The 'sewing needle' in Western Europe. Archaeological and Linguistic Data

USQUE AD RADICES Indo-European studies in honour of Birgit Anette Olsen Edited by Bjarne Simmelkjær Sandgaard Hansen · Adam Hyllested Anders Richardt Jørgensen · Guus Kroonen Jenny Helena Larsson · Benedicte Nielsen Whitehead Thomas Olander · Tobias Mosbæk Søborg Museum Tusculanum Press 2017 © Museum Tusculanum Press and the author(s) 2017 pre-publication version with a correction The ‛Sewing Needle’ in Western Europe: Archaeological and Linguistic Data Britta Irslinger University of Freiburg The use of the sewing needle in Western Europe dates back to the Late Upper Palaeolithic. The terms denoting this instrument in the older PIE languages are highly divergent. The present article discusses their etymologies and the conclusions to be drawn from the combination of linguistic and archaeological data. Within the ongoing discussion about the cultural and linguistic prehistory of Western Europe, connecting archaeological and linguistic data proves especially challenging. The present article will examine these two types of data and their relevance for some recent hypotheses with regard to a small but important instrument: the sewing needle. In numerous articles published over the last twenty years, Alinei and Benozzo1 have developed what they call the ‟Palaeolithic Continuity Paradigm”, a hypothesis according to which the Celtic, Italic and Germanic languages emerged from the language spoken by the first settlers of Western Europe. Alinei and Benozzo adhere neither to the idea that the Indo-Europeans emigrated from some further eastern regions nor to scenarios postulating the existence of non-Indo-European linguistic substrata in Western Europe. A crucial element for their hypothesis is the lexical periodization of lexemes, based on the claim that the creation of a word dates back to the emergence of the concept it denotes. Lexemes designating basic concepts like ‛to eat’ or ‛to die’, and denotations for environmental features, plants and animals belong to the earliest phases of human development. During the Upper Palaeolithic, new concepts developed, e.g. ritual burying or new techniques for hunting and fishing. Based on the evidence that the individual PIE languages often use different words for these concepts, Alinei and Benozzo conclude that PIE was already separated into branches (Alinei 1996, 491ff., 1 See Alinei & Benozzo (2012, 55, fn. 5) for a full publication record. 308 Britta Irslinger Alinei & Benozzo 2012, 55ff.). According to them, the Celts settled in Western Europe no later than in the Palaeolithic, in an area that includes Ireland, Britain (with the exception of a part settled by Germans), the historical area of Gaul down to the river Garonne, and a part of present-day Belgium. The Celts contributed megalithism, the Bell Beaker culture and other important cultural and technical innovations from the Upper Palaeolithic onwards, such as fishing, horse-domestication, the spoked wheel and metallurgy. Contacts with the neighbouring Germans and Italic peoples are reflected by linguistic correspondences for innovations of the Upper Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic. The denotation for the ‛needle’ from the PIE root *sneh1- ‛to spin’ is one of the linguistic innovations common to Celtic and Germanic, which Alinei and Benozzo date to the Mesolithic (Alinei 2000, 550, Alinei & Benozzo 2012, 64). They do not explain, however, if they consider the needle itself a technical innovation of the Mesolithic or if they assume that it already existed and simply got a new name.2 This latter question is rather important, since in Alinei and Benozzo’s model, the premise of linguistic conservatism is crucial to their method of lexical periodization. 1 The archaeological data The needle for hand-sewing is a long and slender tool made of a hard material. With a point at one end and a hole or eye at the other, it allows the pulling of the sewing material through the pieces sewn together. Prehistoric needles are made of metals like copper, bronze or iron, whereas the earliest examples are bone needles. In Western Europe, bone needles are attested from the Late Upper Palaeolithic onwards, c. 20,000 BC. Straus (1995, 10, 12) explains their appearance due to the Last Glacial Maximum, which changed the environment dramatically around 30,000 BC. After 22,000 BC, the northern part of Europe was abandoned and the southern refuge areas became more densely populated. According to Straus, the need for fitted clothing led to the invention of the eyed bone needle. Outside Western Europe, even older needles have been found. The bone needle from the Cave of Potočka zijalka in the Eastern Karavanke (Slovenia) 2 See Alinei (2000, 538, 540), where the Celtic needle-words are attributed to the oldest layer (‟paleolitico antico”). The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 309 3 belongs to the Aurignacian. According to radiocarbon dating, it is 30,000 years old (Odar 2008, 9).4 Eyed needles made from bone and ivory, dating from 