Indo-Europeans in the near East

Author(s): Carleton T. Hodge

Source: Anthropological Linguistics , 1993, Vol. 35, No. 1/4, A Retrospective of the
Journal Anthropological Linguistics: Selected Papers, 1959-1985 (1993), pp. 90-108
Published by: The Trustees of Indiana University on behalf of Anthropological
Linguistics

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30028246

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

and are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Anthropological
Linguistics

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Indo-Europeans in the Near East

CARLETON T. HODGE

Indiana University

The earliest linguistic evidence of peoples speaking what are known as Indo-
European (also called Indo-Hittite) languages is from the Near East. Due to
some curious set of circumstances, we have documents in Hittite, Luwian,
Ugaritic, Hurrian, and Mycenaean Greek appearing historically at about the
same time. Proper names and other loans in Assyrian documents from Cappa-
docia from the eighteenth, nineteenth and possibly twentieth centuries B.C.
have been identified as members of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European
(Goetze 1954a; Mellaart 1981:135; Steiner 1981:150, 155-56), probably Hittite
and Luwian. There is a seal of the twentieth century with a brief inscription
believed to be Luwian (Crossland 1971:836). The earliest known substantive
texts in an Indo-European language are also from the Near East, those in what
is known as cuneiform Hittite. The present paper is concerned with the main-
land Indo-Europeans and endeavors to put these into broader historical per-
spective. This will enable us better to understand the ethnic situation in the
second millennium.
The major Indo-European language materials involved are outlined in
table 1, as we find them actually attested, either by texts or by loanwords in
another language.1 It includes Greek (Hellenic), which is documented as Lin-
ear B (Crete and mainland Greece) in the second millennium and as classical
or dialectal Greek in the first. The table carries the languages listed into the
first millennium and brings in Iranian, as well as later Anatolian languages
closely related to the earlier ones, Hittite and Lydian forming one group, and
Carian, cuneiform Luwian, hieroglyphic Luwian, and Lycian forming anoth-
er.2

The distinction in table 1 between sources which are only loanwords in

other languages and those which are actual textual material in the language
being studied is a significant one. The loanwords are classified as external
evidence; the texts are internal evidence (see Hodge 1972). Another very im-
portant kind of external evidence and one which has been used effectively in
the investigation of ancient Near Eastern languages is comparative linguistics,
the use of languages genetically related to the one under study. The relevance

First published in Anthropological Linguistics 23(6):227-44 (1981).

90

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 91

Table 1. Approximate Attestation by Centuries of Major Indo-European

Materials in the Near East

B.C. Hellenic Anatolian Indo-Iranian

Early Hittite Dialect Luwian Dialect Cluster Para-Indic Iranian
Anatolian Cluster

Hittite Lydian Carian Cun. Hiero. Lycian

Luwian Luwian

20 LW? T?
19 LW
18 LW

17
16

15 T LW
14 T T T T? LW LW
13 T T T T LW
12 T

11 T

o10 T
9 T LW
8 T T T LW

7 T T T? LW
6 T T T

5 T T T T T
4 T T T T T
3 T
2 T
1 T

NOTE: T = text(s). LW = loanwords,

of this to our present problem w

be given to the fact that only e
sources is something to be determ
Not only do the Near Eastern
oldest attestation of Indo-Europ
groups of that family: Anatoli
as noted above, is known only fro
an Indic nature are found scattered over a wide area in the second. From Ar-
rapha and Nuzi in the east through northern Mesopotamia (including the
kingdom of Mitanni), through Syria and down to southern Palestine (Jeru-
salem and Ascalon)-territory associated with the Hurrians and their spher
of influence-we find names interpretable as Indic (see O'Callaghan 1948:

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
92 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

