Alright, let's leave the more irrelevant topic of matriarchies for a while
and focus more on the issue at hand - archaeological evidence of Semitish/IE
contacts and the prehistory of IE.
First, the dates I associate with the languages spoken of in this
discussion:
-------------------------------------------------------
Nostratic 15,000 BCE
Early Eurasiatic 12,000 BCE
Late Eurasiatic 11,000 BCE
Steppe (central steppes) 9000 BCE
IndoTyrrhenian (west steppes) 9000-7000 BCE
Old IndoEuropean (N of Black) 7000-6000 BCE
Mid IndoEuropean (Black Sea) 6000-5000 BCE
Late IndoEuropean (Black Sea) 5000-4000 BCE
Tyrrhenian (Balkans) 7000-5000 BCE
EtruscoLemnian (Balkans) 5000-3000 BCE
AfroAsiatic 12,000 BCE
Ber-Sem-Egy. 10,000 BCE
Semitoid (Palestine, S Syria) 8000 BCE
Semitish (NW & W Anat coast) 8000-5000 BCE
Semitic (Palestine) 8000-5000 BCE
-------------------------------------------------------
SinoDene (C Asia) 11,000 BCE
North SinoDene (central steppes) 9000 BCE
Old NWC (west steppes/E Black Sea) 9000-5000 BCE
-------------------------------------------------------
Caucasic (Lake Van, Zagros) 9000/8000 BCE
I hope that this list isn't too vague for you.
Prehistory of IE
----------------
I remain stern on the origin of IE. It derives from Central Asia based on
the linguistics, and linguistics is the main thrust of any linguistic
debate, linguistically speaking of course :P Even so, the Semitish theory
addresses the emerging agriculture of the Balkans as well as the reversal of
direction of cultural influence of the Northern Pontic-Caspian as being the
marker for the arrival of the IE from the north.
IndoEuropean and Boreal languages (Uralic, InuktitutAleut,
ChukchiKamchatkan), for example, both retain a common and ancient
subjective/objective conjugation (Steppe: 1ps *-m/*-hW, 2ps *-t/*-n, 3ps
*-e/NULL), ultimately derived from the suppletive nature of the Nostratic
pronominal system which distinguished between absolutive and ergative. No
other languages have this special feature except for languages I classify as
deriving from ProtoSteppe. This is but one of other connections to be made
(common interrogative stems, ultimate lack of grammatical gender with an
underlying syntactical opposition between animate and inanimate, some common
declensional suffixes, common vocabulary, etc). These Steppe languages all
reside to the north and _east_ of IndoEuropean's mainstream homeland. There
can be no archaeology good enough to fight a linguistic substantiation for a
linguistic theory.
Now, if we are to further boost this idea with even more archaelogy, let's
first get at the crux of your supposed westward movements that serve as a
popsicle-stick barrier. What criteria are you using to judge them as being
westwards, I wonder.
We all know already that agriculture is a technical innovation that can
spread very well _without_ the help of human movement. It is more dependant
on cultural contact and climate than anything else. It's a useless item of
proof for anything linguistic.
Perhaps you're using the spread of Goddess paraphernalia to support your
view? Again, this is similar to agriculture. It is nothing other than the
spread of an innovation, this time of a metaphysical nature, passed by word
of mouth. It can spread without human movement too and, to boot, the
direction of this spread is unrelated from that of the agriculture.
How about genetics? Physical anatomy? Are you claiming that the people of
the Black Sea area in no way were genetically connected with Asia?? You
wouldn't dare claim this would you? (And let's not cloud issues by claiming
that I somehow believe that all humans originated in Asia which is obviously
not the case if you've been paying attention. I only claim NWC and
IndoTyrrhenian to be from Central Asia. Focus.)
In all, what criteria are you using to assert this westward movement if
agriculture and figurines are insufficient markers? Nichols supports a
Central Asian origin, and Bomhard, with evidence from Cavalli-Sforza's
genetic research.
Who supports an Anatolian origin for IE? That is, aside from some crackpots
like Gamreliwhatchamcallit and Ivanosomething who enjoy twisting theories to
suit their own perversions like someone I know. :P
IndoTyrrhenian, other Steppe languages and
more evidence as if you need more...
