RANT ABOUT THE INDO-EUROPEAN QUESTION

Ever since the emergence of historical linguistics as an independent branch of research, we have been aware of the existence of Indo-european languages. The reconstruction of PIE is known as one of the most important aspects of...
... linguistic research. Here, I want to address some aspects of the Indo-european question, which seem to cause consternation and confusion in our circles.

A) The PIE language is reconstructed based on what things the daughter languages have in common. Reconstruction of...
...a dead language is based on comparative analysis. In fact, the principle is the same when we analyze myths and rituals: we find reoccurring patterns and attempt to trace their evolution.

B)The term "Indo-european" was coined as a geographical extreme, whilst...
..in the earlier stages of research, the term "Indo-Germanic" was used, because comparison was made between Sanskrit and Germanic languages. Yet, the term got replaced very quickly, when many other European languages were proven to belong to the group.

C) The earliest research..
...was carried out by 19th century scientists, who were seeking a cultural model different than the classical one. Therefore, language became associated with culture, implying that linguistic affinity was synonymous with common cultural origins. Ergo, "Indo-european"...
... became a cultural term, as well. But, as we know, this assertion od fundamentally wrong. We have Europeans like Finns, Basques or, in Antiquity, Etruscans and Minoans who didn't speak an IE language. Therefore, the opposite is also to be assumed.

D)The context...
...in which we have to place those researches is not complete if we don't mention orientalism. In a much-misunderstood perception of "tradition", the roots of European culture were traced to Asian societies, chiefly India, in a precursor of modern-day Eurasianism.
E)The common hypothesis of "patriarchical warlike IE overthrowing matriarchical Old Europe" is not based on careful examination of archaeological record. While we can say that, in parts of Europe, there were struggles between the Neolithic inhabitants and the newcomers,...
...we can't speak of any population replacement or anything. And, the assumption that IEs brought the European culture in Europe is beyond stupid, given how the patterns in myth, ritual, art, etc. don't change with the hypothesised IE invasion. Furthermore, what people forget,...
...is that languages are not replaced by military conquest alone. Cultural interactions and trade relations can affect linguistic change. The "primordialist" approach to language as indicator of ethnicity was constructed as part of an idealising tendency, which...
...is ultimately harmful to a meaningful understanding of our past.

So, as a conclusion: the term "Indo-european" is a linguistic term first and foremost. As a linguistic term, it's pretty useful and no one should doubt the existence of the proto-language. But,...
...the furthest we move from the sphere of language, the more awkward application of the appellation is. We can't speak of an "Indo-european religion" or of a "nomadic IE spirit", because those notions are modern projections into the past. Rather, we should acknowledge...
... and accept that, regardless of language, all Native Europeans have fundamentally the same religion and traditions.

Thanks for reading.

Dixi.
You can follow @KomninosM.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: