From: lsroute66@...
Message: 10691
Date: 2001-10-28
--- In cybalist@..., george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
<<<As far as the adaptation of ceramic use in the north is concerned,
the evidence seems to be that the B/D people developed a "style"
which was taken over (and passed on) by their immediate neighbours.
The similarity of ceramic forms in Bug/Dnister, Dnipro/Donetz, Surs'k
(which later developed into Serednyj Stih) and Pit-Comb is striking.
One major difference between these complexes and Linear B is that the
early "pots" to the east and north were sharp-ended rather than flat
or relatively so (as in linear B). This means, the archaeologists
conclude, that the northeastern populations had no concept of
"table".>>
Hardly a major difference. The major difference was having pottery at
all. And once again let's say SOME archaeologists.
First, large differences in pottery techniques evolved even within
the same neolithic culture -- innovations are common and constant
everywhere -- suggesting that these "major differences" in styles
were nothing more than local, practical "solutions", rather than some
kind of patriotic ethnic banners. Believe it or not, pointed bottoms
also show up in the early neolithic Sudan (at Kerma) and neolithic
Japan (Jomon). Round bottoms pop up across Europe. The logical
conclusion is that the pottery had to be adapted for local needs. But
it is also clear in Bog-Dniester that this happened only after a long
period during which the pottery was nothing but an imitation of
Cris-Koros, including flat-bottoms. So, what happened? Did they sell
their tables?
Flat-bottoms are particularly good for storage pots. Pointed and
round bottoms both suggests pottery that needed to rest on or in
something, whether for cooking, storage or transport. Strokes, comb
marks and even the finger nail impressions of Cris-Koros and earlier
Bog-Dniester suggest a way to get a grip on smooth clay surfaces.
Corded marks suggest a indentation where cords could grip a pot
firmly. Early American tinkers traveled circuits of 100s of miles --
sometimes on foot -- leaving a trail of pots and tankards that varied
according to the region they were in, with no apparent ehnic,
religious or linguistic reason for those local differences in their
handiwork. The teapot of the north had a flat-bottom, the south a
round one. The difference probably measured the use of stoves versus
fireplaces.
Finally, the possible irrelevance of pointed bottoms for tracking IE
can be seen in the fact that it's main adherent would appear to be
proto-Uralic speaking users, after which it disappears from these
locales.
<<So here, as in many other areas of "impulses" from the south the
cultural adaptations were selective.>>
That's not true. The difference between mesolithic and neolithic D-D
or Sredni Stog is much greater than the difference between neolithic
D-D or Sredni Stog and Tripolye. If mesolithic D-D had been located
in a different place than neolithic D-D, there's little reason to
think they would have been identified as related cultures. The
cultural effects of neolithization were massive. Selectivity, as it
always, was in neolitization, a matter of smaller details.
<<Of course B/D was later eaten up by Trypilia, but D/D and Ser. Stih
certainly weren't.>>
Rather, B/D became Trypilia/Tripolye -- a major contributor to it.
No eating involved. And both Dniester-Donetz and Sredni Stog would
both enter a phase where a good deal of their mesolithic character
were replaced with either direct or modified adaptions of neolithic
culture. Mesolithic D-D and SS disappeared.
<<And the earliest "corded ware" ornament on extremely early sharp
ended pots has been found in D/D.>>
Which says at best that hemp, hide or gut cords may have been used to
lift or carry those pots. A noteworthy innovation, but hardly a
cultural revolution. Regards, Steve