Formation of the Indo-European branches [2]
Formation of the Indo-European branches in
the light of the Archaeogenetic Revolution
John T. Koch
University of Wales Centre for Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies
Draft [19-iii-2019] of paper read at the conference ‘Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts. How should we
interpret the movement of people throughout Bronze Age Europe?’ Austrian Academy of Sciences,
Vienna, 13–14 December 2018.
Er cof am Eric P. Hamp | 16 xi 1920 – 17 ii 2019
Introduction
Using the historical-comparative method, linguists can recover many details of unattested
languages. With enough of the right kind of data, it is even possible to reconstruct detailed
lexicons and grammatical descriptions. Even so, it is often difficult to assign an absolute date,
geographical location, and cultural context to some of the most fully reconstructed prehistoric
languages. The common ancestor of the attested Indo-European languages is such a case, and
the question of its homeland has been keenly disputed since the 19th century, through the
20th, and into the 21st. In recent years, with the availability of ancient DNA data, the situation
has suddenly improved, adding to the evidence base genetic relationships between prehistoric
populations and groups in the historical period speaking attested languages.
This essay works from recently published archaeogenetic evidence, drawing attention to what
it might imply for some longstanding issues in historical linguistics. Seven working hypotheses
are presented concerning prehistoric languages in western Eurasia. These hypotheses aim to
situate speech communities in time and space, and to identify archaeological cultures and
genetic populations associated with them. Hypotheses 1–6 deal with particular nodes and
splits on the tree model of the Indo-European macro-family, the seventh with the prehistoric
ancestor of the non-Indo-European language Basque.
As essential background, it is noted, but will not be recapitulated at length, that aDNA data
published in two milestone papers in 20151, 2 was argued to support elements of the steppe
or kurgan hypothesis of the Proto-Indo-European homeland. This hypothesis was formulated
by Gimbutas in the mid 20th century,3, 4 then advanced by Mallory5–7 and Anthony8–10. The
implications of this strong, but not closely precise, archaeogenetic support can be summarized
as follows.
The common ancestor of most of the attested Indo-European languages was spoken on the
grasslands of what is now Ukraine and South Russia about 5000 years ago. This language’s
territory then expanded by mass migration. There is a significant correlation between
speakers of this proto-language and the Yamnaya material culture and a genetic ‘Steppe’
cluster, which reflects a mixture of two earlier distinct populations: approximately 50%
Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) and 50% Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG, also
known as ‘Iranian-associated’).
Before attempting to build on this foundation, it is important to recognize its limits, what it
does not mean. It does not mean that everyone on the Pontic–Caspian steppe ~5000 BP spoke
Proto-Indo-European, or conversely that all speakers of PIE ~5000 BP lived on the Pontic–
Caspian steppe. It does not mean that all users of Yamnaya culture ~5000 BP spoke PIE, or
conversely that all speakers of PIE ~5000 BP used Yamnaya culture. It does not mean that all
individuals carrying the Steppe component at high levels ~5000 BP spoke PIE, or conversely
that all speakers of PIE ~5000 BP carried the Steppe component, either at high levels or
necessarily at all. How closely or loosely these categories coincide should become clearer, even
precisely quantifiable, as more evidence comes in.
Preliminaries 1: A tree model of the Indo-European macro-family
The Indo-European sub-families or branches are usually reckoned as ten: (in order of
attestation) Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Armenian, Tocharian, Balto-
Slavic, Albanian.6, 7 It should be mentioned also that there are several fragmentarily attested
ancient Indo-European languages (such as Phrygian, Thracian, and Lusitanian) that cannot be
certainly affiliated with any of the ten branches. It is possible that there were other IE branches
that died out completely unattested.
At the stage when each of the ten branches was first attested in writing, they were all fully
separate languages. In other words, in a hypothetical encounter between speakers of any two
of them, there would have been little mutual intelligibility. At the horizon of written evidence,
the separation of each of these from Proto-Indo-European (and from any post-PIE intermediate
ancestor) lay deep in the past.
It is common for the ten Indo-European branches to be represented with a tree model.
Sometimes all ten will be shown branching from a single point from the end of the Proto-Indo-
European trunk.8 But that is surely not what happened. More scientific trees are constructed as
a series of two-way splits. So, for example, the Anatolian branch comes off first, as universally
agreed, with the rest of Indo-European, still a single unified language, on the other side of that
split. Most, but not all, Indo-Europeanists think that Tocharian branched off next. This again
would involve all the rest of Indo-European as a still unified proto-language on the other side
of the split, and so on until all ten branches were separate and there was no residual Late PIE
commonality.
If archaeogenetics has now brought increasing confidence concerning the homeland of PIE,
it should do so likewise for combining linguistics, archaeology, and genetics to locate the
reconstructed languages occupying the gap between PIE and the attested Indo-European
languages. We might expect this task to be easier, as it deals with times closer to the horizon
where we have written records in their archaeological contexts, as well as now increasingly
information about the genetic connections of the associated human remains. Even prior to
 [3] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [4]

the availability of aDNA evidence, some adherents of the steppe hypothesis had elaborated
identifications of several specific post-Proto-Indo-European prehistoric languages with Copper
and Bronze Age cultures.5, 8, 86 However, there remain unresolved questions about how PIE
split up and diversified, as well as the most meaningful way to conceptualize these processes.
So, the question is not just which family tree (Stammbaum) but whether any tree model will
provide an accurate enough roster of Indo-European linguistic groupings in later prehistory.
For several reasons, the tree of Ringe et al. 2002 is used here. First of all, their study aims to
do exactly what is of interest presently, “... to recover the first-order subgrouping of the Indo-
European family ...”11, rather than, say, work out the time depth of PIE12–18, 98, 99 or merely to
illustrate the subclassifications of numerous attested IE languages8. Secondly, Ringe et al. use
a robust base of phonological, morphological, and lexical evidence, which is rigorously filtered
for known and conceivable pitfalls. Thirdly, they seriously consider an alternative model for
the formation of the IE branches, namely one of a shallowly diversified dialect continuum
formed by rapid expansion into new territory followed by the crystallization of branches from
neighbouring dialects within emerging sociocultural areas.19, 20 Such a model is favoured by
myself in earlier work.21 Ringe et al. conclude that Garrett’s proposal for the IE branches is
compatible with their Stammbaum. In other words, the basic groupings and their structure
would remain the same whether they had arisen by groups of speakers arriving in new lands
and abruptly losing contact with their homeland or the crystallization of branches from
mutually intelligible dialects in contact.
Schleicher’s 1861 tree model (Fig. 1) shows several basic features have persisted for over 150
years.22 He recognized Balto-Slavic (slawolitauisch) and Indo-Iranian (arisch), which remain
standard features, as well as Italo-Celtic (italokeltisch), which is a common—probably the
most common—view today.95 An Italo-Celtic node (representing an undifferentiated speech
community) is a feature of the Ringe et al. tree. They also include a Greco-Armenian node,
which has been proposed elsewhere,12, 16–18,29 but are more ambivalent about such a proto-
language, finding the evidence for it to be ‘disappointingly meager’.
With Ringe et al.’s tree, no details relevant presently are lost by following Mallory’s 2013
simplification.23 However, for reasons explained below, it is their less problematical tree,
omitting Germanic, that is simplified here (Fig. 2). In this tree Proto-Indo-European first
divides, as expected, into the Anatolian branch on one side and the rest of Indo-European on
the other. Next, that ‘rest of Indo-European’ divides, becoming Tocharian on one side and a
new, smaller rest of Indo-European on the other. Then, another split with Albanian on one side
and yet a newer and smaller rest of Indo-European on the other. Then Italo-Celtic splits off,
Proto-Indo-European PIE 1
PIE 2

Tocharian PIE 3 Anatolian

Figure 1. August Schleicher’s 1861 tree model
of the Indo-European language family. deutsch.
German (Germanic)

litauisch. PIE 4
Lithuanian (Bal�c)
Albanian
slawisch. Figure 2. Simplified version of
Slavic Ringe et al. 2002, Fig. 8, ‘One of
the best trees with Germanic
vic omitted’, to which is added labels
Celtic
-Sla Italic
to for the nodes PIE 1–6 as explained PIE 5
Bal keltisch.
h. in this essay. The bracketed
isc Cel�c
tau position of Germanic in the tree
oli h.
s law isc
italisch. model is that indicated in the [Germanic] PIE 6
elt Italic passage quoted from Ringe et al.
h. l ok Greek
utsc ita
Ce
l�c 2002. Armenian
de h. lo- albanesisch.
wo tisc Ita
sla okel Albanian
ital
indogermanische eco griechisch.
gra Greek
ursprache. ariogra
e arisch.
Proto-Indo- italoke co-
ltisch. Indo-Itr
European anian eranisch.
Iranian
Indic
indisch. Slavic Iranian
Indic Baltic
[5] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [6]

then Greco-Armenian. The last residual common ancestor of more than one branch is Balto-
been maintained by prolonged intense contact, in which speakers habitually used their own
Slavic+Indo-Iranian, which will be of special interest here. Amongst the evidence supporting
dialect—rather than switching or using a lingua franca—in speaking to speakers of another
such a commonality are two shared innovations in the consonant system, known as the satǝm
dialect. For historical linguistics, an important implication of the concept of dialect as used
and RUKI innovations. (satǝm is the Avestan word for ‘100’, contrasting with Latin centum, both
here is that borrowings between dialects will often not be detectable linguistically because
from PIE *k̂m̥tóm.) In the first change, the PIE consonant series *k *g *gh and *kw *gw *gwh
cognate sounds will be substituted in the borrowing dialect. (This, incidentally, has been
merged as *k *g *gh. PIE palatovelars*k̂, *ĝ, and *ĝh become assibilated (s-like sounds) in the
one chief argument supporting the Anatolian Neolithic hypothesis of Indo-European origins,
satǝm languages. In the second change, PIE *s became *š (something like English seat versus
despite shared Indo-European vocabulary for a later [Copper Age] material culture.96–100)
sheet), following the sounds *r, *w, *k, *g, *gh, or *y.86
Related languages, on the other hand, will refer to genetically related varieties of speech with
In historical linguistics various labels are attached to the recurring ‘rest of Indo-European’
relatively low, even virtually no, mutual intelligibility. Such cognate speech forms will usually
unities. These include ‘Late Indo-European’, ‘Middle Indo-European’, ‘Nuclear Indo-European
have been separate from one another longer with less regular contact. Communication will
(NIE)’, and ‘Surviving Indo-European (SIE)’ (meaning after the now-extinct Anatolian and
require a speaker from one language to learn a second language, or the use of a shared lingua
Tocharian branches split off). The usage has been inconsistent and confusing. Purely for
franca. Borrowings between separate related languages will more often be detectable as such
present purposes, the following terms will be used for the ancestral core of the family and
by linguists because they are less likely to involve assimilative substitution of cognate sounds.
successive residues of this core:
In referring to reconstructed prehistoric languages the prefixes Pre- and Proto- will be used for
• the earliest Proto-Indo-European (ancestor of all the branches including Anatolian) =
concepts along the same lines as dialect and language. So, for example, Pre-Indo-Iranian could
PIE 1;
be thought of as a dialect within a still intact larger linguistic unity and speech community,
• the residual core after Anatolian branches off = PIE 2; Proto-Indo-Iranian/Balto-Slavic in this case. Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic would
belong to a later stage, no longer a single speech community with a relatively high degree of
• the residual core after Tocharian branches off = PIE 3;
mutual intelligibility. Loanwords between Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Balto-Slavic would
• the residual core after Albanian branches off = PIE 4; more often be detectable as loanwords, than between Pre-Indo-Iranian and Pre-Balto-Slavic,
which were still part of a coherent dialect continuum.
• the residual core after Italo-Celtic branches off = PIE 5;
Another important point in the distinctions between dialects versus related languages and pre-
• the residual core after Greco-Armenian branches off (bearing in mind that the existence
versus proto-languages is that it is more common for an adult to successfully change dialect
of such a branch is uncertain for the reason explained above) = PIE 6, which can also be
than to learn a second language and use it like a native speaker. Accordingly, in the languages
called Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian.
of the world, mixed dialects are common, mixed languages (as distinct from a language with
¶Note. As will be important in connection with Working Hypothesis 4 below, PIE 6 originally numerous loanwords) are rare. So, as proposed below, at the stage Pre-Germanic/Balto-Slavic/
included Pre-Germanic also. But at an early prehistoric stage, Pre-Germanic separated from Indo-Iranian, it was possible for the western part of that continuum to shift speech areas,
Pre-Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian and reoriented towards Italo-Celtic. becoming reoriented towards Pre-Italo-Celtic. We do not need to think of this process as
speakers at the western end of Pre-Germanic/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian changing language, but
rather contacts intensifying with mutually intelligible dialects in the West—permitting shared
innovations—and declining with those in the East.
