost under special social conditions.
There may even be a possibility of deriving a definition of ‘Creole’ vs. ‘natural’ language from these tendencies: where the morphophonemic systems become more complex, the language is a ‘Creole’ language; when the “elaborated structures” begin to “decline”, the ‘natural’ status is achieved.
§ 8 The Types of Indo-Europeanization
On the basis of the foregoing deliberations, the following classification is proposed, together with the appropriate terminology:
I. Primary Indo-Europeanization
The emergence of Proto-Indo-European in a new social group of the colluvies gentium type by linguistic developments of the Pidgin-Creole type is called Primary IndoEuropeanization. As indicated, two stages can be kept distinct:
I a The formation of the colluvies gentium, emergence of one [150] (or several) new Pidgin language(s).
Ib The establishment of a new society with detailed social structures from the colluvies, with influx of new members from all surrounding groups; parallel to this social development, the linguistic process of the Pidgin (or: a prominent Pidgin) evolving into a Creole language, leading to a fully developed new natural language, the mother language of the new people.
The place, date and duration of the social and linguistic developments are impossible to determine. Terminus ante quem is ca. 2000 B.C. (cf. Zimmer 1989).
It must be kept in mind, however, that this ethnic and linguistic nucleus is a purely postulated entity, not a reconstructed or even historically attested one. The linguistic reconstruction labelled Proto-Indo-European, at the very best, mirrors a state of development traditionally held to be that of the latest period before the disintegration of the linguistic community. It is, of course, difficult - not to say impossible - to prove any chronological details.
II Secondary Indo-Europeanization
There are many possibilities for describing the processes leading to the IndoEuropeanization of other communities outside the original group. We may speak of Secondary Indo-Europeanization in cases where historically attested old Indo-European languages obviously are introduced by foreigners intruding or invading existing civilizations. We know of some social processes leading to the expansion, and finally, disintegration of the original speech community. It may be sufficient here to recall the ver sacrum, an officially organized expansion, as e.g. attested by Livius’ story of Bellovesus and Segovesus, two Gaulish brothers, sent out by their uncle Ambigatus, king of the Bituriges, to conquer new lands (for details, see Grilli 1980); or the more privatly organized Viking raids leading to massive settlements in northern Britain, Iceland and Normandy.
Even from a purely linguistic standpoint, no uniform scheme for Secondary Indo[151]Europeanization processes can be found. In all known cases, however, a strong kernel of Indo-European linguistic tradition existed: for we have no records of unsuccessful IndoEuropeanizations! Typologically clearest to my mind are the following cases:
II a ethnically coherent groups of Indo-Europeans conquering foreign non-IndoEuropean speaking states:
II a1 coming under heavy cultural pressure from higher cvilizations causing severe modifications of grammatical structures: the case of the Indo-European Anatolian languages.
They are so different from all the rest of the Indo-European family that some scholars proposed to speak of Indo-Hittite instead of Indo-European. We could imagine one - or rather several - small groups gaining control over local communities with highly developed civilizations. Because the intruders form strong ‘kernels of tradition’, their languages do not undergo [immediately] Pidginization proper, but nevertheless come under heavy pressure from the indigenous non-Indo-European languages causing severe simplifications. Such a model could explain the ‘loss of Indo-European categories’ and at the same time, the retention of remarkable archaisms.
II a 2 Settlement without heavy cultural influences from a higher civilization permits extraordinary faithful preservation of their own traditions: the case of the IndoAryans.
The earliest recorded Indian elements in the Mitanni empire should be kept separate in this discussion. These people succeeded in keeping a certain tradition alive, viz. that of horse training, but did not preserve their own language. This is probably not a case of unsuccessful Indo-Europeanization, but rather of a small group of specialists who were engaged in a foreign country for special purposes and created there a certain technical tradition only.
It was different with the Indo-Aryan tribes arriving in India: with the Harappan civilization probably already in decline [or rather already dead], they could very well preserve the full range of their traditions including their remarkably archaic language. The influence of non-Indo-European languages is just beginning to be visible (e.g. the retroflex series). The Aryan ideology of “hospitality” and “truth” is very vivid, as in Ancient Iran (see Thieme 1938 and Lüders 1959). [152]
In Greece, the different layers of Indo-European have been strongly intermixed with preGreek and Anatolian civilization: this may explain the Greek religion with its strong Oriental
touch. On the other hand, the ruling classes preserved the idea of “hospitality” as the centre of social order, a thin but solid and durable net of tradition throughout Hellas irrespective of dialectal peculiarities. Given the geographical situation, the language is remarkably faithful to the Indo-European heritage.
