Discussion: Are The Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by The Migration of The Yamnaya Culture To The West?
Discussion: Are The Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by The Migration of The Yamnaya Culture To The West?
Two co-authored articles in Nature (Haak et al., 2015; Allentoft et al., 2015) caused a sensation.
They revealed genetically the mass migration of steppe Yamnaya culture people in the Early Bronze Age
to central and northern Europe. The authors considered this event as the basis of the spread of Indo-
European languages. In response, the Russian archaeologist, Leo S. Klejn, expresses critical remarks on
the genetic inference, and in particular its implications for the problem of the origins of Indo-European
languages. These remarks were shown to the authors and they present their objections. Klejn, however,
has come to the conclusion that the authors’ objections do not assuage his doubts. He analyses these objec-
tions in a further response.
Ware cultures. This inference coincides since I derived from them the Donets
with the steppe hypothesis of the origins of Catacomb culture (more recent than
the Indo-Europeans. There are, however, Yamnaya). These are cultures of a quite
several rival hypotheses on this subject. different kind. Some Corded Ware cul-
The authors of these articles are aware of tures have barrows, some not. Men are
possible criticisms and often qualify their laid to rest in positions that differ from
inferences, e.g. perhaps not all Indo- those of women. The pottery is completely
European peoples stem from the Yamnaya different—the main types are amphorae
but only some of them. But if it is only and beakers—and the most popular
some of them, then it is not the cradle of weapon is the stone battle hammer-axe.
Proto-Indo-European, only one of its sub- These cultures are widely distributed in
families. If this were the case, the steppe the forest and meadow zone, but do not
hypothesis of the origin of Indo-Europeans extend onto the steppe.
is transformed into the steppe origin of, I doubt that the Yamnaya people spoke
say, Indo-Iranians. That scenario is quite the Proto-Indo-European language. In
realistic, but it would be strange to suppose what follows, I discuss the problem with
their spread over northern Europe; further- reference to the latest archaeological data
more, Indo-Iranian has nothing to do with and suggest how we can try to resolve the
most European languages! controversy using both genetic and arch-
In common with many other archaeolo- aeological findings.
gists, I doubt that the discoveries in ques-
tion reflect a direct migration from the
Yamnaya to the Corded Ware cultures. Breakup of the Indo-European proto-
Let me explain some of their differences. language
I have excavated on several occasions
steppe barrows containing burials of the On the basis of glottochronology and cladis-
Yamnaya culture. I know these burials well: tics, all the acknowledged dates for the
they are usually primary in the barrow, breakup of the Proto-Indo-European lan-
sometimes secondary, with strong skeletons guages are located within the seventh to fifth
laid on their backs with raised knees, and millennia BC (Figure 1): the median date
they are densely covered with red ochre. according to Gray and Atkinson (2003) is
Men and women are buried in the same 6700 BC; for Bouckaert and colleagues (2012/
way. The graves usually contain handmade 2013) it is 5500 BC; for Swadesh (1955) it
ceramics without handles, i.e. small, round- takes place before 5000 BC; for Dybo and
bottomed, egg-shaped vessels, sometimes Kassian (Kushniarevich et al., 2015) it is
with a corded decoration. They also often 5000 BC; for Starostin (2007) it lies around
contain hammer-headed pins made of 4670 BC; and for Chang and colleagues
horn, and occasionally stone shaft-hole (2015) it is 4500 BC. (Even if we expand
hammer-axes, and bronze lance-shaped the range by adding the confidence
knives and awls. This culture is widely dis- intervals, this cannot rejuvenate dates
tributed on the steppe. On the western significantly. The millennial gap remains.)
steppe, the Yamnaya is of mixed character,
retaining its own distinctive way of inter-
ment in barrows but adopting different, Disappearance of the Yamnaya culture
local ceramics.
I was also much involved in studying The Yamnaya culture is now well dated by
the Corded Ware and Battle-Axe cultures calibrated radiocarbon chronology (Chernykh
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 5
Figure 1. The breakup of the Proto-Indo-European language (in various datings) and the branching
off of the Yamnaya culture.
