[1] See also ANNAM, CAMBODIA, COCHIN-CHINA, KWANG-CHOW BAY, LAOS,
TONGKING.
[2] This does not apply to the budget of Cochin-China, which is voted
by the colonial council and approved by the governor-general alone.
[3] This does not include the expenditure on account of the 3% loan
of £8,000,000, which is inscribed in a special account. The debt of
the government-general of Indo-China is composed as follows:--
+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+
| | Nominal | Nominal Capital |
| | Capital. |in circulation on|
| | | Jan. 1, 1907. |
+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+
| 2½% Loan of 1896 (Annam- | | |
| Tongking) | £3,678,000 | £3,342,800 |
| 3½ % Loan of £8,000,000 | | |
| issued from 1899 to 1905| 8,748,260 | 8,640,060 |
+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+
| Total | £12,426,260 | £11,982,860 |
+---------------------------+--------------+-----------------+
[4] The transit trade between Hong Kong and Yun-nan via Tongking is of
considerable importance (see TONGKING).
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. The Indo-European (I.E.) languages are a family
of kindred dialects spread over a large part of Europe, and of Asia as
far as India.
The main branches so far identified fall easily into two groups of four.
These groups are distinguished from one another by the treatment of
certain original guttural sounds, _k(c)_, _g_, _kh_, _gh_, which one
group shows as consonants, while the other converts them into sibilants.
The variation is well shown in the word for "hundred": Gr. [Greek:
he-katon], Lat. _centum_, Old Irish _cet_; Sanskrit _satam_, Zend
_satem_, Lithuanian _szimtas_, Old Bulgarian (Old ecclesiastical
Slavonic) _suto_. In the first three the consonant is a hard guttural
(the Romans said _kentum_, not _sentum_), in the others it is a sibilant
(the Lithuanian _sz_ is the English _sh_).
The first group (generally known as the _centum_-group) is the Western
and entirely European group, the second (generally known as the
_satem_-group) with one exception lies to the east of the _centum_-group
and much its largest part is situated in Asia. To the _centum_-group
belong (1) Greek; (2) the Italic languages, including Latin, Oscan,
Umbrian and various minor dialects of ancient Italy; (3) Celtic,
including (a) the Q-Celtic languages, Irish, Manx and Scotch Gaelic, (b)
the P-Celtic, including the language of ancient Gaul, Welsh, Cornish and
Breton: the differentiation, which exists also in the Italic languages,
turning upon the treatment of original _kw_ sounds, which all the Italic
languages save Latin and the little-known Faliscan and the (b) group of
the Celtic languages change to _p_. With these go (4) the Germanic or
Teutonic languages, including (a) Gothic, (b) the Scandinavian
languages, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic--differentiated in
historical times out of a single language, Old Norse,--(c) West
Germanic, Including English and Frisian, Low Frankish (from which spring
modern Dutch and Flemish), Low and High German.
To the _satem_-group belongs (1) Aryan or Indo-Iranian, including (a)
Sanskrit, with its descendants, (b) Zend, and (c) Old Persian, from
which is ultimately descended Modern Persian, largely modified, however,
by Arabic words. This group is often divided into two sub-groups,
_Indo-Aryan_, including the languages of India, and _Iranian_, used as a
general title for Zend and Old Persian as the languages of ancient Iran.
Although the sounds of Indo-Aryan and Iranian differ considerably,
phrases of the earliest form of the one can be transliterated into the
other without change in vocabulary or syntax. (2) To the west of these
lies Armenian, which is so full of borrowed Iranian words that only in
1875 was it successfully differentiated by Hübschmann as an independent
language. It is probably related to, or the descendant of, the ancient
Phrygian, which spread into Asia from Thrace by the migration of tribes
across the Hellespont. Of ancient Thracian unfortunately we know very
little. (3) North of the Black Sea, and widening its borders in all
directions, comes the great Balto-Slavonic group. In this there are two
branches somewhat resembling the division between Indo-Aryan and
Iranian. Here three small dialects on the south-east coast of the Baltic
form the first group, Lithuanian, Lettish and Old Prussian, the last
being extinct since the 17th century. The Slavonic languages proper
themselves fall into two groups: (a) an Eastern and Southern group,
including Old Bulgarian, the ecclesiastical language first known from
the latter part of the 9th century A.D.; Russian in its varieties of
Great Russian, White Russian and Little Russian or Ruthenian; and
Servian and Slovene, which extend to the Adriatic. (b) The western group
includes Polish with minor dialects, Czech or Bohemian, also with minor
languages in the group, and Sorb. In the _satem_ division is also
included (4) Albanian, which like Armenian is much mixed with foreign
elements--Latin, Greek, Turkish and Slavonic. The relation between it
and the ancient Illyrian is not clear.
Besides the languages mentioned there are many others now extinct or of
which little is known--e.g. Venetic, found in clearly written
inscriptions with a distinctive alphabet in north-eastern Italy;
Messapian, in the heel of Italy, which is supposed to have been
connected with the ancient Illyrian; and possibly also the unknown
tongue which has been found recently on several inscriptions in Crete
and seems to have been the language of the pre-Hellenic population, the
finds apparently confirming the statement of Herodotus (vii. 170) that
the earlier population survived in later times only at Praesos and
Polichne. Names of deities worshipped by the Aryan branch are reported
to have been discovered in the German excavations at Boghaz-Keui (anc.
_Pteria_, q.v.) in Cappadocia; names of kings appear in widely separated
areas elsewhere in Asia,[1] and a language not hitherto known has
recently been found in excavations in Turkestan and christened by its
first investigators Tocharish.[2] So far as yet ascertained, Tocharish
seems to be a mongrel dialect produced by an intermixture of peoples
speaking respectively an I.E. language and a language of an entirely
different origin. The stems of the words are clearly in many cases I.E.,
but the terminations are no less clearly alien to this family of
languages. It is remarkable that some of its words, like _ku_, "dog,"
have a hard _k_, while the other languages of this stock in Asia, so far
as at present known, belong to the _satem_-group, and have in such words
replaced the _k_ by a sibilant.