For most of the other Indo-European languages, we know next to nothing about the prehistory of the speakers before they enter the light of history in their historic settlement regions. They are therefore difficult to classify in the proposed scheme. But one other case merits separate treatment:
IIb Formation of a secondary colluvies conditioned by an Indo-European kernel of tradition: the case of (at least: some) Germanic tribes.
There is a great difference between the ethnic groups just mentioned who have left us records in Indo-European languages and at least some, if not all Germanic tribes, especially those emerging during the Migration Period: these tribes are of rather mixed origins. 7{ }^{7} There we find traditional groups with their traditions amalgamating a host of smaller groups, not only from neighboring peoples or other Germanic stems, but also clearly marked nonGermanic and even non-Indo-European origins. The Franks started in the 3rd c. 8{ }^{8} as a group of robbers pushing their way through Roman Gaul, attracted adventurers of all kind (including fugitive slaves); the process is known as ‘snowball effect’ (Schlerath 1973: 20). Then, and also in their political movements in later centuries, they can be described as a colluvies gentium again. The same holds true for the Goths, who appear to have lived for some time under Hunnic supremacy, but later absorbed different [153] Iranian and non-Indo-European elements besides several smaller Germanic groups. 9{ }^{9} I propose to speak of ‘secondary colluvies gentium’ in those cases because history assures us of strong 'kernels of
- 7{ }^{7} Ament 1986 sees the ethnogenesis of the Germanic people as the result of merger processes of heterogenous groups: the Jastorf culture people, further Iron Age groups in northern Central Europe not belonging to the Jastorf complex, and Celic rests in southern Germany.
8{ }^{8} First attestation sub A.D. 257.
9{ }^{9} Typical for colluvies gentium are Germanic tribe’s names like Marcomanni “men of the border (region)” and Alamanni "all men (i.e. “men of all conceivable kind/origin” - first attested A.D. 213. ↩︎
tradition’ in the original group, and these proved decisive for the further fate of their languages. Politics do not always determinate linguistics: the Magyar tribes which later formed the Hungarian nation lived for a long time in a Turkish-dominated constellation 10{ }^{10} but did not loose their language; and even the small American Indian Tewa community, though living together with Hopi people for 250 years fully participating in their hosts’ social and religious life, faithfully sticks to its own language, completely unknown to the Hopi (Dozier 1966). These cases are, of course, illustrations of the fact that language and culture may be interdependent, but should in no way be identified. It was no different in prehistory, I presume.
There are some other forms of Indo-Europeanization deserving mention: the premeditated occupation of new territories with subsequent settlement of veterans as practiced by Alexander and his successors, and on largest scale by the Romans; the European colonization throughout the world since the 15th c.; and last but not least the current processes of gradual assimilation and incorporation of millions of wretched people fleeing war, persecution and hunger, coming into Indo-European speech communities in America and Europe. They, and especially their children have no choice but to learn the local Indo-European tongue, i.e. to undergo Indo-Europeanization.
Bibliography
Ament, Hermann
1986 Die Ethnogenese der Germanen aus der Sicht der Vor- und FrühGeschichte, in: Ethnogenese europäischer Völker, ed. Wolfram Bernhard and Anneliese Kandler-Pálsson. Stuttgart-New York: G. Fischer, 247-256.
Arens, Hans
1955 Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Geschichte von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (= Orbis academicus I 6). Freiburg-München: Alber.
Campanile, Enrico.
- 10{ }^{10} Cf. Róna-Tas 1988: 134: „Eine Gemeinschaft, die finnisch-ugrisch sprach, aber türkisch lebte, das war das ungarische Ethnikum im 10. Jahrhundert." ↩︎
1983 Problemi di Sostrato nelle lingue indoeuropee, ed. Enrico Campanile (= Testi linguistici). Pisa: Giardini.
Dozier, Edward P.
1966 Hano. A Tewa Indian Community in Arizona. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Gamkrelidze, Tamaz V. & Ivanov, Vjačeslav V.
