The Prehistory of European Languages - Robert Mailhammer

To appear in J. van der Auwera & B. Kortmann, , Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter [2010]

This chapter deals with the prehistory of the European languages from the earliest arrival of modern humans in the late Stone Age until the dawn of history, marked by the attestation of written records in Europe from the second millennium BC onwards (see Appendix for a timeline). Its aim is to give an overview of the main developments and to point out the main re-sults of recent research as well as to report on current discussions. One central topic will be language contact during the period of the Neolithic until the beginning of the Iron Age, in particular the impact of substrate languages on the Indo-European languages and the Indo-European super-strate in the Uralic languages. This chapter is structured as follows: Section two deals with Europe before the Neolithic period. In section three the Neolithic population movements are addressed in connection with the process of agriculturalization and the languages that entered Europe during this time. Section four discusses the linguistic effects of the Neolithic de-velopments, focusing in particular on the Vasconic Theory by Theo Ven-nemann. The final section presents the linguistic map of Europe before the arrival of the Iron Age and sums up the most important results.

According to general opinion, modern humans ( ) entered Europe during the Upper Paleolithic, around 33000 BC, living alongside the Neanderthal man ( ), whose last traces in southermost Spain are dated around 24000 BC. Climatically, this time was characterized by the last glacial (about 110000 to 10000 BC), in which periods of low temperature and repeated glaciation alternated with shorter periods of higher temperature, during which humans could live in central Europe, having to retreat to more hospitable southern areas during glaciations. The end of the Paeolithic in Europe coincides with the

Fields of Linguis-tics: Europe

Robert Mailhammer

homo sapiens sapiens

homo sapiens neanderthalensis

The prehistory of European languages

1. Introduction

2. Prehistoric Europe until the start of the Neolithic period (until 7000 BC)

2end of the last glaciation, when the whole continent became suitable for human survival again.

2.1. Humans in Paleolithic Europe (33000 9500 BC)

Throughout the Paleolithic period hunter-and-gatherer groups lived in Europe, though significant cultural traces during the glacial maximum (around 18000 BC) have only been found south of a line stretching from southern France in the west to southeastern Ukraine in the east, excluding the Alps, which were covered with a thick ice sheet during the entire time. In the south green plains existed, which provided enough substistence for small groups of humans to live, whereas this was not the case in the tree-less tundra further north. During the glacial maxium the ice in central Europe reached as far as just south of Berlin. As a result, Germany was virtually uninhabited during the time of the glacial maximum until the arri-val of people from the warmer south from about 12000 BC onwards when Northern Germany was ice-free (Probst 1999: 89). In Britain only the south and the southeast were free from ice as was the western part of the Euro-pean mainland until as far north as Norway. In Eastern Europe, too, only the south was habitable. As a result, until the ice began to recede, humans survived only in the southwest (Southern France, Iberian Peninsula), the south and the (south-) east of Europe. However, the eastern and the west-ern group were largely isolated from each other until the Mesolithic era, which has also linguistic ramifications, in the sense that the languages of both groups were probably only distantly related (Kallio 2003: 228).

As far as can be told from the archeological finds, the widespread pre-glacial-maximum Gravettian Culture1 (about 26000 to 21000 BC) was su-perseded by the Magdalenian (the main western culture from 18000 to 10000 BC) and Solutrean Cultures in the west and by the Sviderian, Ahrensburg and Hamburg Cultures in the east until the final stages of the Paleolithic period. The traces left by these groups of hunters and gatherers are impressive, including tools made of stone and bone, art and small set-tlements, yet nothing is known about the languages they spoke. People lived in groups of 25 to 100 during this time. From 9500 BC onward the temperature increased rapidly and so the ice sheet, which had been retreat-ing since about 15000 BC, left Europe to be re-populated.