map II and appendix on names [Dumont]; Mayr

Indic], 29-30 [names], also 1974; Kammenhuber 1968). This includes the
names of the Mitanni rulers, most of which are clearly so identifiable and the
others likely so (Mayrhofer 1974:21ff). For example, Artatama, the contempo-
rary of Tuthmosis IV, is Rtadhaman 'one whose place of residence is the rta'
(aut sim.). In the treaty between Suppiluliuma and KURtiwaza we find among
the gods called to witness, Indra, Mitra, Varuna, and the Nasatyas. Agni is
found in a Hittite ritual (akni) (Thieme 1960; Mayrhofer 1974:14 and refer-
ences [some contra]). A Kassite glossary has duriyal equated with Shamash,
hence Indic sarya 'sun'. Another Kassite word has been identified as the
Maruts-or at least one of them (Mayrhofer 1974:13-14).
In addition to the proper names we have common nouns, adjectives, num-
erals, and a verb. The sources are varied and include Hittite: e.g., Hurrian
mani-nni 'neck ornament' = SKT mani-; Nuzi AKK babru-nnu (color of a horse)
= SKT babhru- 'brown'; Hrrr (horse training manual) aika-'one' = SKT eka-,
tera- 'three' = SKT tri- (cf. LAT ter-tius), satta-'seven' = Prakrit (Middle Indic)
sata- (SKT sapta-), wart-'turn' = SKT vart- (Mayrhofer 1966:19). The numer-
als aika- and satta- are of particular interest in correlating these items with a
particular branch of Indo-European. Aika- is often pointed to as archaic, as the
Indo-Iranian dipthong ai (from IE oi in this case) is known to have become e in
Sanskrit. However, Sanskrit e is classified and described by the Sanskrit gram-
marians as a diphthong, so that its probable pronunciation [aike-] could be
represented by either aika- or eka- (the latter treating [ai] as a unit phoneme)
(Allen 1953:62-74; Szemerenyi 1964:14). Old Persian has aivam, Avestan
aeva-. It has therefore been stressed that the form is Indic, not Iranian. How-
ever, Pahlavi is .vak and Modern Persian yek, so that a k form does exist in
Iranian (*aivaka-?). Satta- is another matter. The form is that of Prakrit; the
Sanskrit is sapta- (AV hapta). We have, then, evidence not just of Indic but of
a non-Sanskrit form of Indic about a thousand years before we have inscrip-
tional material (also Prakrit) in India itself (Mehendale 1948:xv-xvii, 39, 144).
This para-Indic element, attested as it is only as loans in other languages,
is overshadowed at least in quantity by the primary evidences of the Hittite-
Luwian language group, classified as part of the Anatolian branch of Indo-
European. Hittite is well attested from the fourteenth into the twelfth centu-
ries, but it is clear that it had been spoken in the area for several hundred
years prior to the extant texts (see Friedrich et al. 1969 for languages; Cross-
land 1971 for historical setting).
Luwian texts begin with the hieroglyphic ones (thirteenth to eighth centu-
ries, with possible earlier and later dates) and continue later as Lycian (see
table 1). The latter are known in cuneiform as lukku, mentioned, e.g., in an
Ainarna letter (no. 38). It has been argued that Luwians were in Greece (and
Crete) in the first half of the second millennium (Crossland 1971:848-50).
There is increasing evidence of the presence of Hittite-Luwians in the Syro-

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 93

Palestine area. Mendenhall poi

several identifications. One wa
Arzawa being the name of a Lu
(s'A'Ar), which he equates with
culty here, as HITT -xx- should
Baal Peor (ba'al pe'6r, LXX bee
'fire', Luw paxur (for [payur]?),
nal y (Laroche 1966:153 [saxx
[Peor], 158 [Seir]).
The Biblical text is also a lite
historical information on the
identify these among the man
Canaan (Gen o10.15), Syria-Pale
1.4), and there were still Hitti
view of the general use of xattu
European speaking, it is reason
the term Hittites is referring t
them.3 This, with the evidence
the Indo-Europeans were a ma
in the second millennium.
We must go into the first millennium before we find clear evidence of Irani-
ans. The first actual mention of them is in the ninth century, though there is
some archaeological indication of their presence about looo B.C. (Szemereny
1964:17). Despite this late attestation, we need to include them in our overal
view of Indo-Europeans in the area. Some of the para-Indic material was earl
er interpreted as being Iranian (Mayrhofer 1966: bibliography). Old Persian
texts begin in the sixth century. Avestan is attested much later, surviving as it
does in manuscript copies, but some of its texts are thought to represent a
variety of Iranian earlier than Old Persian (Lockwood 1972:233-34).
Altogether, we have an impressive set of materials documenting the pre
sence of Indo-Europeans in the Near East. They were clearly established ther
by 2000 B.C. and were a major political and ethnic element in the second mi
lennium. As the date 2000 coincides with the times generally assumed for th
beginning of the Indic invasion of the Panjab and for a movement of Hellen
speakers into Greece, the three are usually understood to be a part of a thrust
southward by peoples from the plains of southern Russia (Crossland 1971
840-59). The latter area is one of the places favored as the homeland of th
Indo-Europeans, a topic to which we shall return.
The above discussion also makes it quite clear that there is much to be
done with the material that we already have in clarifying the role of the Indo-
Europeans in our area. A number of scholars are working on the problem
Mendenhall was mentioned above. Mayrhofer, to whom so much is owed for his
work on para-Indic, has stressed the need for reassessment and has made

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 94 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

suggestions regarding some of the Egyptian evidence. T

of "Asiatic" loanwords in Middle and (especially) Late
Helck 1971). Many of these are clearly Semitic, but a
has remained unidentified (Mayrhofer 1963). To give
results presently attainable, some of the material in
to see if Indo-European etymologies came readily to
identifications follow. They are given in a transliteratio
transcription; the numbers are Helck's.4
8. 9-y-r-y (9d-r-ja), listed among foods and conjectur
?ayil. Compare IE *er-, *eri- 'buck; sheep, cow', per
animal', e.g., LAT ari;s 'ram'.
13. 9-s-b-w-y-r (?ad-bu-r) 'whip'. Cf. IE *sper- 'to t
'anything twisted or wound, rope, thongs (for boxer)': c
out'.

16. ?-k? ( 4-ku) a fruit. Cf. PSLV *aga, Ru jdgoda 'ber

TOcB oko 'fruit' (Buck 1949:378 [grape], 381 [berry];
27. y-l (ia-l,) a container. Cf. LAT aulla 'pot' (contr
59).
33. ''-m-d-y (d'-ma-di-ja) part of a chariot. Cf. GK himis, G himintos 'strap
of a chariot' or 'harness'.

