Re: Semitish influence on IE

Glen writes

>
> John quips:
> >Firstly there are no African elements in Natufian

(Glen)

> Excuse me?? How then did this culture develop on its own?! You may

not

> believe in time travel but do you believe in aliens?

Any African elements in Natufian culture cames from the late
Paleolithic Kebaran culture out of which Natufian developed. Kebaran
is wholly confined to Palestine and Syria, but does show evidence of
cultural elements (bladelets, microburrins etc) drawn from the Halfan
culture of Egypt (24,000 - 17,000 BCE). Halfan is an Egyptian
version
of the Aerian culture, found in North Africa and the Sahara in the
period from 30,000 to 18,000 BCE. Aterian is a bridge cultre,
containing elements of Mid Paleolithic Levallois tradition, but
combined with mesolithic microliths. Aterian is also the first human
culture to have used the bow and arrow.

> John further snorts:
> >Secondly I don't believe in time travel
>
> Must I tongue-lash you about quantum mechanics? Without time

travel,
you

> can't understand the temporal relationship between positrons and

electrons.

> The only time travel mystery here is how antiquated notions of the

cosmos

> can still exist among the living.

Ah, so that's how you get Semitic from the period of 5,800 BCE in
Palestine to 8,000 BCE in Catal Huyuk and westwards, ;-P

> John, some more:
> >It is only controversial because it disagrees with what Christian
> >theologians and biblical scholars claim.
>
> Then it would appear that only Christian theologians and biblical

scholars

> are intrigued by this work.

Anyone interested in the archaeology of ancient Palestine would be
interested Glen.

> >Belbasi culture is too early to have been significantly

[irrelevant

> >points... blah, blah, blah]
> >There are Natufian elements in the Beldibi culture. So I'll grant
> >you that point.
>
> Good. Therefore, as I was saying, there is a cultural movement

northwards

> from Syria and Palestine at around 8000 BCE which may be easily

attributable

> to language spread and particularly a spread of Semitish, just in

time for

> influencing IE.
>
> >Beldibi was fairly tightly confined into the Cilician
> >region and there is no trace of it further to the west.
>
> Wrong. There is southern influence all throughout the Cilician

region at

> this time - in Hacilar, Beldibi and Belbasi. Eventually, the

culture
was

> influenced by the Anatolian mainland, explaining why "there is no

trace of

> it further to the west".

News to me about Belbasi. Halicar developed out of Catal Huyuk, and
James Melaart found no evidence of Southern influence there. Catal
Huyuk is a totally a "home grown product", as is Halicar.

>Agriculture and pottery already were picked

up by

> the Semitish from the Hattic by this stage.

Interesting since Natufian is totally pre-agricultural, and its
Yarmukan successor (which developed out of Natufian) is pre-pottery.
The evidence suggests a southward movement from the Euphrates bend
for
the dissemination of these technologies.

> >It could equally be the Nostratic languages spreading into Anatolia
> >from Syria and Palestine.
>
> Since a Semitish language, being related to Semitic, would qualify

as a

> Nostratic language (via AfroAsiatic), I'll take that as an

agreement.

No, I am suggesting that these are the Nostratics after the split
with
Afro-Asiatics (which had stayed in Africa until the arid phase circa
6,000 BCE)

I wrote

> >Possible, except that the aceramic that is found in the Balkans

seems

> >to have come from NW Anatolia (the Troad) and across into Nea
> >Nicomedia in Macedonia. There is no connection between Nea

Nicomedia

> >and SE Anatolia. There was a clear cultural divide between SW and

NW

> >Antolia that lasted into late Hittite times, Glen.
>
> Hate to burst your bubble but... Assuming that Hittite qualifies as

an

> IndoEuropean language on your planet and that you agree, like the

whopping

> majority do, that the IndoEuropean Anatolians entered through NW

Anatolia

> well after 6000 BCE but before "late Hittite times", then your

unchanging

> cultural divide would appear to say nothing about language spread

at
all - a

> self-contradiction on your part. Consider yourself moot-ified.

Not at all. Carian language was assumed for a long time to be
pre-Indo-European, and even now it has clear evidence of a strong
non-IE substrate different to that found in Tyrhhenian (found in NW
Anatolia and adjacent islands like Lemnos). The south east corner
was
the one part of Anatolia that seems least affected by the wave of
burnings that spread out of Europe and across Anatolia circa 2,400
BCE
(usually associated with the coming of the Anatolian IE languages).

> >Your scenario only makes sense, Glen if the Natufians spoke

Semitic.

>
> Not exactly. Certainly by 6000 BCE, the region that was once

Natufian had to

> have been Semitic. And thus, we seem to return back to Bomhard's

proposal

> (Natufian => AfroAsiatic c.10,900-8,500 BCE) in potential

contradiction to

> your Saharan hypothesis.

Where can one get access to Bomhard's work. You quote him frequently
but I cannot get him through our library system here.

> >They developed their culture in situ from the Earlier Kebaran
> >(18,000->10,500)
>
> You mean: 12,330 to 10,610 BCE?

No I mean 18,000 - the date of the earliest Kebaran assemblages yet
found in Palestine.

> >"African polytheism" so early is hard to demonstrate.
>
> Perhaps. Luckily, it's simply an entertaining side-point about the

ultimate

> origins of Semitic mythology and nothing that I need get deeply

into
right

> now.

Good!

> >It was not just the Semitish who did so Glen. It seems to have

been

> >a key factor of the first Caucasian speaking farmers.
>
> Of course, but as we've already discussed ad nauseum, there are no
> demonstratable Caucasic loans to be found in IE. Until we find 'em,

that

> leaves the obvious Semitish avenue which we will continue down on.