Robert Mailhammer

The prehistory of European languages 3

2.2. Mesolithic Europe: repopulation from the south (9000 7000 BC)

The trend towards complete occupation of the European continent had already started in the last stages of the last ice age, and continued in theMesolithic period, which began in the 9th millennium BC, when the tem-perature increased rapidly. From the south-west and, to a lesser degree from the south-east, people moved northward as northern Europe became more hospitable. Both movements cannot only be traced archaeologically, but also genetically (see Villar and Prosper 2005: 397419 for an overview of the genetic research). Hunter-and-gatherer groups entered England in the 9th and Ireland in the 8th millennium BC, leaving some of the most important cultural traces of the European Mesolithic era. In central Europe, the relics of the Magelmosian Culture in Denmark bear witness to the northward expansion, as do the remnants of the Kunda Culture (Estonia) in eastern Europe.

In the wake of these migrations the eastern Paleolithic group probably came into contact with the western group, so that, for example, the human pioneers in the area east of the Baltic Sea originally belonged to both groups and were therefore not likely to be a linguistically homogenous group (Kallio 2003: 229). With regard to southeastern Europe, however, archaeologists generally do not speak of a Mesolithic period: firstly, be-cause the area was only very sparsely populated, and secondly because the first farmers, and with them the Neolithic period, became established in Greece already around 7000 BC (van Andel and Runnels 1995: 481). Dur-ing the Mesolithic period people lived as nomadic hunter-and-gatherer groups, but in contrast to their Paleolithic ancestors they established com-paratively large settlements for up to 100 people, consisting of wooden huts in which they lived over several months (Probst 1999: 170).

Similar to the preceding period, though the archaeological finds clearly permit the inference that quite a number of hunter-gatherer groups existed in Mesolithic Europe, virtually nothing can be said about the languages that were spoken then. It seems clear, though, that the people living in Europe at this time were exclusively native in the sense that they were descendents of the Paleolithic population of Europe. However, all inferences and speculations about their languages can only be based on what can be re-constructed from the attested situation several millennia later.

4The characteristic developments of the Neolithic period in Europe are the spread of agriculture, stockbreeding, pottery and, later, metallurgy. This era also witnessed the arrival of immigrant people and languages. The various kinds of pottery found from this time are frequently used as tech-nical terms to characterize a particular culture, such as Linear Ware, Combed Ware, Corded Ware, etc. The Neolithic is the first period for which inferences can be made about languages that were spoken in Europe, though the divergent opinions on this matter bear witness to the considerable amount of speculation that is involved in this. At this point it is necessary to briefly reflect on the methodology used to investigate pre-historic languages. Unless, of course, there are written records of a culture that permit a linguistic identification, the language of a particular culture cannot always be determined in a straightforward way. Basically, the fol-lowing methods have been employed (Zimmer 1990: 1112):

a) The lexicon of a language is used to draw conclusions about the speakers culture and their habitat (linguistic paleontology).

b) Loanwords are used as evidence for contact between languages and their localization.

c) Due to their stability, toponyms can provide reliable evidence about prehistoric stages, provided that their language(s) can be identified.

d) Based on the known locations of languages and their speakers in historical times, inferences are made about the relative position of these languages in prehistoric times.

This overview confines itself to a brief treatment of linguistic paleontol-ogy, because it is probably the most controversial method. The main point of criticism directed against this approach is that the existence of a particu-lar term in the lexicon of a language is a necessary but not a sufficient con-dition to allowing us to infer the existence of the concept or object denoted by the relevant term within the culture that is supposed to have spoken this particular language (Zimmer 1990: 14). However, while this is obvious, it does not automatically follow from this that linguistic paleontology is a useless tool. It just means that it has to be applied with caution and that every case has to be examined carefully. But the obviously close connec-tion between language and culture cannot be denied, and this can clearly be used to examine the cultural reality of a language.

