PROTO INDO-EUROPEAN | PROTO BALTIC | NOSTRATIC

The Indo-European proto-language originated in a homeland South-East of the Black Sea by a collection of semi-nomadic clans and pastoral tribes which more or less could understand each other (8th - 7th Millennium BCE). As such, we might better conceive of Proto Indo-European as a group of related dialects which evolved from one branch of the proposed primitive Nostratic parent language macro-family ( Vladislav Illich-Svitych ). From the very beginning, multi-ethnic additions have helped shape it's path thru time to the present. Scholars have determined the location based on an extensive reconstructed vocabulary of Proto Indo-European, and the habitat it describes. This was an adaptive language, one with which they sang, joked, loved, lamented and prayed. Linguistic evidence indicates that they prayed to * Deiwos ( = the God of Light ). These Proto Indo-European dialects were either of the peripheral tribes, or of the central tribes. Innovations which occurred within the central tribal dialects might not be reflected in some of the peripheral dialects. Migrations due to climate shifts further differentiated the dialects, as various groups dispersed to seek opportunities. Outside influences on the peripheral dialects might not be felt by the central dialects. Multi-ethnic influences were a constant thru many migrations due to climate change. Thus, it is difficult to say what "Proto Indo-European" was like if we do not accept the diversity of that proto language and it's speakers. The migration from the mountains of Eastern Turkey (approx. 8th - 6th Millennium BCE) to the steppes of Russia and beyond to settle the expanse in the North beyond the Caucasus mountain range must have coincided with climatic changes. The "Epoch" of Proto Indo-European in the Samara area of Russia was (approx. 6th - 5th Millennium BCE) characterized by slow dissolution of tribal groups dispersing due to climate changes and eventually migrating to distant lands. The spread of Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup R1a1 is associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages, too. The vocabulary of these groups adapted to new environments, but enough "core" terms survived to enable the reconstruction of those terms. Click here for more about the reconstructed terms.

Close to the homeland of Proto-Uralic, the Lyalovo (5500-3650 BCE) culture on the upper Volga, it is the Khvalynsk culture (5100-4500 BCE) on the middle Volga that spoke PIE. It was itself the local continuation of the Samara culture (6000-5000), around the present-day Russian city of Samara, which must have spoken an more archaic version of PIE. So now, at any rate, the PIE cradle-land is known with some precision.

From the Samara and Khvalynsk Cultures onward, scholars identify some expansions and migrations in the archaeological record. This leads to the secondary joint homeland of all the European branches of IE in the Strednij Stog culture (4500-3350 BCE) in Ukraine, whence they follow Proto-Anatolian through the Ezero culture of Bulgaria (3400-2700 BCE) on its way to Anatolia, while another branch becomes the Corded Ware culture (ca. 3200 BCE) and spreads as far as the Netherlands, differentiating along the way into Early-Balts, Proto-Slavic, Proto-Italo-Celtic and Proto-Germanic, under the impact of various substratum languages. On the eastern side, the Khvalynsk culture was taken to southern Siberia to become the Afanasievo culture by 3600 BCE; apparently including the Tocharians. Staying behind in Ukraine for another millennium or so, before they moved on to their respective destinations, the Proto-Greco-Armenians developed the Catacomb Grave culture, while their eastern neighbors in the Poltavka culture became the Proto-Indo-Iranians. The Proto-Iranians retained this region while the Proto-Aryans spread to the north to develop the Abashevo culture before turning southeast on their dramatic migration to the Andronovo culture of Siberia and Central Asia (1800-1500 BCE) and then to India.

Many migrations (especially Corded Ware) coincide, as reflected in their Indo-European lexicons, with the new revolutionary technology of the wheeled wagon, dated 3,500-3,250 BCE at numerous excavated sites. It isn't until two millennia later that chariots show up in China. The Beijing Chinese word for wheel is KuLu, which bares an interesting resemblance to nearby Tocharian kokale (Sūdovian nom. pl. "kelai").

