Letter | Published:

Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin

Nature volume 426, pages 435439 (27 November 2003) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Languages, like genes, provide vital clues about human history1,2. The origin of the Indo-European language family is “the most intensively studied, yet still most recalcitrant, problem of historical linguistics”3. Numerous genetic studies of Indo-European origins have also produced inconclusive results4,5,6. Here we analyse linguistic data using computational methods derived from evolutionary biology. We test two theories of Indo-European origin: the ‘Kurgan expansion’ and the ‘Anatolian farming’ hypotheses. The Kurgan theory centres on possible archaeological evidence for an expansion into Europe and the Near East by Kurgan horsemen beginning in the sixth millennium BP7,8. In contrast, the Anatolian theory claims that Indo-European languages expanded with the spread of agriculture from Anatolia around 8,000–9,500 years bp9. In striking agreement with the Anatolian hypothesis, our analysis of a matrix of 87 languages with 2,449 lexical items produced an estimated age range for the initial Indo-European divergence of between 7,800 and 9,800 years bp. These results were robust to changes in coding procedures, calibration points, rooting of the trees and priors in the bayesian analysis.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics (eds Renfrew, C., McMahon, A. & Trask, L.) 189–207 (The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

  2. 2.

    & Language trees support the express-train sequence of Austronesian expansion. Nature 405, 1052–1055 (2000)

  3. 3.

    & Farmers and their languages: the first expansions. Science 300, 597–603 (2003)

  4. 4.

    et al. Tracing European founder lineage in the Near Eastern mtDNA pool. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67, 1251–1276 (2000)

  5. 5.

    et al. The genetic legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens in extant Europeans: a Y chromosome perspective. Science 290, 1155–1159 (2000)

  6. 6.

    , , & Y genetic data support the Neolithic Demic Diffusion Model. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 99, 11008–11013 (2002)

  7. 7.

    The beginning of the Bronze Age in Europe and the Indo-Europeans 3500–2500 B.C. J. Indo-Eur. Stud. 1, 163–214 (1973)

  8. 8.

    Search of the Indo-Europeans: Languages, Archaeology and Myth (Thames & Hudson, London, 1989)

  9. 9.

    in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics (eds Renfrew, C., McMahon, A. & Trask, L.) 413–439 (The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

  10. 10.

    Lexico-statistic dating of prehistoric ethnic contacts. Proc. Am. Phil. Soc. 96, 453–463 (1952)

  11. 11.

    & On the validity of glottochronology. Curr. Anthropol. 3, 115–153 (1962)

  12. 12.

    in Time Depth in Historical Linguistics (eds Renfrew, C., McMahon, A. & Trask, L.) 311–332 (The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, 2000)

  13. 13.

    , & Loss of information in genetic distances. Nature 333, 494–495 (1988)

  14. 14.

    , , & in Molecular Systematics (eds Hillis, D., Moritz, C. & Mable, B. K.) 407–514 (Sinauer Associates, Inc, Sunderland, Massachusetts, 1996)

  15. 15.

    The Rise and Fall of Language (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1997)

  16. 16.

    , , , & Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1091 (1953)

  17. 17.

    , , & Bayesian inference of phylogeny and its impact on evolutionary biology. Science 294, 2310–2314 (2001)

  18. 18.

    SplitsTree: analyzing and visualizing evolutionary data. Bioinformatics 14, 68–73 (1998)

  19. 19.

    R8s, Analysis of Rates of Evolution,Version 1.50 (Univ. California, Davis, 2002)

  20. 20.

    Dyen, I., Kruskal, J. B. & Black, P. FILE IE-DATA1. Available at 〈〉 (1997).

  21. 21.

    & Patterns of variation in levels of homoplasy. Evolution 43, 1781–1795 (1989)

  22. 22.

    & Trends in Linguistics 80: Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans (Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1995)

  23. 23.

    , & Cladistic analysis of languages: Indo-European classification based on lexicostatistical data. Cladistics 19, 120–127 (2003)

  24. 24.

    , & IndoEuropean and computational cladistics. Trans. Philol. Soc. 100, 59–129 (2002)

  25. 25.

    , , & Neolithic transition in Europe: the radiocarbon record revisited. Antiquity 77, 45–62 (2003)

  26. 26.

    , & The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, 1994)

  27. 27.

    Bantu language trees reflect the spread of farming across sub-Saharan Africa: a maximum-parsimony analysis. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 269, 793–799 (2002)

  28. 28.

    , , & The phylogeny of The Canterbury Tales. Nature 394, 839 (1998)

  29. 29.

    & Finding families: Quantitative methods in language classification. Trans. Philol. Soc. 101, 7–55 (2003)

  30. 30.

    & MRBAYES: Bayesian inference of phylogeny. Bioinformatics 17, 754–755 (2001)

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Allan, L. Campbell, L. Chikhi, M. Corballis, N. Gavey, S. Greenhill, J. Hamm, J. Huelsenbeck, G. Nichols, A. Rodrigo, F. Ronquist, M. Sanderson and S. Shennan for useful advice and/or comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1020, New Zealand

    • Russell D. Gray
    •  & Quentin D. Atkinson

Authors

  1. Search for Russell D. Gray in:

  2. Search for Quentin D. Atkinson in:

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Russell D. Gray.

Supplementary information

Word documents

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Table

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02029

Further reading

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.