Robert Mailhammer

3. Native populations and immigrants: Europe until the Bronze Age (7000 2000 BC)


et passim

5

3.1. The Northeast: The arrival of Uralic languages

Recent Uralicist research dates Proto-Uralic around the turn of the fifth and fourth millennia BC, and locates its homeland in the Middle and Upper Volga region.2 Kallio (2003: 228) argues that the area of the Pit-Combed Ware Culture (about 42002000 BC) fits the area of the Uralic languages in the beginning of the historical age better than the area of any other pre-historic cultural complex does. Based on archaeological and linguistic evidence, Kallio (2003: 231232) argues that the speakers of Saamic did not originally speak Uralic, and that they genetically belong to the Western Paleolithic group that originally setteled on the western coast of Norway. Accordingly, the ancestors of the Saamic speakers entered Finland only during the Bronze Age, when their language finally became Uralic. How-ever, Koivulehto (2001 ) makes a case for early Indo-European loanwords in Saami, dating from the fourth and third millenia, which is problematic for the theory of a late Uralicization of Saami. It has to be noted that Kallios theory would seem to predict far more radical substrate changes in the resulting Uralic Saami than the few phonological changes he mentions (2003: 232). By contrast, Koivulehtos hypothesis would have to explain how exactly speakers of a Northwestern Indo-European proto-language connected to the Corded Ware Culture should come in contact with speakers of Saami, who presumably lived in Finland at the time (cf. Kallio 2003). This issue will not be pursued any further here. However, beside the question of Saamic, it seems clear that the Uralic languages en-tered Europe during the Neolithic period and settled in the northeast of the continent.

3.2. Agriculturaization and the Indo-Europeans in Europe

The beginnings of agriculture in Europe, and hence of the Neolithic pe-riod, are commonly dated somewhere in the seventh millennium BC. From its beginnings in Greece, agriculture spread to the Balkan area and then within only 500 years through central and western Europe, manifesting itself culturally in the shape of the Linear Ware Culture, which is found all over this area. There were two main paths along which agriculture spread throughout Europe, one to the northwest and one to the west of the Bal-kans, both joining up about half a millennium later in western Germany.3

The archaeological and genetic facts point to an addition of new people to

6the Mesolithic population of central and western Europe, a more Mediter-ranean type. During this period the total population of Europe increased significantly (Probst 1999: 228 and 252). However, in contrast to the

(spread of agriculture and poulation) and the (spread of ideas only), recent genetic research indicates

that probably people as well as ideas diffused into Mesolithic Europe, but that neither model taken to its extremes is likely to be correct (Haak et al. 2005).

The arrival of agriculture has frequently been connected with the arri-val of speakers of Indo-European languages in Europe and the question of the Indo-European homeland. Notwithstanding the criticism the concept of an Indo-European culture and an Indo-European homeland has attracted from both archaeologists and linguistis (see Husler 2003 with references), from a linguistic point of view it is clear that there must be an ancestral language connecting all Indo-European languages as a top node, and it is highly likely that there were speakers of this language at some stage. Whether these speakers possessed a more or less uniform culture is a dif-ferent matter altogether, but the assumption of one, even though idealized, protolanguage is a methodological necessity from a linguistic point of view.

Where the Indo-European protolanguage was spoken, however, has been debated in the literature. Since the modification of Colin Renfrews theory (see Renfrew 2003), the exact location of the Indo-European

is no longer an issue of tremendously high significance. The close contact between Proto-Indo-European and Uralic, which is evidenced by early Indo-European loanwords in Uralic (see Kallio 2003 and Koivulehto 2001 , both with references), strongly suggests that these two protolanguages were spoken adjacent to each other.4 This, in turn, argues in favour of a stage during which Proto-Indo-European was spoken in a relatively small area south of the Uralic homeland. Whether or not the speakers originally immigrated from Anatolia, as Renfrew (2003) claims, or whether the Anatolian languages arrived in Anatolia after a breakaway move of individual branches is secondary for the purpose of this chapter.