& Orlovskaya, 2004a; Nikolova, 2012). It The Poltavka culture begins in c. 2600
begins at the very earliest around the thirtieth BC (Morgunova, 2013), the Catacomb cul-
century BC, but most of its dates fall within tures also begin around 2600 BC, but, if
the second third of the third millennium BC. we broaden the confidence interval to two
Likewise, Heyd (2011) dates Yamnaya in sigmas, then the earliest limit will be
the west (in the area of Hungary) to the first around 2900 BC (Chernykh & Orlovskaya,
half of the third millennium BC. 2004b). This is still very far even from the
One must also take into account that nearest possible date of the language
the derivative cultures (and their derivative breakup around 4500 BC.
languages) can branch off from their Thus, there is gap of about 2.5 millen-
matrix no earlier than this time and nia (1.6 millennia at the very least)
perhaps much later. Furthermore, we must between the breakup of the language and
correlate the breakup of the required that of the culture (Figure 1). We must
proto-language not with the beginning of a add that the breakup of the language will
culture (say, the Yamnaya) but with its not immediately follow the fragmentation
disintegration, the end of its existence, its of a society. So the gap will be even wider.
replacement by new cultures formed on The inference is clear. The language
the basis of Yamnaya—those that might spoken by the Yamnaya people cannot have
derive from it. By this criterion, the been Proto-Indo-European: the temporal
Poltavka culture, Catacomb grave cultures, gap between the breakup of the Proto-
and others might be derivative. Indo-European language and the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
6 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
Figure 2. Distribution of the ‘Yamnaya’ genetic component in the populations of Europe (data taken
from Haak et al., 2015). The intensity of the colour corresponds to the contribution of this component
in various modern populations. The scale of intervals is to the right. The purple line represents the
borders of the Yamnaya area. The brown arrow shows the direction of migration postulated by the
proponents of a Yamnaya origin for the Indo-Europeans of Europe. The red arrows show the direction
of the movement of the ‘Yamnaya’ component in accordance with the gradient shown on this distribu-
tion. The map shows that the ‘Yamnaya’ genetic component is hardly Yamnaya in origin; rather it is a
more ancient component originating in the populations of northern Europe from whence it spread both
to the steppes and to the cultures of central Europe and elsewhere. Map by O.P. Balanovsky.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 7
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
8 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 9
related to Armenians (Haak et al., 2015) archaeological, linguistic, and genetic data
and hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus speak against such a hypothesis.
(Jones et al., 2015). This ancestry has not
been detected in any European hunter- Absolute dating of the Yamnaya and
gatherers analysed to date (Lazaridis et al., Corded Ware cultures
2014; Skoglund et al., 2014; Haak et al.,
2015; Fu et al., 2016), but made up some The Yamnaya culture starts around 3000
fifty per cent of the ancestry of the BC (online archaeological text to Allentoft
Yamnaya. The fact that the Corded Ware et al., 2015), and Corded Ware no earlier
traced some of its ancestry to the southern than 2800 BC. The majority of dates
Caucasus makes a source in the north less cluster around 2600 BC, when populations
parsimonious. had consolidated. Klejn’s arguments on
In our study, we did not speculate about this issue are incorrect.
the date of Proto-Indo-European and the
locations of its speakers, as these questions
are unresolved by our data, although we Proto-Indo-European split
do think the genetic data impose con-
straints on what occurred. We are enthusi- The dates produced by the promising, yet
astic about the potential of genetics to still highly experimental, phylogenetic
contribute to a resolution of this long- methods are so variable, ranging from
standing issue, but this is likely to require 6700 BC to 4500 BC, that at this point
DNA from multiple, as yet unsampled, they cannot be considered reliable.
ancient populations. The reconstructed Proto-Indo-European
vocabulary concerning weaving, wool pro-
duction, horse breeding, and wagon tech-
nology is incompatible with dates earlier
ARCHAEOLOGY, LANGUAGE, AND than the fourth millennium BC.
