Proto-Indo-European society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Proto-Indo-European culture)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proto-Indo-European society is the reconstructed culture of Proto-Indo-Europeans, the ancient speakers of the Proto-Indo-European language, ancestor of all modern Indo-European languages.

Scientific approaches[edit]

Much of our modern ideas in this field involve the unsettled Indo-European homeland debate about the precise origins of the language itself. There are four main approaches researchers have employed in their attempts to study this culture, but all are subject to resolution of the debate and all are the subject of criticism:


David W. Anthony distinguished different cultural stages in the evolution of the Proto-Indo-European language:[9]

  • Archaic (4500–4000), the common ancestor of all Indo-European branches, before the Anatolian split (Cernavodă culture; 4000 BC); associated with the early Khvalynsk culture,
  • Early (4000–3500), the last common ancestor of the non-Anatolian languages, including Tocharian; associated with the late Khvalynsk and Repin cultures,
  • Classic (3500–3000), with the full wagon vocabulary, after the Tocharian split (Afanasievo culture; 3800 BC); associated with the late Khvalynsk and Repin cultures,
  • Late (3000–2500), in its dialectal period due to the spread of the Yamnaya horizon over a large area.

Early Khvalynsk (4900–3900)[edit]

Domesticated cattle was introduced around 4700 BC from the Danube valley to the Volga-Ural steppes where the Early Khvalynsk culture (4900–3900) had emerged, associated by Anthony with archaic proto-Indo-European, the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages. Cattle and sheep were more important in ritual sacrifices than in diet, suggesting that a new set of cults and rituals had spread eastward across the Pontic-Caspian steppes, with domesticated animals at the root of the proto-Indo-European conception of the universe. Anthony attributed the first and progressive domestication of horses, from taming to actually working with the animal, to that period. According to him, the Anatolian distinctive sub-family came from a first migration that established the Suvorovo culture (4500–4100) in the eastern Balkans, in the context of a progression of the Khvalynsk culture towards the Danube, from which also emerged the Novodanilovka (4400–3800) and Late Sredny Stog (4000–3500) cultures.[10] Copper, exotic ornamental shells and polished stone maces were exchanged across the Pontic–Caspian steppes from Varna, in the eastern Balkans, to Khvalynsk between 4500–4200 BCE.[11]

Late Khvalynsk/Repin (3900–3300)[edit]

Steppe economies underwent a revolutionary change between 4200–3300 BCE, in a shift from a partial reliance on herding, when domesticated animals probably were used principally as a ritual currency for public sacrifices, to a later regular dietary dependence on cattle, and either sheep or goat meat and dairy products.[3] The Late Khvalynsk and Repin cultures (3900–3300), associated with early (post-Anatolian) Proto-Indo-European, showed the first traces of cereal cultivation after 4000 BC, in the context of a slow and partial diffusion of farming from the Western parts of the steppes.[12] Around 3700–3300, a second migration wave of proto-Tocharian speakers towards South Siberia led to the Afanasievo culture (3300–2500).[13][14] The spoke-less wheeled wagon was introduced to Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3500 BC from the neighboring North Caucasian Maykop culture (3700–3000), with which Proto-Indo-Europeans traded wool and horses.[15] The interaction with the hierarchical Maykop culture, itself influenced by Uruk culture,[16] had notable effects on the Proto-Indo-European steppe cultures.[11] Meanwhile, the Khvalynsk-influenced cultures that had emerged in the Danube-Donets region after the first migration gave way to the Cernavodă (4000–3200), Usatovo (3500–2500), Mikhaylovka (3600–3000) and Kemi Oba (3700—2200) cultures, from west to east.[9]

Yamnaya period (3300–2600)[edit]

Yamnaya horizon.

The Yamnaya horizon, associated with the late proto-Indo-European language (following both the Anatolian and the Tocharian splits), grew in the Don-Volga region and spread westwards after 3300 BC to establish a cultural horizon founded on kurgan funerals over a vast steppic area between the Dnieper and the Volga rivers. It was originally a herding-based society, with limited crop cultivation in the eastern part of the steppes, while the Dnieper-Donets region was more influenced by the agricultural Tripolye culture.[17] Paleolinguistics likewise postulates Proto-Indo-European speakers as a semi-nomadic and pastoral population with subsidiary agriculture.[18][19] Bronze was introduced to the Pontic-Caspian steppes during the Yamnaya period.[9]