Whether the speakers of Proto-Indo-European were also responsible for the spread of agriculture, which is associated with the Impressed Ware and Linear Ware cultures, is however, doubtful. The reason for this is the vast area this cultural complex covers. As Kallio (2003: 232) points out, the common Indo-European terminology for wheeled vehicles is too uniform to assume an early extension of Proto-Indo-European across such a vast territory without some linguistic differentiation. Moreover, the fact that

Robert Mailhammer

demic diffusion model cultural diffusion model

Ur-heimat

et passim


et passim

Vasconic

7

most of the Indo-European agricultural vocabulary seems to be restricted to Northwestern Indo-European, with a good deal being non-Indo-European loanwords, implies that Europe was already agricultural when the Indo-Europeans settled there (Kallio 2003: 233).

This means that a common Indo-European protolanguage was probably spoken roughly south of and adjacient to the Uralic homeland before it split up. As wheeled vehicles were invented around 3500 BC (Probst 1999: 239), this suggests that Proto-Indo-European was still spoken around this time (see also Kallio 2003: 232). Consequently, the Indo-Europeanization of Europe is a more recent phenomenon than the rise of agriculture. It started after 3500 BC, and is connected to different cultural complexes (cf. Mallory and Adams 2006: 452), as has been suspected by archaeologists sceptical of a uniform Indo-European culture (see e.g. Husler 2003).

4.1. A Mesolithic substrate in Europe: Vasconic

In a series of papers (see Vennemann 2003a ), Theo Vennemann has advanced a theory of the linguistic prehistory of Neolithic Europe. He proposes that the Mesolithic population of Europe spoke languages of which modern Basque is the only survivor, which he therefore named

. Basically, this assumption follows from what is known from archaeology, namely that Europe was repopulated mainly from the south-west after the last glacial maximum (cf. 2.2 above) and the fact that Basque was spoken in southern France and northern Spain in antiquity (as, in fact, today). The genetic data linking the speakers of modern Basque to the Mesolithic process of repopulation renders material support to the theory. According to Vennemanns theory, the Vasconic languages formed a sub-strate layer for the languages in (Sub-)Neolithic times, leading to the fol-lowing main effects:

a) The remarkably uniform and extensive system of the Old Euro-pean (i.e. Pre-Neolithic) hydronymy (see e.g. Krahe 1963), and more generally, the Old European toponymy are Vasconic. This follows directly from the assumption that the majority of Meso-lithic Europeans spoke Vasconic languages. During the process of repopulation they named every feature of the landscape they came across and every location they stayed at. It is well known that later populations generally take over the old names and refrain from

4. Effects of the Neolithic expansions on the linguistic map of Europe

8changing their substance material (though modifications, especially additions are common). The uniformity and the extension of the toponymic system also make it unlikely that we are dealing with a coincidence. Moreover, Vennemann (2003a, chapter 6) shows that the language of the Old European hydronymy is unlikely to be Proto-Indo-European or a direct descendent, and instead points out structural and lexical corresponcences to (Proto-)Basque.

b) A lexical substrate exists in several Indo-European languages. So far a number words in several Western Indo-European languages without convincing Indo-Eruopean etymologies have been ety-mologized as going back to the Vasconic substrate.

c) Several structural properties of Western Indo-European languages are due to Vasconic influence. Examples are the vigesimal way of counting (basis 20 instead of 10, cf. F 80), which is autochthonic in Basque and the fixed dynamic stress on the initial syllable, found only in Germanic, Italic and Celtic, which, accord-ing to Vennemann (2003a: 178), can perhaps also be assumed for an earlier stage of Basque.

