No Indo-European Expansion

[Oba]

Hello all. This is not intended to be a TL (I am still learning the ropes here) but I just came up with the idea for POD for a discussion: No Indo-European expansion.

The idea came to mind as I am currently studying the Sumerian Language, and thus the Bronze Age Middle East. Then I realized that so many things could turn out different had there been no Indo-European expansion. The easiest way to do this is to have all the horses be killed off in the Ice Age, preventing the Indo-Europeans from expanding.

What if there were no Hyksos to destroy Middle Kingdom Egypt, nor displace the Pre-Indo-European peoples in Europe, nor, perhaps most importantly, to destroy the Indus Civilization. What would this lead to? I am looking for a discussion &/or a collaborative TL, not one on my own (at least not yet.)

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by Oba

Hello all. This is not intended to be a TL (I am still learning the ropes here) but I just came up with the idea for POD for a discussion: No Indo-European expansion.

The idea came to mind as I am currently studying the Sumerian Language, and thus the Bronze Age Middle East. Then I realized that so many things could turn out different had there been no Indo-European expansion. The easiest way to do this is to have all the horses be killed off in the Ice Age, preventing the Indo-Europeans from expanding.

What if there were no Hyksos to destroy Middle Kingdom Egypt, nor displace the Pre-Indo-European peoples in Europe, nor, perhaps most importantly, to destroy the Indus Civilization. What would this lead to? I am looking for a discussion &/or a collaborative TL, not one on my own (at least not yet.)

It's a hell to say because we know very little of most places where Indo-europeans went before they did, so we have a very limited idea of what could happen. Also, the Hyksos were not Indo-Europeans.
Moreover, ideas about how and when the expansion happened are fairly divergent. The old paradigm of a relatively recent expansion of mainly horse-riding peoples spreading Indo-european languages has beed seriously challenged, though it is not discredited.

[Errnge]

weren't the hyksos semitic?

anyway, you would see a much more linguistically diverse europe (assuming one group never dominated all others).

from what i understand, the general theory is that most of western europe (iberia, gaul, the british isles) spoke languages related to basque.

southern iberia had tartesians

i've heard that the etruscans and rhaetians were of a non-indo-european origin, likely from the middle east, so not native.

scandinavia would be more populated by sami and finns.

the minoan civilization might have lingered on after the santarini eruption ( brilliant!!!!)

no hittites means we might see the syrians take over anatolia.

i don't know the shape of iran would be like without indo-europeans there.

india would also be very interesting, but i know almost nothing about early indian civilizations...

you might try, instead of killing off all horses, simply having the indo-europeans not adopt the horse, and then are later assimilated by a larger nomadic group on the steppe like the turks

[8Deer]

from what i understand, the general theory is that most of western europe (iberia, gaul, the british isles) spoke languages related to basque.

I think this theory is largely discredited. I could be wrong though.

i've heard that the etruscans and rhaetians were of a non-indo-european origin, likely from the middle east, so not native.

The most common explanation for their origins is that they were from Anatolia, as shown by inscriptions on the island of Lemnos which are very similar to Etruscan. But you are right, they were not Indo-European. However, they may have arrived in Italy after the Indo-Europeans did.

Iran would be interesting. I guess Elamite would probably survive in the southwest. Maybe the Hurro-Urartian languages could expand east into Iran? India would most likely remain Dravidian speaking for the most part.

Most of the pre-Indo-European languages of Europe outside of Iberia and Italy are completely unknown, so it's anybody's guess as to what could happen there.

EDIT: I've also read some interesting things about a pre-Greek substrate, but I don't think anything concrete is known about it...

[jackalope]

Just posted this on the Samaritan Thread and it is pertainent here:


One can think of it this way, as employer & employee. If you are the employer, and the company goes bust, you are in some serious trouble. If only the employee, it is easier to move on. Ruling classes tended to be less permanent an certainly not remain in language. But some did, most notably the Indo European varieties. Tons of ethnic languages are now completely lost, where as about 10K BC there were an estimated thousand languages, and hundred or so language groups. Even Etruscan, which at least one Emperor's wife was of that group, is very slightly known for the many hundreds of years relationship with Rome. All the other Italian subgroups left without trace beyond geographical names, pretty much.

