Chariots

[alfred russel]

The thing is, we have very good evidence that horses were domesticated in Caspian-Pontic steppes.  In fact, we have evidence that this was probably the very first place where horses were domesticated.  This is also where it is theorized that this hypothetical people also lived.  We do know the PIE people had horses and horses would be a great ace in the hole for expansion.  Can it be proven?  No.  But it's a good bet.  It fits the evidence and gives us reason for the extraordinary spread of Indo-European peoples. 

Peoples aren't the same as a language.

I would guess that there are a few factors taking place. First, the horse idea probably has merit and is a plausible catalyst for the language spreading over an initial large territory. Second, highly localized languages are more likely to be assimilated. For example, in the 19th century European communities with minor languages recognized them as a disadvantage and in cases actively worked to join other language groups. It isn't implausible that once PIE became spoken over a large area, the border regions were prone to assimilate on their own. Third, the cohesion of a large area speaking a common language could have been a catalyst for it to continue to expand aggresively over centuries. There are theories that in the low countries there were non Indo European speakers when the Romans arrived. If that is the case, 3 or so millenia after the initial expansion, the Indo European languages were still working their way across Europe. Fourth, the lack of documentation in the period means that our Indo European language tree may be overstated. For example, English is a germanic language, but is heavily influenced by the Romance languages. If we did not have evidence of germanic languages, and early forms of English were unattested, one could understand that it would be lumped in with the Romance languages.

As always on this sort of topic, I'm talking out of my ass.

[Queequeg]

Alfred, I think what you wrote above is actually a lot closer to what I was arguing in the first place.  The chariot and wagon were crucially important  in the expansion of the Indo-European peoples; but just as important was a "package" of customs, social configuration and other technologies.  Some of these were adopted by people who were not linguistically assimilated-for instance, some of the Uralic and Altaic peoples began to resemble Indo-European peoples, and eventually replaced them across the entirety of their area of origin.  Similarly, the Kassites, Urartians, certain Caucasian groups and other groups appear to have undergone large scale "Kurganization" without total language replacement.  In other areas, there appears to have been very substantial admixture-Armenian displays an inordinate amount of influence form neighboring Caucasian languages, and there is a theory that the similarly divergent Germanic languages at some point mixed heavily with another language. 

What I am talking about resembles expansion of a corporate franchise rather than Alexander the Great marching in to Tajikistan-David W. Anthony makes this exact comparison, actually. 

Bands of Indo-Europeans would have a number of reasons to expand.  There was a bride-price, making rape, abduction and conquest more attractive.  A hardened warrior caste had developed, who wielded bronze or copper maces.  A priest caste gave a reason for war-making; to convert others to the correct sacrifices to the various Gods.  Just as important as the wagon or the chariot was the fact that these proto-Indo-Europeans had every reason to expand aggressively, and came with a cultural package that was, if anything, attractive,;Anthony makes the argument that the Priest case was responsible for some fairly advanced methods of story-telling, an attractive form of entertainment.  Defeat the tribe, murder some of the men, then bring in the survivors with religion and ritualistic storytelling- a reasonable assimilation model.  So, the PIE people would have motive (bride price), means (warrior caste, chariot, wagon) and opportunity (relatively peaceable agricultural peoples of Old Europe who had no idea what the shit hit them)-and the material, linguistic and genetic evidence back most of this up.  We can't know the specific details, obviously, but we've been able to reasonably reconstruct a fair bit. 

I also think that you likely are not as familiar with more contemporary migrations or linguistic expansions.  The Mongol example actually backs me up-you should look at the expansion of Tatar and Chagatai (the language of most of the horde) across huge chunks of the Mongol Empire, and the adoption of Mongol terms of leadership by most of the post-Mongol sphere.  And that was when the world was already densely populated-the Turks went from iron-working slave caste (supposedly) in the Altai mountain range (possibly) to (likely) Indo-European masters to ruling over the entirety of the Steppe in a century and a half, with a resutling massive wave of dozens of different Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples going out of the steppe in exodus.  This was one of the largest events of the Late Antique, and ultimately destroyed half a dozen Empires.  I would also compare with the expansion of the Bantu peoples in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the modern expansion of the Pashtun in to historical Baluchi areas. 

