Re: Gimbutas.

Simple things first.

To my post about the non-existence of Matriarchal cultures
historically

> >As I said, matriarchal cultures have not been demonstrated in
> >archaeology anywhere.

Glen has written

> 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?

Glen, I have lived and worked in the Toba Batak and Mingankabau areas
of this supposed "Matriarchy" in Sumatra and can tell you they are
NOT
a culture where women rule, make all the decisions, and the men do
all
the menial work of low status (which is what happens in reverse in
Matriarchy). What happens is characterised by gender equality
between
men and women (no Matriarchy, no Patriarchy). They make decisions
*equally* and have an *equal* amount of social status. To the
neighbouring Muslims of Acheh and Southern Sumatra (and to the
Victorian ethnographers who first met them), where women are not
consulted, and that they are confined to non-high status roles in the
household (carrying firewood, fetching water), it seems that the men
are being "ruled" by women. Sorry Glen you'll have to do better than
that.

The best on line source on "Matriarchy? History or Reality" is at
http://www.saunalahti.fi/penelope/Feminism/matriarchy.html It has
excellent links to all the contemporary research on the issue.
Follow
the links and then we can talk again, Glen, OK?

Now for the harder matter

Glen wrote

> 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.

Yes, via the Zarzian and Kebaran cultures of which I have spoken, and
which you have dismissed. If you are speaking of 9,000 BCE on the
Steppes you are speaking of the Murzak-Koba culture of my last post
(9,1-8,000). The mesolithic arrived on the Steppe and Forested areas
to the north from the South West, travelling up first through the
Balkans from Anatolia (13-10,000 Belbasi culture in SW Anatolia, and
9,800-5,794 Franchi Cave (Aegean). Belbasi was a Kebaran derived
culture.

Glen

>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?

Glen, sorry mate, you have it moving in the wrong direction. The
movement in the direction you speak of was much later. For instance
Zarzian was the first then M'lefatian (10,5-9,000 BCE) Belt Cave
in
the Caspian gates) (9,000-5,000 BCE) Jeitun culture (6,000-4,000 BCE)
Hissar (Altaic?) and then 5,500-3,500 BCE Keltiminar. Glen the
Keltiminar was the first mesolithic culture in Central Asia, and this
is far too late for your movements moving west into the Black Sea.
In
fact all the cultural movements at this date (9,000) was EAST from
the
Black Sea into the steppes and forests east in the Urals. Sorry
mate,
wrong direction!

> 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.

Yes Glen, from the West to the East, not from the East to the West.
The thoery that modern humans began in Central Asia (Haeckel) and
spread west has long been discreditied.

> John continues:
> >Upper Paleolithic cultures moved into Central Asia from the west

or

>south,
>
> That's right, John, _south_. We are not in disagreement.

And West Glen. You have them coming from the East. It seems we
still
are not in agreement.

> 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.

That is understandable if we have the spread of mesolithic cultures
up
through the Balkans and on to the Steppes, spreading in that
direction. Thus there would be a chain of languages stretching from
Anatolia to Central Asia as follows

Tyrrhenian (Troad Belbasi and Catal Huyuk derived)
Pelasgian (Aegean Franchi cave & Neolithic derived)
?? Starcevo/Danubian cultures ?? (our extinct intermendiate languages)
Proto-Indo-European (Srendny Stog Crimea, Northern Balck Sea Coast)
Uralic (Straddling the Urals, Murzak-Koba derived)
Altaic (Central Asia, Keltiminar derieved)

and the movement would have been out of Anatolia, except for Altaic
"culture". This is not to say that their language did not come from
the Urals region.

Glen

> 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.

Glen, can you please give me the evidence of this movement from the
North to the shores of the Black Sea at 5,500 BCE. You have some
invented archaeology here. The movement seems to have been AWAY from
the Black Sea at this time (due to the Flood we have spoken of). I
think once again you have your archaeological directions back to
front.

> Hence, they are from the area directly _north_, not south on both
> archaeological and, more importantly, linguistic grounds. There is

no

> dispute. Next!

Sorry Glen, your archaeology is wrong here. Neolithic was introduced
into precisely the area we are talking of at about this date and it
came from the south, not the north! There is dispute. You need to
et
your arcaeological facts right.

> 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.

Glen.... Glen.... I am putting forwards nonsensical twisted ideas?
Sorry not me mate. You are. Your North-South invasion theory moving
against the stream of culture, language and technology coming out of
Anatolia, into te Balkans and hence onto the Pontic Steppe. Read
ANYTHING on the spread of the Neolithic Glen and you will see how
nonsensical your North to South movement is at this time.

> 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? :)

Aha! Well then Glen, please learn something of the cultures of the
Middle East at that time, and the ways in which they ACTUALLY
conntect
to the Eurasian Zone!

Glen asks me

> 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.

Agreed!

And yet despite this, at the time you are having agricuture move into
the IE area from the South West, (circa 5,500 BCE) you are supposing
that a movement was occurring in the opposite directions out of
Central Asia to the North and hence South with Indo-Tyrrhenian
invvasons of the Balkans.... Glen, who is twisting and running
against
the facts?

> 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.

Glen, Semitic was arriving into Palestine for the FIRST TIME at about
this time. How many leading archaeologists (Mellaart et al) of the
area do I have to quote for you!