John:
>It is interesting that you see IE coming from Central Asia.
I'm not the only one.
John:
>What is your evidence for this? Do you have any dates for the proposed
>movements? Once again.... (I suppose it is par for the course),
>there is no archaeologically attested movement out of Central Asia >into
>the Pontic Steppe in the mesolithic period. These movements only >began
>with the development of nomadic pastoralism thousands of years >later.
A date of approximately 9000 BCE or little earlier has been proposed by
Bomhard. Sarianidi claims that there is evidence for cross-cultural contacts
and trade between NW Iran, Fertile Crescent and Central Asia as far back as
Mesolithic times. So, the language would have spread from the Middle-East
eastwards and then up into Central Asia. From there, the IndoTyrrhenians
would move slowly west from 9000 BCE onward, arriving to the area north of
the Black Sea at 7000 BCE. By 6000-5500 BCE, Early IEs would have arrived to
the northern Black Sea shores from the north. What is so difficult here?
John again:
>In actual fact the movements were all the other way in the period of
>the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Periods.
All the other way?? I think you're confused.
John continues:
>Upper Paleolithic cultures moved into Central Asia from the west or >south,
That's right, John, _south_. We are not in disagreement.
Here's John yet again:
>Mesolithic cultures moved into Central Asia from the South.
Yes, the _south_. Correct.
And more John:
>The same goes for Mesolithic cultures on the Pontic Steppe.
This is matter of debate. The cultural innovations are from the south but
not necessarily the language which shows absolutely no affiliation to any
languages known in the south. This last point is all the more damaging to
your idea given that the languages to the east of the Black Sea, _do_ have a
strong and visible affiliation to IE.
It is also known that there was a movement of people from the _north_
towards the shores of the Black Sea at around 5500 BCE or so at which point
the cultural movements shifted fully in reverse, _away_ from the Black Sea
_towards_ the south. Since this is the latest state of affairs in the
region, we must associate these people with the IE who are dated later.
Hence, they are from the area directly _north_, not south on both
archaeological and, more importantly, linguistic grounds. There is no
dispute. Next!
Another quote from John:
>This makes sense archaeologically because (I believe we are agreed)
You like to twist things, don't you, John. You almost seem to get a
perverted thrill out of presenting opposing, nonsensical ideas. Get thee to
a library and learn the _languages_ you're ignorantly talking about. The
linguistic connections make absolutely no sense under your strange
archaeological view and in fact, have been tried before, I'm pretty sure, by
not-so-competent Nostraticists who chose to ignore the languages they write
about. Sufficed to say, these views have never been accepted to any degree
and never will be.
John in opposing agreement:
>1. Nostratic languages were microlithic and this began first in
>Africa, spreading northwards with the warming of post glacial
>climates.
>2. Microlithic cultures appeared first in Africa, then the Middle
>East, and last of all in High Central Asia. Language movements would
>tend to parallel these movements of people and cultures.
Yes! John, yes! Why do you continue to be antagonistic towards your
inevitable assimilation? :)
John drudging up an irrelevant point:
>Because Indo-Europeans were in close contact with Semites from
>Anatolian, Kassite and Mitannite times onwards.
John, you're loosing focus. The term *septm and *sweks are very well
reconstructed and are undeniable Semitic words, suspected as such by many
for a good century. This _cannot_ be from these late times. Sorry, you're
wrong here and grasping at straws.
>It is interesting that the mytholigical and religious elements in >common
>with Semites are strongest for Anatolian and Greek languages,
No, it's not interesting. It only means that they were further affected by
Semitic languages and cultures (eg: Phoenician) after their original
influence from the Semitish. This, I do not deny. Of course, we should
expect stronger connections! This is very moot.
>As I said, matriarchal cultures have not been demonstrated in
>archaeology anywhere.
Well this is a matter of interpretation anyway. At any rate, check the EB.
Under "matriarchal" they state that it is a consensus amongst archaeologists
and sociologists that a strict matriarchy never has existed. Their
description implies a spectrum where neither a pure patriarchy nor
matriarchy ever existed but rather there is always a varying ratio of the
two with egalitarianism in the middle.
Nonetheless, the EB gives an example of a matriarchy from Sumatra. Why don't
you check that out and come back to me, 'kay?
>Yes the two male figures were "consort-husband" and "son". Amongst
>many these two were often interchangable. For example "El" was
>consort-husband to the West Semites and "Baal" was originally son.
>Later "Baal" was consort husband to the next generation, and began to
>supercede "El" in importance.
Actually, checking Gimbutas "Language of the Goddess", I notice she lists
three. Whatever.
>"Patriarchal elements" of similar kinds are found in Polynesian
>culture, and amongst the Yanomami in Brazil.
I obviously didn't mean general patriarchal elements. I meant specific ones
like the Thunder God that we find in Semitic religion. Do the
Yanomami have an axe-wielding Thunder God?? You're not focusing on my
original point.
>Not so Glen. I would suggest you read up on modern archaology on the
>growth of systems of social stratification, with the movement of
>cultures from hunter-gatherer band, to tribe, to chiefdom, and hence
>to state society (and sometimes back again). No need for "strong
>influence from outside" - these tendencies appear to stem
>predominantly from indigenous factors. The "tripartite" gods of IE
>(warrior, priest and agriculturists) have been repeated over and over
>again, and are not specifically IE.
How can you think in such an unfocused manner. Are you forgetting that the
agriculture is _known_ to originate from Anatolia?? This clinches the fact
that southern influence is a likelihood and even proven archaeologically as
we find the agriculture slowly spreading towards the IE area.
If you recall this unescapable fact, then the possibilities are ripe for
more than mere climactic synchronisation but rather blatant cultural
influence that I've already shown on many levels (archaeological, religious,
linguistic) between the Semitic and IE. Get off it, John. Shake your head a
little, will ya? When the connections are summed up as a whole, there is
only one conclusion.
>The women did govern, but in partnership with men, never exclusively.
And what about men? Do you think the men governed in complete exclusion from
the women? The women always seem to have some role, no matter how
insignificant, whether it be to take care of property or the children, etc.
So what we're talking about here is a spectrum between patriarchy and
matriarchy with egalitarianism in the middle. This doesn't really change
anything.
- gLeN
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
http://www.hotmail.com