As the steppe became dryer and colder between 3500 and 3000 BCE, herds needed to be moved frequently to feed them sufficiently.[20] Yamnaya distinctive identity was thus founded on mobile pastoralism, permitted by two innovations: the earlier introduction of the wheeled wagon and the domestication of the horse. Yamnaya herders likely watched over their cattle and raided on horseback, while driving wagons for the bulk transport of water or food.[17] Their chiefdoms had institutionalized differences in prestige and power, and the society was organized along patron-client reciprocity, a mutual exchange of gifts and favors between their patrons, the gods, and human clients.[21] The Yamnaya funeral sacrifice of wagons, carts, sheep, cattle, and horse was probably related to a cult of ancestors requiring specific rituals and prayers, a connection between language and cult that introduced late Proto-Indo-European to new speakers.[12] The language itself appeared as a dialectal continuum during this period.[22] Proto-Indo-European likely ceased to be spoken after 2500 BC, as its various dialects were already distinct languages that spread in Eurasia during the third wave of Indo-European migrations,[23] which began after the expansion of Usatovo people, associated with pre-Germanic, towards southeastern Poland through the Old European Tripolye culture around 3300 BCE, and the migration of pre-Italo-Celtic speakers towards the Pannonian Basin in Central Europe around 3100–2800 BCE.[3][22]

Social structure[edit]

Class structure[edit]

It is generally agreed that Proto-Indo-European society was hierarchical, with some form of social ranking and various degrees of social status.[24][25][26] It is unlikely however that they had a rigidly stratified structure, or castes such as are found in historical India.[19][27] Some kurgan graves, larger than the average and necessitating a considerable number of people to be built, suggest a higher status given to some individuals, although this prestigious funeral was not necessary reserved to the wealthiest person. Smiths in particular were given fatuous graves, possibly due to the association of smithery to magic during the early Bronze Age.[25] In general, such graves were mostly occupied by males in the eastern Don-Volga steppes, while they were more egalitarian in the western Dnieper-Donets region.[28] There was a general distinction between free persons and slaves, typically prisoners of war or debtors unable to repay a debt.[29] The free part of society was composed of an elite class of priests, kings and warriors, along with the commoners,[29] with each tribe following a chief (*wiḱpótis) sponsoring feasts and ceremonies and who was eventually immortalised in praise poetry.[25]

Yamnaya bone and canine ornaments.


Linguistics has allowed for the reliable reconstruction of a large number of words relating to kinship relations. These all agree in exhibiting a patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal social fabric.[24] Patrilocality is confirmed by lexical evidence, including the word *h2u̯edh-, "to lead (away)", being the word that denotes a male wedding a female, but not vice-versa.[30] Rights, possessions, and responsibilities were consequently reckoned to the father, and residence after marriage was near the husband's family, after the payment of a bride-price.[31][32]

The *dems-potis was the patriarch, the master of the household (*domos).[32] Once founded, the family lasted as long as the male stock of its founder endured, and clan or tribal founders were often portrayed as mythical beings from a mythical past in Indo-European traditions. In these forms of kinship organization, distance from the founding ancestor determined the individual's status. The latter, if able of exceptional prowess or virtue, could in his turn gain social prestige among the community and eventually establish his own descent-group.[19]

In the reconstructed lexicon linking the individual to the clan, *h₄erós meant a "member of one’s own group", "one who belongs to the community in contrast to an outsider", which would give the Indo-Iranian term árya (an endonym) and the Irish aire ("noble, chief").[33][32] It is unlikely however that the word had an ethnic connotation, and we do not known if Proto-Indo-European speakers had a term to designate themselves as a group.[32] Another term, *h₁leudhos, meant "people", "freemen" in a more general way.[32]


Proto-Indo-European had several words for "leader": *tagós was a general term derived from *tā̆g- ("set in place, arrange"); *h₃rḗǵs meant a ruler who also had religious functions, with the Roman rex sacrorum ("king of the sacred") as an heritage of the priestly function of the king; *w(n̩)nákts designated a "lord" and possessed a feminine equivalent,*wnáktihₐ (a "queen"); while the *wiḱpótis was the chief of the settlement (*weiḱs),[32] the seat of a tribe, clan or family.[34]

Public feasts sponsored by such patrons were a way for them to promote and secure a political hierarchy built on the unequal mobilization of labor and resources, by displaying their generosity towards the rest of the community. Rivals competed publicly through the size and complexity of their feasts, and alliances were confirmed by gift-giving and promises at public feasts. The host of the feast was named the *ghosti-potis, the "lord of the guests", who honored the immortal gods and his mortal guests with gifts of food, drink, and poetry.[3]