The criticism directed against this theory has neither been able to falsify it nor been able to present a plausible alternative. Though it is correct that the Mesolithic repopulation of Europe was not achieved by one genetically homogenous group of people (Villar and Prosper 2005: 411), which im-plies that the linguistic situation was not homogenous either, this does not rule out the possibility that at least the western and southwestern languages belonged to the same linguistic stock (Vennemann 2003a: 181).5 The archaeological and genetic evidence at least clearly suggest that the western group left more substantial marks, which may well argue for their numeri-cal and technological supremacy.

Likewise, the objections raised by some Bascologists against corre-spondences between Basque and the Old European language reconstructed by Vennemann show that Old European was not identical to either modern or historical Basque (Trasks 1995 Pre-Basque dated about 2000 years ago). At the same time they cannot rule out that Vennemanns Vasconic languages are related to Modern Basque over a distance of more than ten millennia. As far as alternative theories are concerned, the idea that the Old European hydronymy is Indo-European is implausible for linguistic and extralinguistic reasons and theories that operate with mysterious languages that may have existed and subsequently disappeared are no scientific alter-native. As far as properties b) and c) above are concerned, they have either not been convincingly explained (b) or virtually completely ignored (c).

Robert Mailhammer

quatre-vingt


Atlantic

9

To conclude, it is conceivable that a good deal of the Mesolithic popu-lation included speakers of languages belonging to a group that is distantly related to Modern Basque and that left its traces on the linguistic map of Europe in the shape of the oldest place names in Europe and various other substratal features in Western Indo-European languages. The immense time depth and the paucity of data, however, remain a considerable chal-lenge for any hypothesis on the linguistic situation at that time.

4.2. More on language contact in Neolithic Europe

Apart from the Mesolithic substrate termed Vasconic and the one detect-able in the Uralic languages, there are other situation of language contact in Neolithic Europe with different stratifications that are worth mentioning.

Starting in the northwestern edge of Europe, there is the case of Pictish, a sparsely attested language spoken in Scotland in historical times. It has been identified as a non-Indo-European language, though heavily Celti-cizised (Forsyth 1997). Hypotheses about the origin of Pictish have either suggested an ancient Mesolithic connection to the continent (e.g Kallio 2003: 232 fn 3) or a more recent Neolithic migration, as Vennemanns theory on the prehistory of Europe proposes. According to the second hypothesis, the ancestors of the Picts were speakers of a Semitic language termed who arrived in Western Europe across the sea and settled in the British Isles, forming a substrate for the Celts, who arrived many millennia later. Insular Celtic Irish in particular diverges in many sturctural respects from other Celtic languages, which points to a situation of language shift (Schrijver 2004), and these deviances find close parallels in Semitic languages as a number of studies have shown (cf. Vennemann 2003b: 327).

However, cases have also been made for other lost contact languages in pre-Indo-European Europe, which may have arrived together with agricul-ture at the beginning of the Neolithic period, and which may have left their traces in some Indo-European languages (see Schrijver 2001). In some cases these may even have been Indo-European languages, as Kallio (2003: 231) suggests for various loanword strata in Uralic languages, and as has been suggested in the literature for Greek (see Strunk 2003 with refer-ences).6 Other cases in point are the non-Indo-European languages on the Iberian Peninsula. Basque was addressed in the previous section; however, not much is known about the others, Tartessian and Iberian. The Iberians left written records, which have not yet been understood. What seems

10

clear, is that Iberian is not directly related to Basque (Trask 1995), but the relations of Tartessian are almost completely unclear. It is also unknown when these languages arrived on the Iberian Peninsula, though there is some indication that they arrived during Neolithic times. At any rate, both languages were already there when the Indo-Europeans (Celts and later the Greeks) and Semites (Phoencians and Carthagenians) arrived. The lan-guage commonly referred to as Celtiberian bears testimony of the Iberian substratal influence on Celtic.

It has been suspected that Tartessian and Iberian originally belonged to the so-called Aegean language complex, originating in Asia Minor. For other extinct languages of Europe this has been proven, namely for Etrus-can and its relatives Raetian and Lemnian (cf. Steinbauer 1999, Schumacher 2004). However, one of the greatest linguistic puzzle of the Neolithic period is that of the Minoan language, which has remained unaf-filiated so far.