49. ' ?-y-r ('u-si-r) part of a chariot. Cf. GK hest3r 'pin (or yoke) of a chari-
ot' (Seymour 190o7:681, fig. 37f). Note: this pin is not on the Egyptian chariots
we have.

81. pw-g? (pu-ga) 'staff'. Cf. IE *bak-'staff as support' and *pag-'fasten',

found in LAT palus (*pak-slo) 'stake', *pag- in LAT paigina 'vine trellis'.
121. m-s?-&? (ma-'id-si) part of a boat. Cf. GK mesos (epic messos) 'middle'.
This would have to be from an Indo-European language in which the d had
shifted.

274. g?-yr-bw (ga-r-bu) work on a chariot. . f. IE 'gerebh- 'scratch', HITT

garup- 'cut' (?) (Luw garupanni- [?]). Cf. also HITT karp- 'lift, take away, fin-
ish'.
281. t 2-hw-s? (tdi-hi-id) 'to crush'. Cf. HI'r tuxs- 'to cut off'.
b?-rw-rw- ? (bt-rd-rd-?e) a kind of bread. Cf. HITv purpuras 'ball, sphere
(bread name)' (Hoffner 1974:178-79, 207).
m-rw-rw (m()-ri-rdi) a kind of bread. Cf. HIrr muriyala- '(bread) in the
shape of a grape (cluster)' and mari- a kind of bread (Hoffner 1974:173, 207,
171). The determinative in Egyptian (X4) does not support the grape shape,
but as the same determinative occurs with most of the bread names, this may
not be significant.
x?-r-pw-s] (hd-r<a>-pu-s<d>> / hid-rdn-pu-d<d>) a kind of bread. Cf. HITT
hurupi- a kind of bread (small?) (Hoffner 1974:163).
k,-z--r (ka-Fi-ra) a kind of bread. Cf. HITT kardiya- a kind of bread (from
kar- 'to cut off'?) (Hoffner 1974:168). Assumes metathesis.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 95

J?-rw- (i-rui- e) a kind of bre

193).
s?-l (sFi-la,) among plant names. Cf. IE *sVlyk-'willow', OIR sail and
*alyso- 'alder', which would require metathesis (Friedrich 197o:53-57, 70-73).
The inadequacy of the script renders these identifications tentative, but they
are plausible.
Turning to proper names we find that the Egyptian inscriptions at Sinai
offer materials which should be mined for Indo-European ore (Gardiner, Peet,

and (erny 1952, 1955; inscription numbers refer to this work). For example:
skim (No. 4o5, time of Amenemhet III), accompanying a man on an ass,
who is probably Khebded (see below). Cf. Luw sakriuman (Laroche 1966:154;
Helck 1971:83).
spyt (No. 85, time of Amenemhet III), among workers with Egyptian
names but not identifiable as an Egyptian name (Gardiner, Peet, and (erny
1955:92 fn. f). Cf. HITr sarpa (Goetze 1954b:358; Laroche 1966:159, 309).
?wn (No. 85). Cf. HIr Awanuwa (Laroche 1966:50).
Also on 85 we find listed "the brother of the prince of the Retjenu Kheb-
ded." He is an important person, mentioned and even pictured several times at
Sinai. As rdnw is the Egyptian term for Palestine-Syria and the inscriptions
mentioning Khebded are from the reign of Amenemhet III, he deserves close
scrutiny. His name is not transparently Indo-European but probably has the
goddess Heba(t) as its first element.5 One is tempted to make the second ele-
ment -data 'given'. It is more likely that it is the Egyptian translation of
-dita: dd 'given'.
Retjenu, as noted above, is the early Egyptian word for the Syro-Palestine
area. It was divided into two parts: Lower Retjenu and Upper Retjenu, roughly
Palestine and Syria (Gardiner 1947, 1:442-49*). Canaan (kn'n)-a later
word-probably reflects the 'Lower' of Lower Retjenu. In Egyptian Canaan is
p? k-n-"-n, 'the Canaan', indicating tha t it is a reference to an area rather
than a regular place name.6 One would expect a comparable Semitism for
'Upper (Retjenu)', which should be libnin 'Lebanon'. This we find in, e.g., r-m-
n-n-y 'Lebanon', with consonant ablaut variants r for I and m for b. Not uni-
versally accepted, this identification has long been recognized (see, e.g., Miiller
1893:197) and should be regarded as certain.
If we consider rdnw as a possible Indo-European name, it conforms best to
something like *lukunuw(a), i.e., a formation based on lukku, noted above as
referring to Luwians (GK Lukia 'Lycia). The Egyptian spelling with & indicates
that it was a very early loan, before the change of k to J, as in -J 'you (F SG)' to
AKK -ki, and -Jn 'you (PL)' to AKK -kunu. The Retjenu are therefore Indo-Euro-
peans of the Syro-Palestinian area, Proto-Lycians so to speak. The Egyptians
had later dealings with these Lukites, and luku was reborrowed in New King-
dom times as rw-k? (where k? is, of course, ku) (Helck 1971:196).
Returning to Khebded we note that when we find him riding his ass accom-

