I know its a big change, but what do you think the affects would be of Indo-European culture remaining restricted to its original territory and never expanding out across Europe and Asia?
No Indo Europeans
- Thread starter fred_smith
- Start date
ninebucks
Banned
In the strictest sense, phrases like 'Indo-European' should only be used when talking about linguistic groups, but I understand your meaning.
Well, if Europe was empty it would only be a matter of time until it is settled, and, if the I-E people are excluded the best bet would seem to be the Afro-Semites (originating in OTL Ethiopia and Rift Valley and the ancestors of modern Arabs). Their migration patterns would probably lead them across the Bosphorous and from there eventually into Europe's interior.
It is also possible that the North would become much more Mongolic, with the eventual merged race that would become the Europeans looking like darker, narrower eyed Turks.
Well, if Europe was empty it would only be a matter of time until it is settled, and, if the I-E people are excluded the best bet would seem to be the Afro-Semites (originating in OTL Ethiopia and Rift Valley and the ancestors of modern Arabs). Their migration patterns would probably lead them across the Bosphorous and from there eventually into Europe's interior.
It is also possible that the North would become much more Mongolic, with the eventual merged race that would become the Europeans looking like darker, narrower eyed Turks.
Jomazi
Banned
Well, as stated the term "indo-european" refers to a group of linguistically related languages, not "races" or anything like that. The spreading of these languages into europe has been connected to the spreading of agriculture. I'd suppose two other things could've happened:
1. As mentioned before, agriculture is spread northwards by the semites/hamites or what ever one wishes to call them. This does not change the "racial" composition of europe much (just like the indoeuropeans didn't) but most people in europe ends up speaking semitic/hamitic (afro-asiatic) languages.
2. The spread of ideas is not fast/efficient enough to prevent large scale migration into europe. Everyone ends up actually being of mainly Afro-asiatic origin.
3. The spread of ideas is grasped quickly by some emerging european power/ trade empire with the result that the native tongues are never replaced. This gets interesting because no one actually knows what kind of languages was spoken before the IE ones. Perhaps related to Euskara (basque)?
The ugrian languages is supposed to have "left" the urals in 3-4000BC, and that is after the arrival of IE languages to southern europe but simultaneous to their arrival in the north (following the Anatolian hypothesis which I see as most likely)
1. As mentioned before, agriculture is spread northwards by the semites/hamites or what ever one wishes to call them. This does not change the "racial" composition of europe much (just like the indoeuropeans didn't) but most people in europe ends up speaking semitic/hamitic (afro-asiatic) languages.
2. The spread of ideas is not fast/efficient enough to prevent large scale migration into europe. Everyone ends up actually being of mainly Afro-asiatic origin.
3. The spread of ideas is grasped quickly by some emerging european power/ trade empire with the result that the native tongues are never replaced. This gets interesting because no one actually knows what kind of languages was spoken before the IE ones. Perhaps related to Euskara (basque)?
The ugrian languages is supposed to have "left" the urals in 3-4000BC, and that is after the arrival of IE languages to southern europe but simultaneous to their arrival in the north (following the Anatolian hypothesis which I see as most likely)
If it were languages, would there be greater linguistic diversity?
Or would we end up with Rome speaking Etruscan or a related language and this spreading to the Romance speaking countries? Finnic languages in all of Scandanavia? And the rest of Europe too, I think some historical linguists claim that the pre Indo-european languages of northern Europe were Finno-Ugrian.
Caucasian languages spread north into S. Russia?
Turkic, Elamite and Semitic languages in the middle east and into Central Asia? Tamil languages in India? Sino-Tibetan languages there too, the ones that exist as minority languages still today?
Or would we end up with Rome speaking Etruscan or a related language and this spreading to the Romance speaking countries? Finnic languages in all of Scandanavia? And the rest of Europe too, I think some historical linguists claim that the pre Indo-european languages of northern Europe were Finno-Ugrian.
Caucasian languages spread north into S. Russia?
Turkic, Elamite and Semitic languages in the middle east and into Central Asia? Tamil languages in India? Sino-Tibetan languages there too, the ones that exist as minority languages still today?
Interesting WI, although the absence of the Indo-European linguistic (and therefore also cultural) groups would result in such a massive butterfly effect that it would be next to impossible to predict exactly what would happen.
Like others already said, most propably Europe would be dominated by the pre-Indo-European groups, such as the Etruscans, Iberians, Pelasgians, and Caucasian groups, while the British Isles would retain their proto-Celtic population.
And judging from archeological evidence, I'd also say that there would be at least one distinct ethnic/cultural/linguistic group in the Alpes and southern Germany, along with a somewhat greater diversity of ethnic-cultural groups in the Balkans.
On this matter, it is also noteworthy that the Caucasian languages and the Basque language are often thought to be distantly related, and that the Etruscans and Pelasgians have also been associated with the Caucasian peoples.
Maybe we'll see an earlier diversification of the Altaic and Finno-Ugric languages in Central Asia, or perhaps the predecessors of the Altaic and Finno-Ugric languages will even evolve into more different language groups than they did in OTL.
