Re: Gimbutas.

Glen wrote

> Well, it's somewhat complex. If we think along the terms of

religion
and the

> remains of archaeology, it would seem that the Semitish had to have

adopted

> the native Goddess religion and become matriarchal. On the other

hand, if we

> also consider the possibility that IE, ultimately from Central Asia
> approximately 5000 years previous, moved from an egalitarian

society
to a

> patriarchal one, it should seem highly suspect that it accomplished

this

> feat amidst a matriarchal majority.

It is interesting that you see IE coming from Central Asia. What is
your evidence for this? Do you have any dates for the proposed
movements? Once again.... (I suppose it is par for the course),
there
is no archaeologically attested movement out of Central Asia into the
Pontic Steppe in the mesolithic period. These movements only began
with the development of nomadic pastoralism thousands of years later.

In actual fact the movements were all the other way in the period of
the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Periods. Upper Paleolithic
cultures moved into Central Asia from the west or south, Mesolithic
cultures moved into Central Asia from the South. The same goes for
Mesolithic cultures on the Pontic Steppe.

Archaeologicaly this meas the "Steppe" and "Eurasian" phases of your
linguistic taxonomy did not appear on the Steppe or in the Eurasian
Heartland (despite their present occurrance in these areas), but in
the Middle East. This makes sense archaeologically because (I
believe
we are agreed)

1. Nostratic languages were microlithic and this began first in
Africa, spreading northwards with the warming of post glacial
climates.
2. Microlithic cultures appeared first in Africa, then the Middle
East, and last of all in High Central Asia. Language movements would
tend to parallel these movements of people and cultures.

> A better solution is to label the Semitish, or whatever peoples

that
lay in

> the Balkans from 6000 to 4000 BCE, as patriarchal instead. Why? It

would

> appear that there are some elements in common between IE mythology

and that

> of the Semitic.

Because Indo-Europeans were in close contact with Semites from
Anatolian, Kassite and Mitannite times onwards. It is interesting
that the mytholigical and religious elements in common with Semites
are strongest for Anatolian and Greek languages, intermediate for
Iranian and Indic languages, and weakest in Germanic and Celtic
languages. This pattern is typical for concepts which would flow out
of the cultural hegemony of the Egyptian and Mespotamian realms.

>If we presume that the Semitish were the conductor

of this

> spread of religion to the IE as it would be with the archaeological
> terminology, it implies that along with the Goddess the Semitish

worshipped

> other gods of their own. As a result, although the religion may

have
had a

> matriarchal icon as the head, it doesn't necessarily mean that the

religion,

> or the culture, was simply matriarchal.

As I said, matriarchal cultures have not been demonstrated in
archaeology anywhere.

> Perhaps, the Goddess was viewed as a mediator to the other gods,

similar to

> how Jesus is sometimes viewed as the mediator between humans and

God, with

> only thousands of crucifix symbols of Jesus the Mediator that will

no doubt

> be found laying about thousands of years from now - a testimony to

the

> misleading nature of archaeology, n'est-ce pas? Likewise, we may

find many

> Goddess figurines but if she was another divine mediator, this may

not tell

> the whole story. Coincidentally, there appear to be two male

figures

> associated with the Goddess but given a minor role in

iconography...
Hmm....

Yes the two male figures were "consort-husband" and "son". Amongst
many these two were often interchangable. For example "El" was
consort-husband to the West Semites and "Baal" was originally son.
Later "Baal" was consort husband to the next generation, and began to
supercede "El" in importance.

> Further, such a "mediator" Goddess religion would simply be the

natural

> blend of plain Goddess religions to the north and ancestral worship

to the

> south, attested in archaeology at an early date. Ancestral worship

would see

> the ancestors as a similar mediator to nature spirits.
>
> Why should the Semitish be patriarchal instead of egalitarian?

Because it is

> the very patriarchal elements of IE mythology that appear to have

parallels

> in Semitic mythology. I can't see how the transfer of these views

could be

> accomplished as well via an egalitarian society. Just a thought.

"Patriarchal elements" of similar kinds are found in Polynesian
culture, and amongst the Yanomami in Brazil. It doesn't necessarily
imply diffusionism from a common source. Such diffusionism
is very out of favour in modern archaeology. Independent discovery
amongst cultures which were effected by a common set of environmental
factors (for instance - worsening environment and independent
movements towards nomadic pastoralism) is the explanation usually
favoured by modern archaeology.

Also, we

> should consider how such an evolution of egalitarianism to

patriarchy is so

> complete from kinship terms to religion in IE. And yet, IE's firm

patriarchy

> can only go so far back in time.
>
> It would appear to me that the IE must have been strongly

influenced
by an

> outside patriarchal culture for all this to happen. All this can't

be

> explained as well by simply claiming that a worsening climate was

the cause

> of the amazing synchronisation of these two cultures in

archaeology,

> religion, language and even kinship structure.

Not so Glen. I would suggest you read up on modern archaology on the
growth of systems of social stratification, with the movement of
cultures from hunter-gatherer band, to tribe, to chiefdom, and hence
to state society (and sometimes back again). No need for "strong
influence from outside" - these tendencies appear to stem
predominantly from indigenous factors. The "tripartite" gods of IE
(warrior, priest and agriculturists) have been repeated over and over
again, and are not specifically IE.

> >Glen, the evidence shows that Matriarchy is a patriarchal myth.
>
> Perhaps there may or may not have been "male harems" in the past

(as
opposed

> to the swingin' 21st century which appears to break that chauvinist

rule of

> yours), to pretend that a matriarchy is less violent than a

patriarchy is

> sexist and gives in to all the stereotypes about femininity and

masculinity

> that Gimbutas appears to be fighting. There are even documented

female

> warriors in the past, so let's not even try to go there. Secondly,

wouldn't

> it seem that believing that matriarchies don't exist is a

patriarchal myth,

> no? As if, women couldn't govern?

The women did govern, but in partnership with men, never exclusively.
Patriarchy is where women (and most other men) were excluded from
having a voice in government. Matriarchy is where men would be
excluded from a voice in government. Glen, how many times do I have
to say, such Matriarchy is a myth of the patriarchs. Amazon
societies
have never existed. (That is not the same to say that societies in
which men and women had equal status (and military roles) did. For
instance in the insular Celts, women went to battle - Maeb,
Cartimandua, Boudicca all prove it. Same in the early Germanics -
the
Valkyries show battle maidens were common. Sarmatian and Scythians
had women warriors. In early Greek society women too were numbered
as
warriors - Atalanta sailed on the Argo, Medea was formidable, Athena
was a goddess of War. Only later did these roles become
progressively
exclusively male persuits. Even in the Rg Veda, female warriors were
known.

Hope this helps sort out your confusion.

Regards

John