Till the latter part of the 18th century it was the universal practice
to refer all languages ultimately to a Hebrew origin, because Hebrew,
being the language of the Bible, was assumed, with reference to the
early chapters of Genesis, to be the original language. Even on these
premises the argument was unsound, for the same authority also recorded
a confusion of tongues at Babel, so that it was unreasonable to expect
that languages thus violently metamorphosed could be referred so easily
at a later period to the same original. The first person to indicate
very briefly the existence of the Indo-European family, though he gave
it no distinctive name, was Sir William Jones in his address to the
Bengal Oriental Society in 1786. Being a skilled linguist, he recognized
that Sanskrit must be of the same origin as Greek, Latin, Teutonic
(Germanic) and possibly Celtic (_Asiatic Researches_, i. p. 422; _Works_
of Sir W. Jones, i. p. 26, London, 1799). Unfortunately Sir William
Jones's views as to the relationship of the languages were not adopted
for many years by later investigators. He had said quite definitely, "No
philologer could examine them all three (Sanskrit, Greek and Latin)
without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which
perhaps no longer exists." Friedrich Schlegel, who learnt Sanskrit from
Alexander Hamilton in Paris nearly twenty years later, started the view
that Sanskrit, instead of being the sister, was the mother of the other
languages, a mistake which, though long since refuted in all
philological works, has been most persistent.
Curiously enough the history of the names given to the family is
obscure. The earliest known occurrence of the word "Indo-European" is in
an article in the _Quarterly Review_ for 1813[3] by Dr Thomas Young. The
term has been in use in English and in French almost continuously since
that date. But a glance at Dr Young's article will show that he included
under Indo-European many languages like Basque, Etruscan and Arabian
(his term for Semitic), which certainly do not belong to this family of
languages at all; and if the term is taken to mean, as it would seem to
imply, all the languages spoken in India and Europe, it is undoubtedly a
misnomer. There are many languages in India, as those of the Dravidians
in Southern India and those of Northern Assam, which do not belong to
this family. On the other hand there are many languages belonging to the
family which exist outside both India and Europe--Zend, Old Persian,
Armenian, Phrygian, to say nothing of languages recently discovered. The
term most commonly used in Germany is "Indo-Germanic." This was employed
by Klaproth as early as 1823. It is said not to have been invented by
him, but by whom and when it was invented is not quite ascertained.[4]
It is an attempt to name the family by its most easterly and most
westerly links. At the time when it was invented it had not yet been
settled whether Celtic was or was not a member of this family. But in
any case the term would not have been wrong, for members of the Germanic
stock have been settled for above a thousand years in Iceland, the most
westerly land of Europe, and for the last four centuries have
increasingly dominated the continent of America. As has been pointed out
by Professor Buck of Chicago (_Classical Review_, xviii. p. 400), owing
to the German method of pronouncing _eu_ as _oi_, the word
"Indo-Germanic" is easier for a German to pronounce than
"Indo-European." Attempts to discover a more accurate and less ponderous
term, such as "Indo-Celtic" or "Celtindic," have not met with popular
favour. Aryan (q.v.) is conveniently brief, but is wanted as the proper
term for the most easterly branch of the family. What is wanted is a
term which does not confuse ethnological and linguistic ideas. Not all
speakers of any given language are necessarily of the same stock. In
ancient Rome Latin must have been spoken by many slaves or sons of
slaves who had no Latin blood in their bodies, though a slave if
manumitted by his master might be the father or grandfather of a Roman
citizen with full rights. Plautus and Terence were both aliens, the one
an Umbrian, the other an African. The speakers of modern English are
even a more multifarious body. A possible name for the family, implying
only the speaking of a language of the stock without any reference to
racial or national characteristics, could be obtained from the name for
man, so widely though perhaps not altogether universally diffused
throughout the family--Sanskrit _viras_, Lithuanian _wyras_, Lat. _vir_,
Irish _fer_, Gothic _waír_, &c. If the speakers of these languages were
called collectively _Wiros_, no confusion with ethnological theories
need arise.
It is customary to talk of the roots, stems and suffixes of words in
the Indo-European languages. These languages are distinguished from
languages like Chinese by the fact that in the great majority of words
suffixes can be separated from roots. But the distinction between them
and the so-called agglutinative languages is one of degree rather than
of kind. In the agglutinative languages, or at any rate in some of
them, some of the post-fixed elements have still an independent value.
In the Indo-Germanic languages no one can say what the meaning of the
earliest suffixes was. Suffixes which have developed in individual
languages or individual sections of this family of languages can often
be traced, e.g. the often quoted -_hood_ in English words like
"manhood," or the English -_ly_ in "manly," which has gradually
extended till it is actually attached to its own parent _like_ in
"likely." But all recent investigation goes to show that before the
Indo-European languages separated they possessed words with all the
characteristics which we recognize in substantives like the Latin
_dominus_ or verbs like the Greek [Greek: deiknytai]. Or, to put the
same fact in another way, by the comparative method it is impossible
to reach a period when the speakers of Indo-European languages spoke
in roots. A "root" is only a convenient philological abstraction; it
is merely the remnant which is left when all the elements that can be
analysed are taken away; it is therefore only a kind of greatest
common measure for a greater or smaller body of words expressing
modifications of the same idea. Thus, though by no means the earliest
form of the word, the English _man_ might be taken as the "root" from
which are derived by various suffixes _manhood_, _manly_, _mannish_,
_manful_, _manned_ (past tense), _manned_ (participle), _unman_,
_mannikin_, &c. How far the suffixes which can be traced back to
Indo-European times (i.e. to a time before the separation of the
languages) had existence as separate entities it is impossible to say.
From what we see of the later history of the languages it is much more
probable that both forms and signification were very largely the
result of analogy. For in the making of new words analogy plays a much
larger part than any reference to general principles of formation or
composition. New words are to a large extent, even in modern times,
the invention of persons unskilled in the history of language.
The first to point out that the term Indo-European (or Indo-Germanic)
was not used uniformly in one sense was Professor Kretschmer in his
_Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache_ (Göttingen,
1896), pp. 9 ff. It is in fact used in three senses. (1) Indo-European
is treated as preceding and different from all its descendants, a
single uniform speech without dialects. But, strictly, no such
language can exist, for even individual members of the same family
differ from one another in pronunciation, vocabulary, sentence
formation, etc. Thus it appears impossible to ascertain what the
Indo-European term for the numeral 1 was, since different languages
show at least four words for this, three of them presenting the same
root with different suffixes: (a) Sanskrit _eka_ (= *[Greek:
oi]-quo-); (b) Zend _aeva_, Old Persian _aiva_, Greek [Greek:
oi-([digamma])o-s] (= *[Greek: oi]-uo-); (c) Greek [Greek: oinê],
"ace," Latin _unus_ (older _oenus_), Old Irish _oen_, Gothic _ains_,
Lithuanian _vénas_ (where the initial _v_ has no more etymological
signification than the _w_ which now begins the pronunciation of the
English _one_), Old Bulgarian _inu_; (d) Greek [Greek: eis, en] (=
*_sem-s_). But the Indo-European community must have had a word for
the numeral since the various languages agree in forms for the
numerals 2 to 10, and the original Indo-European people seem to have
been able to count at least as far as 100. On the other hand, if the
Indo-European language must have had dialects, the line of
differentiation between it and its descendants becomes obliterated.
