Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: piotrm@umich.edu (Piotr Michalowski)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:12:43
>bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
>>The neolithic is an exciting
>>period, but neither you nor anyone else knows what's going on
>>linguistically before then. Most people I know think language really got
>>underway in the Middle Paleolithic, when Homo Sapiens emerged and began
>>engaging in symbolic expression. Do you think the people who built Catal
>>Huyuk, Abu Hureyra, Jericho, and Nevali Cori (the great PPNA site no
>>one's ever heard of) only grunted at each other? Were the great cave
>>painters of the Upper Paleolithic in France incapable of speech? We
>>already know that Neanderthals were perfectly capable of speech,
>>biologically.
How refreshing! We are finally getting beyond nonsense (the idea that
Neolithic people communicated by token rather than natural language!) and into
the realm of reality. This is, of course, the area where the nostraticists
and other grand comparativists come in. There had been attempts by
Cavalli-Sfortza and his colleagues to map DNA distribution and modern
languages in order to try to figure out ancient linguistic distribution. This
was highly ahistorical to start with and I remember reading that some recent
research had undermined their findings. Perhaps someone can help with this.
The interesting fact is that it looks now as if we have to deal with major,
relatively quick linguistic replacement in antiquity rather than with slow
diffusion (this would go against Steve's slow amoeba model), and this makes
the connection between material culture and language particularly difficult to
make. If we look at the evidence for Hurrian, and, more visibly, for more
than one West Semitic spread (Amorite, Aramaic, and the latter. although more
recent, is in many ways the more problematical), we see rather quick
replacement in a very large area. This does not always mean that all elements
of culture chance. In the case of Amorite there are many connections with
earlier cultural elements, and if we did not have personal names from a very
large area of Western Asia, we would never guess that such a quick spread had
taken place. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to make any intelligent
guesses about linguistic identity in the paleolithic, although I would, on
theoretical grounds, assume that the species was yakking away very nicely,
thank you. Even the nostraticists, as their tools become more refined, are
being more cautious about their reconstructions and are questioning the range
of Nostratic. It now appears that they will not be including Afroasiatic
within this macro-family, and that raises many new questions.
Subject: Re: more on Velikovsky
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 10:58:02 -0600
In article ,
bud.jamison@thekat.maximumaccess.com (Bud Jamison) wrote:
....material omitted.....
>"> Can anyone characterize impact? Did he have any?
As a geologist, I fail to find any positive contribution of
Velikovsky to geology. If anything, he delayed the recognition
of catastrophic events as a normal part of Earth history in
geology because of the very sloppy and ill-informed way he
argued for such events and the extreme catastrophes for which
he argued. He basically gave the concept that "catastrophes"
have infleunced Earth history such a bad name that still
makes people somewhat prejudiced towards invoking them.
>">It seems to me that the meteorite explanation of
>">the extinction of the dinosaurs, which is so popular
>">now, may owe something to this man. 30 years ago such
The meteorite theory for the extinction of dinosaurs owes
nothing to Velikovsky. This theory is based upon the initial
insight of Alverz and innumerable geologists who actually
took the time and trouble to form hypotheses about this
theory and then go out into the field and look for evidence
either supporting or contradicting this theory. Again, if
anything, Velikovsky made life much harder for these geologists
because he gave the concept of catastrophes in Earth history
such a bad name. In a way this was a blessing, because the
people advocating the meteorite theory were forced to come
up with better arguements and evidence for their ideas.
>"> Catastrophismic (is that a word?) explanations
>">would have been laughed out of geology schools.
Velikovsky's books contributed greatly to this reaction.
The profound ignorance of geology and paleontology, with
which his books overflow, turned any mention of
"catastrophism" in many departments a standard joke.
