From: Abdullah Konushevci
Message: 47381
Date: 2007-02-10
>practical
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > All the sources you mention are characteristically vague on
> what
> > > > defines a location as a center of domestication. The
> > > > definition seems to be that for each race of cows, withinits
> areaPIE
> > > > they have picked the place with the earliest archaeologically
> > > > documented transition to farming as the center of
> domestication
> > > > for that race. And as I said, much of NEAsia is under-
> investigated
> > > > archaeologically. Therefore, Anatolia might have to give up
> the
> > > > prize one day.
> > > >
> >
> > > That said, it is still *always* going to be either Anatolia or
> South
> > > Asia in the Indo-European world, as far deciding the issue of
> > > origin is concerned.to
> >
> >
> > Of course not. If an archaeological site with transition to
> > stock-breeding earlier than that of the Anatolian ones is found
> > somewhere on the Steppes between the Ukraine and China, that site
> > automatically becomes the new assumed origin of domestication of
> Bos
> > Taurus. And on the origin of cereals, none of your sources seem
> besince
> > aware that the European and East Asian varieties of millet are
> > identical. Obvious that didn't come out of Anatolia.
> > Torsten
>
> To interject myself here, looking at the cultural IE context,
> IE people did not divinize cattle (unlike Middle Easterners,introduction
> Egyptians, and South Asians), but quite clearly knew about them at
> the PIE state, looking towards Anatolia as the site for
> of domestic cattle into Europe is not improbable.************
>
> Mark