Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
vlEW OF LIFE
NATURAL HISTORY
2/89
guistic unification are not so scorned), persist in arguing for such linkages, despite
acrimonious rebuttal and dismissal from
most Western colleagues. One heterodox
view tries to link Indo-European with linguistic phyla of the Near East and northern Asia (from Semitic at the southwest,
to Dravidian at the southeast, all the way
to Japanese at the northeast) by reconstructing a hypothetical ancestral
tongue called Nostratic (from the Latin
noster, meaning our "). An even more
radical view holds that modern tongues
still preserve enough traces of common
ancestry to link Nostratic with the native
languages of the Americas (all the way to
South America via the Eskimo tongues,
but excluding the puzzling Na-Dene languages of northwestern America).
The vision is beguiling, but I haven't the
slightest idea whether any of these unorthodox ideas have a prayer of success. I
have no technical knowledge of linguistics, only a hobbyist's interest in language.
But I can report, from my own evolutionary domain, that the usual biological argument, invoked a priori against the possibility of direct linkage among linguistic
phyla, no longer applies. This conventional argument held that Homo sapiens
arose and split (by geographical migration) into its racial lines far too long ago for
any hope that ancestral linguistic similarities might be retained by modern speakers. (A stronger version held that various
races of Homo sapiens arose separately
and in parallel from different stocks of
Homo erectus, thus putting the point of
common linguistic ancestry even further
back into a truly inaccessible past. Indeed,
according to this view, the distant common ancestor of all modern people might
not even have possessed language. Some
linguistic phyla might have arisen as separate evolutionary inventions, scotching
any hope for theories of unification.)
The latest biological evidence, mostly
genetic but with some contribution from
paleontology, strongly indicates a single
and discrete African origin for Homo sapiens at a date much closer to the present
than standard views would have dared to
imagine-perhaps only 200,000 years ago
or so, with all non-African diversity perhaps no more than 100,000 years old (see
my column of June 1987). Within this
highly compressed framework of common
ancestry, the notion that conservative linguistic elements might still link existing
phyla no longer seems so absurd a priori.
The idea is worth some serious testing,
even if absolutely nothing positive eventually emerges.
This compression of the time scale also
suggests possible success for a potentially
tween time and overall distance. Any single measure of distance may be impacted
by a large suite of forces that can disrupt
the correlation of time and differencenatural selection, convergence, rapid genetic drift in small populations. But time is
the only common factor underlying all
measures of difference; when two populations split, all potential measures of distance become free to diverge. Thus, the
more independent measures of distance
we compile, the more likely we are to
recover the only common signal of diversification: time itself. Only genetic data (at
least for now) can supply this required
richness in number of comparisons.
Genetic data on human differences are
flowing in from laboratories throughout
. the world, and this essay shall be obsolete
before it hits the presses. Blood groups
provided our first crude insights during
the 1960s, and Cavalli-Sforza was a pioneer in these studies. When techniques of
electrophoresis permitted us to survey
routinely for variation in the enzymes and
proteins coded directly by genes, then
data on human differences truly began to
accumulate in useful cascades. More recently, our ability to sequence DNA itself
has given us even more immediate access
to the sources of variation. (The data on
mitochondrial DNA has received the
most publicity, including an essay in this
series and a story in Newsweek that broke
conceptual ground with a cover painting
of Adam and Eve as black, if minimally so
with their near-white complexions, to
honor our ultimate African ancestry. But
additional data from other genes have
been published and continue to accumulate rapidly.)
The methodologically proper and powterful brute force comparisons are, for the
lmoment, best made by studying differing
~tates and frequencies of genes as revealed
in the amino acid sequences of enzymes
land proteins. Cavalli-Sforza and col]eagues used information from alleles
(varying states of genes, as in tall versus
short for Mendel's peas) to construct a
tree for human populations least affected
by extensive interbreeding. (few human
groups are entirely aboriginal, and most
populations are interbred to various degrees, given the two most characteristic
attributes of Homo sapiens: wanderlust
and vigorous sexuality. Obviously, if we
wish to reconstruct the order of diversified
branching from a common point of origin,
historically mixed populations will confuse our quest. The Cape Colored, living
disproof from their own ancestors for the
Afrikaner "ideal" of apartheid, would join
Khoisan with Caucasian. One town in
Brazil might well join everyone.)
.30
.lot
iSu
18
.u
-;;
.()6
:!
;e
<
1
~
<
c:
-;;
<
I I
IV
-..