Vertical power differences were partly balanced by horizontal mutual obligations of hospitality between guest and hosts.[3] According to David W. Anthony, the domestication of horses and the introduction of the wagon between 4500 and 3500 BC led to an increase in mobility across the Yamnaya horizon, and eventually to the emergence of a guest-host political structure. As various herding clans began to move across the steppes, especially in harsh seasons, it became necessary to regulate local migrations on the territories of tribes which had likely restricted these obligations to their kins or co-residents (*h₄erós) until then.[35] In Proto-Indo-European, the term *ghós-ti-, whose original meaning must have been "table companion",[36] could either mean a host or a guest, a feature that has persisted in Old English (a ghost was originally a visitor or guest), and in the French hôte, that still retains the polysemy.[35]

Guests and hosts were involved in a mutual and reciprocal relationship, bound by oaths and sacrifices. The giving and receiving of hospitality was accompanied by a set of ritual actions that indebted the guest to show hospitality to his host at any time in the future. The obligation could even be heritable: Homer’s warriors, Glaukos and Diomedes, stopped fighting and presented gifts to each other when they learned that their grandfathers had shared a guest-host relationship.[35][37] Violations of the guest-host obligations were immoral, illegal and unholy: in Irish law, refusing hospitality was deemed a crime as serious as murder. The killing of a guest was also greeted with a singular revulsion, as was the abuse of hospitality.[37]

Legal system[edit]

Because of the archaic nature of traditional legal phraseology—which preserves old forms and meaning for words—and the necessity for legal sentences to be uttered precisely the same way each time to remain binding, it is possible to securely reconstruct some elements of the Proto-Indo-European legal system.[38][39] For instance, the word *serk- ("to make a circle, complete") designated a type of compensation where the father (or the master) had to either pay for the damages caused by his son (or slave), or surrender the perpetrator to the offended party. It is attested by a common legal and linguistic root in both Roman and Hittite laws.[39]

Law was apparently designed to maintain the “order” (*hₐértus) of the universe, with the underlying concept that a harmony should be maintained, be it in the physical universe or the social world.[40] There was however no public enforcement of justice in Proto-Indo-European society, nor was there formal courts as we know it today. Contractual obligations were protected by private individuals acting as sureties: they pledged to be responsible for payments of debts incurred by someone else if the latter defaulted. In case of litigation, one could either take matter into their own hands, for instance by barring someone from accessing their property to compel payment, or bring the case before judges (perhaps kings) that featured witnesses.[39] The word for "oath", *h₁óitos, derives from the verb *h₁ei- ("to go"), after the practice of walking between slaughtered animals as part of taking an oath.[41]

The root *hₐértus (from *hₐer-, "to fit") is associated with the concept of a cosmic order, i.e. which is "fitting, right, ordered". It is one of most securely reconstructed terms, with cognates in numerous branches: Lat. artus ("joint"); MHG art ("innate feature, nature, fashion"); Grk artús ("arrangement"), possibly arete ("excellence");[42] Arm. ard ("ornament, shape"); Av. arəta- ("order"); Skt ṛtú- ("right time, order, rule"); Hitt. āra ("right, proper");[43] Toch. A ārt- ("to praise, be pleased with").[44]

Trifunctional hypothesis[edit]

The trifunctional hypothesis, supported by Georges Dumézil and some other scholars,[45][46] postulates a tripartite ideology reflected in a threefold division of a clerical class, a warrior class and a class of farmers or husbandmen, on his interpretations that many historically known groups speaking Indo-European languages show such a division.[47] Dumézil's approach has been criticised, mainly because its inclusive and theoretical aspect makes it impossible to be proven or disproven.[48][49][50] On the other hand, some scholars note that Dumézil does not define the three classes as an exact description of a society (they rather serve as fonctions or ideals set up to justify the continuity of a social order) and that the theory can be useful to understand ancient societies in general after the introduction of agriculture.[27]


Ritual and sacrifice[edit]

Indo-Europeans practiced a polytheistic religion centered on sacrificial rites of cattle and horses, probably administered by a class of priests or shamans. Animals were slaughtered (*gʷʰn̥tós) and dedicated to the gods (*déiwos) in the hope of winning their favour. The king as the high priest would have been the central figure in establishing favourable relations with the other world.[51] The Khvalynsk culture, associated with archaic Proto-Indo-European, had already shown archeological evidence for the sacrifice of domesticated animal.[52] Georges Dumézil suggested that the religious function was represented by a duality, one reflecting the magico-religious nature of priesthood, while the other is involved in religious sanction to human society (especially contracts), a theory supported by common features in Iranian, Roman, Scandinavian and Celtic traditions.[51]

