From: george knysh
Message: 10472
Date: 2001-10-20
> which*****GK: The Balkan connection is
> >PG posits as a starting point only reached the
> >westernmost areas of contemporary Ukraine, and
> petered
> >out with no discovered archaeological continuations
> >there (if one believes Ukrainian archaeologists and
> >why not?). It has no direct links to
> >Trypilja-Cucuteni(Tripolye)
>
> This is debatable. Links between Trypilja and LBK
> are often mentioned
> (e.g. by Mallory in EIEC: "In origin, the [Tripolye]
> culture is seen
> as a projection of southeast European
> agriculturalists to the east and
> its closest genetic connections, seen particularly
> in ceramics, are
> with Neolithic cultures of the Balkans (Boian,
> Hamangia) and the
> Linear Ware culture").
> >Serednyj Stih for its part develops to a large*****GK: Ukrainian (and Russian) archaeologists
> degree
> >from the Dnipro-Donetz culture whose own
> antecedents
> >are in the mesolithic cultures of Eastern Europe
> (and
> >partly of the area close to the Baltic coast) and
> not
> >in either LB or FB.
>
> I would prefer the term "Sub-Neolithic" rather than
> "Mesolithic" for
> these Eastern European / Baltic cultures (Narva,
> Valdai, Comb-Pricked
> Ware, etc.)
> the Linear Ware******GK: The point however is that this is not
> (LBK) culture to which they neighboured in the west,
> they adopted
> certain techniques (such as pottery) from their
> western neighbours.
> In fact, it is impossible to tell how far the
> interactions between the
> Neolithic "LBK'ers" and their Mesolithic or
> Sub-Neolithic neighbours
> went: certainly, in the course of having their wave
> of advance peter
> out, some LBK farmers must have moved into these
> areas, without
> succeeding in becoming technologically predominant
> (perhaps because of
> the different terrain and climatological conditions,
> which prevented
> an LBK-style economy to be effective there). A
> certain demographic
> influx from the more densely populated LBK area must
> have continued to
> occur even after the borderline between Neolithic
> and Sub-Neolithic
> had become firmly established. So in terms of genes
> and pottery, the
> LBK area can be seen as the "donor", while the
> eastern Sub-Neolithic
> area is the "recipient".
> was also the case******GK: In that case nothing can be excluded, but
> in terms of language, but it cannot be excluded
> either.
> Dnepr-Donets culture emerged from this eastern******GK: The most recent research (published by
> Sub-Neolithic area
> southwards to the "steppe" zone, the language they
> brought with them
> may well have been an eastern peripheral dialect of
> LinearBandKeramikese ("proto-Satem-IE").
>__________________________________________________
>
>
>