35,000 BC, were also found in Russia at the site Kostënki 15 and in Siberia, cf. Hoffecker (2005, 89 and note 79). That these needles served to produce fitted clothing is substantiated by carved human figurine wearing a tailored fur suit with a hood from the site of Buret’ in Eastern Siberia (c. 25,000 BC). Hoffecker argues that the technology to produce tailored clothes that protected from the cold was crucial for modern humans to settle and survive in Northern Eurasia. This distinguished them from the Neanderthals, who were technologically less advanced and apparently did not use needles. Yet, the Neanderthals did possess bone tools to work hides, such as lissoirs5 and probably also awls. The latter are the predecessors of the needle, also pointed, but lacking the eye to pull the sewing material through.6 Hoffecker supposes that the Neanderthals could have used hides for protection from cold but only with minimal modifications. If they wore them like blankets or ponchos, they might have perforated them with the help of an awl and fixed them with a line. On the other hand, they were better suited to cold climates than Modern Humans because of their anatomy (Hoffecker 2005, 55, 62). The hypothesis that needles were invented as a consequence to the climate changes during the Upper Palaeolithic is already outdated as a 50,000 year-old bone needle, complete with a hole for thread, has been discovered in summer 2016 in Denisova cave in the Altai Mountains (Siberia). It was made and used by the Denisovans, a species genetically different from both Modern Humans and Neanderthals.6a 3 4 5 6 footnote not contained in the printed text 6a This period is dated from 45,000 to 35,000 BP by conventional radiocarbon dating, but from 47,000 to 41,000 BP in terms of the most recent calibration of the radiocarbon timescale, cf. Mellars (2006a, 167). As this date is uncalibrated, it should be noted that for the period between 30,000 and 50,000 BP radiocarbon ages correspond to much higher calendar ages, cf. Conard & Bolus (2003, 366), Mellars (2006b, 933f.). Lissoirs ‛smoothers’ are used to obtain supple, lustrous and more impermeable hides, cf. Soressi et al. (2013, 14186). A stone point made from Muschelkalk chert found in Untertürkheim (Germany) is c. 120,000 years old (Wenzel 2007, 180f.). Awls are well documented in the Aurignacien in the Swabian Jura in south-west Germany, cf. Conard & Bolus (2003, 340f., 347f.). The Siberian Times reporter, World's oldest needle found in Siberian cave that stitches together human history, The Siberian Times, August 23, 2016, http:// siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0711-worlds-oldest-needle-foundin-siberian-cave-that-stitches-together-human-history/ (accessed 04.10.2016). 310 Britta Irslinger This is in line with Backwell, d’Errico & Wadley (2008, 1566ff.), who argue that the technical skills necessary for the production of pointed instruments originated already in the African Middle Stone Age.7 Various African sites yielded bone tools comparable to those of Upper Palaeolithic sites in Europe after 40,000 BC. Of special interest is the fragment of a needle-like instrument found at Sibudu Cave (South Africa) in a layer older than 61,000 years. It measures 15.79 mm in length and its maximum width and thickness amount to 2.91 and 3.20 mm respectively. As both ends are broken, the original shape and size of the object cannot be ascertained. Backwell, d’Errico & Wadley (2008, 1575, foto 1573) describe it as ‟a shaped pin that may have been used in delicate piercing tasks.”8 However, the intentional modification of bone in order to create a more efficient tool was not restricted to Modern Humans. Barham & Pinto Llona (2002) interpret an artefact found in Broken Hill (Kabwe, Zambia) as a point. The site is believed to date back to the early Middle Stone Age and to be associated with the Homo Heidelbergensis. The invention of the needle clearly predates the currently known 35,000 year old European exemplars and it probably did not take place in Europe.9 However, independent parallel inventions at different times and places are equally possible.10 In any case, the needle is one of the oldest human instruments and was used in different areas of the world. Sinews were probably used as sewing material for fur and hides, but Barber (1991, 40) argues that the use of fibres, especially of animal fibres like wool, may be very old as well. Figures from the Gravettian period before 20,000 BC seem to represent twisted fibre strings used as string skirts and hairnets. Wild flax fibres, dating from c. 30,000 BC, have been found recently at Dzudzuana Cave (Georgia). They may have been used for hafting stone tools, weaving baskets or sewing garments (Kvavadze et al. 2009, 1359). 