Did Indo-European people mostly displace the inhabitants are Europe and why?

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,982
#1
It seems like they rode in from between the Black and Caspian Seas and mostly took over Europe. The languages are now almost all Indo European. They have done research indicating that the people were mostly replaced. I know we can't discuss genetics. The Indo Europeans had chariots, which use horses, wheels, and metal. Was that there advantage? Does anyone know?
 
Likes: Rodger
Mar 2019
519
Kansas
#2
It seems like they rode in from between the Black and Caspian Seas and mostly took over Europe. The languages are now almost all Indo European. They have done research indicating that the people were mostly replaced. I know we can't discuss genetics. The Indo Europeans had chariots, which use horses, wheels, and metal. Was that there advantage? Does anyone know?
The biggest problem their is no settled theory about where they came from, or what order they invaded things. Once we figure that out, maybe we can consider what advantages they had to work with
 
Feb 2019
318
Pennsylvania, US
#3
Since it is reconstructed history, there isn't a definite understanding of what actually happened, so I'm not saying they did have chariots...

BUT...

If they did pick up the use of chariots, you can only imagine that in the right circumstances it would be a little bit like having a tank... quick moving, with one person driving the horses, a second could focus entirely on the enemy. You'd have a larger turn radius than on horse back, but the sides of the chariot could work a bit to protect those inside and once you got going, with one or two archers inside, you'd be able to fire in multiple directions... man!

I like chariots.
 
Apr 2019
57
Ireland
#4
I believe the Indo-Europeans assimilated existing peoples/groups by the displacement of their languages, perhaps this was achieved by taking over the higher echelons of society (by conquest, superior societal advantages or technological advantages) rather than displacement or wiping them out, after all influence and contact with other languages had to be one of the main determinants in Proto Indo-European going on it's journey to form it's modern Indo-European components
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,982
#5
I believe the Indo-Europeans assimilated existing peoples/groups by the displacement of their languages, perhaps this was achieved by taking over the higher echelons of society (by conquest, superior societal advantages or technological advantages) rather than displacement or wiping them out, after all influence and contact with other languages had to be one of the main determinants in Proto Indo-European going on it's journey to form it's modern Indo-European components
Yeh, that is mostly what happened with Latin, Arabic, and Spanish, the language of a the conquerors gradually was adapted by people mostly of the original ethnicity. The same thing happened with Germanic languages in southern Germany, Austria, and the British Isles.

As far as I can tell, the research shows major changes in the types and artifacts and genetic make up in central Europe in like a 200 year period.

They do research by doing genetic analysis of prehistoric bones and of current people. They talk about the Indo European Corded Ware culture, based on the type of pottery they found. Similarly, it is the stone age, bronze age, and iron age based on the material in the tools and weapons they find.

The current thinking is Indo Europeans came from what was the Soviet Union. As far as I can see the big thing they had was the wheel and hence chariots.

I don't know too much about this, and I guess even experts can't be sure of too much, but it is an interesting topic.
 
Mar 2019
1,161
KL
#6
indo european theory itself is a bag full of cow dung.

i think indo european categorization itself is dubious and then making it matter of indo european migration/ aryan migration is highly dubious, we can categorize indian and iranian as one parent family, but then, we too have iranian zoroasterian and indian vedic religious share, how do we know that the similar words are not just borrowings between one another based on religious grounds?.

i think that at one point we will be able to converge all languages into one parent, since it is admitted as a fact that all humans came from one single pair of humans, so that pair must have spoken one single language.

the present indo european theory relies on similar words, when we categorize a linguistic ground it is based on grammar, for instance english language has a heavy frenh borrowing but it is still categorised as a germanic language based on its grammatical structure. such thing isnt true for indo european language itself

the archaeological evidence are totally non existent, so such theory has not been able to produce credible evidence to prove it

the assumption that since the language is spread from assam to scotland, its point of origin lies in the geographic centre, if thats the case, then english language centre must be in saudi arabia considering it is spread from australia to america

the austronesian language centre must be in the indian or pacific ocean since its spread from Madagascar to philippiines.

presently the europeans are working on genetic evidence as archaeology has failed, but in my opinion genetic research too is biased and is presumptuous as well

proto indo european religion is also a big flop since we came to read sumerian cunieform and deciphered meopotmaian religion.
 
Last edited:

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,982
#7
I think they have more evidence than looking at the center to determine where Indo European originated.

I always wondered if it was the language of a group coming out of Africa much earlier, since it is so distributed. However, scholars seem sure it originated in a specific area around 4000 BC. Since it spread throughout Europe and into Iran and what was British India, it seems likely that Indo Europeans must have had some advantage to spread and conquer widely.

It is understood that the people in parts of India that speak Indo European languages are not mostly descended from Indo Europeans. However, this is not the case with Europe.

They look at words that are common to Indo European languages and figure Proto Indo Europeans must have had wheels, lived in an area with snow and seas etc. More recently there has been genetic research. The general scholarly opinion seems to be that Indo Europeans started in a specific area at a specific time about 4000 BC. There are disagreements as to what the area of origin is though.
 
Apr 2019
172
India
#8
indo european theory itself is a bag full of cow dung.

presently the europeans are working on genetic evidence as archaeology has failed, but in my opinion genetic research too is biased and is presumptuous as well

proto indo european religion is also a big flop since we came to read sumerian cunieform and deciphered meopotmaian religion.
No. Cow dung is very useful. Name it something else.:zany:

Genetics is precise like most of sciences but it's still in infancy. That's why we get research papers with contradictory conclusions. Infact I think this homeland/migration/invasion debate is likely to be settled in a few years.

Yes. Sumerian religion has a few striking similarities with Vedic religion.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,982
#10
Usual procedure , kill the males take the females
Yeh, that seems consistent with the genetic evidence. They look along the male-line y-chromosone and see that it mostly changed in 200 years at the same time the Indo European corded ceramics appear. That could also change the language quickly as the children would learn the language of the invaders.

That is sort of what happened with the Arabic conquests. The Arabs took multiple wives. Presumably many of the local men had been killed in battle. The children then spoke Arabic and were Muslims.

They used to think almost all of the Britains at the time of the Anglo-Saxon conquest were killed off or fled, partly because there are few British words in English. However, the genetic evidence indicates there was some Germanic influence, but the people didn't change that much and were not that different from those in areas of Britain that remained Celtic speaking.
 

Similar History Discussions