The Horse the Wheel and Language
Posted: Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:31 pm
This book is about Proto-Indo-European but it covers a *lot* of ground in terms of linguistics, culture, anthropology, archaeology.
I'm getting a lot of interesting ideas, insights, and questions from it as I go along, so I figured I'd put them into a thread. Anyone please feel free to jump in and discuss.
So one concept is this idea of cultural-linguistic areas and frontiers, how they can move and be reinforced. Eg pre-European Iroquois tribes recruiting (or capturing) people who might have come from different genetic populations but who then become culturally and linguistically Iroquois.
Where it also gets interesting is when you have a hierarchical society next to a more "egalitarian" society. People might be drawn to or recruited into the more hierarchical society because it ironically gives them status - inferior status compared to the chiefs of the hierarchical society but *superior* status compared to people who used to be their peers but now are below them. So with the Acholi people in Africa you had migrant chiefs going out into a new area and *recruiting* locals into their power structure, and so even though they started out as the genetic and linguistic minority they eventually became culturally and linguistically dominant over a large area.
And then the other example is the Baluch and Pashtun people in this specific area in Afghanistan. The Pashtun people derive their wealth from land and are more egalitarian, on the surface - their society is organized into councils of peers. But you're either in or out. If you have no land, you have no status. So Pashtuns who have lost their land through feuds often go next door to the Baluch people who live in the mountains with their herds and have a comparatively harder life. They have a much more rigidly hierarchical society, but there's no shame in being the client of a wealthy patron and there's room for *upward mobility.*
It reminds me of how part of the appeal of Christianity in Europe among the pagan chiefs can be attributed to its more impressive hierarchy and pageantry. You're not just a chief among equals but an anointed king doing the work of the King on High.
I can't help but think about how this might apply to the persistent dominance of patriarchal organization throughout pretty much all known human culture.
I'm getting a lot of interesting ideas, insights, and questions from it as I go along, so I figured I'd put them into a thread. Anyone please feel free to jump in and discuss.
So one concept is this idea of cultural-linguistic areas and frontiers, how they can move and be reinforced. Eg pre-European Iroquois tribes recruiting (or capturing) people who might have come from different genetic populations but who then become culturally and linguistically Iroquois.
Where it also gets interesting is when you have a hierarchical society next to a more "egalitarian" society. People might be drawn to or recruited into the more hierarchical society because it ironically gives them status - inferior status compared to the chiefs of the hierarchical society but *superior* status compared to people who used to be their peers but now are below them. So with the Acholi people in Africa you had migrant chiefs going out into a new area and *recruiting* locals into their power structure, and so even though they started out as the genetic and linguistic minority they eventually became culturally and linguistically dominant over a large area.
And then the other example is the Baluch and Pashtun people in this specific area in Afghanistan. The Pashtun people derive their wealth from land and are more egalitarian, on the surface - their society is organized into councils of peers. But you're either in or out. If you have no land, you have no status. So Pashtuns who have lost their land through feuds often go next door to the Baluch people who live in the mountains with their herds and have a comparatively harder life. They have a much more rigidly hierarchical society, but there's no shame in being the client of a wealthy patron and there's room for *upward mobility.*
It reminds me of how part of the appeal of Christianity in Europe among the pagan chiefs can be attributed to its more impressive hierarchy and pageantry. You're not just a chief among equals but an anointed king doing the work of the King on High.
I can't help but think about how this might apply to the persistent dominance of patriarchal organization throughout pretty much all known human culture.