Preliminaries 2: some terminology and concepts
The term dialects refers here to genetically related forms of speech (i.e. having a common Working hypothesis 1: PIE 1 and Anatolian
ancestral form of speech, nothing to do with genetics per se) retaining a high degree of mutual
The homeland of PIE 1—ancestral to all Indo-European, including the Anatolian branch—was
intelligibility. This relationship may be the case when the communities speaking the dialects
more probably south of, or possibly in, the Caucasus than on the Pontic–Caspian steppe. The
have lost contact with each other more-or-less abruptly and fully, but at a relatively short time
speakers of PIE 1 were probably not closely associated genetically with the ‘Steppe component’,
previously, say eight generations or fewer, so that linguistic entropy has not set in sufficiently
that is, ~50 EHG and ~50% CHG.
to block mutual intelligibility. On the other hand, the related speech forms may be distinct
for far longer than eight generations and still be dialects rather than separate languages In its unrevised form, the steppe hypothesis is that the parent language of all Indo-European,
in the senses used here, for example the Greek dialects or the largely mutually intelligible including the Anatolian branch, what is called here PIE 1, came from the Pontic–Caspian
national ‘languages’ of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. In these cases, mutual intelligibility has steppe. Thus far, the archaeogenetic evidence—including that published in the two seminal
[7] Koch | draft
papers of 20151, 2—has supported the Pontic–Caspian steppe as the homeland of PIE 2 (Proto-
Indo-European after Anatolian branched off) rather than PIE 1. Therefore, on this basic matter,
the new evidence has not confirmed the steppe hypothesis.
For purely linguistic reasons Anatolian has always been a vulnerable point in the hypothesis.
Not only is it universally recognized as the first branch to separate—and therefore the most
relevant for dating and locating PIE 1—but also the reason why it is universally agreed to be
the first branch is that it is so different and so much more archaic than the other branches. For
example, it is the only branch to retain the laryngeal sounds directly; their former presence
must be reconstructed to explain features of the other branches, but they have not survived
in any of them, even those attested in the Bronze Age, i.e. Mycenaean Greek and Old Indic.
Anatolian is also the only branch lacking a feminine gender, which is also usually understood
to be an archaism retained from PIE 1 rather than a subsequent innovation. Tense and aspect
in the verbal system of Anatolian is also significantly simpler and can be seen as reflecting a
state of affairs preceding changes common in all the languages descended from PIE 2. In other
words, there is a big gap between PIE 1 (reflected in Anatolian) and PIE 2. It is hard to imagine
that there could be less than 1000 years between the first split and the second or that both PIE
1 and PIE 2 could be assigned to a single archaeological culture.
This same point is now made more concretely by Kroonen et al. 2018. They present personal
names recorded ~2500/2400 BC, relating to a country somewhere in Anatolia called Armi.
These names appear to be in an early Anatolian, leading to the conclusion: “... since the
onomastic evidence from Armi is contemporaneous with the Yamnaya culture (3000–2400
BCE), a scenario in which the Anatolian Indo-European language was linguistically derived
from [Proto-]Indo-European speakers originating in this culture can be rejected”.24 These Armi
names are provisionally accepted here as including archaic Anatolian at the proposed date,
though the matter requires further study.
In a lucid overview of ‘The evolutionary history of human populations in Europe’ published on
the internet on 4 May 2018, Iosif Lazaridis writes:
In the next few years this lingering mystery will be solved: either Anatolian speakers will be
shown to possess steppe-related ancestry absent in earlier Anatolians (largely proving the
steppe PIE hypothesis), or they will not (largely falsifying it, and pointing to a Near Eastern
PIE homeland).25
As if to emphasize the pace of discovery, an answer—at least the beginnings of one—came in a
few days rather than a few years with the appearance of the preprint of Damgaard et al. 2018,
publishing evidence of full genomes of 74 ancient individuals, including five deemed probably
to be speakers of Hittite. These five had no Steppe component, nor any EHG ancestry.26
Without further confirmation, it would be premature to see the matter decisively settled at
this point. There are only five individuals. The Hittite Empire of the Late Bronze Age was a
complex, stratified society—a fairly brittle structure that terminally shattered as part of the
widespread upheavals ~1200 BC. The empire contained influential groups with exceptional
political power, specialist expertise, and mercantile wealth. In such a society, individuals who
were not descended from Old Hittite-speaking founders might have seen it as advantageous
Formation of the Indo-European branches [8]
to learn Hittite as a second language and pass it on to their children as a first language, that
is, assuming that Damgaard et al. are right in first place that their five individuals were Hittite
speakers.
Slight though this evidence may be and provisional any conclusions drawn from it, we are
at present looking at falsification of the steppe hypothesis as formulated by Lazaridis rather
than support for it. And though that evidence could be said to support a model of infiltration
by small, culturally influential groups with Steppe ancestry, it could just as well—and more
economically—be used to bolster the case that the PIE 1 homeland was not the Pontic–Caspian
steppe and was not spoken by groups with Steppe or EHG ancestry.
The alternative proposal made by Reich (before Damgaard et al. 2018 was available) appears
viable, as we await further evidence to fill in gaps and reinforce (or not) preliminary findings:
Ancient DNA available from this time in Anatolia shows no evidence of Steppe ancestry
similar to that in the Yamnaya (although the evidence here is circumstantial as no ancient
DNA from the Hittites themselves has yet been published). This suggests to me that the
most likely location of the population that first spoke an Indo-European language was south
of the Caucasus Mountains, perhaps in present-day Iran or Armenia, because ancient DNA
from people who lived there matches what we would expect for a source population both
for the Yamnaya and for ancient Anatolians [i.e. CHG]. If this scenario is right the population
sent one branch up into the steppe—mixing with steppe hunter-gatherers in a one-to-one
ratio to become the Yamnaya … —and another to Anatolia to found the ancestors of people
there who spoke languages such as Hittite.27
Incidentally, on the strength forthcoming genetic evidence mentioned in Kroonen et al. 2018,24
the dynamic and influential Maykop culture of the north-western foothills of the Caucasus
~3700–3000 BC does not look immediately promising as a context for PIE 1, as EHG ancestry
has been found in samples from this culture, unlike the five Hittite individuals of Damgaard et
al.26
If this pattern continues as more samples are sequenced—that is, no Steppe or EHG ancestry
in the genomes of probable Anatolian speakers—more researchers will wish to reopen the
question of how Indo-European is defined. When Hittite was first deciphered over a hundred
years ago,28 its differentness from Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit upset philologists. One reaction
was to model Hittite (and then the Anatolian branch, as the subfamily became known) as a
sister of PIE rather than a daughter.34, 35 This Indo-Hittite theory, which nowadays could more
accurately be called Indo-Anatolian, lost ground in the later 20th century, as fewer linguists
were deeply invested in the painstaking 19th-century Greco-Aryan reconstruction of Proto-
Indo-European. Nonetheless, Indo-Hittite was retained by Hamp,29 and most linguists see
Anatolian as clearly the first branch to separate and uniquely affording insights into an earlier
stage of the proto-language. For many, ‘Indo-Anatolian’ versus ‘Early Indo-European’ is an
arbitrary choice of terminology. The archaeogenetic evidence may now prove decisive in
favouring a shift, if it continues to indicate that the common ancestor of Anatolian and the rest
of the family had been spoken in a different region and by a different population from those
associated with the separate evolution of the residual core following Anatolian’s branching off
[9] Koch | draft
(i.e. PIE 2). If PIE 1 becomes henceforth ‘Indo-Anatolian’, or the like, the hypothesis that the
homeland of Proto-Indo-European was the Pontic–Caspian steppe will possibly be saved by a
terminological sleight of hand, moving the goal posts.
Working hypothesis 2: PIE 2, Afanasievo, and Tocharian
The homeland of PIE 2—following the branching off of Anatolian, but before the branching off
of Tocharian—was the Pontic–Caspian steppe. There was a general close association between
speakers of PIE 2 and users of the Yamnaya material culture and a genetic population with the
Steppe component (~50% EHG : ~50% CHG).
This hypothesis would be supported by affirmative answers to the three questions below.
1. Are the populations associated with the Yamnaya and Afanasievo archaeological
cultures the same (or very closely related) genetically?
2. Is the link between the Tocharian languages and Afanasievo culture secure?
3. Was Tocharian the second branch to separate from Proto-Indo-European?
Current evidence favours all three, but not with equal confidence. The strongest yes is for
question 1. The six Afanasievo individuals sequenced as part of Allentoft et al. 2015 were
virtually indistinguishable from the Yamnaya samples, showing ‘Steppe ancestry’.1 This result
is now confirmed in 20 of 23 Afanasievo individuals in Narasimhan et al. 2018, as well as
subsequent sampling of Yamnaya individuals.30
Turning to question 2, the Afanasievo culture of the Siberian Altai ~3300–2500 BC and the
attested Tocharian language in the Tarim Basin ~500–1000 AD are separated by three millennia
in time and over 1000 kilometres in space. On the other hand, there is no viable alternative
scenario for a how a centum language became established—and seemingly stranded—on the
far side of a vast area of Central, South-west, and South Asia, dominated by satəm Indo-Iranian
languages from the time the earliest of them was attested (as the closely similar Mitanni Indic
and Vedic Sanskrit).8, 24, 31, 32, 33 The publication of a high-coverage genome of typical Yamnaya/
Afanasievo type, dating to ~2900 BC from Karagash in central Kazakhstan,26 bridges the
geographical gap between the main Afanasievo territory and the culture’s suspected Yamnaya
source.
For question 3, the answer yes is provisional—probably the best, but not the only possibility.
That Tocharian is the second branch is not the universal view. Its separation was plotted
further along the tree according to Hamp,29, 31 for example. As explained above, a tree model
is more unambiguously suitable when speech communities split cleanly by migration followed
by abrupt loss of contact across a geographic barrier, as was at least sometimes the case in
the linguistic prehistory of Oceania.11 An alternative scenario in which the rapid expansion of
a language forms a dialect continuum, followed by ongoing contact between neighbouring
dialects with a high degree of mutual intelligibility, will complicate the picture.19, 20 An
innovation could occur in the lexicon, sound system, or morphology of one dialect then spread
to others. If this occurs at a relatively early stage of linguistic prehistory—before most of the
Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 10 ]
innovations distinguishing the languages within the family had occurred—it can be hard to
distinguish such inter-dialect borrowings from shared inheritances. With a language family
as vast and complex as Indo-European, both types of separation—abrupt loss of contact and
prolonged mutual influence within a dialect continuum—probably occurred in various facets
of its history. That means we won’t be comparing like with like. All else being equal, the
daughter language formed by a clean break might look more archaic than a related language
which formed at the same date but stayed in contact with other members of the family. The
latter was in position to share innovations as borrowings. Because the Indo-European that
became Tocharian was geographically widely separated from the rest of the family, with
3000+ kilometres and, as explained below, a non-Indo-European language or languages were
originally in that gap, it is likely that it would be a case of abrupt separation, at least relatively
so. The Indo-European languages of Europe would not be. So, while accepting that the
linguistic evidence supports a model of Tocharian as the second branch to separate from Indo-
European, caution is advisable.
In the case Anatolian, the barrier of the Caucasus Mountains with its non-Indo-European
languages might similarly have caused a clean break with the rest of the family. But for
Anatolian, its differentness from the rest of Indo-European is more clear-cut and the written
evidence is much earlier. It is not credible that all the innovations that distinguish the rest of
Indo-European from Anatolian spread by inter-dialect borrowing.
At present, the available evidence implies an intriguing story in which Pre-Tocharian became
detached from PIE 2 by a long-distance migration across the central Eurasian steppe of
Kazakhstan ~3300–3000 BC when Yamnaya migrants founded Afanasievo in the Altai. Other
recent aDNA findings provide a possible explanation for why so much intermediate grazing
land was bypassed. The clearest evidence for early horse domestication comes from the
pre-agricultural Botai–Tersek culture of the North Kazakh steppe ~3700–3000 BC.11, 36, 37 The
aDNA evidence published by Damgaard et al. 2018 finds that Botai and Yamnaya/Afanasievo
individuals differed greatly genetically. The Botai people did not have Steppe ancestry or either
of its main subcomponents.26 As Botai–Tersek was also wholly unlike Yamnaya/Afanasievo as a
culture,11 it is unlikely that the groups spoke related languages.