That is what exists on the island of New Guinea right now, though many are close to disappearing. Depending on how you count they have over a thousand languages, certainly hundreds of branches. Europe currently has 3 branches of native peoples, Urgaic, Basque and IndoEuropean remaining, with almost all being the latter. With the advent of horses, empires can quickly be forged and broken in a few years. Most empires did not stress the average person learning the conqueror's language, and to use the royal variety might get your head chopped off.

Rome was an exception. Even Romania, only Latin dominated for a few short years, was imposed on language that remains to this day. They must of had a plan, and it seemed to involve sheephearders and their trading fairs (in Greece and elsewhere in the Balkans, they are still known as the Vlachs). http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publ...orn-assimilate

There is a story behind all of this, one that will never be well known, it is sad to say.
"Move on" meaning to get on with the new order of things, not normally relocated although that happened often enough too. The ruling class often had to move on in their native district, if any, or had it diminished. The Urgaic tribes, which the capital city Gelonus previously mentioned apparently was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelonus , were being absorbed still in recent centuries, native areas stubbornly refusing to give up remaining customs. Some areas of Russia, some 7 million or so worth, still speak the language, all to the far north and none to the Ukarainian areas where only dim remnants remain. (Hungary, Estonia, Finland, too.)

Perhaps most famous of the native local groups was in initial ancient Mesopotamia, where one wave of invaders, usually from the north, came one after another. After about 80 years, soft and fat, the pickings were ready for another crop of invaders, and the locals hardly noticed the difference, sort of or at least were ready for the event with contingencies.
　
　


Hard to say what the make up of the languages. After many thousands of years, warfare does not tend to be an issue as people become settled. That is until a great new technology like the horse comes along. That Basque would have been in England seems silly unless there is evidence. More likely, there were pretty much unrelated languages all over. When a disaster comes up, that would be the main way for one group to expand, as the niches are different after the event and/or the rebound time is uneven for different locations.

[jackalope]

One can think of it this way, as employer & employee. If you are the employer, and the company goes bust, you are in some serious trouble. If only the employee, it is easier to move on. Ruling classes tended to be less permanent an certainly not remain in language. But some did, most notably the Indo European varieties. Tons of ethnic languages are now completely lost, where as about 10K BC there were an estimated thousand languages, and hundred or so language groups. Even Etruscan, which at least one Emperor's wife was of that group, is very slightly known for the many hundreds of years relationship with Rome. All the other Italian subgroups left without trace beyond geographical names, pretty much.

That is what exists on the island of New Guinea right now, though many are close to disappearing. Depending on how you count they have over a thousand languages, certainly hundreds of branches. Europe currently has 3 branches of native peoples, Urgaic, Basque and IndoEuropean remaining, with almost all being the latter. With the advent of horses, empires can quickly be forged and broken in a few years. Most empires did not stress the average person learning the conqueror's language, and to use the royal variety might get your head chopped off.

Rome was an exception. Even Romania, only Latin dominated for a few short years, was imposed on language that remains to this day. They must of had a plan, and it seemed to involve sheephearders and their trading fairs (in Greece and elsewhere in the Balkans, they are still known as the Vlachs). http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publ...orn-assimilate

There is a story behind all of this, one that will never be well known, it is sad to say.
"Move on" meaning to get on with the new order of things, not normally relocated although that happened often enough too. The ruling class often had to move on in their native district, if any, or had it diminished. The Urgaic tribes, which the capital city Gelonus previously mentioned apparently was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelonus , were being absorbed still in recent centuries, native areas stubbornly refusing to give up remaining customs. Some areas of Russia, some 7 million or so worth, still speak the language, all to the far north and none to the Ukarainian areas where only dim remnants remain. (Hungary, Estonia, Finland, too.)

Perhaps most famous of the native local groups was in initial ancient Mesopotamia, where one wave of invaders, usually from the north, came one after another. After about 80 years, soft and fat, the pickings were ready for another crop of invaders, and the locals hardly noticed the difference, sort of or at least were ready for the event with contingencies.
　
　Most likely there were very different language groups since over time groups give up war and only move in other territory when a natural disaster strikes. Californian Tribes are an example of this pre 1700's. Basque, therefore, would not reach England, but very different groups would be everywhere just like in New Guinea. Very new and great technologies of war, such as in horses, were unknown in the early neolithic.