7 8 9 10 McBrearty & Brooks (2000, 488, 491) suggest a time-span from 280,000 BC until about 50,000 – 25,000 BC for the African Middle Stone Age. Despite this cautious description, the object has been popularized as the ‟earliest bone needle” on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Sewing_ needle, accessed 15.03.2016) and on several websites citing it. The model known as the ‟human revolution” claims that Modern Human behaviours arose suddenly and nearly simultaneously throughout the Old World around c. 50,000 – 40,000 BC. According to McBrearty & Brooks (2000, 453f.), this concept, originating from 19th century research, has a strong Eurocentric bias. More recent excavations on African sites suggest that the principal traits of Modern Human behaviours developed while they were still in Africa. Backwell, d’Errico & Wadley (2008, 1576) suggest this for Middle Stone Age inventions. The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 311 2 The IE linguistic data The PIE word for ‛needle’ cannot be reconstructed, as for most scholars a reconstruction requires attestations from three different branches. In the case of ‛needle’ there are at most correspondences from two branches, but the same roots often underlie words denoting other sharp or pointed objects. Below I have compiled a list of the needle-words from east to west. The underlying forms are given in PIE notation to elucidate their morphology. 1 *speh1i̯ -, *spei̯ -, *spi(H)- ‛pointed, sharp (object)’ (IEW 981) ?*sp(e)i̯ k-us-to- Hitt. (URUDU)šeppikkušta- n. ‛(sewing) needle, pin’ Hitt. šeppikkušta- is attested mostly with the determinative URUDU ‛copper’, while excavations at Boğazköy yielded needles and pins made of bronze, iron and bone (CHD S-397f.). Poetto (1986, 52f.) compared it to the denotations for pointed objects listed in IEW 981 under *speh1i̯ -, *spei̯ -, *spi(H)-. Kloekhorst (2008, 744) objects that a preform with initial *sp- would have yielded Hitt. išp- as in (URUDU)išpātar/išpann- (n.) ‛spit, skewer, dagger’ from the same root (ibid., 411). The PIE cognates display some variation, as the underlying roots contain either *-ei̯ - or *-iH- and extensions in *-k- or *-g-. De Vaan (2008, 580f.) explains Latin spīca f. ā ‛ear of corn; spike, head (of a plant)’ (Varro+) < Proto-It. *spei̯ kā- or *spīkā- from a PIE preform with *-g- and compares it to Germanic *spaik-an/ōn- in OHG speihha f. ‛spoke’ etc., Germanic *spei̯ /īka- in OIc. spíkr, MHG spicher ‛nail’ and Lith. speigliaĩ ‛thorns’. Nevertheless, Lat. spīca could alternatively contain *-k- as Arm. p‛k‛in ‛arrow’ < *spih1-k-ih1no- (Olsen 1999, 471). Another group has an nsuffix, cf. Lat. spīna f. ā ‛thorn, prickle’ (Cato+), Latv. spina ‛rod’, Ru. spiná ‛back, spine’, OHG spinela, spenula ‛hairpin’ from PIE *spei̯ -n-/*spiH-n-. 2 *k̑ uH- ‛pointed, spit’ (IEW 626) ?*k̑ uH-kiH> IIr. *śūcı̄ ́Ved. sūcı̄ ́- f. ‛needle’ (RV+) ?*k̑ uH-kah2YAv. sūkā- f. ‛needle’ The influence of the verb s(y)ū- ‛to sew’ changed the *ś- of the IIr. needlewords to s-, cf. OInd. śūka- n. ‛awn of grain, spike of an insect’ with the expected anlaut (EWAia II 739). A possible cognate is PIE *k̑ uH-lo- ‛spear, spit’ in Ved. śū ́ la- n. ‛(roasting) spit’ (RV+), Arm. slak‛ ‛missile, arrow’ with the secondary suffix -ak‛ and OIr. cuil f. ‛fly’, Lat. culex ‛midge, mosquito’ 312 Britta Irslinger with *-ŭ-.11 Cheung (2007, 29) analyses Ved. sū-cı̄ ́- and YAv. sū-kā- as compounds, the latter part of which is cognate to Iran. *čaiH ‛to sew’. 3 ? Buddhist Skt. sucī- Toch. B sucī- m. ‘needle’ In Tocharian, the word for ‛sewing-needle’ does not seem to be attested. Adams (2013, 760, 524) cites sucīkar m. ‛needlecase’, a loanword from Buddhist Sanskrit, and yāṣe (n.) ‘needle’ (PK AS 8Ca8)12 of unknwon etymology. However, this latter word, which occurs in a description of a magical ritual, clearly does not denote a sewing-needle, but rather a pin or a splitter. 4 *gʷelH- ‛to torment, to sting’ (LIV 207, IEW 470-1) *gʷelH-on-ah2Gr. βελόνη f. ‛needle’ (att., Arist., Batr.) ?*gʷl̥ H-bʰo> *gle-p Alban. gjep, glep m. ‛needle, sting’ (Arb. Gr./It.) ?*gʷl̥ H-bʰ-anV- > *gle-p-anV- Alban. gjilpërë f. ‛needle’ For semantic reasons, Gr. βελόνη is mostly compared to Lith. gélti ‛to sting’, although from a formal point of view, βέλος ‛missile, arrow, javelin’, βέλεµνον ‛arrow, javelin’ and βλῆµα ‛throw, throwing weapon; wound’ would be also possible. The latter are normally compared to βάλλω from PIE *gʷelh1- ‛to hit, to throw’ (LIV 208, IEW 471-2). The suffix -όνη appears in denotations for instruments, e.g. ἀκόνη f. ‛whetstone’ (Frisk I 231). Demiraj (1997, 186f.) discusses Alban. gjilpërë together with gjep, glep and gjemb m. ‛sting, thorn, fishbone’ with secondary -m-. He considers the traditional derivation from *gʷelH- attractive, but doubts the formation with a PIE suffix *-bʰo-. As gjep, glep rimes with thep m. ‛point, spike’, -pcould have developed analogically.13 11 12 13 EWAia II 651, Olsen (1999, 70), de Vaan (2008, 150), Mallory & Adams (2006, 245). Georges-Jean Pinault (in collaboration with Melanie Malzahn and Michaël Peyrot): “PK AS 8C”, in: A Comprehensive Edition of Tocharian Manuscripts, http:// www.univie.ac.at/tocharian/?PK%20AS%208C (retrieved: Nov. 01, 2016). Differently Orel (1998, 134, 129): from *salpanā connected with gjalm m. ‛rope, lace’. The latter developed from Proto-Alb. *salpna- and is cognate