[Razgovory]

I think I should point out that Proto-Indo-European was probably not one language as it spread.  It was likely a series of related languages.  There were certainly non-Indo-European languages that existed in historical time (Basque still does).  Etruscan was probably one and there is others across Europe.

I disagree with Psellus on emphasis on class and being propelled by sacrifices.  I don't think there is much evidence of that.  I also disagree with his concept of "Old Europe".  I don't think there was a single "Old Europe".  There was likely lots of different language groups with all their different customs.  I also doubt that it could be said to be "relatively" peaceful.

[Queequeg]

I think I should point out that Proto-Indo-European was probably not one language as it spread.  It was likely a series of related languages.  There were certainly non-Indo-European languages that existed in historical time (Basque still does).  Etruscan was probably one and there is others across Europe.

If I gave the impression I thought otherwise, it was my fault. 

I disagree with Psellus on emphasis on class and being propelled by sacrifices.  I don't think there is much evidence of that.

Kurgans?  It's the most obvious sine of Indo-European penetration in to a region-they start burying clan leaders with bronze or copper maces and other indications that the deceased was primarily a warrior.  The practice continued in to the historical period in many different areas.  A lot of our evidence of the Indo-European religion similarly comes from Aryan sources, including the importance of horse sacrifice, a practice maintained by the nomadic Indo-European peoples until the Turkic migration. 

I also disagree with his concept of "Old Europe".  I don't think there was a single "Old Europe".  There was likely lots of different language groups with all their different customs.  I also doubt that it could be said to be "relatively" peaceful.

There is some linguistic evidence that there was a fairly widespread, shared culture across most of what would eventually become Celtic Europe, particularly from hydronyms.  This is associated with the Beaker culture, who filled burial sites with beakers rather than bronze maces, chariots and horses as was typical of the later Tummulus (another word for Kurgan) culture.  This period of transition is associated with the development of numerous hill forts and other types of fortified settlement.  I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the Urnfield culture replaced a less martial culture. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Kurgans?  It's the most obvious sine of Indo-European penetration in to a region-they start burying clan leaders with bronze or copper maces and other indications that the deceased was primarily a warrior.  The practice continued in to the historical period in many different areas.  . 

it is very, very dangerous to draw conclusions about culture from common burial practice.

This is associated with the Beaker culture, who filled burial sites with beakers rather than bronze maces, chariots and horses as was typical of the later Tummulus (another word for Kurgan) culture. 

See this is an example.  The use of the word "culture" here has to be taken with full scare quotes.   The degree of commonality here is based on finding a certain shape of pottery in graves.  Unlikely we are dealing with a unified shared culture here; as opposed to spread of certain bundles of knowledge and associated technology.

[alfred russel]

Alfred, I think what you wrote above is actually a lot closer to what I was arguing in the first place.  The chariot and wagon were crucially important  in the expansion of the Indo-European peoples; but just as important was a "package" of customs, social configuration and other technologies.  Some of these were adopted by people who were not linguistically assimilated-for instance, some of the Uralic and Altaic peoples began to resemble Indo-European peoples, and eventually replaced them across the entirety of their area of origin.  Similarly, the Kassites, Urartians, certain Caucasian groups and other groups appear to have undergone large scale "Kurganization" without total language replacement.  In other areas, there appears to have been very substantial admixture-Armenian displays an inordinate amount of influence form neighboring Caucasian languages, and there is a theory that the similarly divergent Germanic languages at some point mixed heavily with another language. 

What I am talking about resembles expansion of a corporate franchise rather than Alexander the Great marching in to Tajikistan-David W. Anthony makes this exact comparison, actually. 