The Kernosovskiy idol, featuring a man with a belt, axes, and testicles to symbolize the warrior;[53] dated to the middle of the third millennium BC and associated with the late Yamnaya culture.[54]

The basic word for "god" in proto-Indo-European is *deiwós ("celestial"), itself a derivative of *dei- ("to shine, be bright").[55][1] On the other hand, the word for "earth" (*dʰéǵʰōm) is at root of both "earthly" and "human", as it is notably attested in the Latin cognates humus and homo.[56][1] This suggests a hierarchical conception of the status of mankind regarding the gods, confirmed by the widespread use of the term "mortal" as a synonym of "human" rather than "living species".[1]

The reconstructed cosmology of the proto-Indo-Europeans shows that ritual sacrifice of cattle, the cow in particular, was at the root of their beliefs, as the primordial condition of the world order.[57][52] The myth of *Trito, the first warrior, involves the liberation of a cattle stolen by a three-headed named *Ngwhi. After recovering the wealth of the people, Trito eventually offered the cattle to the priest in order to ensure the continuity of the cycle of giving between gods and humans.[58] The creation myth could have rationalised raiding as the recovery of cattle that the gods had intended for the people who sacrificed properly. Many Indo-European cultures preserved the tradition of cattle raiding, which they often associated with epic myths.[52][57] Proto-Indo-Europeans also had a sacred tradition of horse sacrifice for the renewal of kinship involving the ritual mating of a queen or king with a horse, which was then sacrificed and cut up for distribution to the other participants in the ritual.[59][60]

Although we known little about the role of magic in Proto-Indo-European society, there is no doubt that it existed, as several branches attest the use of similarly worded charms and curses, such as ones against worms. Furthermore, incantations and spells were one of the three categories of medicine, along with surgical instruments and the use of herbs and drugs.[59]


Poetry and songs were central to proto-Indo-European society.[61][62] The poet-singer was the society's highest-paid professional, possibly a member of a hereditary profession that ran in certain families, the art passing from father to son as the poet had to acquire all the technical aspects of the art and master an extensive body of traditional subject matter.[63][64] He performed against handsome rewards—like gifts of horses, cattle, wagons and women—and was held in high esteem. In some cases, the poet-singer had a stable relationship with a particular noble prince or family. In other cases, he travelled about with his dependants, attaching himself to one court after another.[64]

A transmitter of inherited cultural knowledge, the poet sang as a recall of the old heroic times, entrusted with telling the praises of heroes, kings and the gods.[62][63] Composing sacred hymns ensured the gods would in turn bestow favorable fate to the community, and for kings that their memory would live on many generations.[63] A lexeme for a special song, the *erkw ("praise of the gift") have been identified in archaic Proto-Indo-European. Such praise poems proclaimed the generosity of the gods or of a patron and enumerated their gifts, expanding the patron’s fame (*ḱléwos), the path to immortality, otherwise attainable for mortals only through conspicuous acts of war or piety.[3]

The concept of fame was important to Proto-Indo-Europeans. Many poetic dictions built on this term can be reconstituted: *ḱléwos wéru ("wide fame"), *ḱléwos meǵhₐ ("great fame"), *ḱléuesh₂ h₂nróm ("the famous deeds of men, heroes"), or *dus-ḱlewes ("having bad repute").[65][66][67] Indo-European poetic tradition is oral-formulaic: stock formulas, such as the imperishable fame (*ḱléwos ń̥dʰgʷʰitom),[68][69] or the wheel of the sun (*sh₂uens kʷekʷlos)[67] were transmitted among poet-singers to fill out verse-lines in epic song lyrics. Poets would compose and retell poems based on old and sometimes obscure formulations, reconnecting the motifs with their own skills and improvisations.[65] Poetry was therefore associated with the acts of weaving words (*wékʷos webh-) and fashioning speech (*wékʷos teḱs-).[62][69]


Although Proto-Indo-Europeans have been often cast as warlike conquerors, their reconstructed arsenal is not particularly extensive.[70][71] There is no doubt that they possessed archery, as several words with the meaning of "spear" (*gʷéru ; *ḱúhₓlos), "pointed stick" (*hₐeiḱsmo) or "throwing spear" (*ǵʰai-só-s) are attested. The term *wēben meant a "cutting weapon", likely a knife, and *h₂/₃n̩sis a "large offensive knife", certainly a dagger, as Proto-Indo-Europeans did not know swords, which appeared later around 2000–1500. The axe was *h₄edʰés, while the word *spelo/ehₐ designated a wooden or leather shield.[70][71]

Yamnaya bone and bronze arrowheads.