The two biggest language families in Europe, Uralic and Indo-European, have been in contact from the beginning. The continuing con-tacts between northern Indo-European languages, Germanic and Baltic, and Uralic languages, Finnic and Saamic, manifested themselves in shared structural features and a layer of superstrate loanwords in some Uralic languages as well as in substrate features in Balto-Slavic (cf. Kallio 2003: 230 with references).

At the end of the Neolithic period the Indo-European languages were spreading across the continent. By the end of the Bronze Age in the middle of the last millennium BC, we find all languages in their historical loca-tions. As mentioned in 3.2 above, the Indo-European languages are proba-bly represented archaelogically by more than one cultural complex. Though their speakers did not bring acrigulture to Europe, they continued to shape this continent decisively. However, we must not forget that lan-guage contact situations continued to occur after the Neolithic period. In-vestigating these can shed some light on hitherto unexplained phenomena.

One case in point is the influence Semitic languages have exercised since the Bronze Age, in particular the Phoenecians and the Carthagenians (often aptly called ). There is clear indication for this influ-ence in the archaeological remains from the Mediterranean area, the Ibe-rian Peninsula and also the British Isles. Consequently, linguistic ramifica-

Robert Mailhammer

Orientalization

5. Languages in Europe in the Bronze Age and beyond (2000 500)

The prehistory of European languages 11

tions should be expected, some of which Theo Vennemann has explored (see Vennemann 2003b) in an expansion of his Vasconic Theory (cf. 4.1 above). The results show the considerable explanatory potential of this line of research. Such studies demonstrate how difficult the linguistic investi-gation of the prehistoric era can be, but also how powerful linguistic tools are in this area of research.

33,000 BC 24,000 18,000 9,500 9,000

Homo Sapiens Neanderthal last glacial end of begin of enters Europe man extinct maximum Ice Age Mesolithic

7,000 4500 3500 2000 500

agriculture agriculture development IE daughter end ofspreads to in Central of the wheel; languages Bronze AgeGreece Europe Proto-Indo-

Proto-Uralic European

Appendix: Timeline

Upper Paleolithic M esolithic

Neolithic Bronze Age

12

1. From an archaeological point of view, there is a terminological difference between the terms and . The former refers to a complex phe-nomenon consisting of tools, economy, art, settlements, burial rites and an-thropological chararteristics, whereas for groups not all of these elements can be described. In this narrow sense, the pre-Neolithic cultures are rather like groups, and it is only from the Neolithic onwards that archaeologists speak of cultures (Probst 1999: 227).

2. For a survey of other theories see Kallio (2003).3. For arguments against an autonomous development of agriculture in Europe,

at least not to the extent of the Linear Ware Culture see Probst (1999: 250). Also the genetic facts reported in the main text are counter-arguments to such a view.

4. Note that these lexical correspondences clearly point to language contact and not to a genetic relationship in the sense of the Nostratic Theory. As Koivule-hto (2001: 257) points out, the phonetic matches are far too exact to be due to a genetic relationship.

5. It is apparent that genetic and cultural homogeneity do not permit the infer-ence of linguistic homogeneity. The genetic study by Calderon et al. (1998) concludes that the speakers of Basque arrived on the Iberian Peninsula only in Neolithic times. However, given the poor linguistic relations between Cauca-sian languages and Basque (cf. Trask 1995: 8186) it has to be assumed that Basque is the last survivor of the Mesolithic languages of Europe (see Trask 1995: 91 and 1997: 8). Note also that the eastern and the western group ulti-mately go back to the same wave of Paleolithic immigration from Africa. Hence, their languages are actually likely to be ultimately related.