> While most scientists STILL try to show him as a kook at best,
It is not Velikovsky that scientist try show as a kook. Mainly,
they just claim that he did very sloppy and poorly-reserach
theorizing. It is many of his followers that scientists regard
as kooks. given the fact, that many of them regard Velikovsky's
writings more as error-free holy texts then faliable theories,
there is some justification for it.
> many of his theories have proven out, such as Jupiter as a
Many more have been clearly proven false.
> radio source, the surface temperature and chemical makeup of
> the atmosphere of Venus, the archeological significance of
> Thera (Santorini), and the dating of the Bible and Egyptian
> Dynasties ('accepted' dates coming under severe scrutiny lately),
> and MUCH more.
You greatly exaggerate the controveries.
> Some of his reasoning for his theories has been wrong,
> but his conclusions have generally been right.
As far as his ideas about geology, e.g. the origin of
petroleum, shorelines, and mammoth "mummies," he has been
consistencely shown to be wrong.
> He preached 'multi-disiplinarianism' strongly, saying that
> the trend toward specialization created scientists who wore
> blinders, and missed more stuff than they caught.
"Multi-disiplinarianism" is being practiced more and more in
the Earth sciences. However, it is because of the increasing
complexities of the problems and questions rather then any
preaching by Velikovsky.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
Earthquakes don't kill people.
Overpasses and buildings kill people.
-anonymous civil engineer
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 16:54:21 GMT
Miguel Carrasquer Vidal (mcv@pi.net) wrote:
: bdiebold@pantheon.yale.edu (Benjamin H. Diebold) wrote:
: >The neolithic is an exciting
: >period, but neither you nor anyone else knows what's going on
: >linguistically before then. Most people I know think language really got
: >underway in the Middle Paleolithic, when Homo Sapiens emerged and began
: >engaging in symbolic expression. Do you think the people who built Catal
: >Huyuk, Abu Hureyra, Jericho, and Nevali Cori (the great PPNA site no
: >one's ever heard of) only grunted at each other? Were the great cave
: >painters of the Upper Paleolithic in France incapable of speech? We
: >already know that Neanderthals were perfectly capable of speech,
: >biologically.
: You are absolutely right, on all points.
: Including, I must admit, the one about Nevali Cori.
: What, where, when?
It is in southeastern Anatolia, just north of Urfa, in a region rich with
great early sites (Gritille is just across the river, and Cayonu and
Hallan Cemi are not that far away). It's actually a two-part site, Nevali
Cori I and Nevali Cori II, divided by a river. The two parts are
contemporary, though apparently Nevali Cori II has a stronger PPNB
component. There is also an EBA settlement.
As of 1994 they had found 27 houses, several of which are large storage
facilities. Most interestingly, there are several fascinating cult
buildings, including one with a paved stone floor, niched walls, and a 2.5
m tall limestone stele sculpted in the form of a stylized person. Very
evocative. There are also a number of fragments of sculptures of human
heads. A fairly high level of art, and great proficiency with sculpture.
If Steve thinks these people were grunting, clicking and gesticulating at
each other only, he ought to lay off whatever he's been smoking.
My source is Yakar 1994, Prehistoric Anatolia, but he is citing the
excavation reports;
Hauptmann, H. 1991-92. Nevali Cori. Eine Siedlung des Akeramischen
Neolithikums am Mittleren Euprat. Archaologie 8:43-56.
Hauptmann, H. 1993. Ein Kultgebaude in Nevali Cori. In: Frangipane et
al.., 1993. Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica
Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata. Rome. p. 37-69.
Mellink, M.J. 1993. Archaeology in Anatolia. AJA 97:105-133.
(Also two other articles by the same author with the same name in the same
journal for 1991 and 1992, but I didn't feel like typing them in).
Ben
Subject: Re: Antarctica ?= Atlantis
From: heinrich@intersurf.com (Paul V. Heinrich)
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 1996 11:09:58 -0600
In article <32B23894.7EEF@spirit.com.au>,
Clare Williams wrote::
>Bob Lovell wrote:
>> Try again. Atlantis = Thera + Crete.