with Slav. *solpiti ‛to stick out’, Lith. iš-selpinė́ ti ‛to get divided’. Others have explained Alban. gjilpërë as a loanword from Romance. The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 313 5 ? *(s)r̥ p-id- Gr. ῥαπίς, ῥαφίς, -ίδος f. ‛sewing needle’ (HP., Archip., hellen.) This second Greek needle-word is related to terms for ‛sewing’, cf. the verb ῥάπτω ‛to sew, to mend’ and nouns like ῥαφή ‛seam’ or νευρο-ρράφος m. ‛shoemaker’. The suffix Gr. -ίδ- occurs among others in denotations for tools. Its PIE origin is doubtful (Meier 1975: 86). The Greek words have been compared with Lith. verpiù, verp̃ ti ‘to spin’, varpstė ̃ f. ‘spindle’, Latv. vērpt ‘to spin’, vārpste f. ‘spindle’ from PIE *u̯ erp- ‛to turn to and fro’? (LIV 690, IEW 1156). This is impossible as Myc. e-ra-pe-me-na ‘stitched’ shows that ῥάπτω does not go back to a form with initial ϝ-. Its etymology is unclear; it might be Pre-Greek (Beekes 2010: 1275f., ALEW II 1269). 6 PIE *h2ek̑ - ‛(to be/become/make) sharp’ (LIV 261, IEW 18-22, NIL 287-300) *h2ak̑ -uLat. acus, -ūs f. ‛needle, pin’ (Pl.+) *h2ak̑ -l(-on-) / *h2ak̑ -i-l-onArm. aseɫn, gen. asɫan ‛needle’ Lat. acus is either a nominal u-stem or the substantivized feminine form of an adjective *h2ek̑ -u- ‛pointed’, cf. acu-pedius ‛quick-footed’ (Hapax, Paul. Fest.).14 Latin acia f., ā ‛thread, yarn’ (Titinius+) < *h2ak̑ -i̯ áh₂ seems to belong here as well. If the original meaning was ‛belonging to the needle’, the underlying form should be *h2ak̑ -u̯ -ii̯ éh2. Olsen (1999, 409f.) analyses Arm. aseɫn as an original l/n-heteroclitic with a combination of *-l- and *-n- throughout the paradigm. Since the word is attested dialectally also without -n, Martirosyan (2010, 115) assumes that it is based on an ablauting l-stem nsg. **h2ék̑ -ōl > *h2k̑ ōl, asg. *h2k̑ -él-m̥ , gsg. *h2k̑ -l-ós. He rejects the pre-form *h2ak̑ -i-l-on- cited in NIL 289, because some scholars argue that the Slavic cognate has no *-i- either. This is still controversial, cf. PSl. *osьla f. ā ‛whetstone’ with the suffix *ьla in OCS osla etc. (Derksen 2008, 381). Many formations from *h2ek̑ - denote pointed or sharp instruments, but there is no evidence of genuine cognates. The most frequent meaning is ‛blade, cutting edge’, cf. e.g. *h2ok̑ -r-i- in Ved. (-)áśri- f. ‛edge, blade’ (RV+), *h2ak̑ -ó/áh2- in Gr. ἀκή f. ‛point, blade’, *h2ek̑ -iH- f. in Lat. aciēs f. ‛sharp edge or point; sharpness; line of battle’ (Enn.+), *h2ék̑ -mon- in Lith. ašmuõ m. ‛sharpness, blade’, Latv. asmens m. ‛edge, blade’, *h2ak̑ -i̯ áh2- in Germ. 14 NIL (288 with fn. 40, 200 with fn. 6), de Vaan (2008, 23). 314 Britta Irslinger *agjō- f. in ON egg ‛edge, blade’, OE ecg ‛sharpness, blade, sword, edge’, OHG egga, ecka ‛edge, blade, point’ etc. Denotations for other pointed instruments are e.g. *h2ak̑ -én-i- in Ved. aśáni- f. ‛arrowhead, stone axe’ (RV+), *h2ák̑ -ont- in Gr. ἄκων, -οντος m. ‛javelin’ (Il.+), *-h2ok̑ -ii̯ o- in OW cem-ecid m. ‛pick-axe, tool for dressing millstones’, *h2ok̑ -ó/áh2- in MW og f. ‛harrow’, *h2ak̑ -u̯ -olo/ah2- in ON soð-áll ‛meat fork’, *h2ak̑ -s-ti- in Lith. akštìs f. ‛spit’, SCr. ȍsti pl. ‛harpoon’, *h2ok̑ -s-i-nah2- in Gr. ὀξίνα ‛agricultural implement with iron teeth, drawn by oxen’ (Hsch.). Only *h2ok̑ -e-tah2- ‛harrow’ has continuants in several neighbouring languages, cf. Lat. occa f. (Cato+), OW ocet, MW oged f., Germ. *agidō- f. in OHG egida, OE egeðe. It might be related to BSl. *eś-et-i- in OPr. aketes f. pl., Lith. akė ́ čios, dial. ekė ́ čios pl. f. i̯ ā, Latv. ecê(k)šas ‛harrow’, Ru. osét‛ ‛granary, rack for drying grain’ f., Pol. dial. jesieć ‛grain sive’ despite the formal problems discussed in ALEW I 25. Balt. -k- might evidence a western technological borrowing (Derksen 2008, 145). 7 PIE *h2ei̯ k̑ - ‛to transfix, to impale’ (LIV 259, IEW 15) or *Hei̯ g- ‛to sting’? ?*h2ei̯ k̑ -tlah2- / *Hoi̯ g-u-l-ah2OPr. ayculo f. ‛needle’ ?*h2ei̯ k̑ -tlah2- / *H(e)ig-u-l-ah2- PSl. *jьgъlà f. ā > CS igla, Ru. iglá etc. ‛needle’ De Vaan (2008, 295) tentatively reconstructs PIE *h2ei̯ k̑ -tlo- with the PIE instrument suffix *-tlo-. Further cognates denoting pointed instruments are Gr. αἰχµή ‛point of a spear, spear’, Myc. a3-ka-sa-ma /aiksma/ ‘lancehead’, OPr. aysmis ‛spit’, Lith. iẽšmas ‛spit, bayonet’ < *h2eik̑ -(s)mo/ah2- (ALEW I 389). Nevertheless, the preform *h2ei̯ k̑ -tlah2- requires the assumption of irregular developments for the OPr. and Sl. words. Derksen (2008, 210) argues that OPr. ayculo may have <c> for /g/ and compares Lith. áigyti ‛sting’, ãigaras ‛straw’. An o-grade in the root would yield OPr. ai- and a suffix cluster *-u-l-ah2- would block progressive palatalization in Sl. if the root had zero grade. The underlying root, restricted to Baltic and Slavic, could be something like *Hei̯ g- ‛to sting’. 