A number of scholars propose that Proto-Indo-European initiation rituals included a requirement that young unmarried men initiate into manhood by joining a warrior-band (*kóryos), ranging from two to twelve members, which lived off the country by hunting and engaged in raiding and pillaging.[72][73] They served in such warrior brotherhoods for a number of years before returning home to adopt more respectable identities as mature men,[74] wore animal skins to appear like wolves or dogs, and bore names containing the word "wolf" (*wl̩kʷo) or "dog" (*ḱ(u)wōn) to symbolically identified with them, each a symbol of death and war in Proto-Indo-European beliefs.[3][24] Canine teeth of dogs were frequently worn as pendants in Yamnaya graves in the western Pontic steppes, particularly in the Ingul valley.[53] Most kurgan stelae in the region featured a man with a belt and weapons carved on the stone. In later Indo-European traditions, like the warrior figures found in Germanic and Celtic art, *kóryos raiders wore a belt that bound them to their leader and the gods, and little else. The tradition of kurgan stelae featuring warriors with a belt is also common in the Iranian Scythian cultures.[53]

In a mostly patriarchal economy based on bride competition, the escalation of bride-prices in periods of climate change could have resulted in an increase in cattle raiding by unmarried men.[52] Archeological discoveries in the middle Volga steppes (1900–1700 BCE), although posterior to the Proto-Indo-European language, suggest the practice of a winter-season ritual of transgressive liminality between childhood and manhood: 51 dogs and 7 wolves were sacrificed and consumed in what could be an initiation into a status represented metaphorically by the animals.[3] A continuity of an "animal-like raid culture" has been likewise postulated in various elements attested in later Indo-European cultures, such as the Germanic Berserkers or the Italic Ver Sacrum,[75][76] and in mythological stories like those of Celtic fianna or the Vedic Maruts.[73]

Anthony and Ringe suggest that, along with the attractiveness of the patron-client and the guest-host relationships, those *kóryos could have played a key role in diffusing Indo-European languages across Eurasia, driving people not protected by the Indo-European social umbrella to move under it to obtain safety or restitution from thieving. The *kóryos could have served as an incentive for the recruitment of outsiders into social positions that offered vertical mobility, horizontal reciprocity, and the possibility of immortality through praise poetry, made more attractive by generosity at patron-sponsored public feasts.[3]


The use of two-word compound words for personal names, typically but not always ascribing some noble or heroic feat to their bearer, is so common in Indo-European languages that it seems certainly inherited. These names are often of the class of compound words that in Sanskrit are called bahuvrihi.[77][78]

From the Proto-Indo-European name *ḱléwos wésu ("possessing good fame") derive the Illyrian Vescleves, the Greek Εὐκλεής / Eukleḗs and the Sanskrit Suśráva.[69] Similarly, a common name structure can be found in the Sanskrit Trasá-dasyus ("one who causes enemies to tremble"), the Greek Ἀρχέλαος / Archelaus ("one who rules people"), and the Old Persian Xšayāršan ("one who rules men").[77]


Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed a Neolithic mixed economy based on livestock and arable agriculture, with a wide range of economic regimes and various degrees of mobility that could be expected across the large Pontic-Caspian steppe.[79] Tribes were typically more influenced by farming in the Dnieper-Donets region, while the eastern Don-Volga steppes were inhabited by a semi-nomadic and pastoral population.[12]

Proto-Indo-European distinguished between unmovable and movable wealth (*péḱu, the "livestock"). As for the rest of society, economy was founded on reciprocity. A gift always entailed a counter-gift, and each party was bound to the other in a mutual relationship cemented by trust.[37]


The early Khvalynsk culture, living in the Volga-Ural steppes and associated with archaic Proto-Indo-European,[80] had trade relationship with Old European cultures. Domesticated cattle, sheep and goats, as well as copper were introduced eastward from the Danube valley around 4700–4500. Copper objects show an artistic influence from Old Europe, and the appearance of sacrificed animals suggest the emergence of a new set of rituals following the introduction of herding.[10] The Old European Tripolye culture continued to influence the western steppes, with a more agricultural and less male-centered Yamnaya culture in the Dnieper-Donets region.[81]