The proto-language dialect of each of these migrating tribes evolved differently from the other dialects. Many encountered various different ethnic groups that were assimilated and changed the spoken languages. Some dialects lost and later re-established contact with each other, as in the case of Baltic and Slavic. The extraordinary lexical correspondences between Thracian and Baltic imply a long and close relationship. This explains the complex similarities between those three groups, of which they have many archaic features still worthy of serious study. Also, some Proto-Indo-European tribes (dialects) maintained tribal alliances (linguistic contact) up to their various distinct Proto-Stages, as in the example of Pre-Baltics/ Pre-Thracian/ Pre-Slavic/ Pre-Germanic. It is just as speculative to speak of a " Thraco-Slavic" , or a Balto-Germanic, than a "Balto-Slavic". Certain lexical correspondences and innovations (as in the words for "thousand", or "wax") bear this out. The period of this mutual contact coincides with Corded Ware culture zone during advent of the wheeled wagon. It was perhaps a combination of climate change and the oxen drawn wagon which prompted the widespread Corded Ware migrations. From historical accounts and ancient traditions, it is certain that hemp use was more than just for cord, cloth, and seed food. Reading from the archaeological record, one can associate dates of 3,200 - 2,300 BCE with various material artifacts and non-native (hemp and wheat) plant pollens that appear to indicate the arrival of "Baltic" speaking peoples in the region around present day Lithuania. A high incidence of Pan-Baltic Y chromosomes from the haplogroup N1c [old name N3] with allele DYS19*15 indicates admixture with older Finnic substrate. The uncommon LWb gene is more specifically a later Central Baltic marker.

The Proto Indo-European language slowly evolved from a dialect of Nostratic, primitive at first, but expressive. With time, it's speakers innovated and assimilated new ways to render it more precise and effective. One innovation lead to another, and eventually the everyday speech of these people resembled something somewhat similar to the reconstructed synthetic proto-language theorized by scholars. It is doubtful that it ever possessed the elegant complexity often set forth about it, or will we know what long lost assimilated ethnic group influence what. That complexity was nonetheless accomplished later, in both humble and renown languages, all derived from Proto Indo-European. Such are the languages as elevated as Sanskrit, or humble as Lithuanian.
Click Here for examples of Prayer in various Indo-European languages.

The transition from active (fientive) to the later, and more complex, declensional system was accomplished using various "quasi-paradigmatic" adverbial forms in the dialects.

The four cases of West-Baltic (Prussian, Sudovian & Galindian) declension are not an innovation but an archaic feature uniting West Baltic with Germanic and Greek. Only nominative, genitive, dative and accusative forms have constant intercrossing functions in various Indo-European languages, while forms used for the instrumental or locative cases (traditionally declared to be "Common Indo-European"), have related functions: e.g. the IE *"-ois" may occur in the instrumental case in one language and in the locative case in other ones, or *"-ō" / (apophonically) "-ē " occurs as "-āt" in the Indo-Iranian ablative and as "-it" in the Hittite instrumental. Such intercrossing elements were used for semi-paradigmatic adverbial forms, differently paradigmatized in the various Indo-European languages. (V. Toporov, V. Maziulis)

"The traditional academic construct of a seven case declensional system for Proto Indo-European is as synthetic as it is theoretically convenient." (Jeannette DeBusk Cox)

The differentiation between each dialect became more pronounced as time went by and different ethnic groups were assimilated. Those dialect tribes that remained in closer contact later resembled each other more, as in the case of Baltic, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, and Slavic (each with their somewhat similiar grammatical innovations). In the case of Baltic, with many of it's supra-archaic qualities, a clearer window into past developments is possible to determine how such innovations took place. Thus, Baltic Studies will continue to enrich and redefine Proto-Indo-European Studies, now and far into the future.

poshka@hotmail.com