------------------------------------------
In reference to Steppe, John states:
"[...] you are speaking of the Murzak-Koba culture of my last post
(9,1-8,000). The mesolithic arrived on the Steppe and Forested areas
to the north from the South West, travelling up first through the
Balkans from Anatolia (13-10,000 Belbasi culture in SW Anatolia, and
9,800-5,794 Franchi Cave (Aegean). Belbasi was a Kebaran derived
culture."
Hmmm, let me give you over to Bomhard who says in "Indo-European and the
Nostratic Hypothesis", all in order to support his Eurasiatic (my
Proto-Steppe) archaeologically, on page 121:
"The earliest known Neolithic remains in northeastern
Iran go back to about the seventh millenium BCE. By
the sixth millenium BCE, Neolithic culture had spread
into Central Asia - the Neolithic settlement patterns
and technology (pottery, agriculture, stock breeding,
etc.) appearing in this area were clearly imported
from the Middle East (cf. Cavalli-Sforza et al.
1994:198)."
So... Bomhard is dating Central Asia's _NEOLITHIC_ to the _sixth_ millenium,
claiming that it is from the Middle East (not the Balkans at all) and even
using Cavalli-Sforza as back-up. Everyone loves Cavalli-Sforza :) What's up,
John? Something's not jiving and I don't see your book published. Oh, I'm
sorry, that was nasty for me to say that. I haven't been taking my
medication :(
Hey, I know! Let's play a game. Take a lookey at Encyclopaedia Britannica
online, an encyclopaedia which is in no way more authoratative on these
subjects than you are, John. Let's see... Here's a link. Take a look at:
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/7/0,5716,117307+14+109432,00.html
It states right at the very beginning:
"The Mesolithic-Neolithic era and the settlement of northern
Siberia started in the 7th to 6th millennia BC--the period
of climatic optimum in Postglacial times, when forest
conditions were introduced."
The _Mesolithic_ era yet! Siberia! That's way up north for you
geographically impaired and mucho far away from the Balkans.... Then it
continues on the next page:
"The Ural region was linked with the northern Russian and
western Siberian culture on one hand and with the Aral Sea
region on the other. Throughout the Neolithic and Bronze
Age times, two cultural branches were evident: the middle
Ural (or Shigir) and that of the River Ob Basin."
Can you explain the Aral Sea part, please? Funny me but I'm not seeing how
the Aral Sea is connected with your supposed Balkan influence (aside from
later agricultural influence, of course). I'm also not seeing how the
genetics work in your favor either if Central Asia was really shaped by the
Balkans like you claim.
Another site of interest which gets even more detailed:
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html#sec5
It explains some genetic evidence a la Cavalli-Sforza which shows the
migration of peoples radiating from, you guessed it, the Middle-East, right
into Central Asia.
Miguel Vasquez also gives his views against an out-of-Anatolia origin. Our
views are very similar but he's more expressive vis-a-vis the archaeology:
http://home.wxs.nl/~mcv/IE.txt
John, you must be one of a handful of individuals even without a library
claiming an Anatolian origin for IE or any of the Steppe languages. IEists
don't accept it. Uralicists don't accept it. Altaicists, well, they got
their own problems right now, but they probably wouldn't accept it either if
they had their heads on straight.
Semitish
--------
I can see that you're very eager at undermining this hypothesis of mine. I
truely believe you remain skeptical not because this idea is implausible but
rather just to excercise your devil's advocate.
Natufian would be better thought of as speaking "Semitoid", the ancestral
language of both Semitic and Semitish, rather than Semitish itself. Semitish
would date to after 8000 BCE, growing into disuse by 5000 BCE.
I can't take your thoughts on Natufian at face value. I doubt that all of
what you're saying is true, including the Egyptian "Isnian" thing and that
there is something more not being said. I'll be researching all what you've
said and will be finding some goodies to throw back at you. Don't you fret.
What I do already know is that there were African influences like burial
practices and ancestral worship that popped out into the Middle East during
Natufian times.
So... I'm pretty sure that languages could have escaped and spread too. To
carelessly claim that Natufian was always culturally and linguistically
isolated is subject to face-slapping critique, especially in the
multicultural Middle East. I don't buy it.
... but I'll let you absorb my anti-Balkans speech first and all the rich
associated material :) I'm sleepy. Goodnight all.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com