Chariots

[The Minsky Moment]

IIRC Anthony took the position that a significant contibutor to the spread of PIE culture was acculturation - the PIE horse-centered culture came to be perceived as associated with high status and thus elites or young ambitious types in neighboring settlements were attracted to adopt PIE cultural attributes, up to and including language.

[Queequeg]

IIRC Anthony took the position that a significant contibutor to the spread of PIE culture was acculturation - the PIE horse-centered culture came to be perceived as associated with high status and thus elites or young ambitious types in neighboring settlements were attracted to adopt PIE cultural attributes, up to and including language.

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.

That's what I was trying to get at here.  Just as "Goth" and "Hun" were as much occupations as members of a tribal confederation, it seems likely that most of the spread of the Indo-European languages was a process of acculturation.  How much, I don't really know.  It's hard to tell from archaeogenetics, because there were multiple waves. 

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 am using the phrase Old Europe only to the extent that it means pre-Indo-European peoples of the continent, or even some unknown Indo-European peoples as well.  I don't buy in to any of Gimbutas' proto-Wiccan crap. 

[Malthus]

You guys are on the same page - to my mind what is firing the argument is the leftover remnants of the early 20th century notion that this chariot-riding class was some sort of homogenous racial group (leading to all sorts of silly racial superiority notions) which as far as I can see nobody here actually believes.

[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.

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.

I think the places that I disagree are the attribution of culture as driving a long process. I've read a decent amount about the ancient middle east, and the emergence of writing in sumeria is roughly contemporaneous with the expansion of the indo europeans. The indo european social structure (warriors with a priestly caste), would  apply to them (as well as pre columbian civilizations, and others). I also think there is a distinction between technology and culture. I expect effective technology will disperse across cultural boundaries reasonably quickly in the premodern world.

To focus on Europe, which I know the most about, I don't see why we should assume the original indo europeans expanded further than central europe. That seems to have been the core territory of the celtics, which then expanded through southern europe two millenia later. After that period of time, any indo european culture would have radically altered, and any effective technology would have diffused across europe. It would seem chance played a big role in the expansion (with the caveat I posted earlier that the legacy of a large indo european territory could have carved out a significant common language area that persisted to the celtics and gave them a competitive advantage in expansion).

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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".