Another finding of Damgaard et al. 2018 was that Botai horses were not the ancestors of
other tested ancient populations of domestic horses.26 In other words, this implies a second
centre of domestication. Therefore, it remains possible, on the basis of the genetic evidence,
that a parallel domestication had taken place on the Pontic–Caspian steppe at approximately
the same time, a possibility that further evidence will either confirm or rule out. However, at
present it may be pointed out that the wild horse is a powerful and aggressive animal. Taming
an adult wild stallion is extremely difficult. Therefore, there are reasons of logical economy to
suppose that the horse was not domesticated independently by two groups living near each
other (Yamnaya and Botai–Tersek) at about the same time, but easier to suppose that the
complex skillset arose amongst one group and then passed between the central and western
steppe. In either case, the Yamnaya pastoralists of the western steppe may have found the
specialized herders and hunters of horses on the central steppe difficult to displace or live
beside, so migrated well beyond them to unexploited pastures further east.
[ 11 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 12 ]

Working hypothesis 3: The Beaker expansion and the genetic and linguistic heterogeneity of probably spoke Indo-European. The CWC groups east of the Rhine who came into contact with
the Beaker People Beaker People also had high levels of Steppe ancestry and therefore probably also spoke Indo-
European. The eastern connections of CWC and western genesis of the Beaker Phenomenon
The earliest Beaker package arose amongst speakers of a non-Indo-European language by
means that it is likely that there was a dialect difference.
the Tagus estuary in present-day central Portugal ~2800 BC. Beaker material was adopted by
speakers of Indo-European as it spread east and north from its place of origin.

14
C dates imply that the region around modern Lisbon was the home of the earliest Beaker
package ~2800 BC, including the eponymous ceramic vessel, archery equipment, daggers,
Working hypothesis 4: PIE 6, Corded Ware cultures, Germanic/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, and
and continued or renewed interest in megalith-related funerary practices.38–42, 94 The aDNA
Alteuropäisch
data published by Olalde et al. 2018 shows that individuals associated with Beaker material
were genetically heterogeneous. Most of the sequenced individuals associated with Beaker ~2800–2550 BC the region of Corded Ware cultures (CWC) in northern Europe—bounded
material found in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Switzerland, and Britain had high levels approximately by the Rhine in the west and the Volga in the east—was the territory of an
of the Steppe component. However, of the 32 Beaker-associated individuals from the Iberian Indo-European dialect continuum ancestral to the Indo-Iranian, Balto-Slavic, and Germanic
Peninsula, only 8 showed the Steppe component at all. None of the 5 Beaker individuals from branches. The separation of the Pre-Germanic dialect from Pre-Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian, and
Portugal had any. Most Iberian Beaker men did not have R1b Y chromosomes of any of the its reorientation towards Pre-Italo-Celtic, was the result of Beaker influence in the western CWC
subclades found in Indo-European-speaking areas. The Iberian Beaker People who lacked the area that began ~2550 BC.
Steppe component were of an ancestry closely related to Iberian Neolithic and pre-Beaker
One important finding of Ringe et al. 2002 (a version of whose tree model is Fig. 2 here) is the
Copper Age individuals sequenced in the same study.43, 44
difficulty encountered in seeking the place of Germanic within the first-order subgroupings of
After spreading eastward across Spain, the Beaker package spread rapidly ~2600 BC along the Indo-European. They offer the following plausible explanation, which takes on new meaning in
Atlantic façade and along the North-west Mediterranean to the western Alps. ~2550 BC the light of archaeogenetic evidence.
Beaker Phenomenon entered West-central Europe, spreading into areas where Corded Ware
This split distribution of character states leads naturally to the hypothesis that Germanic
cultures (CWC) were already established, within an area that can be defined as bounded by
was originally a near sister of Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian (possibly before the satem
the Rhine in the west, the Upper Danube in the south and Jutland and the western Baltic in
sound changes spread through that dialect continuum, if that is what happened); that
the north.40, 42 The Beaker Phenomenon reached Britain and Ireland beginning ~2450 BC41, 42, 45
at that very early date it lost contact with its more easterly sisters and came into closer
The Olalde et al. study found a 90% population replacement in Britain at this time, from British
contact with the languages to the west; and that contact episode led to extensive
Neolithic individuals lacking the Steppe component to Beaker associated individuals showing
vocabulary borrowing at a period before the occurrence in any of the languages of any
high levels of it.43 The four individuals sequenced by Cassidy et al. 2016 are consistent with a
distinctive sound changes that would have rendered the borrowing detectable. (p. 111)11
similar dramatic shift in Ireland:
Now that we know both CWC People and the Beaker groups in West-central Europe had high
1) a Rathlin Island cist burial with three Early Bronze Age men (2026–1534 cal BC)
levels of Steppe ancestry, but had followed different histories after their ancestors left the
showing a significant Steppe component, R1b Y chromosome; like modern Irish
Pontic–Caspian steppe, we can contextualize this realignment of dialects. As purely a matter
(Scottish, Welsh) population, the Rathlin men had genes for haemochromatosis, blue
of geographic correspondence, an early Indo-European dialect bloc giving rise to Germanic,
eyes, tall stature, lactase persistence;
Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian strongly suggests the geographic distribution of CWC, especially
2) the Ballynahatty Neolithic woman (3343–3020 cal BC) showed no Steppe component, once we take into account the case for placing the origins of Indo-Iranian in Eastern Europe in
mostly Anatolian Neolithic ancestry (differing from the Neolithic admixture of the Hypothesis 5 below. The R1a Y chromosome also lines up suggestively with this subset of the
Rathlin men) and WHG admixture; overall she was less similar to the modern Irish Indo-European branches.
gene pool and more similar to the Sardinian.46
It has many times been pointed out that the geographic distribution of the Beaker
The Olalde et al. study’s British Beaker People were found to be virtually indistinguishable Phenomenon corresponds approximately, but strikingly, with that of the Ancient Celtic
genetically from its Dutch Beaker People.43 languages. Within the CWC area, the dialect shift that Ringe at al. envision for Pre-Germanic
on purely linguistic evidence has an exact analogue in archaeology. ~2550 BC the Beaker
The above evidence suggests that the first Beaker People along the Lower Tagus spoke a non-
phenomenon entered the CWC area from the west and was henceforth interacted and partly
Indo-European language inherited from earlier inhabitants of the Iberian Peninsula.47 As it
fused with CWC in West-central Europe, in that zone extending as far east as the Middle
then spread north and east, the package was taken up by groups with Steppe ancestry who
Danube and Jutland. These ‘Beakerized’ regions henceforth had reduced contact with non-
[ 13 ] Koch | draft
Beakerized CWC to the east, and entered a cultural sphere with non-CWC areas in the West
with Beaker culture, including the Iberian Peninsula, northern Italy, parts of France, and Britain
and Ireland. Linguistically, these developments may be plausibly interpreted as intensification
of contacts with Pre-Italo-Celtic and reduction of contacts with Pre-Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian.
When the Beaker phenomenon reached the CWC area ~2550 BC, the linguistic result of the
ensuing cultural interaction was to detach Pre-Germanic in the west from the Balto-Slavic/Indo-
Iranian bloc to the east, bringing it into the Italo-Celtic sphere dominant amongst the Indo-
Europeanized Beaker groups.
There is another linguistic phenomenon with a geographic distribution corresponding
strikingly with CWC and necessarily assigned to a time depth pre-dating the Late Bronze Age
and emergence of the post-PIE 2 Indo-European branches as separate languages. This is the
phenomenon of the so-called ‘Old European’ or alteuropäisch river names. The linguistic
earmarks of this early layer of place-names include IE word roots having to do with water and
most often surviving in Baltic languages and the merger of earlier ŏ and ăas ă, as occurred in
Germanic, Balto-Slavic, and Indo-Iranian. Kitson describes the core geographic distribution of
these names as follows.48–53
The contribution of river-names to this argument [about the PIE homeland] is that in
Europe south of the Baltic and north of the Alps and Carpathians, between roughly
the Rhine in the west and perhaps the Don in the east, all ancient river-names are
etymologically alteuropäisch. At least so say the hydronymists, and river-names in the area
have been so intensively studied, and attempts to overturn the assertion have been so
conspicuously unsuccessful, that I think we must take it as established.54 (p. 101)
Although Kitson is arguing here for a North-European homeland for PIE 1, the alteuropäisch
evidence he cites suits PIE 6 (Germanic/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian) linguistically as well as
geographically.
The altoeuropäisch river names remain problematical and controversial for many linguists.
Mallory and Adams’s overviews of Indo-European studies do not include them as a meaningful
category.6, 7 Vennemann has argued that they are ‘Vasconic’, i.e. a prehistoric non-IE
language family ancestral to Basque.57 Kitson’s paper focuses on the alteuropäisch type in
Britain,54, 55 where, like other parts of Europe west of the Rhine, they are found together with
unproblematically Celtic names. Kitson hovers somewhat, hinting at an interpretation of layers
belonging to different Indo-European languages—at first one not on the branch leading to
Celtic then followed by Celtic—but he appears to favour alteuropäisch evolving into Celtic
in Britain, rather than being replaced by it. This process would involve a reinterpretation of
obsolete and opaque names. One example is the recurrent British river-name Derwent, Welsh
Derwennydd. Its original form was PIE *Dreu̯ entiH2- ‘Running [river]’, attested widely on the
Continent as Druentia, &c. (Pokorny *dreu- ‘to run’).58 Becoming opaque, the PIE river-name
was then reinterpreted as a meaningful Celtic *Deru-u̯ ent- ‘[river] with oaks’. This is a plausible
enough explanation, and there is nothing in it requiring that the original river name was coined
in a language other than the PIE dialect that evolved into Brythonic Celtic.
Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 14 ]
Working hypothesis 5: Eastern CWC, Sintashta, Andronovo, and the attested Indo-Iranian
languages
After Pre-Germanic reoriented towards Italo-Celtic, in the context of the Beaker phenomenon in
Central Europe ~2550–2200 BC, the satəm and RUKI linguistic innovations spread through the
remainder of the Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian continuum. The dialect(s) at the eastern end of CWC
developed towards Indo-Iranian. The Abashevo culture between the Don and southern Urals
(~2500–1900 BC) is a likely candidate for the Pre-Indo-Iranian homeland. The Sintashta culture,
east of the southern Urals ~2100–1800 BC, can be identified as a key centre from which an early
stage of Indo-Iranian spread via the Andronovo horizon of central Asia ~2000–1200 BC to South
and South-west Asia by 1500 BC. That Indo-Iranian came as a reflux from north-eastern Europe
(rather than a direct migration from Yamnaya on the Pontic–Caspian steppe) is shown by the
European Middle Neolithic (EMN) ancestry present in Sintashta individuals and carried forward
to Andronovo and South Asian populations.
The hypothesis that the Sintashta culture was the homeland of Indo-Iranian (or specifically
Proto-Indic) developed and gained considerable acceptance on the basis of archaeological
and philological evidence alone, before supporting aDNA data became available.8, 56 The key
archaeogenetic detail is that the signature for most Sintashta individuals has ~68% Steppe
ancestry, ~24% EMN, ~8% West Siberian HG. This profile is thus distinct from Yamnaya/
Afanasievo, which lacks EMN.1, 26 In this light, the Sintashta population cannot be explained as a
result of a primary direct migration by Yamnaya groups on the Pontic–Caspian steppe ~3300–
2400 BC, as is the case with the primary migration giving rise to the Afanasievo population.
This model finds further confirmation in archaeological evidence for the origins of the
Sintashta material culture, which indicates sources in eastern CWC, such as the Fatyanovo
culture ~3200–2300 BC, Middle Dnieper culture ~2800–1800 BC, and most especially the
Abashevo culture between the Middle Don and southern Urals ~2500–1900 BC.56, 8, 59–61, 86, 92, 93
This culture is epitomized by Anthony, as ‘the easternmost of the Russian forest-zone cultures
that were descended from Corded Ware ceramic traditions. The Abashevo culture played an
important role in the origin of Sintashta.’8 Abashevo is identified as the source of Sintashta
metallurgical and ceramic traditions and stock-breeding economy, as well as the key detail of
the disc-shaped cheek pieces characteristic of the distinctive horse gear of Sintashta chariotry.