Another effect could be that the cultures that were responsable for the megaliths survived, along with the Vinca culture that existed in the Balkans, yet was propably destroyed as a result of the Indo-European invasions.
The Vinca culture was an advanced and developed culture for its age, and the Vinca practiced agriculture and primitive metallurgy, and they may even have had a primitive writing system, or at least something that definitely had the potential to develop into a true writing system.
And I'd say that if the Vinca were given the chance to develop their culture and civilisation,
the result could very well be a great civilisation that could easily rival the Minoan and ancient Greek civilisations.
Like others already said, most propably Europe would be dominated by the pre-Indo-European groups, such as the Etruscans, Iberians, Pelasgians, and Caucasian groups, while the British Isles would retain their proto-Celtic population.
And judging from archeological evidence, I'd also say that there would be at least one distinct ethnic/cultural/linguistic group in the Alpes and southern Germany, along with a somewhat greater diversity of ethnic-cultural groups in the Balkans.
On this matter, it is also noteworthy that the Caucasian languages and the Basque language are often thought to be distantly related, and that the Etruscans and Pelasgians have also been associated with the Caucasian peoples.
Maybe we'll see an earlier diversification of the Altaic and Finno-Ugric languages in Central Asia, or perhaps the predecessors of the Altaic and Finno-Ugric languages will even evolve into more different language groups than they did in OTL.
Another effect could be that the cultures that were responsable for the megaliths survived, along with the Vinca culture that existed in the Balkans, yet was propably destroyed as a result of the Indo-European invasions.
The Vinca culture was an advanced and developed culture for its age, and the Vinca practiced agriculture and primitive metallurgy, and they may even have had a primitive writing system, or at least something that definitely had the potential to develop into a true writing system.
And I'd say that if the Vinca were given the chance to develop their culture and civilisation,
the result could very well be a great civilisation that could easily rival the Minoan and ancient Greek civilisations.
Not every single one of them; the Iberian cultures (including the Basques), the native groups in the Caucasus, the megalith builders in Europe, the Vinca culture, most propably the Minoans, the Elamites, and the Dravidians and their civilisations would all still exist.
But I nonetheless agree that just about every one of the classical and post-classical European culture, along with several Middle-Eastern cultures (the Hittites, Medes and Persians etc., along with the effects they had on other cultures) would not exist here...
Thanks!
In the scenario I described I was just assuming and hoping that, before another major migration comes along, the native peoples and cultures of Europe would somehow be capable of fending them off without letting these invaders fundamentally change Europe in the way the Indo-Europeans did, mainly to keep things from getting even more complicated.
Furthermore, I just like to see those fascinating pre-Indo-European cultures and languages flourish.
But you have a good point nonetheless; even if the Indo-Europeans remain in Asia, there is still the possebility that they (or other groups...) could invade at a later point in time, simply because peoples and nations don't remain stable and static over the centuries. In fact, Indo-European peoples might even invade in the form of nomadic hordes at some point, not unlike the Huns and Mongols.
Though that would be a very interesting scenario in its own right, there are still many other possebilities as well.
I'd say the Indo-European cultures in Central Asia - if they do not migrate or become absorbed by other migrating peoples - would develop both sedentairy and urban, as well as nomadic cultures, with the main nomadic cultures in northern Central Asia, and the main sedentairy and urban cultures in the south, in northeastern Persia and many parts of Afghanistan, with an Indo-European presence in the Tarim Basin as well.
And with a little luck, some of the Indo-European cultures could adapt to life in the mountainous areas of Central Asia,
and even build an impressive civilisation there. (the Inca's did it - why not the Indo-Europeans?)
And finally, the Indo-Europeans in this scenario would certainly play an important role in this TL's analogue to the Silk Road and many other trade routes between China, Dravidian-dominated India, the Middle-East (which will propably be a mix of Caucasian, Semitic, Egyptian and Elamite nations and cultures), and Europe.
Leo Caesius
Banned
My impression from reading Mallory and the rest is that most researchers believe the Indo-European homeland to be in the plains and steppes of Central Asia, not in the mountainous region (with the exception of Lord Renfrew, who seems to believe that they all originated in Central Anatolia).
I'm not sure where I picked up this document (see attached), but it may prove of interest for this and related WIs.
A related question:
Do most scholars believe that Indo-European language/culture migrated to places like Iran and Europe, through things like basic hegemony and such, or did the people themselves, who spoke Indo-European, move and supplant/assimilate the pre-existing peoples?
Do most scholars believe that Indo-European language/culture migrated to places like Iran and Europe, through things like basic hegemony and such, or did the people themselves, who spoke Indo-European, move and supplant/assimilate the pre-existing peoples?
These ideas are extremely tenuous, based on a few supposed cognates that usually have other possible interpretations, not least that take any two languages and you can find a certain number of words that seem similar but this is just chance.
I think the opinion is changing to the idea that there was only a small number of elite settlers. The genetic evidence is confusing however, looking at one set of information it looks like for instance there was relatively large scale immigration of germanic tribes to Britain at the end of the Roman period, a different set of genetic information suggests that since pre-celtic times the population of Britain has been fairly stable with only small numbers of immigrants.