Talk:Pre-Indo-European
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should a discussion of the Uralic peoples be included here? It's my understanding that the Sami_people have lived in Scandanavia since well before Germanic settlement there. And of course Russia west of the Urals has been populated by various Uralic peoples since well before Slavic settlement... --Blackcats 18:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Picts
Should Picts be included? --Error 01:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
- I just came to ask the exact same question. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- imho, this article is inherently broken due to its title. It should redirect to Old European culture — seriously, the two articles treat the same topic, and "Old European" is the better term, since it is not as misleading ("Pre-Indo-European" in principle could also refer to India or the Americas). dab (ᛏ) 18:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with a redirect, as soon as all pertinent info is worked into Old European Culture. In other words, most of the groups mentioned here need to be mentioned there. Alexander 007 02:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
This title is a little bit confusing, as in historical linguistics, the "Pre-" prefix is used to indicate the earlier state of a language deduced through internal reconstruction rather than the comparative method - that is, "Pre-Indo-European" is a legitimate term in historical linguistics referring to a state of the Proto-Indo-European language prior to that which can be reliably attested by the comparative method. --Peter Farago 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Peter Farago that the use of a linguistic term to denote an archaeological moment is confusing, but that's the usage of Professor Gimbutas. It may be better to put this article under Old Europe and just do a redirect from here to there. Anthon.Eff 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Idea of Anatolian origin for PIEans
It's not impossible that Renfrew is right. However, for that to be so, the Indo-European languages would need to have remained unchanging or barely changing for thousands of years. Even Basque doesn't take that long to change - compare some of the inscriptions from Early Roman-Era Iberia in languages related to Basque! Also, attributing the spread of agriculture to the Proto-Indo-Europeans seems like an attempt to glorify them.
On the other hand, Gimbutas makes the PIEan culture into a savage one that introduced war into a part of the word that didn't know a thing of it, and forced a father-worshiping culture on mother-reverers. That idea of "Old Europe" is far too utopian. No, there were surely wars; name one culture that hasn't ever fought a war. As for the Indo-Europeans, it seems quite likely, from reconstructed words about reciprocity and equivalent exchange, that there was much trading between their culture and the Old European cultures of goods, and as is known, where goods are transfered, so are words and some customs.
Is it possible that the Indo-Europeans were in fact merely aggressive businessmen? That the expansions Mrs. Gimbutas speaks of are major eras of trade with the cultures of Old Europe? The Indo-Europeans might well have set up trading posts in urban centres of Old Europe, or as close to those as existed. Whether or not there were subsequent military incursions is up for grabs, but is it possible that the Indo-Europeans trusted these trading partners enough to take some of their women as wives? This would allow the mixture of cultures that is seen in every branch of Indo-European, but since this was taking the woman in, the children would be brought up in the Proto-Indo-European tradition, while being told Old European stories by their mothers.
Since the archaeological record rarely shows a SUDDEN change from one culture to another, the idea of trading with and gradual absorption of cultures by the Proto-Indo-Europeans seems to work. If there are archaeological clues pointing to war and such, this might still be Proto-Indo-European in origin - BUT IT COULD EQUALLY BE A NON-PIEan INVASION.
- Your reasoning sounds plausible. It would be nice to work these ideas into the article, provided you can find some sources. Anthon.Eff 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Merge
Pre-Indo-European is a concept from Gimbutas and her colleagues. This concept has been pretty much crowded out of contemporary archaeology. It deserves (and receives) a mention in the article on the European Neolithic, but doesn't deserve the full treatment that it receives in this article. So I vote to maintain the split, to keep the nice work so many people put into this page. Anthon.Eff 22:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am removing the merge tag because the merge hasn't received favorable interest either here or in Neolithic Europe, where the merge tag has already been removed. --teb728 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
