John:
>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.
Yes, it's on my map. They are labeled as "IndoTyrrhenian dialects" which are
neither Tyrrhenian nor IndoEuropean per se, but rather developments that
were off to the side that can't be recovered... yet. It's a kind of
linguistic buffer zone between the two groups. No doubt, too, there would
have been a scattering of native languages (VascoCaucasic?) that co-existed.
John:
>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.
I can't say that she is a worthless source of information. I like her on a
whole. It's just that the ultra-feminist slants on the prehistory can get
annoying at times.
John:
>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.
Of course there is fundamental truth in what she says. That's not it. My
issue is precisely on how she presents the prehistory and history, which she
drizzles in a mouth-watering androphobic hollandaise. Every time I read her
work, I feel like I should hang my head down in shame for thousands of years
of woman suffering... but then I have a hamburger & soda and then I'm fine.
:)
John:
>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).
Well, it's somewhat complex. If we think along the terms of religion and the
remains of archaeology, it would seem that the Semitish had to have adopted
the native Goddess religion and become matriarchal. On the other hand, if we
also consider the possibility that IE, ultimately from Central Asia
approximately 5000 years previous, moved from an egalitarian society to a
patriarchal one, it should seem highly suspect that it accomplished this
feat amidst a matriarchal majority.
A better solution is to label the Semitish, or whatever peoples that lay in
the Balkans from 6000 to 4000 BCE, as patriarchal instead. Why? It would
appear that there are some elements in common between IE mythology and that
of the Semitic. If we presume that the Semitish were the conductor of this
spread of religion to the IE as it would be with the archaeological
terminology, it implies that along with the Goddess the Semitish worshipped
other gods of their own. As a result, although the religion may have had a
matriarchal icon as the head, it doesn't necessarily mean that the religion,
or the culture, was simply matriarchal.
Perhaps, the Goddess was viewed as a mediator to the other gods, similar to
how Jesus is sometimes viewed as the mediator between humans and God, with
only thousands of crucifix symbols of Jesus the Mediator that will no doubt
be found laying about thousands of years from now - a testimony to the
misleading nature of archaeology, n'est-ce pas? Likewise, we may find many
Goddess figurines but if she was another divine mediator, this may not tell
the whole story. Coincidentally, there appear to be two male figures
associated with the Goddess but given a minor role in iconography... Hmm....
Further, such a "mediator" Goddess religion would simply be the natural
blend of plain Goddess religions to the north and ancestral worship to the
south, attested in archaeology at an early date. Ancestral worship would see
the ancestors as a similar mediator to nature spirits.
Why should the Semitish be patriarchal instead of egalitarian? Because it is
the very patriarchal elements of IE mythology that appear to have parallels
in Semitic mythology. I can't see how the transfer of these views could be
accomplished as well via an egalitarian society. Just a thought. Also, we
should consider how such an evolution of egalitarianism to patriarchy is so
complete from kinship terms to religion in IE. And yet, IE's firm patriarchy
can only go so far back in time.
It would appear to me that the IE must have been strongly influenced by an
outside patriarchal culture for all this to happen. All this can't be
explained as well by simply claiming that a worsening climate was the cause
of the amazing synchronisation of these two cultures in archaeology,
religion, language and even kinship structure.
>Population densities changed for two reasons.
>
>1. Overpopulation [...]
Yes, John, overpopulation might be viewed as a cause for changes in
population density. :P (Giggle, giggle) Another cause might be gravity,
shrinkage of space-time, overeating, sexual intercourse or insecticidal
spray. :)
>Glen, the evidence shows that Matriarchy is a patriarchal myth.
Perhaps there may or may not have been "male harems" in the past (as opposed
to the swingin' 21st century which appears to break that chauvinist rule of
yours), to pretend that a matriarchy is less violent than a patriarchy is
sexist and gives in to all the stereotypes about femininity and masculinity
that Gimbutas appears to be fighting. There are even documented female
warriors in the past, so let's not even try to go there. Secondly, wouldn't
it seem that believing that matriarchies don't exist is a patriarchal myth,
no? As if, women couldn't govern?
John:
>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.
... the last item being necessarily transferred by a culture with a
Semitic-like language. Too bad for you.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com