In cotradiction to all archaeological evidence eh?

> >Catal Huyuk is a classic site, showing clear connections between

the

> > >iconography here and the goddess images of the upper Paleolithic
> >(Gravetians) which stretched from Spain to the trans Ural region.
>
> The wide spread of the Goddess religion can be associated with the
> VascoCaucasic language spread which split very early into Vasconic

(Basque)

> and Caucasic (Hattic, NEC, HurroUrartian). I'm beginning to suspect

that

> Linear A (Minoan) might be VascoCaucasic too but let's not hold our

breath

> on that one :) As far as I know, Catal Huyuk doesn't show a clear

"blend" of

> mythologies but rather shows the typical undifferentiated

characteristics of

> the Goddess religion.

Agreed. No African connection there, unless you go back to 40,000
BCE.

> >There is also the underlying myth in Semitic of the Goddess as the
> >watery depths. She was the serpentine Tehom in Hebrew, Tiamat in
> >Akkadian.
>
> Yes. It's always either the bird (sky) or the serpent (waters) that

creates

> the world in these myths.
>
> >The idea of the world as made from the body of a slain divinity

also >shows

> >up in Norse mythology (Ymir), who was cognate with the Iranian
>Jamashah
> >and the Hindu Yama.

Glen wrote

> I have to question this. Sure you aren't confusing things here? In

this

> particular case you're refering to the Twins that fight each other

and one

> of them becoming the originator of _mankind_ (not the universe) as

in the

> story of Cain and Abel, Romulus and Remus & Castor and Pollux.

Tiamat

> however is related to a clear pattern of creation of the _universe_

(not

> mankind) with the opening theme of a bird (Nyx) or serpent (Tiamat)

that

> starts the process.

Not at all, although the twins motif seems especially IE. The
earlier
versions found in Sumeria and eslewhere was of the universe being
made
out of the parts of a slain god/goddess. Ribs as the vault of the
sky, skin as the heavens or surface of the earth etc. In Sumeria,
Enki made man out of the earth mixed with blood from Taimat's
consort.
This shows up in Hebrew as Adamah and Adam (the earth that Adam was
made out of was not any earth, but was in fact red ochre - used since
the days of humans being confined in Africa (pre-60,000 BCE) in
Swaziland, for cultic and artistic purposes and often rubbed on the
skin or on the bones of the dead.

> >Tehom also shows up as the Greek Oceanus and as the Norse Midgard
>Serpent,
> >who holds the world together, so these myths travelled a long >way.
>
> To Eastern Asia and beyond.
>
> In fact, more food for thought about IndoEuropean/Semitic myth: The

story of

> the Flood is in fact a story about _Re-Creation_ since we find a

bird flying

> over the waters (sent by Noah/Utnapishtim, in this case searching

for land).

> It can be seen as a metaphor for the Mother Goddess creating the

universe

> yet again. I just figured that out and I feel proud enough to

share.
There

> are other parallels too.

Do share

> >Eurafrican Glen? I think you are dreaming here.
>
> It's your dream, not mine. A blend of European and African myth is

a
reality

> just as there is a blend of genetics, culture and language between

the two

> continents. Wakey-wakey, now.

But it has never deen domonstrated. The Earliest myths we have from
Africa date from Ancient Egypt. And then we have a long hiatus until
the 18th century archaeologists. Attempts by such people as Tylor
and
Frazer to relate what was found in Africa with the situations of
early
Europe, the Middle East or even Egypt have now falled into disrepute
as racist and simplistic.

True, ultimately there will have been an African element in all
cultures if we go back far enough, but to speak about African
elements
in middle eastern myths of the 3,000 BCE period onwards (most of
which
date from 1,000 BCE or more recently) is pipe dreaming Glen. It is
like tracing the Quezalcoatl myth of Toltec Mexico back to the Arctic
crossing of Amerindians into America!

> >Hadad as a thunder god is relatively late.
>
> True. West Semitic. I'm sure it is influenced by earlier forms

though (Baal,

> maybe?) The similarities are too great to ignore.

Baal seems to have come at about the same time as Hadad (Late Bronze
Age Ugaritic). He seems to have suplanted the importance of El in
the
same way that Babylonian Marduk usurped the place of Sumerian Enlil
(also known as Ellil).

To my point

> >[Ishtar] is very early, but her association with the Semitic

Innana

>seems
> >to have occurred principally during the reign of Sargon of >Akkad,

and his

> >daughter Enheduanna.

Glen writes

> This says nothing. *`ATtaru is certainly early and what does Innana

have to

> do with anything?

Innana is the Sumerian vesion of Ishtar. She was the great goddess
from which Ishtar got all her associations with love and war. This
association between the two really took off during the Akkadian
period. It seems it was Sargon himself who used Ishtar as a personal
divinity, and who emphasized her connection with Innana.

Glen wrote

> >>[...] original Goddess religion with a smattering of African

voodoo >>for

> >>good measure.

I replied

> >African voodoo? Glen, please! Voodoo as a religion was the

product

> >of the Slave centuries [...]

Glen again

> Obviously. I was taking some liberty with the English language

here,

> casually mentioning voodoo in connection with African mythology.

Afterall,

> voodoo is still based very much based on the beliefs of Africa -

not

> something that slaves just made up to pass the time away! Why, one

may even

> call it a Eurafrican religion, n'est pas?

Pas de tous! Only if you say all of us are Africans and the totemism
of Australian Aboriginal people is also African! As you said above
"This says nothing". Please don't raise the specture of
racist Victorian Social Darwinism, which traced all cultures from
"primative black Africa", here....

Regards

John