GENETICS: YAMNAYA AND CORDED
WARE. A RESPONSE TO LEO KLEJN
Kristian Kristiansen, Karl- Scandinavia as a source for Yamnaya
Göran Sjögren, Morten Allentoft, genetic dominance
Martin Sikora, and Eske Willerslev
Klejn’s argument is based on contemporary
Leo Klejn proposes an alternative scenario patterns of genetic variation, which are often
for the archaeological and genetic formation poor predictors of their distributions in
of the Corded Ware culture in northern the past. Available aDNA data demonstrate
Europe, and subsequently the spread of that neither Mesolithic nor Neolithic
Indo-European languages. He wishes to see Scandinavians have Yamnaya affinity
an early origin in Late Mesolithic cultures (Lazaridis et al., 2014; Skoglund et al., 2014).
of Scandinavia, who migrated south to the
Dnieper and Donets areas, where they later
turned into Yamnaya. To promote such a The Yamnaya migration and its
hypothesis, he attempts in points 1–4 to archaeological and genetic impact in
undermine the existing chronology of the northern and central Europe
Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures, as well
as the date for the breakup of the Indo- It has recently been demonstrated that two
European proto-language. However, male burials of the earliest Corded Ware
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
10 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 11
More than that, I analysed in my criti- Dating the breakup of the Indo-
cism both possibilities—the case for all European proto-language
Indo-European languages spreading from
Yamnaya and the case for only some of My opponents’ first objection appears to
them spreading from Yamnaya. In the clearly contradict their second objection.
latter case, it is argued that only the lan- The latter, made by both sets of authors,
guages of the steppes, the Aryan (Indo- attempts to address my point that there is
Iranian) are descended from Yamnaya, not a gap of more than a thousand years
the languages of northern Europe. between the breakup of the Indo-European
Together with many scholars, I am in proto-language and the birth of cultures
agreement with the last possibility. But, derived from Yamnaya. In both responses,
then, what sense can the proposed migra- the authors draw attention to the state of
tion of the Yamnaya culture to the Baltic linguistic conclusions: they point out that
region have? It would bring the Indo- the dates of the breakup of the Indo-
Iranian proto-language to that region! Yet, European proto-language are not facts but
there are no traces of this language on the hypotheses based on a certain model—
coasts of the Baltic! here the shaky foundations of glottochron-
However, the Yamnaya culture, or ology are referred to. As if the method of
rather its western variety, has many con- admixture used by geneticists is not itself
tacts in the Middle Danube basin (not in based on some model!
the north of Europe), where mixed assem- Yes, glottochronology is not exact—
blages are found with Yamnaya burial rites neither is radiocarbon dating—but, within
and local ceramics (probably representing certain parameters, it is reliable enough,
marriages of steppe men with local and these bounds of tolerance are deter-
women). This may be reflected in the mined not by the arbitrary will of some
long-recognized distribution of Indo- scholars (which may be infinite) but by
Iranian terms relating to power, religion, some commonly recognized factors of
and war in the Italo-Celtic languages: raj/ uncertainty.
rex, reg (king), upasti/foss (servant), asi/ One of the two responses mentions the
ensis (sword), etc. (Vendryès, 1917; connection of the later date (fourth mil-
Koncha, 2005). lennium BC) with the presence in the
I am afraid that in my critical article my Proto-Indo-European glossary of general
main concern about geneticists’ treatment terms for weaving, horse breeding,
of languages was not made plain. My main wagons, etc. Yet, this connection is not
concern is that, to my mind, one should absolute, for borrowed terms might by
not directly apply conclusions from genet- analogy take forms developed in this lan-
ics to events in the development of lan- guage (i.e. a word spread by borrowing
guage because there is no direct and could look outwardly similar to forms
inevitable dependence between events in derived from the proto-language). The
the life of languages, culture, and physical whole sixth chapter of the second part of
structure (both anthropological and Koncha’s (2017) work Indoevropeytsi is
genetic). They can coincide, but often they devoted to the substantiation of this
all follow divergent paths. In each case the aspect. However, even if we take the most
supposed coincidence should be proved recent date for the breakup of the Indo-
separately. European proto-language, the thousand-
year gap between this breakup (even if
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
12 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
without the Hittites) and the birth of cul- with language continuity is very difficult
tures derived from Yamnaya remains. to ascertain.