.!!
.!!
f
a
<
VI
VD
.
Meanwhile, the second great branch di- by comparing the measured genetic disvided to split the northern Oriental stocks tances with actual dates recorded in the
from the Caucasians (group II, including geological record. If rates of change are
Europeans, Semitic peoples of southwest roughly the same for all groups, then the
Asia, Iranians, and Indians). A second di- ratio between genetic distance and age of
vision separated the Native American separation should be fairly constant. The
peoples (group IV) from the northeast geological record is woefully poor; all estiAsian family {group Ill, including the mates are tentative and can only represent
Uralic peoples who left Hungarian, Finn- minimal ages (separation might have ocish, and Estonian as their non-Indo-Euro- curred long before we first pick up geologpean calling cards from invasions into ical evidence). But Cavalli-Sforza and colCaucasian territories, and the Altaic peo- leagues worked with three widely cited
ples of Mongolia, Korea, and Japan).
dates: 35,000 years for the separation of
This good and sensible order indicates Caucasian and Asiatic (the first discovery
that genetic data are not betraying our ofCro-Magnon people in Europe); 40,000
efforts to reconstruct the human family years for migration to Australia and New
tree. But Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues go Guinea; and 92,000 years for the
further toward the great promise of ex- African-non-African split (based on the
tending this correlation between genes oldest non-African dates from the Qafzeh
and geography to the other great sources caves of Israel). Using a measure of geof independent information-the geologi- netic distance devised by Masatoshi Nei,
cal and linguistic records.
a professor at the University of Texas and
Fossils and artifacts supply our only di- the best mathematician in the business,
rect evidence for the timing of these Cavalli-Sforza found that gene/time rabranches; all other criteria rely on infer- tios for these three events are consistent
ences from differences among living peo- with the hypothesis of constant rates.
ples. The simplest hypothesis, surely unAn interesting potential exception intrue as an absolute rule but potentially volves the perennially vexatious question
useful as a rough generality, would postu- about the peopling of the Americas. The
late constancy in the overall rate of ge- conventional date for first migration to the
netic change. We can test this hypothesis New World is a surprisingly late 11,000 or
------
--------------
tal groups. The initial American populations that ventured over the Bering land
bridge may have been very small.
But I found the linguistic correlations
more exciting than anything else in the
work of Cavalli-Sforza and colleagues.
Language is so volatile. Conquerors can
impose their language as well as their will.
Tongues interpenetrate and merge with
an explosive ease not granted to genes or
morphology. Look at English; look at any
of us. I, for example, live in America, the
indigenous home of a very different people. I speak English, and consider the cathedral of Chartres the world's most beautiful building. But along with Disraeli's,
my ancestors were priests in the Temple of
Solomon when the physical forebears of
the original English people still lived as
"brutal savages in an unknown island."
One might have anticipated very little correlation between language and the tree of
human ancestry.
Yet the mapping of linguistic upon genetic iree is remarkable in its degree of
overlap. Exceptions exist, of course, and
for the reasons mentioned above. Ethiopians speak an Afr<rAsiatic language (in the
phylum of Hebrew and Arabic), but belong to the maximally distant African
group by genes. The Tibetan language
links with Chinese in group V, although
the Tibetan people belong with northeast
Asians in group III. But Tibetans migrated from the steppes north of China,
and Ethiopians have maintained primary
contact and admixture with Semitic
speakers for millennia. The correlations,
however, are striking. Each genetic group
also defines either a single linguistic phylum or a few closely related phyla. The
Pacific island languages, with their mellifluous vowels,and nearly nonexistent consonants, define group VI almost as well as
the genetic distances. The Ind<rEuropean
languages set the borders of Caucasian
affinity, while the other major tongues of
Caucasian peoples (Afr<rAsiatic of the
Semitic group) belong to a related linguistic phylum.
I am especially intrigued that the heterodox hypotheses for linkages among linguistic phyla, and for potential reconstructions of human languages even closer to
the original tongue, follow the genetic connections so faithfully. Nostratic would
link groups II and III. The even more
heterodox connection of Nostratic with
Amerindian tongues would include group
IV as well. Note that groups II to IV form
a coherent limb of the human family tree.
The Tower of Babel may emerge as a
strikingly accurate metaphor. We probably did once speak the same language,
and we did diversify into incomprehension
~-
StepMn Jay Gould teaches biology, geology, and tM history ofscience at HQTVQI'd
University.