1984 Indoevropejskij jazyk i Indoevropejcy. Rekonstrukcija i istorikotipologičeskij analiz prajazyka i protokultury. S predislobiem R. O. Jakobsona. 2 vols., Tbilisi: Izdat Tbilisskogo Universiteta (English translation to appear [Berlin - New York: Mouton de Gruyter 1995]).
Gimbutas, Marija
1980 The Transformation of European and Anatolian Culture 4500-2500 B.C. and its Legacy. Journal of Indo-European Studies 8, 1-2.
1986 Remarks on the Ethnogenesis of the Indo-Europeans in Europe, in: Ethnogenese europäischer Völker, ed. Wolfram Bernhard and Anneliese Kandler-Pálsson, Stuttgart-New York: G. Fischer, 5-20.
Grilli, Alberto
1980 La migrazione dei Galli in Livio, in: Studi in Onore di Ferrante Rittatore Vonwiller, vol. II, ed. P. Maggi. Como: Società Archeologica Comense, 183-192.
Hall, Robert A., Jr.
1962 The Life Cycle of Pidgin Languages. Lingua 11, 151-156.
Holm, John A.
1988 Pidgins and Creoles, vol. I Theory and Structure, vol. II Reference Survey 1989 (Cambridge Language Surveys). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lüders, Heinrich 1959
Varuṇa, Band 2 Varuṇa und das Ṛta. Aus dem Nachlaß hrg. v. L. Alsdorf,. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Mallory, James P.
1989 In Search of the Indo-Europeans, Language, Archaeology and Myth (Ancient Peoples and Places). London: Thames & Hudson.
Manessy, Gilbret
1977 Pidginisation, creolisation, évolution des langues. Sprache und Geschichte in Afrika 1, 55-74.
Mintz, Sidney W.
1971 The Socio-historical Background to Pidginization and Creolization, in:
Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, ed. Dell Hymes. London:
Cambridge University Press, 481-498.
Mühlmann, Wilhelm Emil
1962 Homo Creator. [Gesammelte] Abhandlungen zur Soziologie, Anthropologie und Ethnologie. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz (esp. part IV. Stämme und Völker).
1964 Rassen, Ethnien, Kulturen. Moderne Ethnologie ( == Soziologische Texte Bd. 24). Neuwied: Luchterhand.
1985 Ethnogonie und Ethnogenese. Theoretisch-ethnologische und ideologiekritische Studie, in: Studien zur Ethnogenese (= Abh. der Rhein.Westfälischen Akad. d. Wiss., Bd. 72). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 927.
Polomé, Edgar C.
1979 Creolization theory and linguistic prehistory, in: Festschrift for Oswald Szemerényi, ed. B. Brogyanyi. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 679-690.
1980 Creolization Processes and Diachronic Linguistics, in: Theoretical Orientation in Creole Studies, ed. Albert Valdman & Arnold Highfield. New York: Academic Press, 185-202.
Róna-Tas, András
1988 Ethnogenese und Staaatsgründung. Die türkische Komponente in der Ethnogenese des Ungartums, in: Studien zur Ethnogenese. vol. 2 (=Abhandlungen der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 78). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 107-136.
Schlerath, Bernfried
1973 Die Indogermanen. Das Problem der Expansion eines Volkes im Lichte seiner sozialen Struktur (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge 8), Innsbruck.
Thieme, Paul
1938 Der Fremdling im Rgveda, Leipzig: Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (= Abhandlungen zur Kunde des Morgenlandes XXIII, 2). Reprinted Nendeln: Kraus 1966.
Untermann, Jürgen
1989 Review of Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz, hrg. von Wolfgang Meid (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Bd. 52), Innsbruck 1987, in: Kratylos 34, 45-54.
Zimmer, Stefan
1989 On Dating Proto-Indo-European: A Call For Honesty. Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 16.1988 (recte 1989), 371-375.
1990a The investigation of Proto-Indo-European History: Methods, Problems, Limitations, in: When Worlds Collide: The IndoEuropeans and the Pre- Indo-Europeans, ed. J. Greppin & Th. Markey. Ann Arbour: Karoma, 311-344.
1990b Urvolk, Ursprache und Indogermanisierung (= Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft, Vorträge 46), Innsbruck.