The new work of Reich’s team
(Lazaridis et al., 2016) has retrieved data
Northern European roots that adds weight to this objection. Large-
scale sample analysis has shown that a
The authors’ third objection concerns the mighty fifty-seven per cent contribution of
increase of the genetic similarity of eastern hunter-gatherers had entered the
European population with that of the genetic pool of the Early Bronze Age
Yamnaya culture. This increases in the steppe; a similar contribution (43 per cent)
north of Europe and is weak in the south, had entered the genetic pool of the
in the places adjacent to the Yamnaya Scandinavian hunter-gatherers. This sug-
area, i.e. in Hungary. This gradient is gests that the steppe population (including
clearly expressed in the modern popula- Yamnaya) had a component akin to
tion, but was present already in the that of the Scandinavian Mesolithic popu-
Bronze Age, and hence cannot be lation (something I had suspected from
explained by shifts that occurred in the archaeological and anthropological consid-
Early Iron Age and in medieval times. erations). The steppe cultures of the Early
However, the supposed migration of the Bronze Age have partly the same roots as
Yamnaya culture to the west and north Scandinavian cultures (although not only
should imply a gradient in just the oppos- Scandinavian): the impact of eastern
ite direction! European hunter-gatherers is evident in
It is precisely this paradox that has led many other cultures of eastern Europe. As
to my suggestion to search for the source for the Armenian data, they remain com-
of the supposed impact in the north of pletely outside the net of connections
Europe. My suggestion coincides with the drawn by Reich’s team.
long-noted similarity of a Cromagnon-like
population in the northern European
Mesolithic with the steppe population of Further issues
the Early Neolithic and Bronze Age
steppes, in particular with the Yamnaya. To this set of objections, Kristiansen and
Researchers of the Ukrainian and his colleagues add two more counterweights
Belarussian Mesolithic also advance arch- to my arguments: 1) in two early burials of
aeological hypotheses of this kind. the Corded Ware culture (one in Germany,
the other in Poland) some single attributes
of Yamnaya origin have been found; 2) in
Causasian roots? the Yamnaya and Corded Ware popula-
tions an early form of plague (pestis) was
The authors’ fourth objection is a continu- found (Rasmussen et al., 2015) and both
ation of the third. Both of my opponents’ bacteria stem from one source. As to the first
responses stress the discovery of the point, if this is the full extent of Yamnaya
(Trans) Caucasian (Armenian) roots of the infiltration into central Europe—two
steppe population and hold them as a burials (one for each country) from several
counterweight to the possibility of nor- thousands (and from several hundreds of
thern roots. Yet, usually every archaeo- early burials)—then it hardly amounts to
logical culture has several roots in different large-scale migration. As to the second
directions. Which of them is connected point, the plague could have spread without
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 13
any massive migration (a few isolated different: pit graves are not rectangular but
contact points may have been sufficient). oval, skeletons are not on their backs with
I believe I have answered to all the bent legs but curled up on their sides or
authors’ objections. As can be seen, they supine, ochre is scanty, and ceramics are
have not caused me to suspend my doubts. not round-bottomed (as on the Dnieper or
Don) but are of Balkan type.
By contemporary Russian standards,
New genetic results, new interpretations this must be characterized as another, sep-
arate culture, not Yamnaya. Among
Quite recently we have witnessed the Eneolithic steppe cultures classified by
success of a group of geneticists from Rassamakin and Kotova in the Ukraine,
Stanford University and elsewhere (Poznik some are very similar to the Lower
et al., 2016). They succeeded in revealing Danube cultures (Lower Mikhailovka,
varieties of Y-chromosome connected with Kvityana): barrows, oval pit graves, skele-
demographic expansions in the Bronze tons supine or lying curled on their sides,
Age. Such expansion can give rise to and cromlechs. The culture in question
migration. Among the variants connected was one of these, and its possible connec-
with this expansion is R1b, and this hap- tion with Yamnaya (kurgan, what else?) is
logroup is typical for the Yamnaya culture. too limited.
But what bad luck! This haplogroup con- Furthermore, with regard to the barrow
nected with expansion is indicated by the burials of the third millennium BC in the
clade L11, while the Yamnaya burials are basin of the Danube, although they have
associated with a different clade, Z2103, been assigned to the Yamnaya culture, I
that is not marked by expansion. would consider them as also belonging to
It is now time to think about how else another, separate culture, perhaps a mixed
the remarkable results reached by both culture: its burial custom is typical of
teams of experienced and bright geneticists the Yamnaya, but its pottery is absolutely
may be interpreted. not Yamnaya, but local Balkan with
imports of distinctive corded beakers
(Schnurbecher). I would not be surprised if
The cultural affinities of barrow burials Y-chromosome haplogroups of this popu-
in the Danube basin lation were somewhat similar to those of
the Yamnaya, while mitochondrial groups
I have read the outstanding archaeological were indigenous.