>
>That's only one theory. Perhaps Antartica was
>Churchwood's mysterious lost continent of Mu.
"Mu" is what Churchwood renamed "Lemuria," because of a
mistranslation by a monk in a failed attempt to translate
Mayan book came up with a story of a continent wiped out in
a catastrophe. The book was really an astronomy text which had
nothing to do with either lost continents, catastrophes, or Mu.
The concept of Lemuria is a scientific Frankenstein that has
resurfaced again to haunt the European scientists who first
created it. Unknown to many people, the idea of Lemuria
was not created in prehistoric times, but rather by European
and American scientists in the late 1800s as a way of
explaining the distribution of rocks, fossils, and animals in
the days before continental drift when continents were
considered immovable and immutable features of the
surface of the Earth (de Camp 1954).
The Birth of Lemuria
The concept of Lemuria was born when in the 1860s and
1870s, when a group of British geologists noted the striking
similarity between fossils and sedimentary strata found in
India and South Africa. Geologists like Stow and Blanford
in India and Griesbach in Africa noted that strata of Permian
age in India, South Africa, Australia, and South America
(245 to 286 million years ago) were almost identical in the
type of sedimentary rocks, e.g. numerous coal beds. In
addition, these strata on these continents contained
identical fossils of land plants, e.g. cordaites and
_Glossopteris_ and land animals, e.g. Therapsids. Because
such land plants and animals could not have crossed the
open sea and continents were thought to be immobile, these
geologists explained the presence of identical fossil plants
and animals on India, Africa, South America, and Australia
by postulating the existence of land bridges and even whole
continents that had long since sunk beneath the oceans.
In one case, they postulated the existence a large land
bridge that once connected India and South Africa. In the
"Erdegeschichte" (1887) of Neumayr, this hypothetical land
bridge was called "Indo-Madagascan Peninsula" (de Camp
1954).
Ernest Heinrich Haekel, a strong advocate of the evolutionary
theory of Darwin like Thomas Huxley noticed the proposed
land bridge of "Indo-Madagascan Peninsula." Haekel used it
to explain the distribution of lemurs in Africa, India, and the
Madagascar, and Malaya Peninsula. He proposed that this
hypothetical land-bridge had stayed above water long enough
for it have served as the means by which lemurs spread into
these areas. The English biologist, Philip L Scalter named
this land bridge "Lemuria" because of its hypothesized with
lemurs. Thus, Lemuria was neither named nor conceived of
or by prehistoric people, but by geologists and biologists
in the 1800s (de Camp 1954). When plate tectonics or some
other equally prosaic theory clearly explained the distribution
of strata, fossils, and lemurs, it became clear that Lemuria
and other such continents and land bridges never really
existed, e.g. Wicander and Monroe (1989).
The Reincarnation of Lemuria
Lemuria was reincarnated as a lost continent by Madame
Blavatsky, the greatest of the modern occultists. Madame
Blavatsky incorporated this concept of Lemuria, in a confused
form, together with Atlantis and bizarre mixture of scientific,
occult, and Hindu religious material, including the "Rig-Veda"
in her book, "The Secret Doctrine." In this book, Lemuria
became a lost continent, although still in the Indian Ocean,
populated by ape-like hermaphroditic egg-laying creatures.
Later writers of occult, lost-continent tales, e.g. Annie Besant,
W. Scott-Elliot added their own detail and embellishment to
the story of Lemuria, including dinosaurs and 12 to 15-foot
bronze humanoids. The final event in the reincarnation of
Lemuria occurred when writers of occult books moved the
location of Lemuria from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific
Ocean (de Camp 1954). Since then, mystics and psychics have
written innumerable books about Lemuria and either tuned
into the spiritual essence and vibrations or channeled for
the spirits of long departed Lemurians who never existed
to begin with.