Proto-Indo-European speakers had indirect contacts with Uruk around 3700–3500 through the North Caucasian Maikop culture, a trade route that introduced the wheeled wagon into the Caspian-Pontic steppes. Wheel-made pottery imported from Mesopotamia were found in the Northern Caucasus, and Maikop chieftain was buried wearing Mesopotamian symbols of power—the lion paired with the bull. The late Khvalynsk and Repin cultures probably traded wool and domesticated horses in exchange, as suggested by the widespread appearance of horses in archeological sites across Transcaucasia after 3300.[16] Socio-cultural interactions with Northwest Caucasians have been proposed, on the ground that the Proto-Indo-European language shows a number of lexical parallels with Proto-Northwest Caucasian.[82] Proto-Indo-European also exhibits lexical loans to or from other Caucasian languages, particularly Proto-Kartvelian.[3]

Proto-Indo-European speakers probably also had trade relationships with Proto-Finno-Ugric speakers around the Ural Mountains, as words for "sell" and "wash" were borrowed in Proto-Ugric, and words for "price" and "draw, lead" were introduced in Proto-Finno-Ugric. James P. Mallory suggested that the expansion of the Uralic languages across the northern forest zone might have been stimulated by organizational changes within Uralic forager societies, resulting partly from interaction with more complex, hierarchical Proto-Indo-European and (later) Indo-Iranian pastoral societies at the steppe/forest-steppe ecological border.[3]


A horse-drawn, spoke-less wheeled wagon, closed to what was used in the Pontic-Caspian steppe around 3500–2500 BC. Here in Queensland, 1900.

From the reconstructable lexicon, it is clear that Proto-Indo-Europeans were familiar with wheeled vehicles—certainly horse-drawn wagons (*weǵʰnos)—as they knew the wheel (*kʷekʷlóm), the axle (*hₐeḱs-), the shaft (*h₂/₃éih₁os), and the yoke (*yugóm).[83] Wheels were probably not invented by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, but the word *kʷekʷlóm is a native derivation of the root *kʷel- "to turn" rather than a borrowing, suggesting contact with the people who introduced the wheel to them was short.[3] The technology used was a solid wheel made of three plants joined together with their outer edges trimmed to a circle.[83] The swift chariot with spoked wheels, which made the mode of transport much more rapid and lighter, appeared later within the Sintashta culture (2100–1800), associated with the Proto-Indo-Iranians.[84][85] The word for "boat", likely a dugout canoe, was *néhₐus and is widely attested across the language groups.[83]

The vocabulary associated with metallurgy is very restricted and at best we can attest the existence of copper/bronze, gold, and silver. The basic word for "metal" (*hₐey-es-) is generally presumed to mean "copper" or a copper-tin alloy of "bronze"; and "gold" is reliably reconstructed as *hₐeusom. Proto-Indo-Europeans were familiar with the sickle (*sr̩po/ehₐ-), the awl (*hₓólehₐ-) for working leather or drilling wood, and used a primitive plough (*h₂érh₃ye/o-) made of a curved and forked branch.[86]

The term for "oven" or "cooking vessel" (*h₂/₃ukʷ) has been reconstructed based on four branches, as for "baking" and "boiling".[87][88] They certainly drank beer (*hₐelut) and mead (*médʰu), and the word for "wine" (*wóinom) has been proposed, although this remains a debated issue.[89][88] Proto-Indo-Europeans produced textile, as attested by the reconstruct roots for wool (*wĺh₂nehₐ), flax (*linom), sewing (*syuh₁-), spinning (*(s)pen-), weaving (*h₂/₃webʰ-) and plaiting (*pleḱ-), as well as needle (*skʷēis) and thread (*pe/othₐmo-). They were also familiar with combs (*kes-) and ointments with salve (*h₃engʷ-).[90][88]

Domesticated animals[edit]

Animals (mammals in particular) are fairly abundant in the reconstructed lexicon. We can ascribe about seventy-five names to various animal species, but it hardly recovers all the animals to have been distinguished in the proto-language.[91] While *kʷetwor-pod- designated a four-footed animal (tetrapod), *gʷyéh₃wyom seems to have been the general term for animals, derived from the root *gʷyeh₃-, "to live".[56]

Tarpan horse (1841 drawing)

Proto-Indo-European speakers made a distinction between wild animals (*ǵʰwḗr) and livestock (*péḱu), and the reconstructed lexicon suggests a Neolithic economy with extensive references to domesticated animals.[91] They were familiar with cows (*gʷṓus), sheep (*h₃ówis), goats (*díks, or *hₐeiĝs) and pigs (*sūs ; also *pórḱos, "piglet").[56]

They knew dogs (*ḱ(u)wōn), milk (*ǵ(l̩)ákt) and dairy foods, wool (*wĺh₂nehₐ) and woollen textiles, agriculture, wagons, and honey (*méli(t)-).[3][56] The domestication of the horse (*h₁éḱwos), thought to be an extinct Tarpan species,[92] have probably originated with these peoples, and scholars invoke this innovation as a factor contributing to their increased mobile and rapid expansion.[35]