works by Volker Heyd with great interest. As yet, geneticists deal with great
In a recent work in co-authorship with blocks of populations and prefer to match
Frı̑nculeasa and Preda (Frı̑nculeasa et al., them to very large and generalized cultural
2015) he summarizes the results of many blocks, while archaeology now analyses
years’ excavations of barrows in the basin more concrete and smaller cultures, each
of the Danube. The results are extremely of which had its own fate.
important. The early date of some burials
on the steppe (last third of the fourth mil-
lennium BC) is substantiated. Yet Heyd
and his co-authors have shown that these REFERENCES
early barrow burials (as distinct from those
of the third millennium, similar in some Allentoft, M.E., Sikora, M., Sjögren, K.-G.,
ways to Yamnaya burials) are significantly et al. 2015. Population Genomics of
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
14 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature, 522: 167–72. Landscapes: Burial Mounds in the Copper
doi: 10.1038/nature14507 and Bronze Ages (Central and Eastern
Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., et al. Europe – Balkans – Adriatic – Aegean, 4th–
2012. Mapping the Origins and Expansion 2nd millennium BC). Lyon: Maison de
of the Indo-European Language Family. l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, pp.
Science, 337: 957–60. doi: 10.1126/ 236–55.
science.1219669. Corrections and Ivanova, S.V. 2004. Istoricheskaya rekonstrukt-
Clarifications. Science, 342 (2013): 1446. siya i arkheologicheskie realii (Yamnaya
doi: 10.1126/science.342.6165.1446-a kulturno-istoricheskaya oblast) [Historical
Chang, W., Cathcart, C., Hall, D. & Reconstruction and Archaeological Reality
Garrett, A. 2015. Ancestry-constrained (Yamnaya Cultural and Historical Area)].
Phylogenetic Analysis Supports the Indo- Naukovi praci istorichnogo fakultetu
European Steppe Hypothesis. Language, Zaporiskogo universitetu, 18: 330–59.
91: 194–244. Jones, E.R., Gonzales-Fortes, G., Connell, S.,
Chernykh, E.N. & Orlovskaya, L.B. 2004a. et al. 2015. Upper Palaeolithic Genomes
Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya drev- Reveal Deep Roots of Modern Eurasians.
neyamnoy obshchnosti i istoki kurgannykh Nature Communications, 6: article no.
kultur. Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya, 1: 84–99. 8912. doi: 10.1038/ncomms9912
Chernykh, E.N. & Orlovskaya, L B. 2004b. Klejn, L.S. 2015a. Arkheologicheskaya osnova
Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya katakomb- stepnoy gipotezy proiskhozhdeniya indoevro-
noy kulturno-istoricheskoy obshchnosti peytsev: kriticheskiy vzglyad [Archaeological
(sredniy bronzovyj vek). Rossiyskaya Basis of the Steppe Hypothesis of Indo-
Arkheologiya, 2: 15–29. European Origin: Critical View] [à propos of
Frı̑nculeasa., A., Preda, B. & Heyd, V. 2015. K. Kristiansen’s article]. Genofond, August
Pit-graves, Yamnaya and Kurgans along 2015 [online] [accessed 5 April 2017].
the Lower Danube: Disentangling IVth Available at: <http://xn–c1acc6aafa1c.xn–
and IIIrd Millennium BC Burial p1ai/?page_id=4424>
Customs, Equipment and Chronology. Klejn, L.S. 2015b. Archkheolog v odnoy
Praehistorische Zeitschrift, 90: 45–113. komande s genetikami [Archaeologist in
Fu, Q., Posth, C. Hajdinjak, M., et al. 2016. One Team with Geneticicts]. Interview of
The Genetic History of Ice Age Europe. Kristian Kristiansen by Leo Klejn in
Nature, 534: 200–05. doi: 10.1038/ August 2015. Genofond, September 2015
nature17993 [online] [accessed 5 April 2017]. Available
Furholt, M. 2003a. Absolutchronologie und at: <http://xn–c1acc6aafa1c.xn–p1ai/?page_
die Entstehung der Schnurkeramik. id=4535>
Online 16 December 2003 <http://www. Klejn, L.S. 2015c. Otkrytie drevnego stepnogo
jungsteinsite.uni-kiel.de/pdf/2003_furholt. vklada v genetiku evropeyskogo naseleniya –
pdf> [accessed 16 May 2017]. uspekhi i slozhnosti [The Discovery of
Furholt, M. 2003b. Die absolutchronologische the Ancient Steppe Contribution to
Datierung der Schnurkeramik in Mitteleur- the Genomic Pool of the European
opa und Südskandinavien. Bonn: Rudolf Population – Successes and Problems].
