Re: Gimbutas.

Glen wrote

> Actually, I find myself agreeing with John. It seems to me from my
> light-hearted inspection of kinship structures as of late, that the

whole IE

> Omaha system could not have been very ancient and the advent of

agriculture

> may have been the catalyst for a structural change from an Iroquois

or

> Eskimo system to an Omaha one.

Shock! Horror! Glen agreeing with me! Something must be wrong. ;-)

> Many of the terms appear to be compounds or are given the actor

suffix

> *-te:r which is clearly generalized throughout. In connection with

my ideas

> on IndoTyrrhenian, however, the suffix *-(t-)e:r is not ancient. It

was

> originally *-ene (Etruscan -na), eventually accented Mid IE *-en-s.

The

> nominative was lost producing compensatory lengthening of vowel.
> Finally, due to confusion caused by the late *-n > *-r change (the

origin of

> the heteroclitic declension), *-e:n had a variant *-e:r which would

gain

> dominance as the actor suffix as it was improperly associated via

accent

> with the inanimate *-r ending.
>
> At any rate, the suffix *-te:r which we find in many kinship terms

only goes

> back to about 5500 BCE, I would dare say. Some of the terms are

merely

> ancient terms with the superfluous addition of *-te:r as in

*dhughte:r from

> earlier IndoTyr *deuge (Etruscan s'ec) or *mate:r from earlier

IndoTyr *ama.

> The date above may also be the date at which the kinship structure

had

> shifted to support a new patriarchal society from one that may have

been

> egalitarian originally.

I would agree with Glen here. In fact I feel there were a range of
languages (now extinct) between Tyrrhenian and PIE (which existed in
the region of Bulgaria and Roumania, and which spread up the Danube
to
form LBK Danubian I cultures in Central and Eastern Europe, Glen, who
played the intermediary role between Tyr and PIE. This makes sense
Archaeologically (and helps us integrate Piotr's theory of the
Urheimat too).

Glen continued

> Now, as for Gambutas, I do love her books on Mother Goddess

religions since

> they provide an interesting perspective on the early culture of

Europe and

> Anatolia. On the other hand, let's be honest - She comes across as

a
sexist

> pig.

Having read her widely, she is a lot less extreme that the many
neopagan writers who have taken her thorough archaeology as an
ideological weapon. Gimbutas at least archaeologically is pretty
sound.

> It's clear that the book is partly to expound on the ancient

religions as

> well as to promote her personal feminist agenda which serves to

belittle the

> male population and associate their testerone-enriched existence

with

> anything inheirantly evil in society like "war", "slavery",

"cruelty", etc.

> as is fashionable nowdays on many levels within our twisted culture

that

> thrives on stereotype.
>
> Gambutas is obviously simplistic in her illustration of male and

female as

> rivals, a kind of literal interpretation of "The Battle of the

Sexes". In

> true biblical fashion and poetic seduction, she would have us

believe that

> the female was cruelly ousted out of her paradisic gylany after

eating the

> forbidden fruit of patriarchy, cohersed by the evil barbarian Adam

who would

> wish to enslave her, as all men would do since they are scum.

Glen you obviously see something in Gimbutas that I have not seen.
Certainly there seems to be a fall in the status of women at the time
of the secondary products revolution and the rise of nomadic
pastoralism as a way of life. True, this fall in status (which seems
to have begun at the same time in PIE and Semitic cultures Glen -
was due to the same cultural dynamics - Semitish was not patriarchal
(if it existed at the dates you give). It was a rise in the returns
given to warriors (previously being a warrior meant the returns were
not great and the risks were high.... now the returns were higher
(you
could expropriate the wealth of your neighbours and turn them into
slaves, and add their women to your harem). When population
densities
were low, slaves could easily escape - there was more land and
resources for everyone, and thus returns of warfare were very low.

Population densities changed for two reasons.

1. Overpopulation and the closing of agricultural frontiers (no
hunter
gatherer territories in which to expand)
2. Worsening climate meaning a shift from agriculture to agriculture
with transhumance pastoralism to full nomadic pastoralism, competing
for limited pastures and water-holes.

> Honestly. Now let's have a nice soothing cup of reality. The

likelihood is,

> it was far more boring than that. I wouldn't succumb to the trite

and almost

> ANTI-feminist belief that somehow this matriarchy was inheirantly

peaceful.

> Woman can kick butt too and have done it throughout history, so

let's get

> real. Matriarchy can have the same wide range of dynamics that any
> patriarchy has. If it should be that there is little evidence of

warfare

> amongst the early Europeans, it may only be because of a low

population

> unlike in more densely populated agricultural societies.

Glen, the evidence shows that Matriarchy is a patriarchal myth.
There
has never been any culture where the sex roles were reversed and men
lived in harems to service the women. It seems fairly clear that
what
we see as Patriarchy is cultures with a strongly developed social
status hierarchy versus cultures that were relatively egalitarian...
"partnership" societies were fostered by the early neolithic. In
such
situations a small number of high status men dominated a large number
of low status men and all women.

> I also am resisting to believe that the IndoEuropeans were the

originators

> of patriarchy in the region but were rather influenced by the

Semitish who

> would have already been patriarchal as well as agricultural.

Perhaps

> Gambutas should blaim the Semitish for the end of matriarchal Eden.

:)

No possibility Glen - the move to "patriarchy" amongst the Semitic
and
Indo-European occurred at the same time and for the same reasons -
worstening climate, pressure of overpopulation and the secondary
products revolution. So both IE and Semitish (if it existed) are
innocent of any charges of the "crime" of patriarchy.

Regards

John