[Emperor Qianlong]

Originally Posted by 8Deer

I think this theory is largely discredited. I could be wrong though.

To my knowledge, Basque/Aquitanian typonomy only extends to approximately the area where it was spoken in Antiquity, as well as adjacent areas, that is approximately the modern Basque country as well as southwestern France approximately up to the river Garonne. The name "Garonne" itself is of Aquitanian origin, from the word "karr-", meaning rock (compare modern Basque "harr"). Whatever the Pre-Indo-European people on the British Isles spoke, it is clear that by the time that it comes into contact with the Mediterranean civilizations, the entire region is completely Celticized. For the sake of record (because it is regularly brought up in this kind of dicussions), the Picts also spoke a Celtic language. The idea is that they either just spoke a dialect of Brythonic, or that they spoke a distinct P-Celtic language. In any case, Pictish was closely related with Brythonic and Gaulish.

The most common explanation for their origins is that they were from Anatolia, as shown by inscriptions on the island of Lemnos which are very similar to Etruscan. But you are right, they were not Indo-European. However, they may have arrived in Italy after the Indo-Europeans did.

There is the interesting idea that the split between the Celtic language family and the Italic language family occured because the Etruscans settled in the area between them. I don't know how much is true about that hypothesis, but most linguists agree that there is a close relationship of some sort between the Celtic and Italic languages.

Most of the pre-Indo-European languages of Europe outside of Iberia and Italy are completely unknown, so it's anybody's guess as to what could happen there.

Well, the question is if pre-Indo-European Europe was linguistically rather diverse, or wether it was rather homogenous. We honestly do not know about this.

[8Deer]

Found this blog post which is very relevant to the topic.

This part especially:

Originally Posted by Language Log

In prehistoric Europe, then, we should expect to find the following pattern of languages and families, roughly speaking:

• numerous languages, belonging to many families not provably related to each other, in the Mediterranean coastal zone, including virtually all of Greece and Italy;
• somewhat less, but still notable, diversity along the cooler Atlantic coast, including the British isles;
• still less diversity in the interior of the continent (though not markedly less, given the adequate rainfall that Europe enjoys)—except probably for the Alps and the mountainous parts of the Balkan peninsula, which are likely to have been refugia for small and linguistically diverse populations, much like the modern Caucasus;
• fairly little diversity in Scandinavia—though probably not less than exists today, with two different language families belonging to different stocks (!).

This would make a great conlanging project, not so sure about AH though...

[Swan Station]

Originally Posted by Errnge

anyway, you would see a much more linguistically diverse europe (assuming one group never dominated all others).

Unless some other language group (Semitic, Uralic, Tyrrhenian) takes their place and expands for the same reasons as the I-E did OTL.

[Oba]

It would be interesting to see an Elamite Empire survive and not be destroyed by the Assyrians. What would Egypt be like? Could it survive to this day?

I think that the Hurrians would dominate Europe, being more advanced than anyone in the Late Bronze Age, be they in reality or in this scenario; the Minoans were probably Greeks, from what I understand, though scholars are not quite sure as we have yet to decipher the Cretan Hieroglyphs; if so, they would not be able to survive, having never existed.

Without the horse, which I see as quite obviously the basic factor in the Indo-European expansion, the Indus Valley Civilization could easily survive, but we no so little about it it is hard to say what would happen to it. Interesting what Elamite-Indus relations might be like.

[Falecius]

"Without the horse" is one thing, and "No IE" another. I mean, any group that domesticates horses would fare more or less as well as the Inde-europeans did OTL, obviously if the mainstream theory about their expansion is correct, which is not so completely sure (though I have no problem in accepting it, I keep some doubts). if you completely write off demosticate horses from history, consequences are going to be, huh, rather immense.

[Oba]

I wish to remove the domesticable horse from human history and see what the consequences are.

I simply used the Indo-Europeans as a convenient shorthand; however it may be quite inaccurate.

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by Oba

I wish to remove the domesticable horse from human history and see what the consequences are.

I simply used the Indo-Europeans as a convenient shorthand; however it may be quite inaccurate.

