8 ms·

> The reason Europe speaks Indo-European languages isn't that the ancient inhabitants thought that Proto-Indo-European was neat and adopted it --- it's that the

> The reason Europe speaks Indo-European languages isn't that the ancient inhabitants thought that Proto-Indo-European was neat and adopted it --- it's that the PIE-speaking Yamnaya swept in from the caucuses and slaughtered mostly everyone (especially men) except the Basques. It's not pretty, but that's the way it was. Incidentally, The Horse, The Wheel and Language (2010) https://erenow.com/ancient/the-horse-the-wheel-and-language/ https://erenow.com/ancient/the-horse-the-wheel-and-language/ is a freely available book that shows just how far a well-deployed combination of good-old philology/historical linguistics and archaeologocal evidence can go when it comes to reconstructing features of the genuine PIE Urheimat. But then, yup, they still try to advocate for an optimistic "PIE spread via cultural diffusion" story that doesn't jive at all with the more modern sources of evidence you mention in your comment. It does seem like our history, especially pre-Bronze Age, was marked by constant conflict which only decreased slowly over time, perhaps finally leading to the reasonably-stable "empires" we're somewhat familiar with from ancient history only as late as the Iron Age.

ethbro 7y ago
> ...perhaps finally leading to the reasonably-stable "empires" we're somewhat familiar with from ancient history only as late as the Iron Age. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a capital/resource : technology boundary at which you see this. Essentially, pre-metalworking, pre-farming, what do you have to risk if you upset order in your valley? You can migrate and hunt elsewhere. Post-metalworking, post-farming, we start to develop centralized resource generation. Suddenly, as long as there is some sense of economic equality (probably where the Romans went wrong with their neighbors), everyone stands to lose if anyone's farms are burned or the forges destroyed. At that point, the calculus changes greatly. And even more so when suddenly this technology is spread worldwide. Even during the world wars, you saw relatively limited wholesale destruction (e.g. carpet bombing cities) compared to what would have been possible. It'd also be curious to extend into the modern era, because it seems like longer simmering civil wars tend to happen in places where there is extreme economic inequality or a lack of infrastructure (e.g. DRC, South Sudan, Afghanistan). Which I guess is where the "bridges, not bombs" strategy comes from.
- 0815test 7y ago
  Alternately, those farms and forges might just make you a very juicy target for more mobile, perhaps shepherding outsiders. This seems to be a rather common pattern in history, one that can even be traced to pre-PIE times - it seems that the PIE culture itself was the result of early agriculturalists in the Pontic steppes being invaded by ousiders from farther up north in Eurasia - known only from molecular-level evidence, and labeled the "ancient north Eurasians". This is arguably the grain of truth in the "conflict as a result of settled communities/states" story - it's not necessarily the 'states' that engage in all the violence, they need only provide a motive for it!
  - Mediterraneo10 7y ago
    > it seems that the PIE culture itself was the result of early agriculturalists in the Pontic steppes being invaded by ousiders from farther up north in Eurasia - known only from molecular-level evidence, and labeled the "ancient north Eurasians" Can you cite this, please?

ethbro 7y ago

> ...perhaps finally leading to the reasonably-stable "empires" we're somewhat familiar with from ancient history only as late as the Iron Age. I wouldn't be surprised if there's a capital/resource : technology boundary at which you see this. Essentially, pre-metalworking, pre-farming, what do you have to risk if you upset order in your valley? You can migrate and hunt elsewhere. Post-metalworking, post-farming, we start to develop centralized resource generation. Suddenly, as long as there is some sense of economic equality (probably where the Romans went wrong with their neighbors), everyone stands to lose if anyone's farms are burned or the forges destroyed. At that point, the calculus changes greatly. And even more so when suddenly this technology is spread worldwide. Even during the world wars, you saw relatively limited wholesale destruction (e.g. carpet bombing cities) compared to what would have been possible. It'd also be curious to extend into the modern era, because it seems like longer simmering civil wars tend to happen in places where there is extreme economic inequality or a lack of infrastructure (e.g. DRC, South Sudan, Afghanistan). Which I guess is where the "bridges, not bombs" strategy comes from.

0815test 7y ago
Alternately, those farms and forges might just make you a very juicy target for more mobile, perhaps shepherding outsiders. This seems to be a rather common pattern in history, one that can even be traced to pre-PIE times - it seems that the PIE culture itself was the result of early agriculturalists in the Pontic steppes being invaded by ousiders from farther up north in Eurasia - known only from molecular-level evidence, and labeled the "ancient north Eurasians". This is arguably the grain of truth in the "conflict as a result of settled communities/states" story - it's not necessarily the 'states' that engage in all the violence, they need only provide a motive for it!
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > it seems that the PIE culture itself was the result of early agriculturalists in the Pontic steppes being invaded by ousiders from farther up north in Eurasia - known only from molecular-level evidence, and labeled the "ancient north Eurasians" Can you cite this, please?