Bands of Indo-Europeans would have a number of reasons to expand.  There was a bride-price, making rape, abduction and conquest more attractive.  A hardened warrior caste had developed, who wielded bronze or copper maces.  A priest caste gave a reason for war-making; to convert others to the correct sacrifices to the various Gods.  Just as important as the wagon or the chariot was the fact that these proto-Indo-Europeans had every reason to expand aggressively, and came with a cultural package that was, if anything, attractive,;Anthony makes the argument that the Priest case was responsible for some fairly advanced methods of story-telling, an attractive form of entertainment.  Defeat the tribe, murder some of the men, then bring in the survivors with religion and ritualistic storytelling- a reasonable assimilation model.  So, the PIE people would have motive (bride price), means (warrior caste, chariot, wagon) and opportunity (relatively peaceable agricultural peoples of Old Europe who had no idea what the shit hit them)-and the material, linguistic and genetic evidence back most of this up.  We can't know the specific details, obviously, but we've been able to reasonably reconstruct a fair bit. 

I also think that you likely are not as familiar with more contemporary migrations or linguistic expansions.  The Mongol example actually backs me up-you should look at the expansion of Tatar and Chagatai (the language of most of the horde) across huge chunks of the Mongol Empire, and the adoption of Mongol terms of leadership by most of the post-Mongol sphere.  And that was when the world was already densely populated-the Turks went from iron-working slave caste (supposedly) in the Altai mountain range (possibly) to (likely) Indo-European masters to ruling over the entirety of the Steppe in a century and a half, with a resutling massive wave of dozens of different Indo-European and non-Indo-European peoples going out of the steppe in exodus.  This was one of the largest events of the Late Antique, and ultimately destroyed half a dozen Empires.  I would also compare with the expansion of the Bantu peoples in Sub-Saharan Africa, or the modern expansion of the Pashtun in to historical Baluchi areas.

Psellus, the problem is that your definition of the culture is so vague it sounds to me more like a stage of human society rather than an identifiable culture. A priest caste, a warrior caste, and story telling could define almost any pre modern society after the passage of the hunter gatherer phase. Weaponry and tools such as wagons are quite possibly commonplace because those are the technology of the era rather than as a cultural marker. You are also identifying indo european cultural traits in societies distanced from the initial indo european expansion by more than a millenia.

There is a lot that I don't know, I don't pretend to be an expert on this, but even after googling I don't see how the Mongolian invasions support your case. First, they were separated from us by just 800 years or so and had the benefit of writing and other transportation technology, major advantages when seeking to exert control. Second, they did not have the population density to supplant the native languages with their own. They did cause massive change in the territories they conquered, but where they stayed they adopted a local language. Third, it doesn't seem as though the languages they adopted really underwent a major expansion anyway. I just have a hard time seeing how a group from a sparsely populated portion of the world could conquer and then impose its language on such a large territory before writing and before significant road networks. And if the process was gradual, I don't see how they could mantain a consistent culture through centuries.

[Queequeg]

See this is an example.  The use of the word "culture" here has to be taken with full scare quotes.   The degree of commonality here is based on finding a certain shape of pottery in graves.  Unlikely we are dealing with a unified shared culture here; as opposed to spread of certain bundles of knowledge and associated technology.

And river names. 

There's a lot more evidence of a relatively shared Indo-European culture than there is of previous cultures.  The most conclusive evidence is the fact that the Beaker culture is gone, and replaced, with an intervening period of hill forts. 

You are also identifying indo european cultural traits in societies distanced from the initial indo european expansion by more than a millenia.

This is a continuous process.  If you want to get technical, the Spanish conquest of the Americas or the expansion of the Russian Empire was an extension of it.  Heck, American and English global dominance are.

The Proto-Indo-European peoples might never have been a totally coherent people, but rather a loose confederation of tribes with some displaying different degrees of influence from various other sources, as well as some natural diversity. And, naturally, as they spread out, they diverged.  Where have I argued that they were a singular, coherent people who spread out over three millenia? 