Sintashta is widely credited with invention of the light-weight war chariot, with two spoked
wheels and tightly controlled two-horse teams. 56, 8, 59–61 The Abashevo people who moved
eastward to found the Sintashta culture were attracted by abundant arsenic-rich copper ores
in Transuralia.59 That Abashevo was associated with an early stage of Indo-Iranian, or already
specifically Proto-Indic, had been proposed on the basis of archaeological evidence together
with the linguistic evidence of ~100 Indo-Iranian loanwords in the Uralic languages and
correspondences between Sintashta burial rites and Vedic religion.86 As I write now, there is no
Abashevo aDNA to confirm or contradict the expectation that its gene pool was the source of
the genetic type found at Sintashta with Steppe + ~24% EMN ancestry.
That genetic signature can be traced forward to sampled individuals of the Sintashta-derived
Andronovo horizon widely spread across Central Asia ~2000–1200 BC and, afterwards, to
genomes of probably Indic-speaking groups in Iron Age South Asia.26, 30 It is present in South
[ 15 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 16 ]
Centum PIE63
Asia today—at higher levels in the North of Pakistan and India and among Indic-speaking
and high-caste Hindu groups. A recently sequenced genome from the Harappan (Indus Valley p t k kw
Civilization) site of Rakhigarhi north-west of Delhi, dating ~2500 BC, shows no Steppe or EMN
(b) d g gw
ancestry, implying that this ancestry entered the northern Subcontinent later than that. The
Rakhigarhi man was of the ‘Ancestral South Indian’ type, more similar to the modern genetic bh dh gh gwh
profile common in southern India and amongst Dravidian speakers.111 Modern South Asian
mitochondrial DNA implies that the Bronze Age immigrants who introduced the Steppe+EMN
component were mostly men.62 Proto-Italo-Celtic (after Schrijver)78
p t k kw
Working hypothesis 6: Non-IE influence in the West and the separation of Celtic from Italo- (b) d g gw
Celtic
β δ γ γw
1. The Beaker phenomenon spread when a non-Indo-European culture and identity from
Atlantic Europe was adopted by speakers of Indo-European with Steppe ancestry
~2550 BC. Proto-Celtic63
2. Interaction between these two languages turned the Indo-European of Atlantic Europe _ t k kw
into Celtic.
b d g gw
3. That this interaction probably occurred in South-west Europe is consistent with
the historical location of the Aquitanian, Basque, and Iberian languages and also
aDNA from Iberia indicating the mixing of a powerful, mostly male instrusive group Michelena’s ‘sistema fonológico principal del vasco antiguo’ follows.
with Steppe ancestry and indigenous Iberians beginning ~2450 BC, rsulting in total
replacement of inmdigenous paternal ancestry with R1b-M269 by ~1900 BC.
Palaeo-Basque 74, 75
4. The older language(s) survived in regions that were not integrated into the Atlantic
fortes: _ t c ć k N L R
Bronze Age network.
lenes: b d s ś g n l r
¶NOTE. This hypothesis should not be construed as a narrowly ‘Out of Iberia’ theory of Celtic.
Aquitanian was north of Pyrenees. Iberian in ancient times and Basque from its earliest
attestation until today are found on both sides of the Pyrenees. The contact area envisioned is
A third parallel is shown in the table of Palaeo-Basque consonants as reconstructed by
Atlantic Europe in general and west of the CWC zone bounded approximately by the Rhine.
Mitxelena above. Opposed series of corresponding strong and weak consonants (fortes and
In separating from Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Celtic developed new features found also lenes) is also a characteristic of the Celtic languages, though it was not an inherited feature
in Palaeo-Basque that can be explained as the result of contact, including the four below. from PIE. Systems of fortis and lenis consonants are found in all medieval and modern Celtic
First, the weakening, followed in most phonetic environments by complete loss, of the PIE languages. This is the phonological basis of the mutations that are a pervasive characteristic
consonant*p in Proto-Celtic is now seen by several historical linguists as the result of contact of the grammars of the Celtic languages.79–81 Lenition is not regularly shown in written Ancient
with languages like the non-Indo-European Iberian and Palaeo-Basque/Aquitanian.63–69 That Celtic languages. However, in texts in the Roman alphabet, it is not uncommon to find
Iberian and Aquitanian were p-less is directly observable in the substantial remains of those etymological p, t, and k standing between vowels in Ancient Celtic forms written as b, d, and
ancient languages.70–72 Linguistic reconstruction applied to the modern Basque language also g, implying that phonetic lenition had already taken place. There is also a structural argument
indicates that Palaeo-Basque lacked *p.74–76 explaining the simplification of the Proto-Celtic consonant system from the Proto-Italo-Celtic
as the result of phonetic lenition: in other words, with the reflexes of PIE */bh dh gh gwh/
Secondly, when the series of stop consonants of Proto-Celtic is compared to that of that of
becoming Italo-Celtic / β δ γ γw/ in all positions, and the Proto-Celtic reflexes of PIE /(b) d
centum PIE and the reflex of this system in Proto-Italo-Celtic in the tables below, an overall
g/ then articulated as [β δ γ] in lenis position, the two series of consonant phonemes were no
reduction of 12 to 7 consonants is seen in the evolution from centum PIE or Proto-Italo-Celtic
longer distinctive enough to be kept separate, which resulted in reductions in the consonant
to Proto-Celtic.77
inventory at the beginning of Proto-Celtic. 95
[ 17 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 18 ]

A fourth detail in which the centum PIE consonant system and that reconstructed for Proto-
Italo-Celtic, on the one hand, differed from those of Palaeo-Basque/Aquitanian, Iberian, and
Proto-Celtic, on the other, is the phoneme */b/. This existed in PIE and in Proto-Italo-Celtic, but
was remarkably rare at those stages, occurring in extremely few words. For this reason, it is
printed in the tables above in parentheses. However, /b/ appears with great frequency in the
written evidence for Aquitanian and Iberian and is reconstructed as part of the basic consonant
system of Palaeo-Basque. */b/ likewise had high frequency in Proto-Celtic, as the high-
frequency centum PIE consonant phonemes */gw/ and */bh/ both became Proto-Celtic */b/.
All of the stop consonants eliminated between centum PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic, on the one
hand, and Proto-Celtic, on the other, were absent also from Palaeo-Basque. Conversely, the
stop consonant */b/ that had been extremely rare in centum PIE and Proto-Italo-Celtic then
became extremely common in Proto-Celtic, as it was likewise in Palaeo-Basque. It follows that
an adult native speaker of a language with a consonant system like that of Palaeo-Basque
would find it easier to learn Proto-Celtic (or a least to master competently this central aspect
of it) than centum PIE or Proto-Italo-Celtic. This transformation of the consonant system is
consistent with a situation in which adult learners of this description were numerous and in a
position to influence Indo-European speech as passed on to the next generation.47, 77
The Steppe component has now been found widely in aDNA samples from Atlantic Europe
(Ireland, Britain, the Iberian Peninsula, and Western France).27, 43, 44, 46, 82–5, 112 It was not present
in the Neolithic or earlier populations of these areas.27, 44, 43, 46, 112 In the various sub-regions the
key transition period appears to be ~4500–4000 years ago.

Figure 3. Zones
of pre-Roman
Indo-European and
non-Indo-European
names in the
Iberian Peninsula:
the dashed green
line shows the
divide, pointing
out group names
with ‘Celt-’ and
the diagnostically
Celtic -briga ‘hill,
hillfort, major town’,
contrasting with
non-IE il(t)i. Some
IE (mostly Celtic) Figure 4. Map illustrating the mutually exclusive distributions of metalwork of the Atlantic Late Bronze Age and
outliers are shown evidence for ancient non-Indo-European languages around the western Mediterranean.
in green.
[ 19 ] Koch | draft
Samples from all sub-regions of the Iberian Peninsula now show a similar pattern in which the
Steppe component appears at this period at relatively low levels and with a strong male bias
(90%+ of the males with any Steppe ancestry have R1b-M269 Y chromosomes).27, 43, 44, 84, 85, 112
Although the Steppe component occurs in autosomal aDNA at somewhat higher percentages
in the North of the Peninsula, the pattern is found both in zones with evidence for Ancient
Celtic languages (that is the zone of place-names with Celtic brigā ‘hillfort’, Fig. 3) and where
non-Indo-European Iberian and Basque languages predominated.47, 112 It is also the pattern in
the modern gene pool of the Basque area, where R1b-M269 predominates amongst Basque
men today.
As shown in Olalde et al. 2019, the changeover occurred ~2450–1900 BC, with no Steppe
ancestry detected before that time. Within that interval, paternal ancestry of both types occur;
indigenous Y chromosomes and R1b-M269 are found in all regions of the Peninsula. Later
in the Bronze Age, there is only R1b-M269. That paper draws highlights the burial of a man
and a woman ~2300–1900 BC in Tomb 4 of the important ritual site of Castillejo del Bonete,
which lies inland in South-central Spain. The 40–50 year-old man had Steppe ancestry; the
30–40 year-old woman had none, but a geneome resembling that of Copper Age Iberians.
Of course, nothing certain can be concluded about the first language of either individual.
But this microcosmic vignette illustrates the genetic transformation that swept the Iberian
Peninsula at this time, and that very probably involved many individual pairings of men whose
first language was Indo-European with women speaking an indigenous non-Indo-European
language. In such cases, it is likely that one or both learned a second language as an adult.
Olalde et al. 2019 also find that Steppe ancestry continued to rise more gradually across all
regions after the Early Bronze Age, and they suggest that gene flow from Central Europe took
place during the Urnfield Late Bronze Age. This is not improbable, though Urnfield did not
reach the North or West of the Pninsula. Another possible factor is that individuals and groups
with more Steppe ancestry tended to enjoy social advantages and were consequently more
successful reproductively over the course of the Bronze Age.
The situation is brodly analogous to parts of South Asia where R1a Y chromosomes, often
found together with Eastern Indo-European languages, are common also in some non-Indo-
European-(Dravidian‑)speaking areas.62 Similarly, the Old Indic from the Mitanni empire (in
present-day northern Syria and Iraq) survives only as the names of kings and gods and horse
and chariot terminology; the incoming warrior élite gave up their ancestral language for non-
Indo-European Hurrian.86 It appears, therefore, that paternal Steppe ancestry was not enough
in and of itself to determine the survival of an intrusive steppe language, i.e. Indo-European.
A continued pattern of contacts with and influences from Indo-European-speaking areas
was also necessary.47 This pattern can be illustrated by comparing the survival of Palaeo-
Basque/Aquitanian73 and Iberian languages87 in South-west Europe to the distribution of
the metalwork that defines the Atlantic Bronze Age (~1300–900 BC)88, 89: these show a direct
inverse relationship (Fig. 4).47
The aDNA evidence from the Iberian Peninsula—specifically a widespread low level of the
Steppe component with a strong male bias27—is consistent with a scenario of substratum
influence from the language of mothers. The pattern reflects a situation in which successive
Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 20 ]
generations of men with Steppe DNA were exceptionally successful in producing offspring with
indigenous Iberian women, who probably spoke an indigenous non-IE language or languages
with a consonant system similar to that of Palaeo-Basque.
On the other hand, the result of Olalde et al. for British Beaker People—which showed a 90%
replacement of the British Neolithic population43—would not lead us to expect substratum
influence on the language of the incoming group. However, the same study also detected
a reduction of Steppe ancestry in samples of the Iron Age and Roman Period from South-
east Britain. One possible explanation is that this reflects a resurgence of surviving Neolithic
ancestry that had remained invisible in the remains available for the British Beaker Period and
Bronze Age. That is what many archaeologists expect, as the high population-replacement
figure was startling, seemingly inconsistent with the less complete break reflected in the
material culture.90, 91 In other words, it may not be only in the Iberian Peninsula that there were
favourable conditions in Atlantic Europe for indigenous languages to have had an impact on
the incoming Indo-European.
Working hypothesis 7: The origins of Basque
1. The prehistoric ancestor of the Basque language was already in SW Europe when Indo-
European speakers with Steppe ancestry arrived in the Early Bronze Age (~4500–4000
BP).