8 PIE *h1edʰ- ‛to sting’ (?) (IEW 289f., ALEW I 21) *h1odʰ-V-tah₂Lith. ãdata (1), adatà (3b) f. ‛needle’ Latv. adata f. ‛needle’ Cognates are names for stinging trees based on *h1edʰ-lV- such as Lith. ẽglė (2), eglė ̃ (4), Latv. egle f. ‛spruce’, OPr. addle ‛fir tree’, OPl., OČech. jedl f. The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 315 ‛fir tree’, Lat. ebulus f. o ‛dwarf elder’. While IEW reconstructs the adjective *h1edʰ- ‛pointed, sharp’ and the tree name *h1edʰ-lV- ‛stinging’, ALEW I 21 considers *h1edʰ- as a verbal root ‛to sting’. Its o-grade iterative is reflected by Lith. *adýti ‛to stitch, to stuff’, Lett. adît ‛to knit’. The needle-words belong here as agent nouns in -ata. 9) PIE *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’ (LIV 571f., IEW 973, Mallory & Adams 2006, 231, 234) *néh1-tlah2Germ. *nēþlō- f. ‛needle’ in Goth. neþla, OE nǣdl, OS nāđla, ON nál, OHG nādala *sn̥ h1-t-n̥ t-ah2- / *snoh1-° OIr. snáthat f. ā ‛needle’ > PIr. *snōt° *n̥ h1-t(-o)u̯ -ii̯ ah2- / *noh1-° OW notuid gl. acus, W nodwydd f., MCo. > PBr. *nŏtu̯ °15 nasweth, LCo. nadzhedh, MBr. nadoez, Br. nadoz f. ‛needle’ The Germanic and Celtic words are both derived from PIE *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’. Germanic uses the PIE instrument suffix *-tlo-.16 The Celtic words display suffix clusters pointing to denominal derivations. OIr. snáthat seems to be based on a stem with a dental suffix such as the toadjective *sn̥ h1-tó- ‛spun’ or substantivized ‛thread’ < *‛what is spun’, cf. OIr. snáth n. o ‛thread’. Alternatively, OIr. snáth could reflect a noun with an o-grade root *snoh1-to- ‛thread’.17 Pedersen II (1913, 47) lists OIr. snáthat as an nt-formation denoting a concrete object, where the function of the suffix is hard to define. The word analogically changed to ā-declension. The complex formation *sn̥ h1-t-n̥ t- could perhaps mean ‛doing something with thread’, i.e. ‛thread-ing, filament-ing’. Native scholars analysed it as a compound, cf. the 9th cent. Sanas Cormaic: snáthat .i. snāth-séd ‛needle .i. thread-way’ (Corm. Y 1195). The Brittonic words seem to be based on an otherwise unattested tu-stem, probably a verbal abstract ‛spinning’. The derivation with *-ii̯ ah2- could be the feminine form of a denominative adjective *‛(instrument) pertaining to 15 16 17 With loss of vowel length in closed pretonic and all pre-pretonic syllables, cf. PCl. *mātrVkʷī > *mɔ̄drẹb or *-yb, *-ib > *mŏdrVb > MW modryb, MCo. modereb, MBr. mozrep ‛aunt’ (Schrijver 2011, 13). Due to the intermixture of Verner variants in Germanic, *-dʰlah2- can not be excluded (Casaretto 2004, 406). Irslinger (2002, 261). 316 Britta Irslinger spinning or twisting’.18 Alternatively, this form could be based on a root with o-grade, i.e. *noh1-t-(o)u̯ -ii̯ ah2-. In this case, however, an original tustem would be improbable and a more likely assumption would be *-t- plus a cluster *-(o)u̯ -ii̯ ah2-. PIE *(s)neh1- is well represented verbally, cf. Germanic *nēan ‛to sew’ in OHG nā(w)an ‛to sew, stitch’, MDu. nayen ‛to sew’, MIr. sníid ‛twists, binds, spins; contends, strives after; grieves, vexes’, MW nyðu, W nyddu ‛to spin, wind, turn’, MCo. nedha ‛to spin’, MBr. nezaff ‛to spin’. Their meanings are quite different and only the Germanic verb means ‛to sew’. While MIr. snı̄ id mostly means ‛twists, binds’ and only rarely ‛spins’, the latter meaning is the most frequent one in Brittonic. This is also confirmed by the cognate verbs Lat. neō, Gr. νέω ‛to spin’. According to LIV, the cognacy of Latv. snàju, snàt ‛to braid, to cut off’ is doubtful. All these verbs are related to textile production, i.e. the confection of cloth and clothing from fibres like wool and linen rather than from skins and hides (Mallory & Adams 2006, 231, 234). The same is true for the cognate nouns, *sn̥ h1-tó- or *snoh1-to- in OIr. snāth n. o ‛thread’, OCo. noden gl. filum, OBr. noten gl. a filo, MBr. neut, neuden(n), Br. neud coll., neudenn f. ‛thread’,19 *snoh1-tah2- in OE snód f. ‛snood, fillet, head-dress’, Engl. snood. Of interest is OIc. snǣlda f. n ‛spindle’ from *snéh1-tl-i̯ ah2-,20 the formation of which is very similar to that of the needle-word. Its meaning, however, is related to that of Greek νῆτρον n. ‛distaff’ denoting another instrument used for spinning and reflecting *snéh1-tro- with another variant of the PIE instrument suffix. PIE *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’ probably has two variants, namely *(s)neh1i̯ - and *(s)neh1u̯ -, which semantically are almost identical. It is controversial whether the elements *-i̯ - and *-u̯ - should be interpreted as semantically empty root extensions or whether they constitute original suffixes which became attached to the root by false segmentation. *(s)neh1i̯ - is the basis of *nh1i-ti- denoting Slavic and Baltic terms related to weaving, ORu. nita f. ‛thread’, Ru. nit’, SCr. nȉt f. ‛thread’, Lith. nýtis ‛warp 18 19 20 Cf. for the sound development the suffix of the verbal adjective (MW -adwy, MCo. -adow, MBr. -adou) which has the meaning of a future passive participle or gerundive, e.g. MW cred-adwy ‛to be believed, credible’. In OSWBr., the suffix is attested as -atoe < PBr. *-V-dui. According to Schrijver (2011, 67) the element -dui probably reflects *-tou̯ i̯ os, which also underlies the OIr. so-called verbal of necessity in -thi. With singulative suffix -en(n). Casaretto (2004, 404), Kroonen (2013, 388). The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 317 thread’, pl. nýtys ‛harness (text.), heald’, Latv. nĩtis f. ‛(warp) thread’, pl. nĩtis ‛harness (text.), heald’.21 The root variant with *-u̯ - underlies ON snúa ‛to wind, to twist’, snúðr ‛noose’ < *snuH-tó-, RuCS. snovǫ, snuti ‛to warp’ etc. and Latv. snaujis m. i̯ o ‛noose’, cf. *sneu̯ H- ‛to twist, to wind’ (LIV 575, IEW 977; Derksen 2008, 457). The same root variant might also be reflected in the words for ‛sinew’, cf. OInd. snā ́ van n. ‛sinew’ (AV+), YAv. snāuuarǝ.bāzura- (adj.) ‛having arms like sinews’, ToB ṣñor, pl. ṣñaura (pl.) ‛sinews’, Gr. νεῦρον ‛nerv, sinew’, νευρά f. ‛bowstring’, Arm. neard ‛sinew’,22 Lat. nervus m. o ‛sinew, muscle, nerve’ (Lex II +). The original form has been reconstructed either as an r/n-stem from *(s)neh1u̯ -, i.e. *(s)nḗh1u̯ -r/n- (e.g. Mallory & Adams 2006, 187, 234) or as a u̯ er/n-stem from *(s)neh1-, i.e. PIE nom./acc.sg. *sneh1-u̯ r̥ ̥ ̥ , obl. *snh1-u̯ én- (e.g. de Vaan 2008, 407). EWAia II 771 is ̥ sceptical̥ about *(s)neh1- as the basis of this heteroclitic stem. 3 Discussion This survey of the IE words for ‛needle’ yielded several interesting insights. The formal diversity is remarkable, as there are no perfect cognates in the different branches, i.e. cognates consisting of identical roots + suffix(es). Even root cognates are found only in closely related branches or neighbouring languages, with the Latin ~ Armenian correspondence being the only exception. The semantics are mostly motivated by the shape and attributes of the object. Thus the underlying roots *speh1i̯ -, *k̑ uH-, *h2ek̑ - and *h1edʰ- are nominal roots possessing one or no primary verb stem. *gʷelH- ‛to sting, to torment’ and *h2ei̯ k̑ - ‛to transfix, to impale’ are verbal roots, but they express actions that are typically performed with pointed objects and are therefore semantically close to the first group. The denotations for ‛needle’ are mainly related to the concepts ‛sharp, pointed’ or ‛piercing’. As all roots provide denotations for other pointed instruments, there is no essential difference between the words denoting needles, spits or spears. This is also true with regard to the suffixes used, which all occur in various other nouns. The majority of the needle-words have suffix clusters – excep- 21 22 IEW 973, Derksen (2008, 353f.), ALEW II 705. Kroonen (2013, 386) derives this ti-stem from an unattested i-present *nh1-éi-ti, *nh1-i-énti. With *-t- as in leard ‛liver’, cf. Olsen (1999, 156), Martirosyan (2010, 501). 318 Britta Irslinger tions are *h2ak̑ -u- in Lat. acus and *néh1-tlah2- in Germ. *nēþlō. The l-stem *h2ak̑ -el- in Arm. aseɫ(n) could belong here, too, unless the word is to be analysed as *h2ak̑ -i-l-on-. A second instance of the PIE instrument suffix could be *h2(e)i̯ k̑ -tlah2- in OPr. ayculo, CS igla, but the etymology is controversial. Suffix clusters could evidence post-PIE formations, but no verbal stems are attested for *speh1i̯ -, *k̑ uH-, *h2ek̑ - and *h1edʰ-. This suggests that the needle-words are isolated in the respective languages and thus archaic. In the case of *gʷelH- and *h2ei̯ k̑ -, verbal stems can be reconstructed, but they are not attested in the languages with the needle-word. The suffix clusters might therefore originate from the re-charactarisation of inherited nouns with suffixes that were productive in the individual languages. Deverbal formations within the individual languages are possible or probable for Gr. ῥαπίς, ῥαφίς, Lith. ãdata, adatà, Latv. adata, Germ. *nēþlō-, OIr. snáthat, OW notuid etc. and for OPr. ayculo, PSl. *jьgъlà, if the latter originated from a BSl. verb based on *Hei̯ g- ‛to sting’. *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’ stands out because it denotes an action to be performed with an instrument regardless of its shape. In view of this formal variation, the needle-words based on the root *(s)neh1- in the neighbouring Celtic and Germanic languages are indeed striking and might indicate linguistic convergence. However, all other features, like root ablaut, the presence of s-mobile, and suffixes, are different, even between Goidelic and Brittonic. Contrary to Alinei & Benozzo’s theory, these words, complete with root and suffix(es), are not ‟concordances” or ‟isoglosses” that originate from a common ancestor. But what about the root itself? Does its use give any hints about the cultural and linguistic continuity in North-western Europe? Derivations from *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’ are not found exclusively in Celtic and Germanic, but also in Latin, Greek, Baltic and Slavic. They denote objects and actions related to textile production, i.e. spinning, weaving and sewing. Their creation would thus concur with the emergence of these techniques in the Neolithic. Mallory & Adams (2006, 237) state that the production of flax and linen garments was highly widespread during the period c. 7000 – 3500 BC. This date matches roughly with the usual period estimations for PIE and its