They were also in contact with various wild animals like red foxes (*wl(o)p), wolves (*wl̩kʷo), bears (*h₂ŕ̩tḱos), red deers (*h₁elh₁ēn), elks (moose) (*hₓólḱis), eagles (*h₃or), otters (*udrós), snakes (*h₁ógʷʰis), mice (*mūs ; from *mus-, "to steal") or trouts (*lóḱs)[93][94] Some of them were included in mythological and folkloric motifs. Goats draw the chariots of the Norse and Indic gods Thor and Pushan, and they are associated with the Baltic god Perkūnas. The words for both the wolf and the bear underwent taboo deformation in a number of branches, suggesting they were feared as symbols of death in Proto-Indo-European culture.[49]

See also[edit]



  1. ^ a b c d Fortson 2004, p. 22-24.
  2. ^ Bomhard 2019, p. 2.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Anthony & Ringe 2015, pp. 199–219.
  4. ^ Mallory 1989, p. 185.
  5. ^ Strazny 2000, p. 163.
  6. ^ See:
    • Bomhard : "This scenario is supported not only by linguistic evidence, but also by a growing body of archeological and genetic evidence. The Indo-Europeans have been identified with several cultural complexes existing in that area between 4,500—3,500 BCE. The literature supporting such a homeland is both extensive and persuasive [...]. Consequently, other scenarios regarding the possible Indo-European homeland, such as Anatolia, have now been mostly abandoned."[2]
    • Anthony & Ringe: "Archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence converge in support of an origin of Indo-European languages on the Pontic-Caspian steppes around 4,000 years BCE. The evidence is so strong that arguments in support of other hypotheses should be reexamined."[3]
    • Mallory: "The Kurgan solution is attractive and has been accepted by many archaeologists and linguists, in part or total. It is the solution one encounters in the Encyclopædia Britannica and the Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse."[4]
    • Strazny: "The single most popular proposal is the Pontic steppes (see the Kurgan hypothesis)..."[5]
  7. ^ Bammesberger, Alfred; Vennemann, Theo (2003). Languages in prehistoric Europe (in German). Isd. ISBN 9783825314491.
  8. ^ Anthony, David (2019). "Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard". Journal of Indo-European Studies.
  9. ^ a b c Anthony 2007.
  10. ^ a b Anthony 2007, p. 185-186.
  11. ^ a b Anthony, David (2019). "Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard". Journal of Indo-European Studies.
  12. ^ a b c Anthony 2007, p. 304.
  13. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 264–265, 308.
  14. ^ Mallory, J. P.; Mair, Victor H. (2008). The Tarim Mummies: Ancient China and the Mystery of the Earliest Peoples from the West. Thames & Hudson. ISBN 9780500283721.
  15. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 289-290, 330-335.
  16. ^ a b Anthony 2007, p. 289-290.
  17. ^ a b Anthony 2007, p. 330-335.
  18. ^ Klein, Jared; Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias (2017-09-25). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. p. 89. ISBN 9783110261288.
  19. ^ a b c Volpe, Angela Della (1993-08-01). "On evidence of ranked status in Indo-European: PIE *wik-pot-i-". WORD. 44 (2): 255–271. doi:10.1080/00437956.1993.11435903. ISSN 0043-7956.
  20. ^ Anthony 2007, pp. 300, 336.
  21. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 99.
  22. ^ a b Bomhard 2019, p. 3.
  23. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 51.
  24. ^ a b c Fortson 2004, p. 17-19.
  25. ^ a b c Anthony 2007, p. 336.
  26. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 284-285.
  27. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 430.
  28. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 331-334.
  29. ^ a b Fortson 2004, p. 17.
  30. ^ Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 483.
  31. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 328.
  32. ^ a b c d e f Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 266–269.
  33. ^ Fortson 2004, p. 209.
  34. ^ Beekes 2011, p. 35.
  35. ^ a b c d Anthony 2007, p. 303.
  36. ^ Romain Garnier. (2013). Le nom indo-européen de l'hôte. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 133(1), 57-69. doi:10.7817/jameroriesoci.133.1.0057
  37. ^ a b c Fortson 2004, p. 19-20.
  38. ^ Watkins, Calvert (1986-01-01). "'In the Interstices of Procedure': Indo-European Legal Language and Comparative Law". Historiographia Linguistica. 13 (1): 27–42. doi:10.1075/hl.13.1.05wat. ISSN 0302-5160.
  39. ^ a b c Fortson 2004, p. 21-22.
  40. ^ Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 345.
  41. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 277.