2. That prehistoric non-IE language could go back to the First Farmers from Anatolia
(arriving (~7500 BP).
3. However, Iberian aDNA shows Western Hunter-Gather (WHG) admixture—so a
linguistic continuity from the Mesolithic or Palaeolithic cannot be immediately ruled
out.
4. Comparative evidence for other pre-IE languages in Europe and Anatolia may help to
decide. In other words, was the language of the First Farmers related to Basque?
As formulated by Renfrew, the Anatolian Hypothesis of PIE origins envisioned Indo-European
reaching Western Europe, brought by the First Farmers of Anatolian ancestry (arriving ~5500
BC in Iberia), and their language then evolved into Celtic in situ there.96, 97, 100 By default, that
would push the origins of Basque back before farming, to WHG. Now that archaeogenetic
evidence consistent with the steppe hypothesis is known and reveals in particular the arrival
of a large and dynamic group of newcomers related to other Indo-European speakers ~2500–
2000 BC, the linguistic forebears of pre-IE Basque can be moved forward to the available
slot of the First Farmers. That is the least problematical solution. A key element of Renfrew’s
original reasoning remains compelling: if the First Farmers expanded across Europe from a
compact homeland in the Near East, it is likely that they introduced a single new language or
a single family of closely related languages. In that much, the new aDNA evidence has actually
confirmed Renfrew’s hypothesis in showing that the First Farmers in Europe were associated
with a specific genetic type.1, 2, 106, 107, 109
[ 21 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 22 ]

Figure 5. Map showing developments before ~4500 BP: 1) primary outward migration from Yamnaya on
the Pontic–Caspian steppe, bringing with it the genetic steppe component and PIE 2 speech to found
CWC in northern Europe and Afanasievo in the Siberian Altai; 2) the Proto-Beaker package spreads
by sea from its origin in the Tagus estuary to Brittany and Mediterranean France. In Figures 5 and 6,
straight sans-serif type indicates archaeological cultures, italic sans-serif type indicates linguistic stages,
and straight serif type indicates genetic structure.

However, the Neolithic Iberians were not of pure Anatolian Neolithic ancestry, but also show
WHG admixture.44, 85 It could be possible to judge better whether or not a pre-Neolithic source
in Western Europe is a remote possibility for the Basque language through further research in
three areas.
First, additional gauging of WHG admixture: as more genomes at higher resolution become
available, we will gain a clearer idea of the degree of survival of pre-Neolithic population in
South-west Europe. The structure as well as the quantity of WHG admixture is meaningful. Was
it more often family groups of farmers who advanced into Mesolithic Europe or pioneering
single men? It is conceivable that mitochondrial DNA will reveal the reverse. Had there been a
division of labour like that common amongst indigenous societies of eastern North America, in
which men hunted and fished while keeping crops was largely the domain of women, farming
knowhow might have spread with women who paired with hunters outside their kindred.
Second, the building of megalithic monuments was a distinctive cultural feature that, to a
certain extent at least, united Neolithic Atlantic Europe as a region and distinguished it from
other parts of Neolithic Europe.40, 101 Where did this tradition come from? Were its origins pre-
Neolithic? Recent work by Schulz Paulsson supports the case that monumental earthen burials
began in North-west France ~5000 BC, then spread from the Paris Basin to Brittany (Carnac),
by ~4800 BC. The earliest megalith building arose there in the following centuries, then spread
by sea. For Brittany this dating is early enough to allow that the ideology and practice might
precede farming.102 Of course, these two points—WHG admixture and possible pre-Neolithic
origins for megalithism—are circumstantial and only suggestive rather than decisive regarding
possible WHG origins for the Basque language.
Linguistic evidence could be more decisive. In this last area, we might make progress with
a detailed comparison of Basque, the closely related Aquitanian, and typologically similar
Iberian, on the one hand, and traces of other non-IE languages, following back eastwards
[ 23 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 24 ]

Figure 6. Map showing developments after ~4500 BP: 1) reflux of from north-eastern Europe
bringing with it Proto-Indo-Iranian from PIE 6 and a genetic signature with ~68% steppe
component and ~24% MNE; this genetic signature and Indo-Iranian speech subsequently spread
from the Sintashta culture eastward to the Andronovo horizon and thence to South Asia; 2) the
reflux of the Bell Beaker Complex westward from west-central Europe, bringing with it a form of
Indo-European speech, probably Pre-Italo-Celtic.

along the route farming took from Anatolia—thus studying Palaeo-Sardinian, Etruscan and
Rhaetian, Minoan and the pre-Greek words and names in the Aegean,103 Eteo-Cypriot,104 and
in Anatolia itself Hattic105 and Hurrian106, as well as the better known Semitic and Caucasian
language families. Such a programme would certainly be a challenge and possibly fruitless.
There are known pitfalls and numerous widely disbelieved attempts to connect Basque with
several of these languages.75 It would require sustained effort to push past the superficial. But a
rigorous project along these lines might uncover evidence for one non-IE language or family of
languages spreading west with farming. Or, with the reverse outcome, such research could give
us a clearer idea whether non-IE languages in the West look fundamentally unlike those in and
nearer to Anatolia? Continuity or discontinuity? If the former case, that would be consistent
with deriving Basque from the language of the First Farmers. A clear case of the latter would be
consistent with the hypothesis deriving Basque from a WHG language.
Conclusion
From about 500 BC written history achieves a much wider awareness of Eurasia and its
peoples, opening a new window onto non-literate groups in the North. At this time the two
most extensive branches are documented at opposite ends of the Indo-European world. In
the West, stretching from the Atlantic to Central Europe, was Celtic. Indo-Iranian extended far
eastwards to the great mountain ranges in the middle of Asia—the Altai, Tian Shan, Pamirs,
Hindu Kush, and Himalayas. As Celts and Iranian-speaking Scythians, the two branches met
along the Danube. This cultural confrontation gave rise to the systematized Classical view of a
northern barbaricum divided between Celts in the West and Scythians in the East.
Archaeogenetic evidence published in 201826, 43 shows that the Botai–Tersek culture (~3700–
3100 BC on the North Kazakhstan steppe, credited with first domestication of the horse37,
110
) and the Proto-Beaker package (~2800 BC on the Tagus estuary in central Portugal) arose
amongst populations genetically unrelated to their contemporaries on the Pontic–Caspian
[ 25 ] Koch | draft Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 26]

steppe. From this, it is inferred that the Botai–Tersek and Proto-Beaker People probably spoke Slavic/Indo-Iranian, then that was the scene of cultural fission and an emerging barrier. As
non-Indo-European languages. the passage quoted above from Ringe et al. 2002 implies, communication broke down to the
degree that the satəm and RUKI innovations were not communicated to western CWC. New
In Hypotheses 3 and 5 above, it is argued that the migrations that resulted in the vast extents
ideas and vocabulary came from the West, areas with Beaker culture and Pre-Italo-Celtic
of these two branches took place after ~2500 BC. They were not the immediate effects of the
speech. With this estrangement in the West, it is understandable the eastern groups with
primary gene flow from the Yamnaya Pontic–Caspian steppe ~3100–2700 BC, but secondary
CWC-derived cultures, such as Abashevo, turned their attention to the country beyond the
refluxes some centuries later, pushing out at either end of Corded Ware in northern Europe,
Urals with its abundant copper resources and tradition of intensive horse husbandry going
between the Rhine and Volga. In the West, an innovative version of the Beaker package
back to Botai–Tersek.
expanded, returning westward, including new movements into Britain and Ireland. These
issued from the Beaker–CWC fusion zone by the Lower Rhine. The genetic populations
associated with the Beaker Package were heterogeneous, and it is argued here that they were
Acknowledgements
linguistically heterogeneous likewise—beginning amongst probable non-Indo-Europeans in
Iberia, then adopted by speakers of Pre-Italo-Celtic PIE north and east of the Pyrenees, then This draft benefited from comments made by participants at the ‘Genes, Isotopes and Artefacts’
coming into contact with Pre-Germanic/Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian when they settled alongside conference held at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in December 2018, including Catherine Frieman,
Anthony Harding, Kristian Kristiansen, Sabine Reinhold, Natalia Shishlina, Martin Sikora, and Alan
western CWC groups, east of the Rhine. Apart from the ambiguous evidence of some probably Williams, also from Martin Richards who commented on a draft.
alteuropäisch names west of the CWC zone, most of the linguistic evidence associated with this
reflux is Celtic.
On the eastern end of the CWC, Abashevo can be seen as the main forebear of Sintashta on
the Transural steppe. Sintashta was itself the forerunner of the vastly extensive Andronovo
horizon of western Central Asia. That Sintashta’s founders represented a reflux of a group of References
Kunst, P. Kuznetsov, H. Meller, O. Mochalov, V.
Steppe background returning from northern Europe is indicated by a genetic profile ~68% 1 Allentoft, M. E., M. Sikora, K.-G. Sjögren, S. Moiseyev, N. Nicklisch, S. L. Pichler, R. Risch,
Steppe ancestry, ~24% EMN, ~8% West Siberian HG. Rasmussen, M. Rasmussen, J. Stenderup, P. B. M. A. Rojo Guerra, C. Roth, A. Szécsényi-
Damgaard, H. Schroeder, T. Ahlström, L. Vinner, Nagy, J. Wahl, M. Meyer, J. Krause, D. Brown,
The chief competitive advantages behind both the western and eastern reflux expansions
A.-S. Malaspinas, A. Margaryan, T. Higham, D. Anthony, A. Cooper, K. W. Alt, & D. Reich
were technologies of mobility. Whatever the appeal had been of the communal drinking of the D. Chivall, N. Lynnerup, L. Harvig, J. Baron, 2015 ‘Massive migration from the steppe
Beaker People, their ideal of warrior as bowman, and burial rites harking back to the Atlantic Ph. Della Casa, P. Dąbrowski, P. R. Duffy, A. V. was a source for Indo-European languages in
megalithic past, the Proto-Beaker homeland on the lower Tagus and the rapid expansion by sea Ebel, A. Epimakhov, K. Frei, M. Furmanek, T. Europe’, Nature 522, 207-11.
to Brittany and southern France imply an advanced skillset for the high seas. The ‘Maritime’ Gralak, A. Gromov, S. Gronkiewicz, G. Grupe, T. 3 Gimbutas, M. 1970 ‘Proto-Indo-European
Beaker culture arose from a deep background within interconnected Atlantic Megalithic Hajdu, R. Jarysz, V. Khartanovich, A. Khokhlov, Culture: The Kurgan Culture During the 5th to
cultures, which included those of Ireland and Britain. Advanced seafaring is something the V. Kiss, J. Kolář, A. Kriiska, I. Lasak, C. Longhi, the 3rd millennia BC’, Indo-European and Indo-
speakers of Proto-Indo-European on the Pontic–Caspian steppe had lacked, but needed to G. McGlynn, A. Merkevicius, I. Merkyte, M. Europeans, ed. G. Cardona, H. M. Koenigswald
take up new lands in Atlantic Europe. It is not an accident that it was with the Beaker People Metspalu, R. Mkrtchyan, V. Moiseyev, L. Paja, & A. Senn, 155–98. Philadelphia, University of
G. Pálfi, D. Pokutta, Ł. Pospieszny, T. D. Price, Pennsylvania Press.
that Steppe ancestry—probably together with Indo-European speech—first reached Britain
L. Saag, M. Sablin, N. Shishlina, V. Smrčka, 4 Gimbutas, M. 1981 ‘The Three Waves of the
and Ireland. Whatever else we make of the figure of 90% population replacement in Britain V. I. Soenov, V. Szeverényi, G. Tóth, S. V. Kurgan People into Old Europe, 4500–2500
between the Neolithic and Beaker Age,43 we must recognize a group capable of moving en Trifanova, L. Varul, M. Vicze, L. Yepiskoposyan, BC’, Anthropologie et archéologie: le cas
masse over rough seas within a limited time span. V. Zhitenev, L. Orlando, T. Sicheritz-Pontén, des premiers âges des Métaux. Actes du
S. Brunak, R. Nielsen, K. Kristiansen & E. Symposium de Sils-Maria, 25–30 septembre
The expansion in the east is analogous. But in this case the technological advance emerged
Willerslev 2015 ‘Population genomics of 1978, Archives Suisses Anthr. Générale 43,
for navigating the oceanically vast steppes. This is an advance that is not inferred but directly Bronze Age Eurasia’, Nature 522, 167–72. 2ed. R. Menk, A. Gallay, 113–37.
observable in the archaeological evidence for Sintashta as the epicentre of the horse and 2 Haak, W., I. Lazaridis, N. Patterson, N. 5 Mallory, J. P. 1989 In Search of the Indo-
chariot revolution. Rohland, S. Mallick, B. Llamas, G. Brandt, Europeans: Language, Archaeology and Myth.