(2) But even when a word is found very widely diffused over the area
of the Indo-European languages, it is not justifiable to conclude that
therefore the word must have belonged to the original language. The
dispersion of the Indo-European people over the areas they now
inhabit, or inhabited in the earliest times known to history, must
have been gradual, and commerce or communication between different
branches must have always existed to some extent; the word might thus
have been transmitted from one community to another. When a word is
found in two branches which are geographically remote from one another
and is not found in the intermediate area, the probability that the
word is original is somewhat stronger. But even in this case the
originality of the word is by no means certain, for (a) the
intervening branch or branches which do not possess the word may
merely have dropped it and replaced it by another; (b) the
geographical position which the branches occupy in historical times
may not be their original position; the branches which do not possess
the word may have forced themselves into the area they now occupy
after they had dropped the word; (c) if the linguistic communities
which possess the word have a seaboard and the intervening communities
have not, the possibility of its transmission in connexion with early
sea-borne commerce must be considered. At the dawn of European history
the Phoenicians and the Etruscans are great seafarers; at a later time
the Varangians of the North penetrated to the Mediterranean and as far
as Constantinople; in modern times sea-borne commerce brought to
Europe words from the Caribbean Indians like _potato_ and _tobacco_,
and gave English a new word for man-eating savages--_cannibal_. Thus
with Kretschmer we must distinguish between what is common
Indo-European and what is original Indo-European in language. (3) A
word may exist in several of the languages, and may have existed in
them for a very long time, and yet not be Indo-European. Hehn (_Das
Salz_, ed. 2, 1901) rejects _salt_ as an Indo-European word because it
is not found in the Aryan group, though in this case he is probably
wrong, (a) because, as has been shown by Professor Johannes Schmidt,
its irregular declension (_sal-d_, genitive _sal-nes_) possesses
characteristics of the oldest Indo-European words; (b) because the
great plains of Iran are characterized by their great saltness, so
that the Aryan branch did not pass through a country where salt was
unknown, although, according to Herodotus (i. 133), the Persian did
not use salt to season his food. Since Kretschmer wrote, this argument
has been used very extensively by Professor A. Meillet of Paris in his
_Dialectes indo-européens_ (Paris, 1908). In this treatise he brings
forward arguments from a great variety of facts to show that in the
original Indo-European language there were dialects, the Aryan,
Armenian, Balto-Slavonic and Albanian, as we have seen, forming an
oriental group with novel characteristics developed in common,
although in various other characteristics they do not agree. Similarly
Italic, Celtic and Germanic form a Western group, while Greek agrees
now with the one group now with the other, at some points being more
intimately connected with Italic than with any other branch, at others
inclining more towards the Aryan. This grouping, however, is by no
means exclusive, members of either group having characteristics in
common with individuals of the other group which they do not share
with the other languages of their own group (Meillet, p. 131 ff.).
From all this it is clear that in many cases it must be extremely
uncertain what is original Indo-European and what is not. Some general
characteristics can, however, be predicated from what is handed down
to us in the earliest forms of all or nearly all the existing
languages. (1) The noun had certainly a large number of distinct cases
in the singular: nominative, accusative, genitive, ablative, locative,
instrumental, dative.[5] In the plural, however, there was less
variety, the forms for dative and ablative being from the earliest
times identical. In the dual, the oblique cases cannot be restored
with certainty, so little agreement is there between the languages. In
the locative-singular the ending -_i_ seems to have been of the nature
of a post-position, because in various languages (notably in Sanskrit)
forms appear without any suffix. In the locative plural also the
difference between the -_su_ of Sanskrit and early Lithuanian
(Slavonic -_chu_) on the one hand, and of -[Greek: si] in Greek on the
other, seems to be best explained by supposing that the -_u_ and -_i_
are postpositions, a conclusion which is strengthened by the Greek
rule that -[sigma]- between vowels disappears. In the instrumental
singular and plural it is noticeable that there are two suffixes--one,
represented in Germanic and Balto-Slavonic only, beginning with the
sound -_m_, the other, surviving in most of the other languages for
the plural, going back to an Indo-European form beginning with -_bh_.
Professor Hirt of Leipzig has argued (_Idg. Forschungen_, v. pp. 251
ff.) that -_bh_- originally belonged to the instrumental plural (cf.
the Lat. _filiabus_, _omnibus_, &c.), and the forms with -_m_- to the
dative and ablative. But this is merely a conjecture, which has no
linguistic facts in its favour, for the -_bi_ of the Latin dative
_tibi_, which has parallel forms in many other languages, belongs to
the pronouns, which show in their declension many differences from the
declension of the noun (cf. also Brugmann, _Grundriss_ (ed. 2), ii. 2,
p. 120). (2) The adjective agrees with its noun in gender, number and
case, thus introducing a superfluous element of agreement which is not
found, e.g. in most of the agglutinative languages. Thus in phrases
like the Greek [Greek: hê kalê korê] or the Latin _illa pulchra
puella_ the feminine gender is expressed three times, with no
advantage, so far as can be detected, over the modern English, _that
fair maid_, where it is not obviously expressed at all. In this
respect and also in the employment of the same case endings for the
plural as well as the singular, in the plural after a syllable
expressing plurality, the agglutinative languages have a distinct
superiority over the Indo-European languages in their earliest forms.
Some languages, like English and Modern Persian, have practically got
rid of inflexion altogether and the present difficulty with it;
others, like modern German, as the result of phonetic and analogical
changes have even intensified the difficulty. (3) In the personal
pronouns, especially those of the first and second persons, there is
widely spread agreement, but more in the singular than in the plural.