When the theory of continental drift was developed, people
realized that it and other more prosaic theories explained
the distribution of animals, fossils, and plants better then lost
continents, As a result, Lemuria was allowed to fade away into
obscurity, while eclipsed by more realistic theories long before
there were GEOSAT and SEASAT satellite data to demonstrate
the fictional nature of Lemuria.
For the original story read:
de Camp, S. L., 1954, Lost Continents: The Atlantis Theme in
History, Science, and Literature. Gnome Press, Inc., New York.
Other references
Wicander, R., and Monroe, J. S., 1989, Historical Geology:
Evolution of the Earth and Life Through Time. West
Publishing Company, New York.
>Perhaps Atlantis was indeed at Bimini!
The reports of stone columns and "megalithic roads" around
South Bimini island have been investigated by trained geologists
and archaeologists. They have proved the so-called columns mostly
to be barrels of historic concrete and rare stone columns lost during
shipwrecks. The "megalithic roads" have been shown to be
nothing more then beachrock that formed along prehistoric
shorelines when sea level was lower than present during the
Late Holocene. Detailed discussions of these investigations are
published in:
1. Ball, Mahlon M., and Gifford, John A., 1980, Investigation of
submerged beachrock deposits off Bimini, Bahamas. Research
Reports National Geographic Society. vol. 12., p. 21-38.
2. Gifford, John A, 1973, A description of the geology of the
Bimini Islands, Bahamas. University of Miami, Florida, 88 p.
3. McKusick, M., and Shinn, E. A., 1980, Bahamian Atlantis
reconsidered. Nature, vol. 287, no. 5777, pp. 11-12.
4. Harrison, W., 1971, Atlantis undiscovered; Bimini, Bahamas.
Nature. vol. 230, no. 5292, p. 287-289.
Thus, there exists no evidence for Atlantis being in the area of
the Bimini Islands.
Sincerely,
Paul V. Heinrich All comments are the
heinrich@intersurf.com personal opinion of the writer and
Baton Rouge, LA do not constitute policy and/or
opinion of government or corporate
entities. This includes my employer.
Earthquakes don't kill people.
Overpasses and buildings kill people.
-anonymous civil engineer
Subject: Re: "Out of India"
From: whittet@shore.net (Steve Whittet)
Date: 15 Dec 1996 17:07:25 GMT
In article , piotrm@umich.edu says...
>
>In article <58ung6$t2u@fridge-nf0.shore.net> whittet@shore.net (Steve
Whittet) writes:
...snip...
>
>>That culture has been called the chlorite culture by some authors
>>but if you prefer to use Intercultural Style thats fine too. What
>>is important is that it includes carved chlorite vessels. The only
>>source of chlorite appropriate for such carving was Tepe Yahya, and
>>vessels using the chlorite from Tepe Yahya are found at Tarut located
>>across the Persian Gulf from Tarut which implies trade across water.
>
>No, that is not the point. If you read KOhl's article carefully
>before you made all these nonsensical assertions, and if you tried
>to follow up some of the references, you would undertand better what
>is at issue. Once again the old squid ink. Look at all of this once
>again--you talk of a "chlorite culture," that would imply a cultural
>complex, and you implied a whole people or civilization, when it is
>only one luxury item of trade!
Actually there is far more than one item of trade as you well know.
What the chlorite exchange across the Gulf does is simply establish
a link across the Gulf as well as along it. The trade includes wood,
cloth, metal, frankincense, pearls, eyestones, seals, carnelian,
lapis lazuli, pottery and chlorite vessels. You know this trade
exists and yet you pretend it does not. Why is that?
The trade is carried from Mohenjo-Daro along the Baluchistan coast.
Baluchistan connects to Afghanistan at Zahedan just as the Indus valley
Civilization does at the Khyber Pass.
Makkan controls both sides of the strait of Hormuz. Just inland is
Tepe Yahya and the only source of the chlorite in question in the
region. Dilmun connects Mesopotamia to Makkan and Tepe Yahya.