S. Nordenfelt, E. Harney, K. Stewardson, London, Thames and Hudson.
In their symmetry, the Beaker expansion and that of Indo-Iranian chariot warriors were
Q. Fu, A. Mittnik, E. Bánffy, C. Economou, 6 Mallory, J. P., & D. Q. Adams (eds.) 1997
possibly linked, though indirectly, as cause and effect. If the proposal is correct that the zone M. Francken, S. Friederich, R. G. Pena, F. Encylopedia of Indo-European Culture.
of Beaker/CWC overlap in Central Europe was where Pre-Germanic separated from Pre-Balto- Hallgren, V. Khartanovich, A. Khokhlov, M. Chicago & London, Fitzroy Dearborn.
[ 27 ] Koch | draft
7 Mallory, J. P., & D. Q. Adams 2006 The Oxford
Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the
Proto-Indo-European World. Oxford, Oxford
University Press.
8 Anthony, D. W. 2007 The Horse, the Wheel,
and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from
the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern
World, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
9 Anthony, D. W., & D. Ringe 2015 ‘The
Indo-European Homeland from Linguistic
and Archaeological Perspectives’, Annual
Review of Linguistics 1, 199-219. https://doi.
org/10.1146/annurev-linguist-030514-124812
10 Anthony, D. W. & D. R. Brown 2017 ‘Molecular
archaeology and Indo-European linguistics:
Impressions from new data’, Usque as radices:
Indo-European studies in honour of Birgit
Anette Olsen, Copenhagen Studies in Indo-
European 8, eds. B. S. S. Hansen, A. Hyllested,
A. R. Jørgensen, G. Kroonen, J. H. Larsson, B.
N. Whitehead, T. Olander, T. M. Søborg, 25–54.
Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum Press.
11 Ringe, D., T. Warnow, & A. Taylor 2002 ‘Indo-
European and Computational Cladistics’,
Transactions of the Philological Society 100/1,
59–129.
12 Gray, R. D. & Q. Atkinson 2003 ‘Language-
Tree Divergence Times Support the Anatolian
Theory of Indo-European Origin’, Nature
426, 435–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/
nature02029
13 Atkinson, Q. D. , G. Nicholls, D. Welch, & R.
D. Gray 2005 ‘From Words to Dates: ‘Water
into Wine, Mathemagic or Phylogenetic
Inference?’ Transactions of the Philological
Society 103, 193–219 http://dx.doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467968X.2005.00151
14 Pagel, M. & A. Meade 2006 ‘Estimating Rates
of Lexical Replacement on Phylogenetic Trees
of Languages’, Phylogenetic methods and
the prehistory of languages, ed. P. Forster &
C. Renfrew, 173–82, Cambridge, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Re­search
15 Bouckaert, R., P. Lemey, M. Dunn, S.J.
Greenhill, A. V. Alekseyenko, A. J. Drummond,
R. D. Gray, M. A. Suchard & Q. D. Atkinson
2012 ‘Mapping the Origins and Expansion of
the Indo-European Language Family’, Science
337, 957–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1219669
16 Bouckaert, R., P. Lemey, M. Dunn, S.J.
Greenhill, A. V. Alekseyenko, A. J. Drummond,
R. D. Gray, M. A. Suchard & Q. D. Atkinson
2013 ‘Correction to: Mapping the Origins and
Expansion of the Indo-European Language
Family’, Science 342, 1446.
17 Heggarty, P. 2014 ‘Prehistory by Bayesian Phylo­
genetics? The State of the Art on Indo-European
Origins’, Antiquity 88, 566–77. http://antiquity.
ac.uk/ant/088/ant0880566.htm.
18 Chang, W., C. Cathcart, D. Hall, & A. Garrett 2015
‘Ancestry-Constrained Phylogenetic Analysis
Supports the Indo-European Steppe Hypothesis’,
Language 91/ 1, 194–244.
19 Garrett, A. 1999 ‘A new model of Indo-
European subgrouping and dispersal’,
Proceedings of the Twenty-Fifth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society,
February 12–15, 1999, ed. S. S. Chang, L. Liaw,
J. Ruppenhofer, 146–56. Berkeley, Berkeley
Linguistics Society.
20 Garrett, A. 2006 ‘Convergence in the
Formation of Indo-European Subgroups:
Phylogeny and Chronology’, Phylogenetic
Methods and the Prehistory of Languages, ed.
P. Forster & C. Renfrew, McDonald Institute
Monographs, 139–51. Cambridge, McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research.
21 Koch, J. T. 2013a ‘Out of the Flow and Ebb of
the European Bronze Age. Heroes, Tartessos,
and Celtic’, Celtic from the West 2. Rethinking
the Bronze Age and the Arrival of Indo-
European in Atlantic Europe, Celtic Studies
Publications XVI, eds. J. T. Koch & B. Cunliffe,
101–146. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
22 Schleicher, A. 1861/1862 Compendium
der vergleichenden Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen. (Kurzer Abriss
der indogermanischen Ursprache, des
Altindischen, Altiranischen, Altgriechischen,
Altitalischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen,
Litauischen und Altdeutschen.) (2 vols.)
Weimar, H. Boehlau; reprinted by Minerva
GmbH, Wissenschaftlicher Verlag.
23 Mallory, J. P. 2013 ‘The Indo-Europeanization
of Atlantic Europe’, Celtic from the West 2:
Rethinking the Bronze Age and the Arrival
Formation of the Indo-European branches
of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe, Celtic
Studies Publications 16, eds J. T. Koch & B.
Cunliffe, 17–40, Oxford, Oxbow Book.
24 Kroonen, G., G. Barjamovic, & M. Peyrot
2018 ‘Linguistic supplement to Damgaard
et al. 2018: Early Indo-European languages,
Anatolian, Tocharian and Indo-Iranian’.
25 Lazaridis, I. 2018 ‘The evolutionary history
of human populations in Europe’, Current
Opinion in Genetics & Development 53, 21–
27.
26 Damgaard, P. de Barros, R. Martiniano, J.
Kamm, J. V. Moreno-Mayar, G. Kroonen,
M. Peyrot, G. Barjamovic, S. Rasmussen, C.
Zacho, N. Baimukhanov, V. Zaibert, V. Merz, A.
Biddanda, I. Merz, V. Loman, V. Evdokimov, E.
Usmanova, B. Hemphill, A. Seguin-Orlando, F.
E. Yediay, I. Ullah, K.-G. Sjögren, K. H.Iversen, J.
Choin, C. de la Fuente, M. Ilardo, H. Schroeder,
V. Moiseyev, A. Gromov, A. Polyakov, S. Omura,
S. Y. Senyurt, H. Ahmad, C. McKenzie, A.
Margaryan, A. Hameed, A. Samad, N. Gul, M.
H. Khokhar, O. I. Goriunova, V. I. Bazaliiskii,
J. Novembre, A. W. Weber, L. Orlando, M. E.
Allentoft, R.Nielsen, K. Kristiansen, M. Sikora,
A. K. Outram, R. Durbin, E. Willerslev 2018
‘The first horse herders and the impact of
early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia’,
Science 10.1126/science.aar7711
27 Reich, D. 2018 Who We Are and How We Got
There, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
28 Hrozný, B. 1915 ‘Die Lösung des hethitischen
Problems’, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 56, 17–50.
29 Hamp, E. P. (with D. Q. Adams) 2013 The
Expansion of the Indo-European Languages:
An Indo-Europeanist’s Evolving View, Sino-
Platonic Papers 239, Philadelphia, Department
of East Asian Languages and Civilizations,
University of Pennsylvania.
30 Narasimhan, V. M. , N. Patterson, P.
Moorjani, I. Lazaridis, M. Lipson, S. Mallick,
N. Rohland, R. Bernardos, A. M. Kim, N.
Nakatsuka, I. Olalde, A. Coppa, J. P. Mallory,
V. Moiseyev, J. Monge, L. M. Olivier, N.
Adamski, N. Broomandkhoshbacht, F.
Candilio, O. Cheronet, B. J. Culleton, M.
Ferry, D. Fernandes, B. Gamarra, D. Gaudio,
[ 28]
M. Hajdinjak, É. Harney, T. K. Harper, D.
Keating, A. M. Lawson, M. Michel, M.
Novak, J. Oppenheimer, N. Rai, K. Sirak, V.
Slon, K. Stewardson, Z. Zhang, G. Akhatov,
A. N. Bagashev, B. Baitanayev, G. L. Bonora,
T. Chikisheva, A. Derevianko, E. Dmitry, K.
Douka, N. Dubova, A. Epimakhov, S. Freilich,
D. Fuller, A. Goryachev, A. Gromov, B. Hanks,
M. Judd, E. Kazizov, A. Khokhlov, E. Kitov,
E. Kupriyanova, P. Kuznetsov, D. Luiselli, F.
Maksudov, C. Meiklejohn, D. Merrett, R.
Micheli, O. Mochalov, Z. Muhammed, S.
Mustafokulov, A. Nayak, R. M. Petrovna, D.
Pettener, R. Potts, D. Razhev, S. Sarno, K.
Sikhymbaeva, S. M. Slepchenko, N. Stepanova,
S. Svyatko, S. Vasilyev, M. Vidale1, D. Voyakin,
A. Yermolayeva, A. Zubova, V. S. Shinde, C.
Lalueza-Fox, M. Meyer, D. Anthony, N. Boivin,
K. Thangaraj, D. J. Kennett1, M. Frachetti,
R. Pinhasi, D. Reich 2018 ‘The Genomic
Formation of South and Central Asia’, bioRxiv
preprint first posted online Mar. 31, 2018; doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/292581
31 Hamp, E. P. 1998 ‘Whose were the
Tocharians?’ The Bronze Age and Early Iron
Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, ed. V. H.
Mair, vol 1, 307–46. Journal of Indo-European
Studies Monograph 26. Washington DC,
Institute of the Study of Man.
32 Mallory, J. P. 2015. The problem of Tocharian
origins: An archaeological perspective, Sino-
Platonic Papers 259. Philadelphia,: University
of Pennsylvania. [www.sino-platonic.org]
33 Mallory, J. P., & V. H. Mair 2000 The Tarim
Mummies: Ancient China and the mystery of
the earliest peoples from the West. London,
Thames & Hudson.
34 Sturtevant, E. H. (with E. Adelaide Hahn)
1951 Comparative Grammar of the Hittite
Language. Rev. ed. New Haven,Yale University
Press. First edition: 1933.
35 Oettinger, N. 2013–2014 ‘Die Indo-Hittite-
Hypothese aus heutiger Sicht’, Münchener
Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 67(2): 149–76.
36 Anthony, D. W. & D. R. Brown 2003 ‘Eneolithic
horse rituals and riding in the steppe: New
evidences’, prehistoric adaptation and the
horse, eds. M/ G. Levin, C. Renfrew, & K.
[ 29 ] Koch | draft
Boyle, 55–65. Oxford, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
37 Outram, A. K. et al. 2009 ‘The Earliest Horse
Harnessing and Milking’, Science, 323: 1332–
1335, doi:10.1126/science.1168594
38 Case, H. 2007 ‘Beakers and the Beaker
Culture’, Beyond Stonehenge: Essays on the
Bronze Age in honour of Colin Burgess, eds. C.
Burgess, P. Topping, F. Lynch, 237–54. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
39 Harrison, R. J. & V. Heyd 2007 ‘The
Transformation of Europe in the Third
Millennium BC: the Example of ‘Le Petit-
Chasseur I + III’ (Sion, Valais, Switzerland)’,
Prähistorische Zeitschrift, Band S, 129–214.
40 Cunliffe, B. 2010 ‘Celticization from the West:
The Contribution of Archaeology’, Celtic
from the West. Alternative Perspectives
from Archaeology, Genetics, Language and
Literature, Celtic Studies Publications 15, eds.
B. Cunliffe & J. T. Koch, 13–38. Oxford, Oxbow
Books.
