Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.

>Marc wrote
>> The LP came from the Balkan & Anatolia, isn't it? they were the
>first farmers AFAIK? If you think they spoke IE, with what branch do
>they correlate IYO? celtic? germanic? or an extinct branch? (if it
>was an extinct branch there's no way to know what IE language they
>spoke?) IE people loaned agricultural terms from an AA language
>("Semitish"?)
>(perhaps they got a "superior" culture by combining agricult.elements
>with steppe elements?). More likely, therefore, IMO, the LP farmers
>did not speak IE, but a Middle East (AA?) language. They seem to have
>spread over the fertile regions (Danube>Rhine loess) with a speed of
>some 20 km per generation (son's farm next to father's?). They may
>correlate with C-S's 1st = most important component with the centre
>in the Middle East (logically: introduction of agriculture).


>Linear Pottery didn't come from the Middle East. They developed in
>situ from a process of neolithicisation of pre-existing mesolithic
>cultures which were in contact with Starcevo-Koros culture which
>definitely did come from NW Anatolia. There is no link further East
>until 10,500 BCE with the early Natufian.

Thanks, John. At that time the Black Sea was a much smaller lake (no
Bosporus). C-S's 1st component has its centre far south in the Middle East,
so probably LP does not correlate with it. If anything, C-S's 4th component
could correlate: S-Balkan & W-Anatolia (but also S-Italy)?

>> C-S's 2d component (with centre in Lapland) perhaps correlates with
>the original mesolithic population in Europe (fishing, gathering...),
>possibly more densely populated than usually believed (or else we
>must suppose it represents the Germanic+Viking invasions in the 1st
>mill.AD? in that case C-s's 5th component with centre in Viskaya
>could represent the original Eur.population??).
>
>The Swiderian and Maglemose cultures, derived from the Upper
>Paleolithic cultures of Western Europe followed the retreating herds
>of reindeer northwards with the end of the Ice Age. In the marshy
>conditions they found behind the retreating ice sheets, they
>specialised as fisher folk. This I feel is what C-S's 2nd component
>is measuring.

Possible, but the 2d component is more in E- than W-Europe?

>It is interesting that C-S leaves out of his European data the
>Sardinians who are completely different from anyone else.
>Sardinian settlement began about 9,000 BCE, long before the
>neolithic settlements from the east (measured by 1st component).

Does the 1st component measure this? then it should have its centre in
Anatolia rather than in the Middle East?

>Their closest affiliations are with the Viskayans and with the
>Caucasians to the East - suggesting the Dene-Caucasian hypothesis may
>be proven genetically.

Yes, the islands of Crete, Sardinia, Corsica etc. are "forgotten" on his
maps!

>Marc? Piotr? writes some good stuff in the remainder of their post.
>Just one thing I'd add. Whatever the case I would suggest the shifts
>from Pre-IE languages (maybe extinct but related tongues) to IE was
>very complex, mixtures of elite dominance (Gambutas's kurgans),
>tribal movements, trade languages and a slow and steady infiltration
>occurring over centuries. A good model to use, I feel is the
>replacement of Iranian languages by Turkic on the steppes, from 160
>CE onwards. Regards John

Perhaps, yes.

Thanks a lot. Perhaps we're overestimating C-S's components? At least they
seem very difficult to interpret. As Piotr says they may correlate with
everything. Perhaps with more recent movements? It's curious that there's
no large component with its centre in Rome? Why Greece (4th comp.)?

Marc