6. Lusitian has been shown to have been an Indo-European language (Mallory and Adams 2006: 37). This has also been demonstrated for Ligurian, which is related to Continental Celtic Lepontic, the earliest attested Celtic language (cf. Mallory and Adams 1997: 233).

Robert Mailhammer

culture group

Notes


Human Biology

Science

Languages in Prehistoric Europe


Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations

Encyclopedia of Indo-European cultureThe Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World

Deutschland in der Steinzeit


Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Consid-erations

13

Calderon, Rosario, Concepcion Vidales, Jose A. Pea, Ana Perez-Miranda, Jean-Michael Dugowjon

1998 Immuniglobulin Allotypes (GM and KM) in Basques from Spain: Approach to the origin of the Basque population, 70: 667-698

Haak, Wofgang, Peter Forster, Barbara Bramanti, Shuichi Matsumura, Guido Brandt, Marc Tnzer, Richard Villems, Colin Renfrew, Detlef Gro-nenborn, Kurt Werner Alt, Joachim Burger

2005 Ancient DNA from the First European Farmers in 7500-year-old Neolithic sites, 310, 10151018.

Husler, Alexander2003 Urkultur der Indogermanen und Bestattungsriten. In

, Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann (eds.), 227244. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Kallio, Petri2003 Languages in the Prehistoric Baltic Sea Region. In


Koivulehto, Jorma2001 The earliest contacts between Indo-European and Uralic speakers in

the light of lexical loans. In ,

Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), 235263. Helsinki: Soualais-Urgilainen Seura.

Mallory, James P. and Douglas Q. Adams (eds.)1997 . London: Fitzroy Dearborn.2006

. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Probst, Ernst

1999 . Munich: Orbis Verlag.Renfrew, Colin

2003 Time Depth, Convergence Theory, and Innovation in Proto-Indo-European: Old Europe as a PIE Linguistic Area. In


Schrijver, Peter2001 Lost languages in Northern Europe. In

, Christian Carpelan, Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikallio (eds.), 417425. Helsinki: Soualais-Urgilainen Seura.

References

14

2004 Festlandkeltisch und Franzsisch, Niederlndisch, Hochdeutsch. In , Peter Schrijver and Peter-Arnold

Mumm (eds.), 120. Bremen: Hempen.Schumacher, Stefan

2004 . 2nd expanded ed. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachen und Literaturen der Universitt Innsbruck.

Steinbauer, Dieter1999 . St. Katharinen: Skripta Mercatu-

rae.Strunk, Klaus

2003 Vorgriechisch/Pelasgisch: Neue Erwgungen zu einer lteren Substrathypothese. In , Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann (eds.), 8598. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.

Trask, Robert L.1995 Origin and Relatives of the Basque Language: Review of the evi-

dence. In , Jos Ignacio Hualde, Joseba A. Lakarra and Robert L. Trask (eds.), 6599, Am-sterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

1997 . London/New York: Routledge.van Andel, Tjeerd H. and Curtis N. Runnels

1995 The earliest farmers in Europe. 69: 481500.Vennemann, Th.

2003a , ed. by Patrizia Noel Aziz Hanna. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter

2003 b Languages in prehistoric Europe north of the Alps. In , Alfred Bammesberger and Theo Vennemann

(eds.), 319332. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.Villar, Francisco and Blanca M. Prosper

2005 . Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.

Zimmer, Stefan1990

. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprach-wissenschaft.

Robert Mailhammer

Sprachtod und Sprachgeburt

Die rtischen Inschriften

Neues Handbuch des Etruskischen


Towards a History of the Basque Language

The history of Basque

Antiquity

Europa Vasconica Europa Semitica


Vascos, Celtas e Indoeuropeos. Genes y Lenguas

Ursprache, Urvolk und Indogermanisierung. Zur Methode der Indogermanischen Altertumskunde

Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Page 10Page 11Page 12Page 13Page 14

Documents

The Prehistory of European Languages - Robert Mailhammer