41 Fitzpatrick, A. P. 2013 ‘The Arrival of the Bell
Beaker Set in Britain and Ireland’, Celtic from
the West 2. Rethinking the Bronze Age and the
Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe,
Celtic Studies Publications XVI, eds. J.T. Koch &
B. Cunliffe, 41–70. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
42 Cleary, K. & C. Gibson 2019 ‘Connectivity
in Atlantic Europe during the Bronze Age
(2800–800 BC)’, Exploring Celtic Origins: New
ways forward in archaeology, linguistics,
and genetics, Celtic Studies Publications 22,
eds. B. Cunliffe & J. T. Koch, 80–116. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
43 Olalde, I., S. Brace, M. Allentoft, I. Armit,
K. Kristiansen, N. Rohland, S. Mallick,
T. Booth, A. Szécsényi-Nagy, E. Altena,
M. Lipson, I. Lazaridis, N. Patterson, N.
Broomandkhoshbacht, Y. Diekmann, Z.
Faltyskova, D. Fernandes, M. Ferry, E.
Harney, P. de Knijff, M. Michel, A. Mittnik, J.
Oppenheimer, K. Stewardson, A. Barclay, K. W.
Alt, A. Avilés Fernández, E. Banffy, M. Bernabò-
Brea, D. Billoin, C. Blasco, C. Bonsall, L. Bonsall,
O. E. Craig, G. Cook, B. Cunliffe, A. Denaire,
M. Ernée, M. Kuchařík, J. F. Farré, H. Fokkens,
M. Gazenbeek, R. Garrido Pena, M. Haber-
Uriarte, P. Lefranc, O. Lemercier, A. Lefebvre,
J. Lomba Maurandi, T. Majó, J. I. McKinley, K.
McSweeney, B. G. Mende, A. Modi, G. Kulcsár,
V. Kiss, A. Czene, R. Patay, A. Endrődi, K. Köhler,
T. Hajdu, J. Cardoso, C. Liesau, M. Parker-
Pearson, P. Włodarczak, T. D. Price, P. Prieto,
P.-J. Rey, P. Ríos, R. Risch, M. A. Rojo Guerra, A.
Schmitt, J. Serralongue, A. M. Silva, V. Smrcka,
L. Vergnaud, J. Zilhão, D. Caramelli, T. Higham,
P. W. Stockhammer, V. Heyd, A. Sheridan,
K.-G. Sjögren, M. G. Thomas, R. Pinhasi, J.
Krause, W. Haak, I. Barnes, C. Lalueza-Fox, &
D. Reich 2017 ‘The Beaker Phenomenon and
the Genomic Transformation of Northwest
Europe’, bioRxiv 135962. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1101/135962.
44 Valdiosera, C., T. Günther, J. C. Vera-Rodríguez,
I. Ureña, E. Iriarte, R, Rodríguez-Varela, L,
G. Simões, R. M. Martínez-Sánchez, E. M.
Svensson, H. Malmström, L. Rodríguez, J.-
M.a Bermúdez de Castro, E. Carbonell, A.
Alday, J. A. Hernández Vera, A. Götherström,
J.-M. Carretero, J. L. Arsuaga, C. I. Smith, M.
Jakobsson 2018 ‘Four millennia of Iberian
biomolecular prehistory illustrate the impact
of prehistoric migrations at the far end of
Eurasia’, Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences Mar 2018, 115 (13) 3428–3433,
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1717762115.
45 O’Brien, W. 2004 Ross Island: Mining, Metal
and Society in Early Ireland, Bronze Age
Studies 6. Galway, National University of
Ireland.
46 Cassidy, L. M., R. Martiniano, E. M. Murphy,
M. D. Teasdale, J. Mallory, Barrie Hartwell, &
D. G. Bradley 2016 ‘Neolithic and Bronze Age
migration to Ireland and establishment of the
insular Atlantic genome’, PNAS [Proc. National
Academy of Sciences USA] 113/2, 368–73.
47 �Koch, J. T., with F. Fernández Palacios 2019
‘A case of identity theft? Archaeogenetics,
Beaker People, and Celtic origins’, Exploring
Celtic Origins: New ways forward in
archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, Celtic
Studies Publications 22, eds. B. Cunliffe & J. T.
Koch, 38–79. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
48 Krahe, H. 1962. Die Struktur der
alteuropäischen Hydronymie. Wiesbaden:
Steiner.
Formation of the Indo-European branches
49 Krahe, H. 1964. Unsere ältesten Flußnamen,
Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz.
50 Bichlmeier, H. 2011 ‘Einige grundsätzliche
Überlegungen zum Verhältnis von
Indogermanistik und voreinzelsprachlicher
resp. alteuropäischer Namenkunde
mit einigen Fallbeispielen (Moderne
Indogermanistik vs. traditionelle
Namenkunde, Teil 1)’, Namenkundliche
Informationen 95/96, 2009, 173–208.
51 Bichlmeier, H. 2012 ‘Anmerkungen
zum terminologischen Problem der
‚alteuropäischen Hydronymie’ samt
indogermanistischen Ergänzungen
zum Namen der Elbe’, Beiträge zur
Namenforschung, Neue Folge 47/4, 365–95.
52 Bichlmeier, H. 2013 ‘Analyse und Bewertung
der sprachwissenschaft­lichen Standards
aktueller Forschungen traditioneller Art
zur ‚alteuropäischen Hydronymie’ aus der
Perspektive der heutigen Indogermanistik’,
Namenkundliche Informationen
101/102, 397–437. (online unter: www.
namenkundliche-informationen.de)
53 Schmid, W. P. 1998 ‘Das baltische Zentrum in
der alteuropaischen Hydronymie’, Baltistica
33(2), 145–53.
54 Kitson, P. R. 1996 ‘British and European
River-Names’, Transactions of the Philological
Society 94/2, 73–118.
55 Nicolaisen, W. F. H. 2008 ‘On River-names
in the Scottish Landscape’, A Commodity of
Good Names: Essays in Honour of Margaret
Gelling, eds. O. J. Padel, D. Parsons, 233–8.
Donnington, Tyas.
56 Kuz’mina, E. E. 2007 The Origin of the
Indo-Iranians, ed. J. P. Mallory, Leiden Indo-
European Etymological Dictionary Series 3.
Leiden/Boston, Brill.
57 Vennemann, T. 1994 ‘Linguistic reconstruction
in the context of European prehistory’,
Transactions of the Philological Society 92,
215–84.
58 Pokorny, J. 2002 Indogermanisches
etymologisches Wörterbuch. 4th ed. 2 vols.
Tübingen, A. Francke.
59 Cunliffe, B. 2015 By Desert, Steppe, & Ocean:
The birth of Eurasia. Oxford, Oxford University
[ 30]
Press.
60 Kohl, P. 2007 The Making of Bronze Age
Eurasia. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
61 Koryakova L. & A. Epimakhov 2007 The Urals
and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron
Ages. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
62 Silva, M., M. Oliveira, D. Vieira, A. Brandão,
T. Rito, J. B. Pereira, R. M. Fraser, B. Hudson,
F. Gandini, C. Edwards, M. Pala, J. Koch, J. F.
Wilson, L. Pereira, M. B. Richards, P. Soares
2017 ‘A genetic chronology for the Indian
Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased
dispersals’, BMC Evolutionary Biology 17:88.
63 McCone, K. R. 1996 Towards a Relative
Chronology of Ancient and Medieval Celtic
Sound Change. Maynooth Studies in Celtic
Linguistics I. Department of Old and Middle
Irish, St Patrick’s College, Maynooth.
64 Ballester, X. 2004 ‘Hablas indoeuropeas y
anindoeuropeas en la Hispania prerromana’,
Real Academia de Cultura Valenciana, sección
de estudios ibéricos. Estudios de lenguas y
epigrafía antiguas – ELEA 6, 107–38.
65 Ballester, X. 2012 Falas Indo-Europeias e
Anindo-Europeias na Hispânia Pré-Romana.
Lisboa, Apenas Livros.
66 Jordán Cólera, C. 2005 Celtibérico, Zaragoza,
Ediciones del Departamento de Ciencias de la
Antigüedad.
67 Koch, J. T. 2011 Tartessian 2: The Inscription
of Mesas do Castelinho, ro and the Verbal
Complex, Preliminaries to Historical Phonology.
Aberystwyth: University of Wales Centre for
Advanced Welsh and Celtic Studies.
68 Schrijver, P. 2015 ‘Pruners and Trainers of the
Celtic Family Tree: the Rise and Development
of Celtic in the Light of Language Contact’,
Proc. XIV International Congress of Celtic
Studies, Maynooth 2011, ed. L. Breatnach, R.
Ó hUiginn, D. McManus, K. Simms, 191-219.
Dublin, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies.
69 Vennemann, T. 2016 ‘Celtic as Vasconized Indo-
European? Three Structural Arguments’, Celtic
from the West 3, eds. J. T. Koch, B. Cunliffe,
K. Cleary, C. Gibson, 503–32. Oxford, Oxbow
Books.
70 Untermann, J. (ed.) 1980 Monumenta
[ 31 ] Koch | draft
Linguarum Hispanicarum II. Die Inschriften
in iberischer Schrift aus Südfrankreich.
Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert.
71 Untermann, J. (ed.) 1990 Monumenta
Linguarum hispanicarum III.: Die iberischen
Inschriften aus Spanien. Wiesbaden, Ludwig
Reichert.
72 Gorrochategui Churruca, J. 1984 Estudio
sobre la onomástica indigena de Aquitania.
Bilbao, Servicio Editorial Universidad del País
Vasco.
73 Gorrochategui Churruca, J. 2013 ‘Linguistisque
et peuplement en Aquitania’, L’âge du Fer
en Aquitaine et sur ses marges. Mobilité
des hommes, diffusion des idées, circulation
des biens dans l’espace européenà l’âge du
Fer. Actes du 35e Colloque international de
l’AFEAF (Bordeaux, 2–5 juin 2011), Aquitania
Supplément 30, ed. A. Colin, F. Verdin, 17–32.
74 Michelena, L. [Koldo Mitxelena] 1977 Fonética
histórica vasca, 2nd edn. (first published
1961). Donostia–San Sebastián.
75 Trask, R. L. 1997 The History of Basque.
London, Routledge.
76 Egurtzegi, A. K. 2013 ‘4. Phonetics and
Phonology’, Basque and Proto-Basque:
Language-Internal and Typological Approaches
to Linguistic Reconstruction, Minority
Language Studies vol 5, ed. M. Martínez-Areta,
119–72. Frankfurt, Peter Lang.
77 Koch, J. T. 2016 ‘Phoenicians in the West and
Break-up of the Atlantic Bronze Age’, Celtic
from the West 3. Atlantic Europe in the Metal
Ages. Questions of shared language, Celtic
Studies Publications XIX, eds. J. T. Koch, B.
Cunliffe, C. D. Gibson & K. Cleary, 431–76.
Oxford, Oxbow Books.
78 Schrijver, P. 2012 ‘The Origin of Celtic: How,
When, Where?’ The Anders Ahlqvist Lecture
12/6/2012 (handout), Helsinki.
79 Lewis, H., & H. Pedersen 1989 A Concise
Comparative Celtic Grammar. 3rd edn.
Göttingen, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. First
published, 1937.
80 Ball, M. J. & J. Fife, eds. 1993 The Celtic
Languages. Routledge Language Family
Descriptions. London, New York: Routledge.
81 Russell, P. 1995 An Introduction to the Celtic
Languages. Longman Linguistics Library.
London, Longman.
82 Silva, M., K. Dulias, G. Oteo-Garcia,
F. Gandini, C. Edwards, M. Pala, P.
Soares, J. F. Wilson, & M. B. Richards
2019 ‘Once Upon a Time in the West:
The Archaeogenetics of Celtic Origins’,
Exploring Celtic Origins: New ways forward
in archaeology, linguistics, and genetics,
Celtic Studies Publications 22, eds. B.
Cunliffe & J. T. Koch, 153–91. Oxford, Oxbow
Books.
83 Szecsenyi-Nagy, A., C. Roth... W. Haak,
& K. W. Alt 2017 ‘The maternal genetic
make-up of the Iberian Peninsula between
the Neolithic and the Early Bronze Age’,
Scientific Reports 7(1), 15644.
84 Haak, W., C. Rihuete-Herrada, C. Oliart,
M.- I. Fregeiro Morador, V. Lull, R. Micó, G.