Well, so, your POD is no horses. No IE expansion is a quite likely consequence, but not even the most important one. All the civilization of the Late Bronze Age, regardless of the language, is going to be hugely different. Steppe nomads in general, whatever linguistic stock they belong to, are not going to play any significant role on the level they did OTL. No Scythians, no Sarmatians, no Turks and no Mongols as we know them.
And yes, no Hyksos. Probably no Hittites or Hurrians as significant power whatsoever. Northern China is a considerably safer place. OTOH, camels are going to play a far more greater role, and will probably spread earlier and quicker in arid areas. Linguistic diversity is going to be far greater than OTL. Hoplite-like warfare will be also more widespread and developed earlier. Maybe elephants are going to be domesticated rather than simply tamed, though it is stetch.

[Kaiphranos]

Originally Posted by Errnge

no hittites means we might see the syrians take over anatolia.

There were people in Anatolia before the Hittites; the Hattians. They had contact with the rest of the Middle East as far back as the days of Sargon of Akkad...

[pa_dutch]

Originally Posted by Errnge

scandinavia would be more populated by sami and finns.

I'm not sure this would be true. The speculation I've heard, and maybe someone can correct me on this, is that the Battle Axe culture that thrived in pre-historic Scandinavia and Germany may have spoke a non-Indo-European language family, which may have then contributed a lot of vocabulary to the Germanic languages. The hypothesis is used to explain why many Germanic root words differ from the parallel vocabulary found in the other Indo-European languages. My information might be outdated by now, though.

[pa_dutch]

Originally Posted by Falecius

Well, so, your POD is no horses. No IE expansion is a quite likely consequence, but not even the most important one. All the civilization of the Late Bronze Age, regardless of the language, is going to be hugely different. Steppe nomads in general, whatever linguistic stock they belong to, are not going to play any significant role on the level they did OTL. No Scythians, no Sarmatians, no Turks and no Mongols as we know them.
And yes, no Hyksos. Probably no Hittites or Hurrians as significant power whatsoever. Northern China is a considerably safer place. OTOH, camels are going to play a far more greater role, and will probably spread earlier and quicker in arid areas. Linguistic diversity is going to be far greater than OTL. Hoplite-like warfare will be also more widespread and developed earlier. Maybe elephants are going to be domesticated rather than simply tamed, though it is stetch.

Imagine if horses were driven extinct in the Old World but preserved and domesticated in the New World...

[Oba]

Originally Posted by Falecius

Well, so, your POD is no horses. No IE expansion is a quite likely consequence, but not even the most important one. All the civilization of the Late Bronze Age, regardless of the language, is going to be hugely different. Steppe nomads in general, whatever linguistic stock they belong to, are not going to play any significant role on the level they did OTL. No Scythians, no Sarmatians, no Turks and no Mongols as we know them.
And yes, no Hyksos. Probably no Hittites or Hurrians as significant power whatsoever. Northern China is a considerably safer place. OTOH, camels are going to play a far more greater role, and will probably spread earlier and quicker in arid areas. Linguistic diversity is going to be far greater than OTL. Hoplite-like warfare will be also more widespread and developed earlier. Maybe elephants are going to be domesticated rather than simply tamed, though it is stetch.

Interesting. Civilizations would certainly develop very differently without Steppe barbarians, such as China without the Mongols...

[Errnge]

Originally Posted by pa_dutch

Imagine if horses were driven extinct in the Old World but preserved and domesticated in the New World...

that would be badass. would this lead to a reversal where the americas are more developed and complex than the Old World?

[Falecius]

Originally Posted by Errnge

that would be badass. would this lead to a reversal where the americas are more developed and complex than the Old World?

Not by itself. Old World crops would still be more varied and richer in nutritive power. But it would give the Americans a far better starting point and the Old World could be far behind in comparison of OTL, albeit probably more peaceful on average.

[Errnge]

I'm also curious about the genetic impact of this. my info might be a tad outdated, but didn't the gene for blue eyes origninate ~10000 bc in the area around the ukraine, in other words, in traditionally indo-european homeland?

also, haplogroups R1a and b would be significantly less far spread. no blue or green eyes in the middle east or india, certainly less. and no tocharians in central asia.