This is every bit as much of a culture as Mesopotamia. Because
it is based on the sea and not on the land there is less evidence
of agriculture, the domestication of animals and buildings.
Instead of building buildings, and plowing fields this culture invests
its resources in trade, building boats and sailing seas.
>
>>> No one that has written about the distribution of such
>objects >>has ever, to my knowledge, implied that the distribution can be
>>>taken as the prooof of the spread of any culure.
>
>>From :BTTA, "The Lands of Dilmun" P L Kohl
>
>>p373
>
>>"Presently no proven production centers from the Arabian mainland
>>are known for the earlier Tarut Green chlorites, a fact which might
>>imply that most if not all of the IS vessels were imported from
>>production centers on the Iranian plateau"
>
>Yes, please read the plural "centers"--Kohl was very careful not
>to claim that they all came from Tepe Yahya.
Actually he does. When he says that no proven production centers from
the Arabian mainland are known for the earlier Tarut Green chlorites,
what he is telling you is that the only known source of that chlorite
is at Tepe Yahya.
He then goes further. He says that is
"a fact which might imply that most if not all of the IS vessels
were imported from production centers on the Iranian plateau"
You can read production centers to mean mines plus manufacturing
facilities. It is all located in one small area.
>If you read earlier parts of the article, and most importantly,
>the analysis of the vessels that he cites, you would know that
>the Tarut pieces were of dispartate origin, including from
>within Arabia.
The Tarut vessels in the IS style included both originals and
cheap knockoffs in other soft stones, I listed Kohls analysis
earlier. The point is that "the Tarut green chlorite" came from
Tepe Yahya.
>
>
>>p 375
>
>>"Makkan and Dilmun benefitted from trading both with Mesopotamia
>>and the Indus valley"
>
>>> Quite the opposite, Kohl and others have used it as evidence
>>>of a "world economy" in Wallerstein's sense.
>
>>p 375
>
>>"A trade in luxuries may only have characterised that maritime
>>exchange controlled by the early Tarut centered Dilmun."
>
>>>The appearence of one or more such objects anywhere in a relatively
>>>large area has absolutely no ethnic or linguistic connotations.
>
>>That may be true. No specific "connotations". Controlling a regions
>>trade does have all sorts of ethnic and linguistic "implications".
>
>>>You continue to make it impossible to discuss language and culture by
>>>confusing trade contacts with archeological and historical cultures as
>>>well as with linguistic entities.
>
>(Thank you for confirming my main point)
If your point is that nobody specifically says: (connotes) "I ship
my Tarut green chlorite vessels across the Gulf to Tarut from
Tepe Yahya" in any 3rd millenium cuneiform text, that may be true,
but so what? The point is that archaeology makes a good case that
they did. Because there is no eyewitness testimony the conclusions
are merely implied, so what? You want me to say "I wasn't there so
I don't know for sure"?
>
>>Establishing ethnic and linguistic interactions is the first step
>>towards establishing ethnic and linguistic influences. No contact
>>means no interaction and no influence. Demonstrating that there was
>>contact makes some influence possible. Establishing a dominence or
>>control of trade goes a step further.
>
>No it does not. You cannot infert anything linguistic from this kind
>of information, which is why no one rational tries to do it.
You most certainly can. The issue raised was which mechanism best
allowed proto elamite/dravidians to share an intermediate influence.
The choices are:
1.) A Renfrewesque wave of advance of farmers in the upper paleolithic
across two of the worst deserts in the world against any actual
archaeological evidence of human presence in the region at the time
2.) A well established trade connection down the Persian Gulf in the
mid third milleniunm BC
>This is particularly important if you also have not a drop of
>knowledge about linguistics, as your assertions about Elamite
>have demonstrated rather well.
You have supported choice 1 over choice 2 and yet have not provided
one shred of evidence for doing so.