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
96 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

panied by his underlings, he is carrying an ax. T

of status, as in certain iconography elsewhere i
Boghazkbi (Gurney 1952: pl. 4 [Hattusas]; Yadin
are many indications that the ax was of particu
pean culture.' That he is carrying an ax does no
European, but it is in character for him as an Indo
The position of the Indo-Europeans in the Nea
nium raises anew the question of the direction fro
tioned above, it is generally agreed that they came
we find them in the Sinai before 18oo00 B.C., we ar
an assumption. The literature on the homeland o
and inconclusive (see Crossland 1971 for a good
proposed that we look to comparative linguistics fo
We should first remind ourselves of the major l
East in the early second millennium: Egyptian, S
Eblite, Canaanite), Sumerian, Elamite, Anatolian
and Hurrian. Of these Egyptian and Semitic be
asiatic) phylum. Anatolian and para-Indic are In
Armenian and Iranian later found in the area). Hur
attested Urartean. Sumerian and Elamite are isolates.
Great progress has been made in recent years in the comparative study of
the Lisramic languages. This is due to our increased knowledge of the Chadi
Berber, Cushitic, and Omotic branches. While much remains to be done, we are
in a position to set up a number of sound correspondences and even to test the
hypothesis-now about 150 years old-that the Lisramic languages and t
Indo-European ones derive from a common source. This hypothesis, if shown t
be valid, would throw much light on where the Indo-Europeans came from.8
The investigation of the Lisramic-Indo-European relationship is the sub
ject of a continuing series of articles by the present writer. There are at prese
sufficient groups of relatable basic vocabulary, with credible sound correspon-
dences, to make their common origin highly probable. It will suffice to give a
selection here, as seen in table 2. The putative source language is dubbed Li
lakh.
It would be presumptuous to claim that this list proves the hypothesis, but
the present writer believes that the total evidence-still necessarily very frag-
mentary-is such that no other conclusion can reasonably be drawn. Sever
of the correspondences are of more than passing interest. Note the genera
developments outlined in figure 1. As LL mb and bh are both modifications of
the basic b, this explains the paucity of reconstructed Indo-European b's an
also the alteration of bh and m in certain declensional endings (Szemer6ny
1970:146). There are sporadic survivals of LL b in Indo-European, e.g., PER
mibin-aem 'I see', Av vcnam, LAT bfnus 'binary', along with du6 'two'. It h
been assumed that the Persian b is hardening of v-certainly counter-intuitive.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 handrm

workputisabledcy,m [dlt*ya-ous smelbadrthnokwpciv

breadtough kindleburf clothewars,pin putgive breath

Table2.ComprisnfLcdI-Eu L:IEgyptianSemcCushOodBrb- t*-wiys()ha k(nopal.)itruAKySOM*we- k(palt)sd*-wiyu bwhs*lu-(EC)e

d:w?DI(SHA)*o- f:pnt*sa-hu(To)e 0:snOaitr(AR)*Du-e

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 in,fromplacet bwCma-
cordtnevah goutreach ear place(rfix) nightsadebrklc,ow

w:9*-zi?da(TAM)h mb:h*-aj(r)i d"h(sew)g*zil-cat'HAmTMr tTheEgypianrolf[d]s.

L:IEgyptianSemcCushOodBrb- s:h*rya(TOU)e- :"s9dn*u-(6)

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 99

Likewise LAT bis is said to be f

'twice'. We are, rather, to take t
*9adbis (with prothetic 9) with
and with change of b to w, dwis,
Luwian as tbi-'two' and has bee
(Shevoroshkin 1979:182). These d
of correspondences, are, in view
arguments thus far adduced for
guages.
In postulating such a connection we need to keep in mind the time d
involved. Munson (1977) has associated a prehistoric microlith using cu
complex with Lisramic languages, as the spread of this complex is in
areas we later know were inhabited by Lisramic peoples-the Chadic a
north-west Africa (Berber), the Nile valley (Egyptian), etc. This compl
found in the Central Nile region by 18,oo000 B.C., and began to break
tween 15,000 and 12,000, the Proto-Berbers apparently being the first to l
home (Munson 1977:70, 71 [map], 81).
We are now in a position to address ourselves to the problem of the Ind
European homeland. If Indo-European and Lisramic share a common or
this proto-language (our Lislakh) was in the Central Nile region in 18,oo000
As the Lisramic languages are all closer to each other than to Indo-Euro
the latter must have left their Nile "homeland" by 13,000 B.C. at the
latest. They were the first of a series of what we usually call "migrat
We should rarely understand by this term a single movement of a single p
at a single time. In this instance we should envisage more or less con
movement, slower at some times than at others. The historical results o
movement are presently identifiable as seven different linguistic entities.
ers, now irrecoverable, may have existed.
In these terms the earliest movement north included those peoples we n
call Indo-European. Considering their origin, they are perhaps better t
Afro-Aryans. It would appear that they went down the Nile, and, un
pressure, on into Palestine-Syria, made their way into Anatolia, passing
there into the Aegean, and so into Eastern Europe. The area north of the B
Sea-the homeland of many scholars-becomes a staging ground for at

LL bH
LL w LL b LL mb

Lw IEw Lb IEw mb b m b3 bh
(b)

b w

Figure 1.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
100oo ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

part of the group. Whether this was reached by way of East

the Black Sea (i.e., to the opposite side by going around the
the Caucasus, remains unclear. All routes may have been
a great many other unanswered questions relevant to our co
movements in the second millennium. It does seem clear, fr
hand, that the Anatolian languages were not part of the gro
into southern Russia. We would, however, like to know:

* What degree of dialect diversity did the Indo-European pe

their stay together in the Near East?
* What group or groups stayed in Anatolia?
* What groups went to the area north of the Black Sea?