Forms corresponding to the English _I_ and _thou_, the Latin _ego_ and
_tu_, are practically universal. On the other hand the demonstrative
pronouns vary very considerably. (4) The system of numerals (subject
to slight discrepancies, as that regarding 1 mentioned above) is the
same, at least up to 100. (5) In the verb there were at first two
voices, the active and the middle, and three moods, the indicative,
the subjunctive and the optative. It has been suggested by Professors
Oertel and Morris in _Harvard Studies_, xvi. (p. 101, n. 3) that the
similarity which exists between the earliest Greek and the earliest
Aryan in the moods is the result of a longer common life between those
two branches. But of this there is no proof, and the great difference
in the treatment of the sounds by these two branches (see below)
militates very strongly against the supposition. The tense forms
indicated originally not relations in time but different kinds of
action. The distinctive forms are the present, the perfect, and the
aorist. The present indicated that an action was in progress or
continuous, the aorist on the other hand regarded the action as a
whole and, as it were, summed it up. The aorist has sometimes been
said to express instantaneous action, and so it does. But this is not
the essence of the aorist; the aorist may be used also of a long
continued action when it is regarded as a whole. Greek shows this very
clearly. In Athenian official inscriptions it was usual to fix the
date of the record by stating at the commencement who was the chief
magistrate (archon) of the year. This was expressed by the imperfect
([Greek: êrche]). But when reference was made to a past archonship,
that was expressed by the aorist ([Greek: êpxe]). The same
characteristic is evident also in prohibitions; thus, in Plato's
_Apology of Socrates_, [Greek: mê thorybêsête] is "Do not begin to
make a disturbance," [Greek: mê thorybeite] is "Do not keep on making
a disturbance." These points are most easily illustrated from Greek,
because Greek, better than the other languages, has kept the
distinctive usages of both moods and tenses. The perfect as
distinguished from the other forms expresses either repetition of the
action, emphasis, or the state which results from the action expressed
by the verb. Different languages regard this last in different ways.
Sometimes the state resulting from the action is so characteristic
that the perfect is almost an independent verb. Thus in Greek [Greek:
ktaomai] is "I acquire," but [Greek: kektêmai] (the perfect) is "I
possess," the result of the action of acquiring. On the other hand the
perfect may mean that the action has come to an end. This is specially
common in Latin, as in Cicero's famous announcement of the execution
of the Catilinarian conspirators,--_Vixerunt_ ("They have lived" =
"They are no more"). But it is by no means confined to Latin. The
pluperfect, the past of the perfect, is a late development and can
hardly be reckoned Indo-European. In Greek the forms clearly arise
from adding aorist endings to a perfect stem. The forms of Latin are
not yet completely explained--but it is certain that the specially
Latin meaning expressing something that was past at a time already
past (relative time) is a late growth. When Homeric Greek wishes to
express this meaning it uses most frequently the aorist, but also the
imperfect as well as the pluperfect, the notion of relative time being
derived from the context. In the earliest Latin the pluperfect is not
uncommonly used with the value of the aorist perfect. As regards the
future it is difficult to say how far it was an original form. Some
languages, like Germanic, preserve no original form for the future.
When the present is found not to be distinctive enough, periphrastic
forms come in. In other languages, like Latin and Greek, there is
constant confusion between subjunctive and future forms. It is
impossible to distinguish by their form between [Greek: deixô]
(future) and [Greek: deixô] (subjunctive), between _regam_ (future)
and regam (subjunctive). A special future with a suffix -sio- (_syo_)
is found only with certainty in the Aryan group and the Baltic
languages. The future perfect is, strictly speaking, only a future
made from a perfect stem; in the Latin sense it is certainly a late
development, and even in early Latin, _videro_ has occasionally no
different meaning from _videbo_. The imperative, which was originally
an exclamatory form to the verb, of the same kind as the vocative was
to the noun, and which consisted simply of the verb stem without
further suffixes, developed, partly on the analogy of the present and
partly with the help of adverbs, a complete paradigm. The infinitives
of all the languages are noun cases, generally stereotyped in form and
no longer in touch with a noun system, though this, e.g. in early
Sanskrit, is not always true. The participles differ only from other
adjectives in governing the same case as their verb; and this is not
an early distinction, for in the earliest Sanskrit all verbal nouns
may govern the same case as their verb.
The system here sketched in the barest outline tended steadily to fall
into decay. The case system was not extensive enough to express even
the commonest relations. Thus there was no means of distinguishing by
the cases between starting from outside and starting from inside,
ideas which, e.g. Finnish regards as requiring separate cases; without
a preposition it was impossible to distinguish between _on_ and _in_,
though to the person concerned there is much difference, for example
between being on a river and in a river. There are other difficulties
of the same kind. These had to be got over by the use of adverbs. But
no sooner had the adverbs become well established for the purpose of
defining these local relations than the meaning was felt to exist more
in the adverb than in the case ending. For this syntactical reason, as
well as for mechanical reasons arising from accent (q.v.), the case
system in some languages fell more and more into desuetude. In
Sanskrit it has been kept entire, in Balto-Slavonic the only loss has
been the disappearance of the original genitive and its replacement by
the ablative. In Latin the locative has been confused with the
genitive and the ablative, and the instrumental with the ablative. The
loss of the locative as an independent case had not long preceded
historical times, because it survives in Oscan, the kindred dialect of
the neighbouring Campania. Greek has confused ablative with genitive,
except for one small relic recently discovered on an inscription at
Delphi; in the consonant stems it has replaced the dative by the
locative form and confused in it dative, locative and instrumental
meanings. In some other members of the family, e.g. Germanic, the
confusion has gone still farther.
The fate of the verb is similar, though the two paradigms do not
necessarily decay at the same rate. Thus Latin has modified its verb
system much more than its noun system, and Greek, while reducing
seriously its noun forms, shows a very elaborate verb system, which
has no parallel except in the Aryan group. From the syntactical point
of view, however, the Greek system is much superior to the Aryan,
which has converted its perfect into a past tense in classical
Sanskrit, and to a large extent lost grip of the moods. The decay in
Aryan may be largely attributed to the power, which this group
developed beyond any other, of making compounds which in practice took
the place of subordinate sentences to a large extent. The causes for
the modifications which the Latin verb system has undergone are more
obscure, but they are shared not only by its immediate neighbours the
other Italic dialects, but also to a great degree by the more remote
Celtic dialects.