. Second, they did not have the population density to supplant the native languages with their own.

Mongol was the language of the upper echelon of the Horde, but something resembling Tatar was the language of the entirety of the Horde, and it had a huge impact upon all of Central Asia, most of the languages impacted by the Mongol invasion, including Turkish, Russian, the Indo-Iranian languages, all of which both borrow a large amount of complex vocabulary from the language of the Horde.  And this was with a hugely higher population density than was possible in the Bronze Age. 

Keep in mind how chaotic the Mongol invasion was, too, with various non-subjugated Turkic peoples fleeing the steppe in the hundreds of thousands to try to escape the main horde.  The Mongol invasion let loose a chain effect, whereby many different peoples ended up in completely different areas.  The Huns are a far better example of this, though, obviously. 

If you want the closest parallel to the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, look at the fate of the various peoples after the collapse of the central authority of the Khazar Khaganate, of diverse background (Hungarians, Alans, Bolgars, Avars, ancestors of the Seljuks ) who, freed from the central control of the Khazars, spread out in a huge wave across most of Central Europe and Western Asia, ultimately changing the entirety of the region.  This is in the exact same area, over a reasonably similar time frame, and began in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.  The main difference here is that the Khazars did not have the time or influence to establish a coherent linguistic or religious union , though the legacy of Khazar influence on all of these peoples is still discernible. 

Or better yet, read a book on the subject.  I am by no means an expert on the subject-my proclivity towards hyperbole and frequent assertions of certainty where it is not truly deserved appear responsible for most of this argument. 

I just have a hard time seeing how a group from a sparsely populated portion of the world could conquer and then impose its language on such a large territory before writing and before significant road networks. And if the process was gradual, I don't see how they could mantain a consistent culture through centuries.

AR, you are a phenomenally bright poster, so at this point I am just frustrated at how poorly I am making my case. 

I think the 'franchise' model here is closest to what I am arguing.  Starbucks starts out as a little shop in the Pacific Northwest that only sells coffee beans in bags.  Now, eventually, they become a coffee shop.  The mid-level managers eventually decide they want to manage their own store, so they get into business with regional management to set up a new Starbucks, with a combination of local hires and employees from other stores.  Now, what's interesting is that all of these skills change a bit from store to store.  And, in some places, they change the menu to better accommodate  local tastes and changes in technology.  Eventually, some of the other coffee shops start to look at Starbucks as a model, and eventually, without corporate headquarters in Seattle, the name Starbucks might even be largely forgotten as all of the local shops change with time and local conditions.

We are not discussing ethnicity as you or I understand the term, or in some respects as the city states of Mesopatamia understood it.  You can be a Mexican-American farmer or a Mexican-American lawyer.

Now, here, what would happen is that as the new group of warriors and priests move in to town, if you become a warrior or want to become a priest, you just become one of them.  You pick up the language and change the way you live  This is the way it worked on the Steppe even in to the historical period-think of the Cossacks.  Ethnicity is rather a combination of occupation, religion, language and class, or even something else-all of these can change, though.  This changes both people along the way, and there are always huge linguistic and material shifts caused by this.  The world of the expansion of some of the Indo-Europeans might have resembled our own more than that of the 19th or 20th Century; a man might be born in sight of the Kuban river, but die in Xinjiang Province China, with an Asian wife and a combined skill set and linguistic elements from both cultures.  We have evidence of stuff like that happening all the time.  Now, the language and culture of most people will change due to the prestige of the invading language and culture, but it will still obviously reflect local influence and change over time. 