  42. ^ Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul; Beek, Lucien van (2009). Etymological Dictionary of Greek. Brill. p. 128. ISBN 9789004174184.
  43. ^ Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Brill. p. 198. ISBN 9789004160927.
  44. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 276.
  45. ^ Lebedynsky, I.. (2006). Les Indo-Européens, éditions Errance, Paris
  46. ^ Lincoln, B. (1999). Theorizing myth: Narrative, ideology, and scholarship, p. 260 n. 17. University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-48202-6.
  47. ^ Dumézil, G. (1929). Flamen-Brahman.
  48. ^ West 2007, p. 4.
  49. ^ a b Fortson 2004, p. 28.
  50. ^ Belier, W. W. (1991). Decayed Gods: Origin and Development of Georges Dumézil's Idéologie Tripartite, Leiden.
  51. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 452-453.
  52. ^ a b c d Anthony 2007, p. 134-35.
  53. ^ a b c Anthony 2007, p. 364-365.
  54. ^ Telegrin & Mallory 1994, p. 54.
  55. ^ West, M. L. (2007-05-24). Indo-European Poetry and Myth. OUP Oxford. pp. 166–171. ISBN 9780199280759.
  56. ^ a b c d Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 135-136.
  57. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 138.
  58. ^ Lincoln, Bruce (1976). "The Indo-European Cattle-Raiding Myth". History of Religions. 16 (1): 42–65. ISSN 0018-2710.
  59. ^ a b Fortson 2004, p. 25-26.
  60. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 437.
  61. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 265.
  62. ^ a b c West 2007, p. 26-31.
  63. ^ a b c Fortson 2004, p. 29.
  64. ^ a b West 2007, p. 30.
  65. ^ a b Fortson 2004, p. 29-30.
  66. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 118.
  67. ^ a b Beekes 2011, p. 42.
  68. ^ Watkins 1995, p. 173.
  69. ^ a b c Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 365-366.
  70. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 245-246.
  71. ^ a b Huld, Martin E. (1993-08-01). "Early Indo-European weapons terminology". WORD. 44 (2): 223–234. doi:10.1080/00437956.1993.11435901. ISSN 0043-7956.
  72. ^ McCone, Kim (1987). "Hund, Wolf und Krieger bei den Indogermanen". In Meid, Wolfgang (ed.). Studien zum indogermanischen Wortschatz (in German). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. pp. 101–154. ISBN 978-3-85124-591-2.
  73. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 31.
  74. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 134-135.
  75. ^ Price, Arnold H. (1968). "Differentiated Germanic Social Structures". Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. 55 (4): 433–448. ISSN 0042-5699.
  76. ^ Speidel, Michael P. (2002). "Berserks: A History of Indo-European "Mad Warriors"". Journal of World History. 13 (2): 253–290. ISSN 1045-6007.
  77. ^ a b Lehmann, Winfred Philipp (1996). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. Psychology Press. p. 149. ISBN 9780415138505.
  78. ^ Ball, Martin John (1990). Celtic Linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing. p. 375. ISBN 9789027235657.
  79. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 153.
  80. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 48.
  81. ^ Anthony 2007, p. 305.
  82. ^ Bomhard 2019, p. 11.
  83. ^ a b c Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 247-249.
  84. ^ Kuzmina, E. (2002-04-01). "On the Origin of the Indo‐Iranians". Current Anthropology. 43 (2): 303–304. doi:10.1086/339377. ISSN 0011-3204.
  85. ^ Kuznetsov, P. F. (2006). "The emergence of Bronze Age chariots in eastern Europe". Antiquity. 80 (309): 638–645. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00094096. ISSN 0003-598X.
  86. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 241-244.
  87. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 240.
  88. ^ a b c Fortson 2004, p. 38.
  89. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 166.
  90. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006.
  91. ^ a b Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 134, 151.
  92. ^ Mallory & Adams 1997, p. 275.
  93. ^ Lane, George Sherman (1970). "Tocharian. Indo-European and Non-Indo-European Relationships.". In Cardona, George; Hoenigswald, Henry M.; Senn, Alfred (eds.). Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. Third Indo-European Conference at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia. p. 83.
  94. ^ Mallory & Adams 2006, p. 135-136, 144, 147.


Further reading[edit]

  • Stüber, Karin (2007). "Die Stellung der Frau: Spuren indogermanischer Gesellschaftsordnung in der Sprache". In Schärer, K. (ed.). Spuren lesen (in German). Chronos. pp. 97–115. ISBN 978-3-0340-0879-2.