The origin and spread of the Indo-European languages has long been, and
remains, a vexed question. No sooner had Bopp laid the foundation of
Comparative Philology in his great work, the first edition of which
appeared in 1833-1835, than this question began to be seriously
considered. The earlier writers agreed in regarding Asia as the original
home of the speakers of these languages. For this belief there were
various grounds,--statements in the Biblical record, the greater
originality (according to Schlegel) of Sanskrit, the absurd belief that
the migrations of mankind always proceeded towards the west. The view
propounded by an English philologist, Dr R. G. Latham, that the original
home was in Europe, was scouted by one of the most eminent writers on
the subject--Victor Hehn--as lunacy possible only to one who lived in a
country of cranks. Latham's view was first put forward in 1851, and in
half a century opinion had almost universally come over to his side. Max
Müller indeed to the last held to the view that the home was "somewhere
in Asia," and Professor Johannes Schmidt of Berlin, in a paper read
before the Oriental Congress at Stockholm in 1889, argued for a close
contact between early Indo-European and Assyrian civilization, from the
borrowing of one or two words and the existence of duodecimal elements
in the Indo-European numeral system side by side with the prevalent
decimal system--the dozen, the gross, the long hundred (120), &c. At 60
the systems crossed, and 60 was a very characteristic element in
Assyrian numeration, whence come our minutes and seconds and many other
units.[6]
Even before Latham a Belgian geologist, d'Omalius d'Halloy, in 1848
had raised objections to the theory of the Asiatic origin of the
Indo-Europeans, but his views remained unheeded. In 1864 he brought
three questions before the _Société d'anthropologie_ of Paris: (1)
What are the proofs of the Asiatic origin of Europeans? (2) Have not
inflectional languages passed from Europe to Asia rather than from
Asia to Europe? (3) Are not the speakers of Celtic languages the
descendants of the autochthonous peoples of Western Europe? (Reinach,
_op. cit_. p. 38). Broca in replying to d'Omalius emphasized the fact
which has been too often forgotten in this controversy, that race and
language are not necessarily identical. In 1868 Professor Benfey of
Göttingen argued for the south-east of Europe as the original home,
while Ludwig Geiger in 1871 placed it in Germany, a view which in
later times has had not a few supporters.
Truth to tell, however, we are not yet ready to fix the site of the
original home. Before this can be done, many factors as yet
imperfectly known must be more completely ascertained. The prehistoric
conditions of Northern, Western, Central and South-eastern Europe have
been carefully investigated, but important new discoveries are still
continually being made. Investigation of other parts of Europe is less
complete, and prehistoric conditions in Asia are at present very
imperfectly known. In Western Europe two prehistoric races are known,
the palaeolithic and the neolithic. The former, distinguished by their
great skill in drawing figures of animals, especially the horse, the
reindeer, and the mammoth, preceded the period of the Great Ice Age
which rendered Northern Europe to the latitude of London and Berlin
uninhabitable for a period, the length of which, as of all geological
ages, cannot definitely be ascertained. For the present purpose,
however, this is of less importance, because it is not claimed that
the Indo-European stock is of so great antiquity. But when the ice
again retreated it must have been long before Northern Europe could
have maintained a population of human beings. The disappearance of the
surface ice must have been followed by a long period when ice still
remained underground, and the surface was occupied by swamps and
barren tundras, as Northern Siberia is now. When a human population
once more occupied Northern Europe it is impossible to estimate in
years.
The problem may be attacked from the opposite direction. How long
would it have taken for the Indo-European stock to spread from its
original home to its modern areas of occupation? Some recent writers
say that it is unnecessary to carry the stock back farther than 2500
B.C.--a period when the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia were
already ancient. Wherever the original home was situated, this date is
probably fixed too low. The discussion, moreover, is in danger not
only of moving in one vicious circle but in two. (a) The term
"Indo-European stock" necessarily implies race, but why might not the
language have been from the earliest times at which we can trace it
the language of a mixed race? (b) It is usual to assume that the
Indo-European stock was tall and blond, in fact much as the classical
writers describe the early Germans. But the truth of this hypothesis
is much more difficult to demonstrate. In most countries known to the
ancients where blond hair prevailed, at the present day dark or brown
hair is much more in evidence. Moreover the colour of fair hair often
varies from childhood to middle life, and the flaxen hair of youth is
very frequently replaced by a much darker shade in the adult. It has
been often pointed out that many of Homer's heroes are _xanthoi_, and
it is frequently argued that [Greek: xanthos] means blond. This,
however, is anything but certain, even when Vacher de Lapouge has
collected all the passages in ancient writers which bear upon the
subject. When Diodorus (v. 32) wishes to describe the children of the
Galatae, by whom apparently he means the Germans, he says that their
hair as children is generally _white_, but as they grow up it is
assimilated to the colour of their fathers. The ethnological argument
as to long-headed and short-headed races (dolichocephalic and
brachycephalic) seems untrustworthy, because in countries described as
dolichocephalic short skulls abound and vice versa. Moreover this
classification, to which much more attention has been devoted than its
inventor Retzius ever intended, is in itself unsatisfactory. The
relation between the length and breadth of the head without
consideration of the total size is clearly an unsatisfactory
criterion. It is true that to the mathematician ¾ or 6/8 or 9/12 are
of identical value, but, if it be also generally true that mental and
physical energy are dependent on the size and weight of the brain,
then the mere mathematical relation between length and breadth is of
less importance than the size of the quantities. Anthropologists
appear now to recognize this themselves.
The argument from physical geography seems more important. But here
also no certain answer can be obtained till more is known of the
conditions, in early times, of the eastern part of the area.
According to Ratzel[7] the Caspian was once very much larger than it
is now, and to the north of it there extended a great area of swamp,
which made it practically impossible for the Indo-European race to
have crossed north of the Caspian from either continent to the other.
At an early period the Caspian and Black Sea were connected, and the
Sea of Marmora and the Dardanelles were represented by a river which
entered the Aegean at a point near the island of Andros. While the
northern Aegean was still land divided only by a river, it is clear
that migration from south-eastern Europe to Asia Minor, or reversely,
might have taken place with ease. Even in much later times the
Dardanelles have formed no serious barrier to migration in either
direction. At the dawn of history, Thracian tribes crossed it and
founded, it seems, the Phrygian and Armenian stock in Asia Minor; the
Gauls at a later time followed the same road, as did Alexander the
Great a generation earlier. At the end of the middle ages, Asia sent
by way of the Dardanelles the invading Turks into Europe. The Greeks,
a nation of seafarers, on the other hand reached Asia directly across
the Aegean, using the islands, as it were, as stepping-stones.