The answers to these questions will help clarify the role

dialect diversity developed before the northward trek, p
remnant left behind while the main body of speakers went
ask:

* What was the later spread of the group left in Anatolia?

Evidence seems to be mounting that Hellenic entered the Aegean from Ana-
tolia, that it was not part of the group north of the Black Sea (see below). We
need to ask whether Armenian, which has even been classified as an Anatolian
language, remained in Anatolia or was (re)introduced later (cf. Austin 1942).
The Indo-Europeans would therefore have formed a large component of the
neolithic Near Eastern population. This fits very neatly with Renfrew's con-
clusions (1970). He argued that Indo-European or its ancestor dialects were in
Anatolia in the seventh millennium B.C., and, spreading from there, were the
speakers to be found in the Balkans and much of Europe in late neolithic
times. His evidence is archaeological, mainly the continuity of culture seen
from these times to the Early Bronze Age (Renfrew 1973:263-76, esp. 267-75).
Crossland has argued against this, believing that there would have been more
linguistic evidence (such as loanwords in neighboring languages) had this been
the case (Crossland 1971:828, 832; Renfrew 1973:276-77). Our knowledge is
much too fragmentary for such an argumentum ex silentio to have any validity.
Evidence beyond the second millennium may well be forthcoming. Crossland
also discounts the possibility of relationship between Indo-European and
(Hamito)-Semitic (better Afroasiatic). At the time he wrote, this seemed a
remote possibility, but we have just shown that it is rather a probability [or, as
I now believe, a certainty]. Renfrew's arguments appear to be better founded.
We have seen that there is evidence from personal and place names, as
well as other loanwords--evidence of the kind Crossland felt was lacking over
the area as a whole-attesting to the presence of Indo-Europeans as far south
as Sinai. There are also curious "coincidences" which could be interpreted as
evidence of Indo-Europeans far to the south in the Nile valley. The name 9rs,

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 101

clearly identified as Alasiya on

prus, which we assume was I
Years ago, in connection with th
place name t? ?rs (t- ?-y-r?-s?) (1893:261 fn. 1), The Nubian districts of ?rvt,

wfwit, and %'m may also be considered (Gardiner 1947, 1:74*). rFrt could be
based on luku-, as is rcnw. Wiwit could be based on the Indo-European root
* wer- 'high, raised spot', reduplicated, hence a series of high spots. 9/m could
be the name we know as Aram, which has no Semitic etymology and could be
Indo-European (cf. SKT arma 'ruins', HEB Ai). These could all be accidental
similarities, but it is also possible that they are place names left by the Indo-
Europeans as they descended the Nile. Without the evidence of Indo-Europe-
an-Lisramic relationship, such identifications would have been out of the
question. They now need serious consideration.
The Sea Peoples are one of the best known groups of migrants in the sec-
ond millennium. In her study of them, Alessandra Nibbi stresses the ethnic
diversity found in the Delta from early times. The Retjenu are there: Apophis
is "the ruler of Retjenu," and so forth (Nibbi 1975:26, 50 [map]). It is possible
that some of these are the descendants of Indo-Europeans who never left
Egypt, rather than later immigrants from Sinai or Palestine. Mendenhall
considers that part, at least, of the Sea Peoples were Indo-Europeans of the
Palestine-Syrian area (1973:142-73). This is highly likely. It is further proba-
ble that some of them were the descendants of people dispossessed by the early
Egyptians and that their invasion was to recover land lost by their ancestors.
Returning to our reconstruction of prehistoric movement, it appears that
the next group were those who were to become the Berbers, passing down the
Nile en route to Libya and points west. If while on the Nile or in the Delta
they were displaced by later migrants, namely the predynastic Egyptians,
this would in large part explain the traditional and lasting enmity between
Libyans and Egyptians.
The Semites were the next identifiable group to leave the Central Nile
area. In this case we have no assurance which way they went--through Arabia
or down the Nile. Their clear presence in the Arabian peninsula and their
pressure from that desert into the sown argue for the former route.
Either following the Semites, preceding them, or going about the same
time, we find the prehistoric Egyptians, rapidly taking possession of the Nile
valley but unable to displace or conquer the swampy Delta for many years,
that victory being the great occasion celebrated by the Narmer palette (Nibbi
1975:20-24). Nibbi reminds us that the Delta was listed among the Nine Bows,
Egypt's traditional enemies. It should also be noted that the Egyptians were at
great pains, having taken over the entire country from their predecessors, not
to allow a new group to overwhelm them in turn, erecting forts and posting
troops on their southern border (Hayes 1971:499-500 and references).
Recent work has shown more open-mindedness on the direction taken by