>>> How many times must this be pointed out?
>>>Pots do not speak, nor do stone bowls.
>
>>No, but their owners do. If their owners are in a position to speak
>>to each other then they probably do exchange some language as well as
>>some pots.
>
>People do not exchange language.
Yes they do. It's silly to deny it.
>They may exchange words and thoughts, but not language.
Of course they do. Many people are bilingual, some speak
several languages, the evidence suggests this was true
with the scribes writing Sumerian and Akkadian.
>If you would really study the early history of your beloved
>Gulf you would know that the main Harappan connections are
>with Oman and the "Magan" areas, not with directly with the
>southern part, which is why, even if your strange notions of
>linguistic exchange worked, it would not hold here.
The southern part of what? I have stated that Makkan connected
to the IVC and Tepe Yahya and Dilmun, but I never claimed it
connected to the southern part of anything. Kohl is of the
opinion that ships from Sumer may have traded directly with
the Harrapans is that what you are attempting to refer to?
My view is that Dilmun completed the connection. Its the middleman.
Dilmun deals with Southern Mesopotamia, Susa and the Elamites,
Tepe Yahya, Makkan and perhaps even Mari and the western techno
complex. It also has some interesting Chalcolithic connections
to interior Arabia.
>I any case, we happen to know some of the languges involved,
>and the burden of proof is on you. If all this language exchange
>took place, please show us the results--what is the EVIDENCE that
>some unspecified language or languages from India interacted with
>Near Eastern languages (let us not rehash Mitanni, and that is much
>later in any case).
The argument isn't whether this occured. Miguel proposes that
Mallory, who cites McAlpins theory of a proto-elamite/dravidian
intermediary, has made a case.
Miquel sees this as a case for proto-elamites engaging in a
"wave of advance" across either the deserts or mountains
of Iran to reach Pakistan c 8,000 BC.
I don't think farmers tend to expand into either mountains
or deserts when they have lots of nice river valley handy.
Miguel began by listing some sites on the Simerah river
which have more to do with Mesopotamia than a proto
elamite expansion across Iran.
The archaeological evidence shows that indeed there was
little or no occupation of Iran between 55 degrees and
60 degrees of Longitude and 30 and 35 degrees of latitude
at any time.
You could extend that to 50 degrees longitude prior to
c 2000 BC. That is a bit late for the proposed linguistic
influence.
Miguel then went on to mention the southern Zagros. This
gets you to Anshan c 2000 BC. You still need to connect
to the Dravidians.
My position was that the earliest expansion is actually
from Mohenjo-Daro c 3rd millemium BC along the coast of
baluchestan to link up with Makkan. There are a number
of pieces of Harrapan script which have been found in Oman.
Makkan is linked to Dilmun and indeed Dilmunite seals have
been found at Harrapan sites. We then go on to link Dilmun
to Tepe Yahya and southern Mesopotamia in the 3rd millenium BC.
This provides a better model for the intermediary than the
wave of advancing farmers.
>I would be the first one to want to learn from you what
>remanants of this major exchange can be discerned. Nu?
Mallory cites McAlpin as having found a linguistic connection
between Elamite and Dravidian. Does this linkage have to be
c 8,000 BC? Why doesn't a linkage in the 3rd millenium, still
prior to the emergence of either Elamites or Dravidians, serve
us equally well?
>
>>>What is the Euphrates culture
>
>>The association and interaction of people living along the Euphrates
>>river as for example Mari and Babylon.
>
>I see--they traded, so it was a Euphrates culture.
>Actually, if you studied this in some detail rather than
>simply asserted what are only guesses on your part, you
>would learn that while there certainly was much interaction--
>sometimes rather drastic--between the two, the culture of
>Mari in may ways owes much more to Eshnunna
>(including linguistic matters),
>which is not in the Euphrates, than to Babylon,
My position was that each node was linked to other nodes, often
along rivers, or along coasts, and that there was no unified
wave of advance in any one direction but a series of interactions
in many directions.