Habelt. Conversation with Wolfgang Haak, Part
Gray, R.D. & Atkinson, Q.D. 2003. I. Genofond, November 2015 [online]
Language-tree Divergence Times Support [accessed 16 May 2017]. Available at:
the Anatolian Theory of Indo-European <http://www.genofond.ru>.
Origins. Nature, 426: 435–38. doi: Koncha, S.V. 2004. Perspektivi etnogenetich-
10.1038/nature02029 nich rekonstruktsiy za kam’yanoy dobi
Haak, W., Lazaridis, I., Patterson, N., et al. (materiali indoevropeistiki) [Perspectives
2015. Massive Migration from the Steppe on the Ethnogenetic Reconstruction of
Was a Source for Indo-European Lan- the Stone Age (Indo-European
guages in Europe. Nature, 522: 207–11. Materials)]. Kam’yana doba Ukraini
doi: 10.1038/nature14317 [Ukrainian Stone Age], vol. 5. Kiev:
Heyd, V. 2011. Yamnaya Groups and Tumuli Shlyakh, pp. 191–293.
West of the Black Sea. In: S. Müller- Koncha, S.V. 2005. Ario-kelto-italski zv’yazky
Celka & E. Borgna, eds. Ancestral (za leksichnymy danymy) [Aryan-Celtic-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 15
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
16 European Journal of Archaeology 21 (1) 2018
human genetics, medical sciences, archae- 40530 Göteborg, Sweden. [email: k.kris-
ology, anthropology, and linguistics. [email protected]]
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35
Klejn et al. – Are Origins of Indo-European Languages Explained by Migration of the Yamnaya Culture? 17
Deux articles parus dans la revue Nature (Haak et al., 2015 ; Allentoft et al., 2015) firent sensation.
Ils révélaient, du point de vue génétique, qu’une migration de masse de peuples des steppes appartenant
à la culture Yamna affecta l’Europe du centre et du nord à l’âge du Bronze Ancien. Leurs auteurs
tiennent cet évènement comme formant la base de la diffusion des langues indo-européennes. En
réponse, Prof. L.S. Klejn, archéologue à Saint Pétersbourg (Russie), émit certaines critiques à l’égard des
déductions basées sur la génétique, en particulier ses répercussions sur la question des origines des langues
indo-européennes. Ses remarques furent soumises aux auteurs des deux articles, qui à leur tour
présentèrent leurs contre-arguments. Cependant Klejn en vint à conclure que les objections de ces auteurs
n’ont pas atténué ses doutes, ce qui l’amène à une seconde réponse. Translation by Madeleine
Hummler
Diskussion: Kann man den Ursprung der indoeuropäischen Sprachen mit der
Zuwanderung der Jamnaja-Kultur nach Westen erklären?
Zwei Artikel, welche die Zeitschrift Nature in 2015 veröffentlichte (Haak et al., 2015; Allentoft et al.,
2015), haben großes Aufsehen erregt. Diese lassen, aus genetischer Sicht, eine Massenmigration der
Steppenvölker der Jamnaja-Kultur nach Mittel- und Nordeuropa in der Bronzezeit erkennen. Nach
Auffassung der Verfasser bildet dieses Ereignis die Grundlage der Verbreitung der indoeuropäischen
Sprachen. Als Antwort darauf äußerte sich Prof. L.S. Klejn (Archäologe in Sankt Petersburg, Russland)
kritisch über die genetischen Rückschlüsse, besonders über die Auswirkungen auf die Frage des Ursprungs
der indoeuropäischen Sprachen. Diese kritischen Bemerkungen wurden den Verfassern der Artikel vorge-
legt und die Letzteren haben dann ihre Einwände dargelegt. Klejn ist aber zum Schluss gekommen,
dass die Einwände der Verfasser ihn nicht überzeugen, und untersucht diese Gegenargumente in einer
zweiten Antwort. Translation by Madeleine Hummler
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of New England, on 03 Feb 2018 at 20:33:03, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available
at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2017.35