fragmentation into different branches. On the other hand, *(s)neh1- ‛to spin’ could originate from *‛to twist’, referring to the most simple twisting of fibres by hand. If the PIE word for ‛sinew’ is actually based on *(s)neh1-, one could speculate as to whether the denotation was originally motivated by the use of sinews as raw material for various artefacts including sewing material. This would of course perfectly The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 319 match the archaeological findings from the Upper Paleolithic. However, the dating raises a serious objection here. While it is impossible to date PIE words or roots, different approaches exist to give tentative time frames for the fragmentation into the individual branches, cf. the discussion in Mallory & Adams (2006, 86-105). The terminus ante quem is provided by the first attestations of Anatolian in 2000 BC. All further estimations are connected to the controversial questions about the place of origin of PIE and the extent and pace of its expansion, and are therefore highly speculative. A time-span going from c. 6000 to 4000 BC for PIE is consistent with several competing hypotheses. Dating obtained through glottochronological studies varies considerably depending on the quantity and analysis of the linguistic input. The dates resulting from the analysis by Gray & Atkinson (2003, 435ff.) are about 2000 years earlier than the traditional ones. According to their tree, the initial divergence from PIE took place between c. 8,000 – 6,000 BC. The western group consisting of Balto-Slavic, Italic, Celtic and Germanic diverged around 4,960 BC from the eastern languages. Celtic, Germanic and Italic then separated from Balto-Slavic around 4,550 BC and finally Celtic diverged from Germanic and Italic around 4,150 BC. Regardless of the hypothesis and dating method adopted, the overall picture is clear enough: PIE does not extend beyond the Neolithic – with the exception of the ‟Palaeolithic Continuity Paradigm” by Alinei and Benozzo. However, their premise of linguistic continuity is at odds with the developments observable within the attested phases of languages, such as the existence of multiple lexemes for the same object or concept and the phenomenon of lexical replacement. The PIE needle-words illustrate these processes for an object that was already in use long before the emergence of PIE. Some of its denotations might be based on non-PIE lexical material that became adapted to PIE phonemic and morphological structures over time. Others were productively formed after the divergence of PIE into individual branches and replaced older words. This process could have different causes: speakers might have wanted to link the word they used for needle with the verb ‛to sew’ or the original word might have undergone a semantical change or become homonymous with another word through sound changes. While the needle-words in Celtic and Germanic could evidence a technical innovation related to sewing or spinning during the Neolithic or later, their formation from the same root might as well be accidental. 320 Britta Irslinger References Adams, Douglas Q. 2013. A dictionary of Tocharian B. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Revised and greatly enlarged (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 10). Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. ALEW: Wolfgang Hock et al. (eds.). 2015: Altlitauisches etymologisches Wörterbuch (ALEW). 3 Bde. (Studien zur historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft 7). Hamburg: Baar. Alinei, Mario. 1996-2000. Origini delle lingue d’Europa. Vol. 1: La teoria della continuità. Vol. 2: Continuità dal Mesolitico all’età del Ferro nelle principali aree etnolinguistiche. Bologna: Il Mulino. Alinei, Mario & Benozzo, Francesco. 2012. Les Celtes le long des côtes atlantiques: Une présence ininterrompue depuis le Paleólithique. In Daniel Le Bris (ed.), Aires linguistiques, aires culturelles. Études de concordances en Europe occidentale: zones Manche et Atlantique, 5576. Brest: Centre de Recherche Bretonne et Celtique. Backwell, Lucinda, d’Errico Francesco & Wadley Lyn. 2008. Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(6). 1566–1580. Barber, Elisabeth J. W. 1991. Prehistoric textiles. The development of cloth in the Neolithic and Bronze Ages with special reference to the Aegean. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Pr. Barham, L. S. & Pinto Llona, A.C., Stringer, C. 2002: Bone tools from Broken Hill (Kabwe) Cave, Zambia, and their evolutionary significance. Before Farming 2. 1–12. Beekes, Robert S. P. 2010. Etymological dictionary of Greek (Leiden IndoEuropean Etymological Dictionary Series 10). Leiden & Boston: Brill. Casaretto, Antje. 2004. Nominale Wortbildung der gotischen Sprache. Die Derivation der Substantive (Indogermanische Bibliothek: 3. Reihe). Heidelberg: Winter. CHD: Güterbock, Hans G. & Harry A. Hoffner (eds.). 1989: The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. III LN. Ed.. Chicago: Oriental Inst. Cheung, Johnny. 