Though much more attention has been devoted to the subject by recent
writers than was earlier the practice, it is doubtful whether
migration by sea has even now been assigned its full importance. The
most mysterious people of antiquity, the Pelasgians, do not seem to be
in all cases the same stock, as their name appears merely to mean "the
people of the sea," [Greek: Pelasgoi] representing an earlier [Greek:
pelags-koi], where [Greek: pelags] is the weak form of the stem of
[Greek: pelagos], "sea," and [Greek: -koi] the ending so frequent in
the names of peoples. A parallel to the sound changes may be seen in
[Greek: misgô], for *[Greek: mig-skô], by the side of [Greek:
mig-nymi]. As time goes on, evidence seems more and more to tend to
confirm the truth of the great migrations by sea, recorded by
Herodotus, of Lydians to Etruria, of Eteocretans both to east and
west. An argument in favour of the original Indo-Europeans being
seated in north-western Germany has been developed by G. Kossinna
(_Zeitschrift für Ethnologie_, 1902, pp. 161-222) from the forms and
ornamentation of ancient pottery. It has certainly not been generally
received with favour, and as Kossinna himself affirms that the
classification of prehistoric pottery is still an undeveloped science,
his theory is clearly at present unequal to the weight of such a
superstructure as he would build upon it. As the allied sciences are
not prepared with an answer, it is necessary to fall back upon the
Indo-European languages themselves. The attempt has often been made to
ascertain both the position of the original home and the stage of
civilization which the original community had reached from a
consideration of the vocabulary for plants and animals common to the
various languages of the Indo-European family. But the experience of
recent centuries warns us to be wary in the application of this
argument. If we cut off all past history and regard the language of
the present day as we have perforce to regard our earliest records,
two of the words most widely disseminated amongst the Indo-European
people of Europe are _tobacco_ and _potato_. Without historical
records it would be impossible for us to discover that these words in
their earliest European form had been borrowed from the Caribbean
Indians. Most languages tend to adopt with an imported product the
name given to it by its producers, though frequently misunderstanding
arises, as in the case of the two words mentioned, the _potato_ being
properly the yam, and _tobacco_ being properly the pipe, while _petum_
or _petun_ (cp. _petunia_) was the plant.[8]
The first treatise in which an attempt was made to work out the
primitive Indo-European civilisation in detail was Adolphe Pictet's
_Les Origines indo-européennes ou les Aryas primitifs_ (1859-1863).
The idyllic conditions in which, according to Pictet, early
Indo-European man subsisted were accepted and extended by many
enthusiastic successors. The father, the protector of the family
(_pater_ from _pa_, protect), and the mother (_mater_ from _ma_, to
produce) were surrounded by their children (Skt. _putra_), whose name
implied that they kept everything clean and neat. The daughter was the
milkmaid (Skt. _duhita_ from _duh_, milk), while the brother (Skt.
_bhratar_), derived from the root of _ferre_, "bear," was the natural
protector of his sister, whose name, with some hesitation, is decided
to mean "she who dwells with her brother," the notion of brother and
sister marriage being, however, summarily rejected (ii. p. 365). The
uncle and aunt are a second father and mother to the family, and for
this reason _nepos_, Skt. _napat_, is both nephew and grandson. The
life of such families was pastoral but not nomad; there was a
farmstead where the women were busied with housewifery and
butter-making, while the men drove their flocks afield. The ox, the
horse, the sheep, the goat and the pig were domesticated as well as
the dog and the farmyard fowls, but it was in oxen that their chief
wealth consisted. Hence a cow was offered to an honoured guest, cows
were the object of armed raids upon their neighbours, and when a
member of the family died, a cow was killed to accompany him in the
next world. Even the phenomena of nature to their naive imaginations
could be represented by cows: the clouds of heaven were cows whose
milk nourished the earth, the stars were a herd with the sun as the
bull amongst them, the earth was a cow yielding her increase. Before
the original community, which extended over a wide area with Bactria
for its centre, had broken up, agriculture had begun, and barley, if
not other cereals, and various leguminous plants were cultivated. Oxen
drew the plough and the wagon. Industry also had developed with the
introduction of agriculture; the carpenter with a variety of tools
appears to construct farm implements, buildings and furniture, and the
smith is no less busy. Implements had begun with stone, but by this
time were made of bronze if not of iron, for the metals gold, silver,
copper, tin were certainly known. Spinning and weaving had also begun;
pottery was well developed. The flocks and herds and agriculture
supplied food with plenty of variety; fermented liquors, mead,
probably wine and perhaps beer, were used, not always in moderation. A
great variety of military weapons had been invented, but geographical
reasons prevented navigation from developing in Bactria. Towns existed
and fortified places. The people were organized in clans, the clans in
tribes. At the head of all, though not in the most primitive epoch,
was the king, who reigned not by hereditary right, but by election.
Though money had not yet been invented, exchange and barter
flourished; there were borrowers and lenders, and property passed from
father to son. Though we have no definite information as to their
laws, justice was administered; murder, theft and fraud were punished
with death, imprisonment or fine (_Résumé général_ at end of vol.
ii.).
Further investigation, however, did not confirm this ideally happy
form of primitive civilization. Many of Pictet's etymologies were
erroneous, many of his deductions based on very uncertain evidence. No
recent writer adopts Pictet's views of the Indo-European family. But
his list of domesticated animals is approximately correct, if
domestication is used loosely simply of animals that might be kept by
the Indo-European man about his homestead. Even at the present day
domestication means different things in the case of different animals.
A pig is not domesticated as a dog is; in areas like the Hebrides or
western Ireland, where cattle and human beings share the two ends of
the same building, domestication means something very different from
the treatment of large herds on a farm extending to many hundreds of
acres. In other respects the height of the civilization was vastly
exaggerated. That the Indo-European people were agricultural as well
as pastoral seems highly probable. But as Heraclides says of the
Athamanes (_Fragmenta hist. Graec._ ii. 219), the women were the
agriculturists, while the men were shepherds. Agriculture begins on a
very small scale with the dibbling by means of a pointed stick of a
few seeds of some plant which the women recognize as useful either for
food or medicine, and is possible only when the people have ceased to
be absolutely nomad and have fixed settlements for continuous periods
of some length. The pastoral habit is broken down in men only by
starvation, if the pasture-lands become too cramped through an
excessive increase of population or are seized by a conqueror. As has
been well said, "of all the ordinary means of gaining a
livelihood--with the exception perhaps of mining--agriculture is the
most laborious, and is never voluntarily adopted by men who have not
been accustomed to it from their childhood" (Mackenzie Wallace,
Russia, new ed. i. p. 266, in relating the conversion of the Bashkir
Tatars to agriculture). Even the plough, in the primitive form of a
tree stump with two branches, one forming the handle, the other the
pole, was developed, and to this period may belong the representations
in rock carvings in Sweden and the Alps of a pair of oxen in the
plough (S. Müller, _Nordische Altertumskunde_, i. 205; Dechelette,
_Manuel d'archéologie_, ii. pp. 492 ff.). The Indo-European
civilization in its beginnings apparently belongs to the chalcolithic
period (sometimes described by the barbarous term of Italian origin
_eneolithic_) when copper, if not bronze had come in, but the use of
stone for many purposes had not yet gone out. While primitive
Indo-European man apparently knew, as has been said, the horse, ox,
sheep, goat, pig and dog, it is to be observed that in their wild
state at least these animals do not all affect the same kind of area.