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

the Indo-Europeans into Anatolia (e.g., Steiner 198

the south is not considered. The correlation of archaeological evidence with
linguistic groups poses formidable problems (Mellaart 1981). It is hoped that
this study, based on linguistic evidence, will open new avenues of interpre-
tation.
In discussing movements of peoples and cultural change the motivation
involved is often obscure. Why do people move? The outline given above has
included both the thousands of years between the departure of the Indo-Euro-
peans and their arrival in the localities in which we find them, and their dis-
position and movements in the second millennium. In the first instance we are
dealing with a change from a pre-urban to an urban society (i.e., a society
which includes cities). In the second we have both urban and non-urban pop-
ulations. These are factors we need to take into consideration.
Recent work on human migration has given us insights regarding the role
of disease in urban societies and the effect of disease on migration patterns
(McNeill 1978:3-19). A great deal of evidence has been before us for many
years, and Mendenhall has drawn it to the attention of Biblical scholars.
Epidemics are, in his view, the natural result of the interaction of peoples
throughout the area: "Virtually every source we have from the Late Bronze
Age indicates epidemics ... Some pestilential disease was endemic to the en-
tire region during the period with which we are dealing (ca. 1400-1000 B.C.)"
(Mendenhall 1973:107). Such epidemics could arise from casual trade rela-
tions, from warfare, or as the result of migrations. Mendenhall sees them as a
cause for migration.
Considering the matter in terms of urbanism and human migration pat-
terns in general, McNeill (1978) has stressed the role of the city-and of
armies-in the communication of disease. Disease was endemic in these large
human groups. (One could say that the Rechabites [Jer 35] were wise beyond
their years.) The high mortality rate in cities meant constant replenishment
from rural areas. On the other hand, as Mendenhall points out, there were
established rituals of expiation for plague and Numbers 31 describes such a
procedure. Instructions were given to leave no one alive (amended to save the
children, possibly thus transmitting the disease), to burn the city and not to
keep any booty that was not disinfected by passing it through fire. This would
account in a reasonable way for the fact that cities were so often burned. The
epidemic was, as stressed by Mendenhall, seen as divine retribution for some
shortcoming on the part of the population. Theologically we also have a dicho-
tomy between autochthonous deities (such as Baal) and those associated with
the group (such as El). It would be reasonable to assume that one reason for
migration would be flight from an autochthonous deity following the outbreak
of some plague. Under these circumstances we could expect sudden depopula-
tion or near depopulation of cities to occur on a fairly regular basis (McNeill
1978). It is quite unnecessary to appeal to conquest, migratory or political, to

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 103

account for urban disaster, and s

Notes

Acknowledgments. Delivered as part of the symposium, The Indo-European

ment: Its Impact On The Ancient Mediterranean World, under the sponsorshi
Society for Mediterranean Studies and the Department of Near Eastern St
versity of Toronto, 7 March 1981. A few changes have been made, some recen
Abbreviations. The following abbreviations have been used:
LANGUAGES BIBLICAL CITATIONS

AAs Afroasiatic LAT Latin Gen Genesis

AKK Akkadian LITH Lithuanian I Kg First Kings
AR Arabic LUw Luwian Jer Jeremiah
Av Avestan OIR Old Irish Jos Joshua
EC East Cushitic PERS Persian LXX Septuagint
EG Egyptian PSLV Proto-Slavic Nu Numbers
GK Greek Ru Russian
HA Hamer SKT Sanskrit GRAMMATICAL ABBREV.
HEB Hebrew SOM Somali G genitive
HITr Hittite TAM Tamashek F feminine
IE Indo-European TOCB Tocharian B SG singular
L Lisramic TOU Touareg
LL Lislakh

1. The chart (largely based on Crossland 1971) omits so

dialects; see Shevoroshkin (1979). In this article Shevoroshkin classifies Carian as
Luwian. In his book on Carian he had classified it with the Hittite group (1965:286ff).
There is also the theory that the name axxiya(wa) refers to a place and people in north-
western Anatolia to be equated with GK akhaioi 'Achaeans'. This would mean that
there were Hellenic speakers on the mainland in the early second millennium. There
are conflicting views on the Ahhiyawa. See, e.g., Crossland (1971:848) and Mellaart
(1971:410). [Axxiya(wa) and akhaioi may reasonably be equated if the former is the
earlier form. If early Greeks were to borrow a word with x, they would most likely
represent x by an aspirated k, i.e., kh. It would be less satisfactory to assume that a
Greek kh was represented by x, when the borrowing system had a stop k (whether
aspirated or unaspirated). -C. T. H., February 1994.]
2. The para-Indic of the chart refers to the data usually identified as aryan. For a
brief account see Burrow (1955:27-30). See below for more details.
3. The use of HITr xattili 'in Hattic' to refer to a non-Indo-European language is to
be understood as a reflection of the general, geographic use of the term rather than the
specifically linguistic one. We should not thereby exclude Indo-Europeans or, indeed
other, non-Hattic peoples from what is meant by xattu. There is no reason to think that
Hattic was the only language substratum in the area (cf. Szemer6nyi 1964:12).
4. See Helck (1971) for other references, particularly to Gardiner (1947). Major
sources for the comparisons given here were J. Friedrich (1952), Laroche (1959), Pok-
orny (1959), P. Friedrich (1970), Watkins (1973), Hoffner (1974).
I prefer a transliteration to an interpretive transcription such as that used by
Helck. Uncertain and multiple values remain even after careful collation (summary in
Helck 1971:567-69); see also Edgerton (1940). It has been my view that the signs used
were the names of hieroglyphs (cf. the Akkadian usage), hence had syllabic values (i.e.,