Mari had connections both up the Habur and down the Euphrates.
>In any case, you were discussing prehistory, and that has
>nothing to do with Mari (which did not even exist at the
>period you are discussing, although I could be wrong here
>as at this point I have no idea what period you are on about)
>or with Babylon (whose significance in the 3rd millennium is
>impossible to ascertain).
Miquel is focused on something happening c 8,000 BC. I don't
happen to think that any people had wide ranging empires that
early. My focus is on the 3rd millenium BC which is when I think
these things actually occured. Do you have written examples of
something you would call proto Elamite/Dravidian which predate
the third millenium? If not then what objection do you have to
looking at this as the period of the intermediate connection?
>
>>>and what is meant by a wave going
>>>Northwest?
>
>>You don't think waves can be directionaly constrained? The Neolithic
>>expansion of southern Mesopotamia seems to have been directionally
>>constrained up the Euphrates as opposed to going perpendicular to it
>>as for example into the Sabra al Hijarah.
>
>Excuse my ignorance, but I have no idea of what you mean by Neolithic
>expansion of southern Mesopotamia. Just what are you talking about?
Mallory and Miquel are talking about a linguistic expansion, a wave
of advance. They are combining McAlpins observation and Renfrews model.
I claimed there was little or no neolithic farming in the deserts of
Iran. Miguel said, well perhaps sheep or goats defoliated the land
causing the desert conditions.
Miquel then listed a number of sites in Iran which I would classify
as associated with neolithic Mesopotamia. I see most of the sites in
Mesopotamia as associated with rivers, if for no other reason because
rivers provide a source of water to irrigate crops. Thus any Neolithic
expansion of farming in Mesopotamia would tend to be directionally
constrained by the geography of the available rivers and not liable
to just move east in a wave of advance.
>
>>> When, what, what is the evidence?
>
>>This specific evidence would be that cited by Kohl.
>
>>> Believe it or not, there is a time factor in archeology,
>>>and one cannot just rummage through the millennia with out
>>>unerstanding the dynamics of specific times and places.
>
>>Yes, we should all strive to avoid that.
>
>>
>>>These kinds of sweeping generalizations, piled one on top of
>>>each other by the dozens, create this fictitious world in
>>>which nothing can be reasobly discussed.
>
>>I understand Piotr. As a specialist you percieve wide ranging
>>interdisciplinary discussions with generalists to be difficult
>>to control. Answering issues raised by reference to areas outside
>>your specialty puts unreasonable demands on your time and resources.
>
>Yes, yes, you have made this point over and over again. Ignorance is bliss.
>I have no idea of what you mean by "interdiciplinary", since presumably that
>does not include epigraphy, linguistics, archaeology, ethnography or
>geography. Do you mean architecture?
An interdisciplinary approach means we get to use whatever sources of
information seem appropriate. Epigraphy, linguistics, archaeology,
ethnography, geography, or architecture would be appropriate, as
would sociology, anthropology, art history, climatology,or any
other science.
>>> In just a few paragrpahs, you have invented a new linguistic
>>>group, a completely undocumented migration of unspecified people
>>>from India through the Persian Gulf into Mesopotamia and beyond,
>>>who somehow left no traces for anyone except you to see,
>
>>Despite the limited number of sources which I have researched
>>and cited the number of references to Harrappan material coming
>>out of India, up the coast of Baluchestan and Oman into the
>>Persian Gulf, makes an extensive list.
>
>>>waves of something called Euphrates culture etc. If you could
>>>concentrate on one thing at a time, perhaps less confusion
>>>would result.
>
>>That is a reasonable request. I will try to concentrate on
>>connecting my ideas together for you.
>
>You have done the opposite--you have completely confused me,
>but then I am only a narrow specialist.
Yes, but you are being very considerate in reaching out
and trying to understand a mere generalist, so I will
attempt to return the favor.