García Atiénzar, V. Barciela, M. Hernández,
J. Jiménez Echevarría, D. C. Salazar-García,
R. Risch, J. Krause 2018 ‘The genetic
history of El Argar and contemporaneous
groups of the Southern Iberian Peninsula’,
paper read at the European Association of
Archaeologists conference, Barcelona 2018.
85 Martiniano, R., L. M. Cassidy, R. Ó Maoldúin,
R. McLaughlin, N. M. Silva, L. Manco, D.
Fidalgo, T.Pereira, M. J. Coelho, M. Serra, J.
Burger, R. Parreira, E. Moran, A. C. Valera,
E. Porfirio, R. Boaventura, A. M. Silva, D.
G. Bradley 2017 ‘The population genomics
of archaeological transition in west Iberia:
Investigation of ancient substructure using
imputation and haplotype-based methods’,
PLoS Genet 13(7): e1006852. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006852
86 Parpola, A. 2015 The Roots of Hinduism:
The Early Aryans and The Indus
Civilization. Oxford, Oxford University
Press.
87 Hoz, J. de 2011 Historia lingüística de
la Península Ibérica en la Antigüedad
II: El mundo ibérico prerromano y la
indoeuropeización. Madrid, Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
88 Milcent, P.-Y. 2012 Le temps des élites en
Gaule atlantique: chronologie des mobiliers
Formation of the Indo-European branches
et rythmes de constitution des dépots
métalliques dans le contexte européen (XIIIe–
VIIe av. J.-C.). Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
89 Gerloff, S. (with J. P. Northover) 2010 Atlantic
Cauldrons and Buckets of the Late Bronze
and Early Iron Ages in Western Europe: With
a Review of Comparable Vessels from Central
Europe and Italy, Prähistorische Bronzefunde
II, 18. Stuttgart, Franz Steiner.
90 Heyd, V. 2017 ‘Kossinna’s smile’, Antiquity 91,
356, 348–59.
91 Cunliffe, B. & J. T. Koch 2019 ‘A dialogue at
the crossroads’, Exploring Celtic Origins: New
ways forward in archaeology, linguistics, and
genetics, Celtic Studies Publications 22, eds.
B. Cunliffe & J. T. Koch, 192–206. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
92 Parpola, A. & C. Carpelan 2005 ‘The cultural
counterparts to Proto-Indo-European,
Proto-Uralic and Proto-Aryan: matching
the dispersal and contact patterns in the
linguistic and archaeological records’, The
Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and
inference in Indian history, eds. E. F. Bryant &
L. L. Patton, 107–41. London, Routledge.
93 Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. 2005 ‘Archaeology
and language: the case of the Bronze Age
Indo-Irianians’, The Indo-Aryan Controversy:
Evidence and inference in Indian history, eds.
E. F. Bryant & L. L. Patton, 142–77. London,
Routledge.
94 Gibson, C. D. 2016 ‘Closed for Business of
Cultural Change? Tracing the re-use and
final blocking of the megalithic tombs during
the Beaker Period’, Celtic from the West
3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages —
questions of shared language, Celtic Studies
Publications XIX, eds. Koch, Cunliffe, Cleary,
Gibson, 83–110. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
95 Schrijver, P. 2016 ‘Sound change: The
Italo-Celtic linguistic unity, and the Italian
homeland of Celtic’, Celtic from the West
3. Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages.
Questions of shared language. Celtic
Studies Publications XIX, eds J. T. Koch, B.
Cunliffe, C. D. Gibson & K. Cleary, 489–502.
Oxford, Oxbow Books.
96 Renfrew, A. C. 1987 Archaeology and
[ 32]
Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European
Origins. London, Pimlico, 1998. First
published, London, Cape.
97 Renfrew, A. C. 1990 ‘Models of Change in
Language and Archaeology’, Transactions of
the Philological Society 87, 103–78.
98 Renfrew, A. C. 1999 ‘Time Depth,
Convergence Theory, and Innovation in
Proto-Indo-European: “Old Europe” as a PIE
Linguistic Area’, Journal of Indo-European
Studies 27, 257–93.
99 Renfrew, A. C. 2000 ‘10,000 or 5000 Years
Ago?—Questions of Time Depth’, Time
Depth in Historical Linguistics, 2 vols, ed.
C. Renfrew, A. McMahon, L. Trask, vol 2,
413–39. Cambridge, McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research.
100 Renfrew, A. C. 2013 ‘Early Celtic in the West:
The Indo-European Context’, Celtic from the
West 2: Rethinking the Bronze Age and the
Arrival of Indo-European in Atlantic Europe,
Celtic Studies Publications 16, ed. John T.
Koch & Barry Cunliffe, 207–217. Oxford,
Oxbow Books.
101 Cunliffe, B. ‘Setting the scene’, Exploring
Celtic Origins: New ways forward in
archaeology, linguistics, and genetics, Celtic
Studies Publications 22, eds. B. Cunliffe & J.
T. Koch, 1–17. Oxford, Oxbow Books.
102 Schulz-Paulsson, B. 2019 ‘Radiocarbon dates
and Bayesian modeling support maritime
diffusion model for megaliths in Europe’,
PNAS www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/
pnas.1813268116
103 Beekes, R. (with L. van Beek) 2010
Etymological Dictionary of Greek, 2 vols.
Leiden Indo-European Etymological
Dictionary Series 10. Leiden and Boston, Brill.
104 Steele, P. M. 2013 A linguistic history of
Ancient Cyprus. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
105 Ivanov, V. V. 1985 ‘On the Relationship
of Hattic to the Northwest Caucasian
Languages’, Drevnyaya Anatoliya – Ancient
Anatolia, eds. B. B. Piotrovskij, V. V. Ivanov, &
V.G. Ardzinba, 25–59. Moscow, Nauka.
106 Wegner, I. 2000 Hurritisch, eine Einführung.
Wiesbaden, Harassowitz.
[ 33] Koch | draft
107 Mathieson, I., S. Alpaslan-Roodenberg, C.
Posth, A. Szécsényi-Nagy4, N. Rohland, S.
Mallick, I. Olalde, N. Broomandkhoshbacht,
F. Candilio, O. Cheronet7, D. Fernandes,
M. Ferry, B. Gamarra, G. González Fortes,
W. Haak, E. Harney, E. Jones, D. Keating,
B. Krause-Kyora, I. Kucukkalipci, M.
Michel, A. Mittnik, K. Nägele, M. Novak, J,
Oppenheimer, N. Patterson, S. Pfrengle, K.
Sirak, K. Stewardson, S. Vai, S. Alexandrov, K.
W. Alt, R. Andreescu, D. Antonović, A. Ash, N.
Atanassova, K. Bacvarov, M. Balázs Gusztáv,
H. Bocherens, M. Bolus, A. Boroneanţ,
Y. Boyadzhiev, A. Budnik, J. Burmaz, S.
Chohadzhiev,N. J. Conard, R. Cottiaux, Maja
Čuka, C. Cupillard, D. G. Drucker, N. Elenski,
M.l Francken, B. Galabova, G. Ganetsovski, B.
Gély, T. Hajdu, V. Handzhyiska, K. Harvati25,
T. Higham, S. Iliev, I. Janković, I. Karavanić,
D. J. Kennett, D. Komšo, A. Kozak, D. Labuda,
M. Lari, C. Lazar, M. Leppek, K. Leshtakov,
D. Lo Vetro5, Dž. Los, I. Lozanov, M. Malina,
F.Martini, K. McSweeney, H. Meller, Marko
Menđušić, P. Mirea, V. Moiseyev, V. Petrova,
T. D. Price, A. Simalcsik, Luca Sineo, M. Šlaus,
V. Slavchev, P. Stanev, Andrej Starović, T.
Szeniczey, S. Talamo, M. Teschler-Nicola,
C. Thevenet, I. Valchev, F. Valentin, S.
Vasilyev, F. Veljanovska, S. Venelinova, E.
Veselovskaya, B. Viola, C. Virag, J. Zaninović,
S. Zäuner, P. W. Stockhammer, G. Catalano, R.
Krauß, D. Caramelli, G. Zariŋa, B. Gaydarska,
M. Lillie, A. G. Nikitin, I. Potekhina, A.
Papathanasiou, D. Borić, C. Bonsall, J. Krause,
R. Pinhasi, & D. Reich 2018 ‘The genomic
history of southeastern Europe’, Nature
doi:10.1038/nature25778
108 Skoglund, P., H. Malmström, M. Raghavan,
J. Storå, P. Hall, E. Willerslev, M. T. Gilbert,
A. Götherström, M. Jakobsson 2012 ‘Origins
and genetic legacy of Neolithic farmers and
hunter-gatherers in Europe’, Science 336,
466–9.
109 Omrak, A., T. Günther, C. Valdiosera, E. M.
Svensson, H. Malmströmm, H. Kiesewetter,
W. Aylward, J. Storå, M. Jakobsson, & A,
Götherström 2016 ‘Genomic Evidence
Establishes Anatolia as the Source of
the European Neolithic Gene Pool’,
Formation of the Indo-European branches [ 34]
Current Biology 26, 270–5 http://dx.doi. V. S. Gonçalves, E. Guerra-Doce, A. M.
org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.019 Herrero-Corral, J. Juan-Cabanilles, D. López-
110 Anthony, D. W., & D. R. Brown 2011 ‘The Reyes, S. B. McClure, Marta Merino Pérez,
Secondary Products Revolution, Horse- A. O. Foix, M. Sanz Borràs, A. C. Sousa, J. M.
Riding, and Mounted Warfare’, J World Vidal Encinas, D. J. Kennett, M. B. Richards,
Prehist 24:131–160. DOI 10.1007/s10963- K. W. Alt, W. Haak, R. Pinhasi, Carles
011-9051-9 Lalueza-Fox, D. Reich 2019 ‘The genomic
111 Friese, K. 2018 ‘4500-year-old DNA from history of the Iberian Peninsula over the
Rakhigarhi reveals evidence that will past 8000 years’, Science 363, 1230–1234.
unsettle Hindutva nationalists’, India Today
31 August, also online: www.indiatoday.
in/magazine/cover-story/story/20180910-
rakhigarhi-dna-study-findings-indus-valley-
civilisation-1327247-2018-08-31 (accessed
February 2019)
112 Olalde, I., S. Mallick, N. Patterson, N.
Rohland, V. Villalba-Mouco, M. Silva, K.
Dulias, C. J. Edwards, F. Gandini, M. Pala, P.
Soares, M. Ferrando-Bernal, N. Adamski,
N. Broomandkhoshbacht, O. Cheronet, B.
J. Culleton, D. Fernandes, A. M. Lawson,
M. Mah, J. Oppenheimer, K. Stewardson,
Z. Zhang, J. M. Jiménez Arenas, I. J. Toro
Moyano, D. C. Salazar-García, P. Castanyer,
M. Santos, J. Tremoleda, M. Lozano, P.
García Borja, J. Fernández-Eraso, J. A.
Mujika-Alustiza, C. Barroso, F. J. Bermúdez,
E. Viguera Mínguez, J. Burch, N. Coromina,
D. Vivó, A. Cebrià, J. M. Fullola, O. García-
Puchol, J. I. Morales, F. Xa. Oms, T. Majó,
J. M. Vergès, A. Díaz-Carvajal, I.Ollich-
Castanyer, F. J. López-Cachero, A. M. Silva,
C. Alonso-Fernández, G. Delibes de Castro,
J. Jiménez Echevarría, A. Moreno-Márquez,
G. P. Berlanga, P. Ramos-García, J. Ramos-
Muñoz, E. Vijande Vila, G. Aguilella Arzo,
Á.l Esparza Arroyo, K. T. Lillios, J. Mack, J.
Velasco-Vázquez, A. Waterman, L. Benítez de
Lugo Enrich, M. Benito Sánchez, B. Agustí,
F. Codina, G. de Prado, A. Estalrrich, Á.
Fernández Flores, C. Finlayson, G. Finlayson,
S. Finlayson, F. Giles-Guzmán, A. Rosas, V.
Barciela González, G. García Atiénzar, M.
S. Hernández Pérez, A. Llanos, Y. Carrión
Marco, I. Collado Beneyto, D. López-Serrano,
M. Sanz Tormo, A. C. Valera62, Concepción
Blasco43, C. Liesau, P. Ríos, J. Daura, M. J.
de Pedro Michó, A. A. Diez-Castillo, R. Flores
Fernández, J. Francès Farré, R. Garrido-Pena,