>Things seem to have gone very quiet here. I was waiting myself for >Glen or
>someone else to reply to John's posting of 12th July, but >since no-one
>else wants to, I will, [...]
And boy did you ever! Interesting post. I couldn't do much better. I had
read John's mail a while ago and I find that he's loosing focus, reiterating
things that we've already gone over. I was busy on some errands, so I
apologize if my silence disappointed by hungry fans. :) I will strive to be
more verbose from now on...
John, we both agree that the Semitish (or "Asianic" or whatever people who
lived in SW Anatolia around 8000 BCE) were originally pre-agricultural, so
let's end the futile battle you insist upon on this point. It appears quite
clear to me from some sources, however, that the area was eventually a blend
of both southern and eastern influences (agriculture from the east;
religion, architecture and so on from the south). This is what good ol'
Chucky says on page 20 of "The Ancient Near East":
"The current knowledge of Palaeolithic man in Anatolia is most
inadequate, with scattered finds making only a fragmentary
picture. One exception is the Antalya region, where a sequence
of chipped-stone industries attributable in the Lower, Middle
and Upper Palaeolithic periods, with traces of Neolithic
habitation, has been distinguished at the Kara'in Cave.
A phase termed Mesolithic, transitional between Upper
Palaeolithic hunters and Neolithic hunters and farmers, is
represented at Belbasi near the Mediterranean coast, with a
chipped-stone industry including tanged arrowheads but
lacking obsidian. This strongly suggests that at this stage
there were few contacts with the Anatolian plateau, where
obsidian is abundant in certain areas."
Well, gee. Wonder if Chuck is trying to say that the SW Anatolian region
was, in fact, a different culture which at first had little contact with the
north (because they just arrived and hardly unpacked their bags). He goes
on:
"A sequence unique to Turkey, from Upper or even Middle
Palaeolithic to early Neolithic, occurs at a rock shelter
at Beldibi, though almost certainly it was not occupied
continuously throughout those long millenia. The use of such
shelters may anyhow have been seasonal. Rock-paintings,
engravings and painted pebbles occur at the Antalya sites,
especially Beldibi. At the cave of Kurtun Ini, near the
Konya Plain, are paintings of animals resembling ibex. The
Antalya sites were not entirely isolated, however, for the
Mesolithic stone industry of Beldibi has affinities with
the Natufian of Palestine, as does the Upper Palaeolithic
industry with that of Mount Carmel (Mugharet el Wad).
Moreover, obsidian was imported into the Antalya district
in Upper Palaeolithic times from Ciftlik near Nigde, or
from some other source of obsidian with the same trace
elements."
Palestine, eh? I wonder why he would make up a nasty thing like that. :)
"At Hacilar, in south-western Anatolia and situated near
Lake Budur and just north of the Taurus mountains, a small
mound comprising seven levels of houses with retangular
plans, built of mud-brick, was found concealed by the
remains of the Late Neolithic and Early Chalcolithic
village of the sixth millenium BC. The admittedly slender
evidence of one radio-carbon sample suggests a date
just before c. 7000 BCE. Carbonized grain and clay storage
boxes imply, though scarcely prove, that agriculutre was
at least one mainstay of the economy. A distinctive, if
negative, feature of this village is the absence of
pottery. Connections with distant parts of the Near East
are revealed by the discovery of human skulls, buried
without any trace of the rest of the skeleton, a
manifestaion of the widespread Neolithic ancestor cult."
Hmmm... it would almost seem that Charles B. is definitely saying that
southern influence (Palestine) was in full force at this crucial time of
human prehistory. It's so very easy to dismiss Charles Burney's or any book
as out-of-date of poppycock, but I could obtain a similar quote from the
EncBritt too, if you like. Not now, however. My hands need a rest from
quoting an entire page from this book.
Of course, we could also get into the philosophical realm of "What is truth
in the end?", but what would you rather I do? Ignore two sources for your
lonely word? Sorry, I'm not designed to operate within those specified
parameters.
And I would agree with one of Dennis' observations, that the origin of the
Semitic vocabulary, whether it be Caucasic or not, is hardly relevant to
this puzzle. Either IE was affected by a Semitic(-like) language or a
Caucasic language. The former is at least acceptable to some IEists and
already explored by J.Mallory in that book with the word "Indo-European" in
the title... you know, that book, with the thing on it.
Anyways, this Asianic idea of yours first needs correlations between the two
languages before one can ever feel insistant on the validity of the
hypothesis and you continue to ignore that piece of advice. Oy veh.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com