>SO humor me--you have piled together facts that make no sense
>geographically or temporally, and all I can tell is that you are
>back where you started from a few years ago. You think that some
>undetermined cultur or language(s)--sometimes you claim they are
>IE--came out of India.
I think so yes. If McAlpin is correct that there is a proto
Elamite/Dravidian intermediary, then I see it as being best
located somewhere intermediate to other cultures not off on
its own in the deserts of Iran.
Is there a connection between the linguistics of India and Europe
infered in the term IE? If so, and if an Aryan invasion of India
is not proposed, then perhaps the connection went the other way
Out of, rather than into, India.
>The time frame one cannot pin you down on, since you cite evidence from
>different parts of the world from different periods.
My time frame for what I am discussing is the third millenium BC.
I am not the only participant in the dialog. When others propose
other dates and places then it is necessary to look at what was
going on in other places at other times
> The end result is nowhere to be seen, as you have not provided
>evidence for that either.
The end result is a huge trade network sprading from India
into Europe and Central Asia along rivers and coasts which
is well positioned in time and space to help spread language.
The end result which I propose is that the Persian Gulf linked
the IVC with Makkan. Makkan was linked to Tepe Yahya and Dilmun.
Dilmun was linked to Tepe Yhya, Makkan, Susa, Southern Mesopotamia
and Mari. Southern Mesopotamia was linked to Dilmun, Susa, Mari,
and Northern Mesopotamia. Mari was linked as you point out to
both Babylon and Eshunna and so it goes... eventually we tie in
to Syria and Anatolia, Egypt and the Black Sea, from Syria we
link to Lebanon and Palestine, the Mediterranean, Aegean, and
Tyrrhenian seas. From the Black Sea we go up the Danube, Dneister,
Dneiper, Bug, and Don into Europe and Germany's ties to the Baltic.
From the Black Sea we are linked by the Artaraxes to the Caspian.
From the Caspian the Oxus takes us into Central Asia...
Its interesting to look at the results of such a network.
When did the weaving of carpets spread to Beijing China?
Was it a result of the silk trade?
>The facts constantly shift, chlorite bowls are evidence of a
>"culture", then they are not, etc.
Chlorite bowls, taken by themselves only evidence the trade across
the Gulf. Other trade, which we have mentioned evidences other
aspects of the culture. The central idea is that not all cultures
are land based cultures focused on agriculture and the domestication
of animals. Some cultures put their resources into building boats
rather than buildings and into engaging in trade rather than
covering hectares of land.
> In a few short sentences that a poor little specialist can
>undertand, what are you after other than the impotance of your
>beloved boats for everything under the sun?
1.) Agreement that there were sea based as well as land based cultures.
2.) Agreement that a trade network is as viable a mechanism for the
diffusion of language as an agricultural "wave of advance"
3.) Agreement that linguistic diffusion can occur at any time
or place with rapidity.
4.) Openness to the idea that a large influx of borrowed words
into a small core vocabulary could overwhelm language every bit
as much as an influx of a large population of newcomers could
overwhelm an indiginous population.
>No one disputes that there was trade in luxury items in the Gulf,
I would not restrict the trade to luxury items. Trade in wood,
metal, cloth, grain, pottery, and fish occured. Trade in luxuries
gets more emphasis because things like Lapis, carnelian, Clorite
vessels, eyestones, pearls, baboons, ivory and frankincense tend
to be more useful in establishing connections between widely
separated cultures.
>but it is restricted to certain areas and to certain periods.
This is a far more interesting place to focus our attention.
>Why is it that all these other narrow specialists have missed these
>massive population and linguistic exchanges that supposedly followed?
I don't think they have missed them.
1.) They assign them to much earlier dates than all the other
interactions of which we have evidence.
2.) They tend to view water as separating rather than connecting.
3.) They don't see a lot of little connections as one big connection
steve
