@LSCatalina: And somehow, the Indo-European language style got worked into the majority. Funny how that happens.
Seriously, by your logic the Byzantines should have stayed Latin, but Romans would have been in the minority anyways.
This is not my logic, this is historical statement.
Following archeogical evidence, we had probably at last two IE waves, the first being quickly integrated into the local populations,
And for the Byzantines, it could have happened if Greek wasn't present already as a prestige and culture language that was spoken by Latins as well.
Of course, for IE and pre-IE languages, the final sucess of its use is explained by the relative few population in Europe (except at its margin where non-IE languages managed to hold their territories as Crete, Etruria, Iberic regions of Gaul, maybe some pre-ligurian shores). Everywhere the population was disseminated and relativly not important, the IE seems to have played a role of unification.
But the use of a language doesn't mean they imposed it by force : again, under the name IE people, you had many non-IE elements. They used their language, as the non-germanic elements among the Goths used the gothic language.
Of course, in the laters migrations in Europe, the union of peoples under one name didn't managed to make their language established instead of local ones, mainly because the locals' language was more prestigious.
We have some exemple though, with Al-Andalus mainly. While the Arabs represented an hilariously tiny part of the rulers (You had Berbers and converted in massive majority), the country quickly used Arab as main language, even among the non-Arabs. Still, the said rulers didn't imposed their language, or it wasn't the direct result of an invasion (we have regions in Al-Andalus that kept romance as main language, at margins...again). It was just that the ethnic Arabs became the focus point of the elites, and that even if they were the tiny part, the role owed them the cultural superiority (while, I repeat it, they never were the majority).
They managed to "send hugs" to local elites, to interbreed. Not to exterminate them, or to continually "invade" after the original campaign.
So "MY logic"? I don't think so.
Making alliances isn’t how one systematically replaces someone else’s language with your own. Seeing as the Indo-Europeans certainly had no strong government, it seems there could not have been any sort of government action making Indo-European dominant.
Not systematically, indeed. But it happened there, later and still today.
Talking of government for this era is increadibily anachronic : Indo-European carried some different hierarchy, hardly a government.
So, it seems clear that local ways must have been displaced somehow.
Of course. But the local uses are probably the origin of the quick differenciation of IE languages and customs, that necessited three great waves to became predominant.
I would point the existence of bronze ages cultures that are widesread undifferencialy on regions reached by IE or not (as the beaker culture). That could show the local populations kept their traditional links whatever the predocimiance of IE among the elites. Probably that the IE cultural influence managed to use the existing ties to being widespread in regions where the ethnics IE didn't go at first.
In fact, particularly in Asia, the linguistic and cultural influence of IE seems to have been made by influence and by mix, rather than a fantasmed invasion (with NO archeological evidence, while these ones seems to indicate a mix of different population during the Indus Civilisation era).
Amusingly, the IE seems to had a better influence and cultural focalisation on peoples that shared their way of life, and theire relative few numbers; while more ancient, more "urban", more highland societies seems to have rather well resisted that, even when they were in their sphere of influence.
Again, this is how it worked later too. You can influence and acculturate people close of you (and that enter the question of pre-indo european, as languages close to IE used in Europe before the first migrations), and far less the ones that aren't.
Of course, then it probably wouldn’t be Iberic. Likely, due to the general non-developed-ness of Spain at the time (we can see this in how it was conquered for raw-materials purposes) we would simply have feuding tribes, with Ibero-Basque-speaking tribes on the borderline.
I don't quite well understand the "undevelloped" stuff here. In the same time the IE appears anew in Europe, and there apparently became predominants, you have the appearence of urban communauties in the south.
Interestingly
While western Hispanic Iberians might have SPOKEN a form of Iberian, they likely wouldn’t actually have any special magical ties to the ones on the coast, any more than the Greeks had special magical ties to the Thracians
.
Atlantic Bronze Age culture seems to have unified the peninsula, until the appearance of proper iberian civlisations. Someone, I don't remember who, proposed to see an Urnefield progression up to the actual Murcia as one of the explanation of the ulterior division.
Of course, it doesn't explain all, critically why a non-IE culture as Atlantic Bronze Age seems had to be was finally more easy for pre-Halstatt people to settle than eastern Iberia. My take on this is that the eastern Pyrenean passes must have declinated to the beneficial of Mediterranean trade, making the contacts less frequents between Europe and eastern Iberia; while the western passes continued these contacts : you can see that we find far more western Iberic products in Europe than eastern ones.
Conquer the Pyrenees and trade with who, exactly? The equally barbarous (read: poor) people who likely would have lived in southwestern France at the time? There’s SO many better, more fertile, developed, and rich places to go for! It’s the same reason Alexander the Great went east instead of west.
More rich equals more defensible. Alexander had an army and supported by a civilisation that can supply it.
Comparate the IE peoples with Alexander army is on the edge of insanity, like comparing proto-slavs of I century with augustean army.
For the trade, i found this map, with some innacuracies, but that show that regarding what we currently found, the today's Basque Country was in good situation for being a trade passage between Iberic peninsula and Europe, critically when the south and east of the peninsula began to be more interested on mediterranean trade than continental.