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
104 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

were pronounced as syllables, as we do in "A, B, C, ... "). B

have been no careful attempt to match these pronunci
loans. [Hyphens are used to separate hieroglyphs or hi
latter are used to represent a single consonant. In cons
text it is important to keep in mind that the phonetic valu
were different at different periods. For our purposes her
was a lateral, probably [1], in Old and Middle Egyptian an
in other languages. By Late Egyptian times, the period
had become [9], [y], or had been lost. -C. T. H., February
5. W. L. Moran's identification (1957:344) does not have
known meaning for either xb or dd. [Mendenhall (p.
Hadad'. -C. T. H., February 19941
6. See Miiller (1893:205-8). Canaan is here given its tr
reluctantly contra my teacher E.A. Speiser (1936:121-2
7. The ritual role of the ax in Indo-European society
tion. One may mention the Minoan double-ax (probably
far as Britain, the possibility of an ax cult in many pa
dinavian figures with axes, the ritual use of the stone ax
e.g., McDonald (1967:182, 396); Davidson (1969: frontispiece, 24, 27, 34-35, 41);
Dumezil (1970:590); Gimbutas (1974:181-90 [butterfly-ax]); Burl (1976:81-86). On the
other hand, one may note the rarity of the use of battle-axes in Homer (in the Iliad only
13: 612, 15:711).
8. For Lisramic (Hamito-Semitic, Semito-Hamitic, Afroasiatic, Erythraic) in gener-
al see Diakonoff (1965); Hodge (1971, 1981). For recent work in Chadic see Caprile-
Jungraithmayr (1978). For the hypothesis of Indo-European relationship to Lisramic
see Hodge (1978, 1979). [Due to inter-language taboo problems, the term Lisramic has
dropped out of use. I now use Afroasiatic, but as Indo-European is now added to the
latter, the preferable term is Lislakh (AAS plus IE). -C. T. H., February 19941

References

Allen, W. S.
1953 Phonetics in Ancient India. London: Oxford University Press.
Austin, William M.
1942 Is Armenian an Anatolian Language? Language 18:22-25.
Buck, Carl Darling
1949 A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Lan-
guages. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Buck, Aubrey
1976 The Stone Circles of the British Isles. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Burrow, T.
1955 The Sankskrit Language. London: Faber and Faber.
Caprile, Jean-Pierre, and Herrmann Jungraithmayr, eds.
1978 Prealables i la reconstruction du proto-tchadique. LACITO Documents,
Afrique, no. 2. Paris: SELAF.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 105

Crossland, R. A.
1971 Immigrants from the North.
Cambridge Ancient History, edited
G. L. Hammond. Vol. 1, part 2,
University Press.
Davidson, H. R. Ellis
1969 Scandinavian Mythology. Lond
de Vaux, R.
1968 Le pays de Canaan. Journal of
Diakonoff, I. M.
1965 Semito-Hamitic Languages. Moscow: Nauka.
Dum6zil, Georges
1970 Archaic Roman Religion. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Edgerton, William F.
1940 Egyptian Phonetic Writing, from Its Invention to the Close of the Nine-
teenth Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society 60:473-506.
Ernout, A., and A. Meillet
1959 Dictionnaire 6tymologique de la langue latine. 4th ed. Paris: C. Klinck-
sieck.

Friedrich, Johannes
1952 Hethitisches Warterbuch. Indogermanische Bibliothek. Heidelberg: Carl
Winter.

Friedrich, Johannes, Erica Reiner, Annelies Kammenhuber, Giinter Neumann, and

Alfred Heubeck

1969 Altkleinasiatische Sprachen. Handbuch der Orientalistik. Section 1, vol. 2,

parts 1-2, fascicle 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Gardiner, Alan H.
1947 Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. 3 vols. London: Oxford University Press.
Gardiner, Alan H., T. Eric Peet, and Jaroslav derny
1952, 1955 The Inscriptions of Sinai, Parts I (revised) and II. London: Egypt Ex-
ploration Society.
Gimbutas, Marija
1974 The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000-3500 B.C. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Goetze, Albrecht
1954a The Linguistic Continuity of Anatolia as Shown by Its Proper Names.
Journal of Cuneiform Studies 8:74-81.
1954b Some Groups of Ancient Anatolian Proper Names. Language 30:349-59.
Gurney, O. R.
1952 The Hittites. London: Penguin.
Hayes, William C.
1971 The Middle Kingdom in Egypt. In Early History of the Middle East. The
Cambridge Ancient History, edited by I. E. S. Edwards, C. J. Gadd, and N.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
o106 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

G. L. Hammond. Vol. 1, part 2, 3d ed., 464-531. Cambridge: U

Press.