The horse is an animal of the open plain; the foal always accompanies
the mother, for at first its neck is too short to allow it to graze,
and the mare, unlike the cow, has no large udder in which to carry a
great supply of milk. The cow, on the other hand, hides her calf in a
brake when she goes to graze, and is more a woodland animal. The pig's
natural habitat is the forest where beech mast, acorns, or chestnuts
are plentiful. The goat is a climber and affects the heights, while
the sheep also prefers short grass to the richer pastures suited to
kine. To collect and tame all those animals implies control of an
extensive and varied area.
What of the trees known to primitive Indo-European man? On this the
greater part of the arguments regarding the original home have turned.
The name for the _beech_ extends through a considerable number of
Indo-European languages, and it has generally been assumed that the
beech must have been known from the first and therefore must have been
a tree which flourished in the original home. Now the habitat of the
beech is to the west of a line drawn from Königsberg to the Crimea.
The argument assumes that its distribution was always the same. But
nothing is more certain than that in different ages different trees
succeed one another on the same soil. In the peat mosses of
north-east Scotland are found the trunks of vast oaks which have no
parallel among the trees which grow in the same district now, where
the oak has a hard struggle to live at all, and where experience
teaches the planter that coniferous trees will be more successful. On
the coast of Denmark in the same way the conifer has replaced the
beech since the days of the "kitchen middens," from which so much
information as to the primitive inhabitants of that area has been
obtained. But with regard to the names of trees there are two serious
pitfalls which it is difficult to avoid. (a) It is common to give a
tree the name of another which in habit it resembles. In England the
oriental plane does not grow freely north of the Trent; accordingly,
farther north the sycamore, which has a leaf that a casual observer
might think similar, has usurped the name of the plane. (b) In the
case of the beech (Lat. _fagus_), the corresponding Greek word [Greek:
phêgos] does not mean _beech_ but _oak_, or possibly, if one may judge
from the magnificent trees of north-west Greece, the chestnut. It has
been suggested that the word is connected with the verb [Greek:
phagein] to eat, so that it was originally the tree with edible fruit
and could thus be specialized in different senses in different areas.
If, however, Bartholomae's connexion of the Kurd _buz_, "elm" (_Idg.
Forschungen_, ix. 271) be correct, there can be no relation between
[Greek: phagein] and [Greek: phêgos], but the latter comes from a root
*_bhaug_, in which the _g_ would become _z_ among the _satem_
languages. The birch is a more widely spread tree than the beech,
growing as luxuriantly in the Himalayas as in western Europe, but
notwithstanding, the Latin _fraxinus_, which is almost certainly of
the same origin, means not _birch_ but _ash_, while the word akin to
ash (Gr. [Greek: oxuê]) appears in Latin without the _k_ suffix as
_os_- in Latin _ornus_, "mountain ash," for an earlier *_osinos_, cp.
Old Bulgarian _jasenu_ (the _j_ has no etymological value), Welsh and
Cornish _onnen_, from an original Celtic *_onna_ from *_os-na_. One of
the most widely spread tree names is the word _tree_ itself, which
appears in a variety of forms, Gr. [Greek: drys], Goth _triu_; Skt.
_daru_, [Greek: dory], &c., which is sometimes as in Greek specially
limited to the oak, while the Indian _deodar_ (_deva-daru_) is a
conifer. O. Schrader, who in his remarkable book, _Sprachvergleichung
und Urgeschichte_ (1883, 3rd ed., 1906-1907), locates the original
home in southern Russia, would allow the original community (ii. p.
178) to be partly within, partly without the beech line. The only
other tree the name of which is widely spread is the willow: the
English _with_, _withy_, Lat. _vitex_, Gr. [Greek: itea] for [Greek:
witea], Lithuanian _wytis_, Zend _vaeti_. Otherwise the words for
trees are limited to a small number of languages, and the meaning in
different languages is widely different, as Gr. [Greek: elatê],
"pine," Old High German _linta_, "linden," with which go the Latin
_linter_, "boat," and Lithuanian _lentà_, "board." The lime tree and
the birch do not exist in Greece, and the Latin _betula_ is a
borrowing from Gaulish (Irish _bethe_), the native word _fraxinus_, as
we have seen, being used for the _ash_. The equation of the Latin
_taxus_, "yew," with Gr. [Greek: toxon], "bow," is no doubt correct;
Schrader's equation of Skt. _dhanvan_, "bow," with the German _tanne_,
"fir," must, if correct, show at least a change of material, for no
wood is less well adapted for a bow than fir. The only conclusion that
can be drawn with apparent certainty from the names of trees is that
the original settlements were not in the southern peninsulas of
Europe.
Some of the names for cultivated plants are widely spread, but like
the names of trees do not always indicate the same thing. This is not
surprising if we consider that the word _corn_, within the Teutonic
languages alone, means wheat in England, oats in Scotland, rye in
Germany, barley in Sweden, maize in the United States of America. Thus
the Skt. _yáva_ means corn or barley, in Zend corn (modern Persian
_jav_, barley, but in the language of the Ossetes _yeu_, _yau_ is
millet), the Gk. [Greek: zea] is spelt, the Lithuanian _jawai_ corn,
the Irish _éorna_ barley (Schrader, _Sprachvergleichung_[3] ii. p.
188). The word bere or barley itself is widely spread in Europe--Latin
_far_, spelt, Goth, _barizeins_, "of barley," Old Norse _barr_, Old
Slav, _buru_, a kind of millet (ibid.). But the original habitat of
the cultivated grain plants has not yet been clearly established, and
circumstances of many kinds may occasion a change in the kind of grain
cultivated, provided another can be found suitable to the climate. In
early England it is clear that the prevalent crop was _barley_, for
_barn_ is the _bere-ern_ or barley-house.