To further illustrate, here's an example close to my heart.  Take what the word "Turk" meant in Anatolia at various times:
1090: Raiding religious warriors striking deep in to the area, murdering hundreds of thousands, destroying whole cities, and causing general havoc. It would also include a number of local converts and hangers-on.  The nomadic raider concept is central, more important than the religious identification. 
1120: It would include the settled descendants of those initial warriors, new colonizers and warriors, as well as an increasingly large circle of local converts and people who have joined the ruling culture.  This has changed the new Turkic culture dramatically. 
1350: Most of the population of Anatolia has now self-designated as Turk. Turkish buildings are almost indistinguishable from Byzantine buildings.  Ditto Turkish food, agricultural techniques, etc.  The genetic contribution of the invading Turks is noticeable, but not anywhere near the major influence.   The Turk ethnonymn and language is triumphant, but it is a new hybrid. 

This is a pretty similar process.  Indo-European studies is a bit like trying to recreate the hot-headed nomadic ghazis who fucked Anatolia up from the complex, hybridized Beyliks of the immediate pre-Ottoman period.  Only it was two thousand years before this.  And without Byzantine or Arab historians.  And a lot shittier material and linguistic record.


Given this, you don't maintain a consistent culture-what makes PIE studies so fascinating to me is the glimpses we receive of something resembling a Bronze Age Indo-European core from a wonderful diversity of hundreds of different cultures over multiple continents.  The central questions-of original diversity of the peoples,  or origin, of degree of population replacement-are an integral part of Indo-European studies, and one of the reasons I am interested in the subject.

EDIT: I think the Starbucks example is flawed, because I remember an Atlantic article on the company about a decade back that made it sound much more top-down.  I think my point is still reasonably clear though.

[The Minsky Moment]

And river names. 

Which proves what, exactly?

There's a lot more evidence of a relatively shared Indo-European culture than there is of previous cultures.  The most conclusive evidence is the fact that the Beaker culture is gone, and replaced, with an intervening period of hill forts. 

Seems like the conclusion is being assumed here.
For example, what do mean by saying the Beaker culture is gone?  Is it anything more than saying that that at a certain point, beaker shaped pots of a certain type cease to be common in the physical record.  It's a very big leap from that fact to talk about a shared culture that is being replaced.  Similarly, there is nothing about building of hill forts that suggests a shared culture other than the technological capacity to build hill forts, an incentive to do so, and social organization to build them.  Lots of cultural forms are consistent with those things.

What we are talking about is the gradual disappearance of one kind of physical artifact  and the appearance of another .  Beyond that is speculation.

[Queequeg]

Given the lack of linguisic or historical evidence, you are probably right. Tnere are so many theories on this that the theories are all based upon speculation in regards to this particular transition in Western Europe.

[alfred russel]

Lets see if I can summarize your general point of view (to distill any points of misunderstanding, and focus the discussion a bit more). Just before 3000 BC, there were a proto Indo European speaking peoples (PIE) on the steppes north of the Black Sea who were responsible for domesticating the horse. After domesticating the horse, they developed chariot and wagon technology, and a culture with warrior and priestly castes. With the technology and culture they developed, they were able to relatively easily conquer their neighbors so that by the dawn of the common era indo European languages were the predominant language from western Europe to the Indian subcontinent.

[The Brain]

Kurgans?  It's the most obvious sine of Indo-European penetration in to a region-they start burying clan leaders with bronze or copper maces and other indications that the deceased was primarily a warrior.  The practice continued in to the historical period in many different areas.  . 

it is very, very dangerous to draw conclusions about culture from common burial practice.

This is associated with the Beaker culture, who filled burial sites with beakers rather than bronze maces, chariots and horses as was typical of the later Tummulus (another word for Kurgan) culture. 

See this is an example.  The use of the word "culture" here has to be taken with full scare quotes.   The degree of commonality here is based on finding a certain shape of pottery in graves.  Unlikely we are dealing with a unified shared culture here; as opposed to spread of certain bundles of knowledge and associated technology.

Even today the kind of pottery you choose defines you as a person.

[Razgovory]

Kurgans?  It's the most obvious sine of Indo-European penetration in to a region-they start burying clan leaders with bronze or copper maces and other indications that the deceased was primarily a warrior.  The practice continued in to the historical period in many different areas.  A lot of our evidence of the Indo-European religion similarly comes from Aryan sources, including the importance of horse sacrifice, a practice maintained by the nomadic Indo-European peoples until the Turkic migration. 

