Re: [tied] Re: Gimbutas.
> The burden of proof has now shifted. Those who do not acceptJohn:
>Gimbutas' theory of pre-Indo-European Old Europe and its overthrow by
>invading, horse-riding Kurgan nomads need to present persuasive
>material evidence of indigenous warfare, sexual and economic
>inequality and the dominance of male rulers and male power icons
>Eilaine Reisler paraphrased Gimbutas's model in her book "TheActually, I find myself agreeing with John. It seems to me from my
>Challice and the Blade" which has gone down well in neo=pagan feminist
> >circles drawing upon Merlin Stone's earlier "When God was a Woman".
>Reisler has the view that Old Europe was characterised by peace and
>prosperity interupted by ethnic cleansing from the Kurgans [...]
>[...] the secondary products
>revolution (As suggested by Ehrensburg) tended to confine wonmen at
>home and gave men all the food production roles, had much more to do
>with the origins of Patriarchy.
light-hearted inspection of kinship structures as of late, that the whole IE
Omaha system could not have been very ancient and the advent of agriculture
may have been the catalyst for a structural change from an Iroquois or
Eskimo system to an Omaha one.
Many of the terms appear to be compounds or are given the actor suffix
*-te:r which is clearly generalized throughout. In connection with my ideas
on IndoTyrrhenian, however, the suffix *-(t-)e:r is not ancient. It was
originally *-ene (Etruscan -na), eventually accented Mid IE *-en-s. The
nominative was lost producing compensatory lengthening of vowel.
Finally, due to confusion caused by the late *-n > *-r change (the origin of
the heteroclitic declension), *-e:n had a variant *-e:r which would gain
dominance as the actor suffix as it was improperly associated via accent
with the inanimate *-r ending.
At any rate, the suffix *-te:r which we find in many kinship terms only goes
back to about 5500 BCE, I would dare say. Some of the terms are merely
ancient terms with the superfluous addition of *-te:r as in *dhughte:r from
earlier IndoTyr *deuge (Etruscan s'ec) or *mate:r from earlier IndoTyr *ama.
The date above may also be the date at which the kinship structure had
shifted to support a new patriarchal society from one that may have been
Now, as for Gambutas, I do love her books on Mother Goddess religions since
they provide an interesting perspective on the early culture of Europe and
Anatolia. On the other hand, let's be honest - She comes across as a sexist
It's clear that the book is partly to expound on the ancient religions as
well as to promote her personal feminist agenda which serves to belittle the
male population and associate their testerone-enriched existence with
anything inheirantly evil in society like "war", "slavery", "cruelty", etc.
as is fashionable nowdays on many levels within our twisted culture that
thrives on stereotype.
Gambutas is obviously simplistic in her illustration of male and female as
rivals, a kind of literal interpretation of "The Battle of the Sexes". In
true biblical fashion and poetic seduction, she would have us believe that
the female was cruelly ousted out of her paradisic gylany after eating the
forbidden fruit of patriarchy, cohersed by the evil barbarian Adam who would
wish to enslave her, as all men would do since they are scum.
Honestly. Now let's have a nice soothing cup of reality. The likelihood is,
it was far more boring than that. I wouldn't succumb to the trite and almost
ANTI-feminist belief that somehow this matriarchy was inheirantly peaceful.
Woman can kick butt too and have done it throughout history, so let's get
real. Matriarchy can have the same wide range of dynamics that any
patriarchy has. If it should be that there is little evidence of warfare
amongst the early Europeans, it may only be because of a low population
unlike in more densely populated agricultural societies.
I also am resisting to believe that the IndoEuropeans were the originators
of patriarchy in the region but were rather influenced by the Semitish who
would have already been patriarchal as well as agricultural. Perhaps
Gambutas should blaim the Semitish for the end of matriarchal Eden. :)
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
- I'm sorry, I sometimes get geographically dislexic and confuse Rhaetian and Ligurian. I was thinking of Ligurian being a Vasconic language. Regarding Lemnia, could it possibly be a Pelasgian language (and thus Pelasgian a Tyrhennian language), as the Thracians, Minyans and Pelasgians are the only people's mentioned in Classical Greek sources as inhabiting Lemnos?
--- In email@example.com, Max Dashu <maxdashu@...> wrote:
> Was it ever?
> > Is the theory that Rhaetic is a Vasconic language still tenable?
> > -Michael