The earliest tree-fruits found in Europe are apparently those
discovered by Edouard Piette as Mas d'Azil in a stratum which he
places between palaeolithic and neolithic. They included nuts, plums,
birdcherry, sloe, &c., and along with them was a little heap of grains
of wheat. If Piette's observations are correct, this find must go back
to a date long preceding the fruits found by Heer in the
pile-dwellings of Switzerland. Here also cherry-stones were found,
though the modern cherry is said to have been imported first by
Lucullus in the first century B.C. from Cerasus in Pontus, whence its
name. In the pile-dwellings a considerable number of apples were
found. They were generally cut up into two or three pieces, apparently
to be dried for winter use. In all probability they were wild apples
of the variety _Pirus silvatica_, which is found across the whole of
Central Europe from north to south (Buschan, _Vorgeschichtliche
Botanik_, p. 166). The original habitat of the apple is uncertain, but
it is supposed to be indigenous at any rate south of the Black Sea
(Schrader, _Reallexikon_, s. v. _Apfelbaum_). The history of the name
is obscure; it is often connected with the Campanian town Abella,
which Virgil (_Aeneid_, vii. 740) calls _malifera_, "apple-bearing."
Here also the material for fixing the site of the original habitat is
untrustworthy.
The attempt has been made to limit the possible area by a
consideration of three animals which are said not to occur in certain
parts of it--(a) the eel, which is said not to be found in the Black
Sea; (b) the honey bee, which is not found in that part of Central
Asia drained by the Oxus and Jaxartes; (c) the tortoise, which is not
found in northern areas. From evidence collected by Schrader from a
specialist at Bucharest (_Sprachvergleichung_,[3] ii. p. 147) eels are
found in the Black Sea. The argument, therefore, for excluding the
area which drains into the Black Sea from the possible habitat of the
primitive Indo-European community falls to the ground. Honey was
certainly familiar at an early age, as is shown by the occurrence of
the word *_medhu_, Skt. _mádhu_, Gr. [Greek: methy] (here the meaning
has shifted from mead to wine), Irish _mid_, English _mead_, Old Slav,
_medu_, Lithuanian _medùs_ honey, _midùs_ mead. Schrader, who is the
first to utilize the name of the tortoise in this argument, points out
(_op. cit._ p. 148) that forms from the same root occur in both a
_centum_ and a _satem_ language--Gr. [Greek: chelús, chelonê], Old
Slav. _zily_, _zeluvi_--but that while it reaches far north in eastern
Europe, it does not pass the 46th parallel of latitude in western
Europe. This argument would make not only the German site for the
original home which is supported by Kossinna and Hirt impossible, but
also that of Scandinavia contended for by Penka.
From the foregoing it will be seen that the arguments for any given
area are not conclusive. In the great plain which extends across
Europe north of the Alps and Carpathians and across Asia north of the
Hindu Kush there are few geographical obstacles to prevent the rapid
spread of peoples from any part of its area to any other, and, as we
have seen, the Celts and the Hungarians, &c., have, in the historical
period, demonstrated the rapidity with which such migrations could be
made. Such migration may possibly account for the appearance of a
people using a _centum_ language so far east as Turkestan. But our
information as to Tocharish is still too fragmentary to decide the
question. It is impossible here to discuss at any length the relations
between the separate Indo-European languages, a subject which has
formed, from somewhat different points of view, the subject of
Kretschmer's _Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache_
and Meillet's _Les Dialectes indo-européennes_.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Besides the articles on the separate languages in this
Encyclopaedia the following works are the most important for
consultation: K. Brugmann (phonology and morphology) and B. Delbrück
(syntax), _Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen
Sprachen_ (1886-1900), ed. 2, vol. i. (1897); of vol. ii. two large
parts, including the stem formation and inflexion of the noun, the
pronoun and the numerals, have been published in 1906 and 1909. A
shorter work by Brugmann, _Kurze vergleichende Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen_, dealing mainly with Sanskrit, Greek,
Latin, Germanic and Slavonic, appeared in three parts in 1902-1903. A
good but less elaborate work is A. Meillet, _Introduction à l'étude
comparative des langues indo-européennes_ (1903, 2nd ed. 1908). For
the ethnological argument: W. Z. Ripley, _The Races of Europe_ (1900);
G. Sergi, _The Mediterranean Race_ (English edition, 1901). Other
works, now largely superseded, which deal with this argument are K.
Penka, _Origines Ariacae_ (1883), and _Die Herkunft der Arier_ (1886),
and I. Taylor, _The Origin of the Aryans_, N.D. (1890). The
ethnologists are no more in agreement than the philologists. For the
arguments mainly from the linguistic side see especially O. Schrader,
_Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte_ (3rd ed., 2 vols.,
1906-1907)--the second edition was translated into English by Dr F. B.
Jevons under the title _Prehistoric Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples_
(1890); _Reallexikon der indogermanischen Altertumskunde_ (1901); M.
Much, _Die Heimat der Indogermanen_ (1902, 2nd ed. 1904); E. de
Michelis, _L'Origine degli Indo-europei_ (1903); H. Hirt, _Die
Indogermanen_ (2 vols., 1905-1907); S. Feist, _Europa im Lichte der
Vorgeschichte und die Ergebnisse der vergleichenden indogermanischen
Sprachwissenschaft_, 1910, in W. Sieglin's _Quellen und Forschungen
zur alten Geschichte und Geographie_. Important for special sections
of this question are S. Müller, _Nordische Altertumskunde_ (2 vols.,
1897-1898), and _Urgeschichte Europas_ (1905); V. Hehn,
_Kulturpflanzen und Haustiere_ (1870), 7th ed. edited by O. Schrader,
with contributions on botany by A. Engler (1902); J. Hoops, _Waldbäume
und Kulturpflanzen im germanischen Altertum_ (1905). Delbrück has
devoted a special monograph to the I.-E. names of relationships, from
which he shows that the I.-E. family was patriarchal, not matriarchal
(_Die idg. Verwandtschaftsnamen_, 1889). E. Meyer, from Tocharish
being a _centum_ language, has revived with reserve the hypothesis of
the Asiatic origin (_Geschichte des Altertums_,^2 I. 2, p. 801).
(P. Gi.)