2007. Etymological dictionary of the Iranian verb (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 2). Leiden: Brill. Conard, Nicholas J. & Bolus, Michael. 2003: Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44. 331–371. The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 321 Demiraj, B. 1997. Albanische Etymologien (Untersuchungen zum albanischem Erbwortschatz) (Leiden studies in Indo-European 7). Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi. Derksen, Rick. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Slavic inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 4). Leiden: Brill. EWAia = Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986-1996. Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen. 2 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. Frisk, Hjalmar. 1973. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 Bde. Heidelberg: Winter. Gray, Russell D. & Atkinson, Quentin D. 2003: Language-tree divergence times support the Anatolian theory of Indo-European origin. Nature 426 (27 November 2003). 435–439. Hoffecker, John F. 2005. A prehistory of the north. Human settlement of the higher latitudes. New Brunswick, New Jersey & London: Rutgers University Press. Irslinger, Britta. 2002. Abstrakta mit Dentalsuffixen im Altirischen (Indogermanische Bibliothek: Reihe 3). Heidelberg: Winter. Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 5). Leiden: Brill. Kroonen, Guus. 2013. Etymological dictionary of Proto-Germanic (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 11). Leiden: Brill. Kvavadze, Eliso; Bar-Yosef, Ofer; Belfer-Cohen, Anna; Boaretto, Elisabetta; Jakeli, Nino; Matskevich, Zinovi & Meshveliani, Tengiz. 2009: 30.000-Year-Old Wild Flax Fibers. Science 325, No. 5946 (Sep. 11, 2009). 1359. LIV = Rix, Helmut et al. (eds.). 2001. Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben. 2. Aufl. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mallory, James P. & Adams Douglas Q. 2006. The Oxford introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European world (Oxford linguistics). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Martirosyan, Hrach. 2010. Etymological dictionary of the Armenian inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 8). Leiden: Brill. McBrearty, Sally & Brooks, Alison S. 2000. The revolution that wasn’t: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. Journal of Human Evolution 39. 453–563. 322 Britta Irslinger Meier, Michael. 1975. -ίδ-. Zur Geschichte eines griechischen Nominalsufxes (Ergänzungshefte zur Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 23). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Mellars, Paul. 2006a. Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe: Deconstructing the ‟Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology 15. 167–182. Mellars Paul. 2006b: A new radiocarbon revolution and the dispersal of Modern Humans in Europe. Nature 439. 931–935. NIL = Wodtko, Dagmar S., Irslinger, Britta & Schneider, Carolin. 2008. Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon (Indogermanische Bibliothek: 2. Reihe, Wörterbücher). Heidelberg: Winter. Odar, Boštjan. 2008. A Dufour bladelet from Potočka zijalka (Slovenia). Arheološki vestnik 59. 9–16. Olsen, Birgit Anette. 1999: The noun in Biblical Armenian. Origin and word-formation (Trends in linguistics / Studies and monographs 119). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Orel, Vladimir. 1998. Albanian etymological dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Pedersen, Holger. 1909-1913: Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen. 2 Bde. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Poetto, Mario. 1986. Eteo (URUDU)sa/epik(k)usta-. Festschrift für Manfred Mayrhofer = Die Sprache 32. 52–53. Pokorny, Julius. 1959. Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern & München: Francke. Schrijver, Peter. 2011. Old British. In Elmar Ternes (ed.), Brythonic Celtic – Britannisches Keltisch. From Medieval British to Modern Breton, 1– 84. (Münchner Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 11). Bremen: Hempen. Soressi, Marie; McPherron, Shannon P.; Lenoir, Michel; Dogandžic, Tamara; Goldberg, Paul; Jacobs, Zenobia; Maigrot, Yolaine; Martisius, Naomi L.; Miller, Chistopher E.; Rendu, William; Richards, Michael; Skinner, Matthew M.; Steele, Teresa E.; Talamo, Sahra & Texier, JeanPierre. 2013: Neanderthals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110.35. 14186–14190. Straus, Lawrence Guy. 1995. The Upper Paleolithic of Europe: An overview. Evolutional Anthropology 4(1). 4–16. The ‘sewing needle’ in Western Europe 323 de Vaan, Michiel. 2008. Etymological dictionary of Latin and the other Italic languages (Leiden Indo-European etymological dictionary series 7). Leiden: Brill. Wenzel, Stefan. 2007. Neanderthal presence and behaviour in Central and Northwestern Europe during MIS 5e. In Frank Sirocko, M. Claussen, M. Goñi & T. Litt (eds.), The Climate of Past Interglacials, 173–193. (Developments in quaternary science 7). Amsterdam & Heidelberg: Elsevier.