Main

In anthropology we are witnessing the resurrection of hypotheses depicting our ancestors as fierce big-game killers, even cannibals12, at the expense of more politically correct views of noble vegetarians or, at worst, scavengers. Could the spread of language be another aspect to this argument? Is the idea of peaceful, egalitarian cultures subjugated by male barbarians less palatable than their displacement by a superior agricultural technology?

Why were California and New Guinea spared a linguistic takeover? Could it be because the horse never got there? Perhaps the ‘aggression’ and ‘technology’ mechanisms for competitive exclusion of cultures are not incompatible, but rather occurred in different mixes, with the sword leading in Indo-Europe and the plough in Africa.