They were not the first people to in Europe to do so.  The Funnelbeaker culture buried people with weapons.  I don't see how horse sacrifices indicate a complex priestly caste.  Nor are horse sacrifices particularly unique.  The mongol did it as well.  Probably because on the steppe horses were very valuable.

There is some linguistic evidence that there was a fairly widespread, shared culture across most of what would eventually become Celtic Europe, particularly from hydronyms.  This is associated with the Beaker culture, who filled burial sites with beakers rather than bronze maces, chariots and horses as was typical of the later Tummulus (another word for Kurgan) culture.  This period of transition is associated with the development of numerous hill forts and other types of fortified settlement.  I think the evidence is reasonably strong that the Urnfield culture replaced a less martial culture.

Most of the these hydronyms are rather iffy.  A collection of names possibly based on languages that nobody knows.  The only pre-Indo-Europan languages that we actually know with much certainty are Etruscan and Basque.  These languages are not related.  I think you are drawing to many conclusions from to little evidence.

[Malthus]

Kurgans?  It's the most obvious sine of Indo-European penetration in to a region-they start burying clan leaders with bronze or copper maces and other indications that the deceased was primarily a warrior.  The practice continued in to the historical period in many different areas.  . 

it is very, very dangerous to draw conclusions about culture from common burial practice.

This is associated with the Beaker culture, who filled burial sites with beakers rather than bronze maces, chariots and horses as was typical of the later Tummulus (another word for Kurgan) culture. 

See this is an example.  The use of the word "culture" here has to be taken with full scare quotes.   The degree of commonality here is based on finding a certain shape of pottery in graves.  Unlikely we are dealing with a unified shared culture here; as opposed to spread of certain bundles of knowledge and associated technology.

Even today the kind of pottery you choose defines you as a person.

Hence the generally low esteem archaeologists hold for the "Hummel People".

[Queequeg]

Lets see if I can summarize your general point of view (to distill any points of misunderstanding, and focus the discussion a bit more). Just before 3000 BC, there were a proto Indo European speaking peoples (PIE) on the steppes north of the Black Sea who were responsible for domesticating the horse. After domesticating the horse, they developed chariot and wagon technology, and a culture with warrior and priestly castes. With the technology and culture they developed, they were able to relatively easily conquer their neighbors so that by the dawn of the common era indo European languages were the predominant language from western Europe to the Indian subcontinent.

On the understanding that this is a continuous process, without majority population replacement in most areas, and a continuous infusion of conquered cultures along the way.

[Razgovory]

Actually, I think it would be a good idea for all of us to reiterate what our points are.  I broadly agree with Spellus (I think).  Indo-European people spread out across Eurasia from the area Pontic-Caspian steppes.  Horse were important to these people and they domesticated them.  They were likely the first people to domesticate horses.  These people conquered, settled, or colonized Europe, West Asia and parts of South Asia.   Why and how they did it is unknown.  Horses were probably a factor though other factors such as farming techniques are also possible.

I disagree with Spellus on the idea of "Old Europe", which conjures up the silly ideas of Gimbutas's Proto-socialist Matriarchy.  I doubt there was much in the way of unified culture or language in Europe before the Indo Europeans.  I don't discount the possibility of genocide as part of the Indo-European expansion (especially in Europe).  I imagine that warfare was like that of the Eastern woodland Indians were whole tribes were forceably relocated by stronger tribes and villages were destroyed completely.  I also suspect colonization where Indo-Europeans settled in areas that could better be exploited due to being more technologically advanced.  I'm also unconvinced about the tripartite division of society particularly the need for a priestly caste to engage in complex sacrifices and rituals.  I don't think these can be deduced through a reconstructed language and some grave goods.

I admit I don't know much about India so most of my statements are about Europe.