---
lsroute66@... wrote:
> george knysh <gknysh@...> replied:
> So whatever
> > influence the Trypilian farmers exercised on their
> > neighbours, the latter not only maintained their
> grip
> > on their territory, but also, if I could so put
> it,on
> > their culture. Not only were they not assimilated.
> > They later became assimilators. "Neolithicization"
> > notwithstanding.
>
> SL: Sounds like 19th Century archaeology. The truth
is
> that most of what
> their neighbors were or would be was the result of
> neolithization.
> And the truth is that, in time, their "neighbors"
> were herding cattle
> and sheep, sowing grain, living in houses above the
> ground, using
> neolithic tools, painting their pottery and later
> even marking their
> graves with headstones. Looks to me like Tripolye
> won this little
> war you are theorizing.
*****GK: I realize it's not the same thing (analogies
never are), but that sounds to me a bit like saying
that the Sumerians won their little war with the
Akkadians, and the Etruscans with the Romans
(:=)).Well maybe they did, in terms of "civilization"
but hardly in terms of language and that is the issue
at the back of all this isn't it? Seriously, why not
look at a model like "westernization" for the process
of "neolithicization". And remember that the impulses
towards "neolithicization" in the western steppes did
not come exclusively from the south/west but also from
the east. What I find very arbitrary is the notion
that cultural changeover on the steppes involved
radical language change (from X to IE). I see no
evidence for this at all: there was no colonization,
and only partial cultural adaptation. I can easily
accept a scenario where the steppe cultures borrowed
terms (perhaps like the Uralians), but that is all.
Now the reverse process is very credible, viz.,
linguistic influence of the steppes on the
neighbouring farmers (IE replacing farmers' X). There
is evidence of colonization, and of the spread of a
developed animal husbandry economy with the demotion
(at times radical) of agriculture, plus burial rites
changes (inhumation replaces cremation for a long
time), plus artistic taste changes (that "corded ware"
again like it or not). And above all: what we never
saw in the case of Trypilia (political or military
domination over the steppes) we see now (political
domination of the late Serednyj Stih/early Yamna over
the late Trypilia): the best early evidence of that is
the Usatov culture of the Odessa region: the S/S:E/Y
are the "lords", the Trypilians are the "subjects".
Gimbutas had it right thus far, even though not in all
details. And there are complications which still
require elucidation: like the relationships between
Yamna, Globular Amphorae, and Late Trypilia further
north. And the nature of the spread of "Corded Ware"
north and west. But I'm sure the debate will continue
for a long time.{NB: Steve I typed this before reading
your latest post on Tryp=IE. I haven't traced the
source of this Djebel pottery influence but the idea
of a circuitous route from Anatolia sounds credible
(except for the language aspect). Your comment about
"Rome fell but.." is good, except that Trypilia was
hardly Rome to the steppes (not even the Rome of the
Popes (:=)). Anyway let me have a look at Zvelbil and
some of the other articles you've mentioned and I'll
get back to you. Frankly I've no special agenda other
than the truth, as far as we can get it.****
Regards, Steve Long
Ditto, Geoge Knysh
>
> etc., etc.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com