Helck, Wolfgang
1971 Die Beiziehungen Agyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend v.
Chr. 2d ed. Agyptologische Abhandlungen, no. 5. Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-
sowitz.

Hodge, Carleton T.
1971 Afroasiatic: A Survey. The Hague: Mouton.
1972 Sources of Historical Linguistic Evidence. In Studies in Linguistics in
Honor of George L. Trager, edited by M. Estellie Smith, 87-99. The
Hague: Mouton.
1978 Lislakh. In The Fourth LACUS Forum 1977, edited by Michel Paradis, pp.
414-22. Columbia, S.C.
1979 Lislakh IV: Hindo-Hittite Haitch. In The Fifth LACUS Forum 1978, edited
by Wolfgang W6lck and Paul L. Garvin, 497-502. Columbia, S.C.: Horn-
beam Press.

1981 Comparative Evidence for Egyptian Phonology. In Studies Presented to

Hans Jakob Polotsky, edited by Dwight W. Young, 401-413. Gloucester
Mass.: Pirtle and Polson.

Hoffner, Harry A.
1974 Alimenta Hethaeorum. American Oriental Series, no. 55. New Haven:
American Oriental Society.
Kammenhuber, Annelies
1968 Die Arier im Vorderen Orient. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
Laroche, Emmanuel
1959 Dictionnaire de la langue louvite. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve.
1966 Les noms des hittites. Paris: C. Klincksieck.
Lockwood, W.B.
1972 A Panorama of Indo-European Languages. London: Hutchinson University
Library.
McDonald, William A.
1969 [1967] Progress into the Past. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
McNeill, William H.
1978 Human Migration: A Historical Overview. In Human Migration: Patterns
and Policies, edited by William H. McNeill and Ruth S. Adams, 3-19.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mayrhofer, Manfred
1956-76 Kurzgefasstes etymologisches WSrterbuch des Altindischen. 3 vols. Heidel-
berg: C. Winter.
1963 Review ofHelck, Beziehungen (1962 edition). Kratylos 8:2o6-8.
1966 Die Indo-Arier im alten Vorderasien. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowtiz.
1974 Die Arier im Vorderen Orient-Ein Mythos? Sitzungsberichte der Oster-
reichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 294.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 1993 CARLETON T. HODGE 107

Mehendale, M.A.
1948 Historical Grammar of Ins
Mellaart, James
1971 Anatolia c. 4000-2300 B.C. I
bridge Ancient History, edited
L. Hammond. Vol. 1, part 2, 3d
1981 Anatolia and the Indo-Eu
135-49.

Mendenhall, George E.
1973 The Tenth Generation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Moran, W. L.
1957 Mari Notes on the Exercration Texts. Orientalia 26:339-45.
Miiller, W. Max
1893 Asien und Europa. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Munson, Patrick J.
1977 Africa's Prehistoric Past. In Africa, edited by Phyllis M. Martin and Pat-
rick O'Meara, 68-82. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Nibbi, Alessandra
1975 The Sea Peoples and Egypt. Park Ridge: Noyes Press.
O'Callaghan, Roger T.
1948 Aram Naharaim. Analecta Orientalia, no. 26. Rome: Pontifical Biblical
Institute.

Pokorny, Julius
1959 Indogermanisches etymologisches WSrterbuch. Vol. 1. Bern: Francke.
Renfrew, Colin
1973 Problems in the General Correlation of Archaeological and Linguistic
Strata in Prehistoric Greece: The Model of Autochthonous Origin. In
Bronze Age Migrations in the Aegean, edited by R. A. Grossland and Ann
Birchall, 263-76. London: Duckworth.
Seymour, Thomas D.
1907 Life in the Homeric Age. New York: Macmillan.
Shevoroshkin, V. [V.]
1965 Issledovanija po deiifrovke karijskix nadpisej. Moscow: Nauka.
1979 On the Hittite-Luwian Numerals. Journal of Indo-European Studies 7:
177-98.
Simons, J.
1937 Egyptian Topographical Lists. Leiden: E. J. Brill.
Speiser, E.A.
1936 The Name Phoinikes. Language 12:121-26.
Steiner, Gerd
1981 The Role of the Hittites in Ancient Anatolia. Journal of Indo-European
Studies 9:150-73.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
o108 ANTHROPOLOGICAL LINGUISTICS 35 NOS. 1-4

Szemerenyi, Oswald
1964 Structuralism and Substratum-Indo-Europeans and Semites
cient Near East. Lingua 13:1-29.
1970 Einfuhrung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft. Die A
senschaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Thieme, Paul
1960 The 'Aryan' Gods of the Mitanni Treaties. Journal of the Am
tal Society 80:301-17.
Vasmer, Max
1953-58 Russiches Etymologisches WSrterbuch. 3 vols. Heidelberg:
Watkins, Calvert
1973 Indo-European and Indo-Europeans. In The American Herita
of the English Language, edited by William Morris, 1496-5
Houghton Mifflin.
Yadin, Yigael
1963 The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands. 2 vols. New York: McGraw Hill.

This content downloaded from

99.81.149.184 on Wed, 22 May 2024 03:04:09 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms