Greetings!
Well, well. Apparently, about a year ago, at some great seminar held in Chicago for Historians, Anthropologists and Archeologists, Lord Colin Renfrew conceded that Dr. Marija Gimbutas had been right about her Kurgan Theory, and that his own "Anatolian Hypothosis" had been wrong. Essentially, warlike tribes of horsemen, worshipping masculine Sky Gods, had originated in the Pontic Steppes and had swept into Old Europe and conquered everything, ushering in a "New Age" of warfare, conquest, and epic cultural, social, and religious change throughout the region. Furthermore, Lord Colin Renfrew stops short of embracing Gimbutas' Great Goddess Hypothesis, but bowing to the recent archeological and DNA studies which have supported Gimbutas's theories, allowed that he had been wrong. Lord Colin Renfrew is the most prominent British scholar in ancient Archeology, and had been a staunch critic of Gimbutas's work for the past 30 years.
I find these kinds of discussions most fascinating, as recent archeological studies have discovered a profound civilization throughout the Danube region, embracing all of "Old Europe" as Gimbutas had claimed for the previous many decades. This "Old Europe" civilization apparently existed somewhere in the range of 6500 BC to 3500 BC, and covered the modern-day Balkans, parts of Anatolia, the Black Sea Coasts, and up into Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, to the shores of the Baltic Sea. Ancient Thracians developed Gold smithing, either independently, or as a world first, cultivating astonishing craftsmanship in stone, gold, ivory, and pottery. This civilization also was the first European "Civilization" out of the Stone Age, that is the Neolithic, and ruled the "Copper Age." These European peoples developed agriculture, textiles, metalworking, pottery, as well as pioneering new concepts in art and science, embracing various skills in astronomy, mathematics, engineering, and wide-spread agriculture. Furthermore, these prodigious people, unlike what many scholars have evidently believed for centuries, did not live as brute primitives, eking out a subsistance economy and lifestyle, no--these peoples established fantastic, highly productive cities of 10,000 to 50,000 people in many different locations. They also developed a robust seafaring tradition, crafting strong boats that allowed them to sail and travel throughout the rivers of Europe, the Black Sea Coasts, as well as the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. This great civilization of Old Europe existed before, and up to the establishment of the great Pyramids in Egypt. From what other scholars have explained as well, this civilization gradually disappeared from 3500 BC onwards.
I was reviewing a series on Ancient Civilizations, by Professor Bettany Hughes, a British scholar, who also maintained that the ancient Minoans were primarily a culture that worshipped one Great Goddess, or many goddesses, as their primary religious focus. There was also some kind of Minoan civil war, where a male god cult was burned and destroyed throughout the island of Crete after the apocolypse of the isle of Thera. The Minoans furthermore had few signs of weapons, warfare, no fortifications, or other signs of masculine glorification. The Minoans seem to have been conquered by the ancient Myceneans from ancient Greece. Gimbutas maintains that the Minoans of Crete, being farthest south, were the last edge of the civilization of Old Europe, and thus the most difficult to reach for the Indo-European conquerors from the north.
Gimbutas further maintains that this civilization of "Old Europe" was matrilineal, egalitarian, and worshipped the Great Goddess. This culture was highly productive, artistic, woman-centered, and peaceful. Women priestesses were the prime authority, and the powers of the Divine Female were exalted and celebrated as the center of religion. While not quite a "Matriarchy", this civilization embraced a culture that was far different from the warlike tribes of the northern steppes that brought with them a religion that focused on masculine and warlike Sky Gods, and a primacy of the warrior. Of course, some scholars maintain that such cultures of Old Europe were indeed Matriarchal. The evidence seems to show that they were at least Matrilineal, that is, inheritance of rights, goods, and lineage from the Mother, rather than the father. Gimbutas also claims that it was *women* that invented Agriculture, and the Domestication of animals. These considerations, as well as being the ones that gave birth to children, and raised children, as well as their mystical connections and practices to the ancient Great Goddess, gave women a central cultural, political, and economic role throughout society.
Then, however, the evil men from the North came, conquered, burning, and raping, and imposed a new way upon the peaceful, women-centered, Goddess-worshipping culture of Old Europe. Hyperbole aside, it is refreshing to discover that there was a robust, skilled, artistic civilization throughout much of Europe, even before the rise of the Pyramids. Apparently, it was the civilization of Old Europe, which was the first great civilization to lead from out of the Stone Age and into the Copper Age, and into the Bronze Age of Antiquity. Also, while before and concurrent with the Pyramids of Egypt, this fascinating civilization predated the civilizations of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome. I think it is also quite interesting that there seems to be evidence that the ancient Thracians, and the peoples of Old Europe, also developed their own system of WRITING, even before the Phoenicians.
I'm also amazed that, according to some of these scholars, the Ice Age did not end abrubtly back in 9000 BC, but rather, was a more gradual decline, with evidence of great glacier walls throughout northern and eastern Europe well into the 4000's and 3000's BC. There was apparently far more rainfall, vast forests, and more great rivers and lakes everywhere. This also means that the steppes were not as extensive at this point, and that not only was the climate very different, providing very much more forests, bogs, and foliage, but also the primordial animal life was very different than from what is found after 2500 BC. More Aurochs, lions, bears, great elks, and even mammoths. Some scholars suggesting that mammoths were still around on the fringes of northern Russia, islands along the coasts, and deep within the ancient forests of the often glaciarized north. Apparently, peoples of Old Europe living on the northern frontiers of the 4500 to 3500 BC time frame, having special dug-out quasi-subterranean houses built of earth, and also of mammoth bones and tusks--proving that Mammoths did not die out before 9000 BC, but continued to live on, and be hunted, and extensively used by the peoples of Old Europe before the arrival and invasions of the Kurgan Tribes. Yes, not just a few such houses, but *many*. There are villages and outposts all over western Russia, Eastern Poland, and the Ukraine regions supporting this. The animal life was very different during these many centuries, as there was more forest, more land water, far more rain, as well as rich grasses and fruit. Some steppe, but even the steppe was more vibrant, and not as dry and barren as it would become after 2500 BC, and become the harsh landscape that we are more familiar with through history.
From what I have seen, there are scholars in Hungary and Bulgaria working on translating these ancient writings, scrolls, and skin writing from the languages of the peoples of Old Europe, before the arrival or shortly after the arrival of the Indo Europeans. Also according to Gimbutas, there were several waves of invasions by the Indo-Europeans, spread out over 1200 to 1500 years, basically from 3500 to 2000 BC. So there is also some interesting blending of culture and knowledge between the Indo-Europeans and the culture of Old Europe, for some time, before new waves of invaders came in and conquered, and imposed severe changes. There is some evidence that Indo European merchants and traders, as well as mercenaries, came in first, and traded, and intermarried with the local women, gradually establishing new lines of heirarchical rule and classes. Then, more and more Indo European tribes came in as conquerors. One scholar explained that they think the region had five times or more of the annual rainfall that it currently has in the region. A much greener, more fertile area of Europe. Also of note, further west, and north, the Old Europe peoples there as well as any Indo European tribes were slower to develop, because the land was more forested, more mountainous, and colder, being locked more in with ice walls. This seems to be why the agricultural revolution began with greater strength in the Balkans and the Danube regions.
I'm kind of frustrated that much of this stuff was discovered and discussed 30, 40, 50, 100 years ago--but was mocked, derided, and dismissed, apparently until only the last decade or so, where "mainstream" academia has embraced the idea that, "Yeah, there was a sophisticated Old Europe civilization, and it's turning all of our old ideas on their head. We were wrong."
Advanced Goldsmithing? Fine metalworking and smithing techniques? Diverse textiles and pottery techniques and artistry? Large cities? Shipbuilding, river and sea trade? Peaceful societies of Goddess worshippers? Aurochs, giant lions, bears, elks, bisons, and even mammoths? WTF you know? It is all quite different from the Sumerian-Egyptian-Greek-Roman foundation that is typical in our cultural education. I think there is some fascinating historical concepts to chew on here. Certainly changing our academic perceptions of how Europe developed, and all the different things going on--all *BEFORE* Greece and Rome.
Game-wise, I think there are some very cool elements that can be embraced as far as world-building, establishment of agriculture, art, treasures, different animals and technology--as well as religious, social and political development. I've seen some of these fine gold masks and golden animals and stuff, horns, drinking vessels, and so on crafted by the peoples of Old Europe, circa 4500 to 3500 BC. It's mind-blowing. I've personally seen many Egyptian treasures, though the treasures of Old Europe prove that they had a lot going on there as well, apart from and distinct from what the folks in Egypt were doing. Great stuff to explore, for certain!
Have any of you studied this kind of stuff, my friends? What do you think of the different archeological and historical breakthroughs that have apparently been made during just the last 10 to 20 years?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I have studied the recent DNA results (living & dead), which show 3 settlement waves in post Ice Age Europe:
Western Hunter Gatherers, descended from people widespread across Eurasia - during the height of the last Ice Age they survived in refugia eg along the southern European coast then expanded north ca 9000 ybp following the end of the Younger Dryas.
Early European Farmers - no evidence they were matriarchal, of course genetics can't show this. They came from Anatolia and with the advantage of farming giving vastly higher population density spread across Europe around 7000 ybp. They seem to have wiped out the hunter gatherers completely.
About 5000 ybp the Indo-European/Aryan pastoralists came from the steppes of eastern Europe with wagons and oxen. Genetically they were a mix of Ancient North Eurasian from north-central Eurasia (ANE genes are also found in the native Americans/Amerindians) and population closely related to the old Western Hunter Gatherers; some went south to Iran & India, some invaded Europe. In northern Europe they pretty much wiped out the EEF on the north German plain, but in southern Europe the populations today are more mixed.
Going by the genetics the blond beast 'Aryans' were if anything rather less fully genocidal than the Early European Farmers, the supposed peaceful goddess worshippers. Today the population of upland Sardinia remains pure EEF, and there is still substantial EEF ancestry across southern Europe. It's possible Basque, a language isolate, is descended from an EEF language, but this is speculative.
Quote from: S'mon;1072628I have studied the recent DNA results (living & dead), which show 3 settlement waves in post Ice Age Europe:
Western Hunter Gatherers, descended from people widespread across Eurasia - during the height of the last Ice Age they survived in refugia eg along the southern European coast then expanded north ca 9000 ybp following the end of the Younger Dryas.
Early European Farmers - no evidence they were matriarchal, of course genetics can't show this. They came from Anatolia and with the advantage of farming giving vastly higher population density spread across Europe around 7000 ybp. They seem to have wiped out the hunter gatherers completely.
About 5000 ybp the Indo-European/Aryan pastoralists came from the steppes of eastern Europe with wagons and oxen. Genetically they were a mix of Ancient North Eurasian from north-central Eurasia (ANE genes are also found in the native Americans/Amerindians) and population closely related to the old Western Hunter Gatherers; some went south to Iran & India, some invaded Europe. In northern Europe they pretty much wiped out the EEF on the north German plain, but in southern Europe the populations today are more mixed.
Going by the genetics the blond beast 'Aryans' were if anything rather less fully genocidal than the Early European Farmers, the supposed peaceful goddess worshippers. Today the population of upland Sardinia remains pure EEF, and there is still substantial EEF ancestry across southern Europe. It's possible Basque, a language isolate, is descended from an EEF language, but this is speculative.
Greetings!
Hey there, S'mon! Cool stuff! You mentioned Sardinia. You know, I've heard that the ancient Sardinians had a really intereting culture, too. Evidently, they had some interesting pottery traditions, and extensive sea-going trade all along the Italian coast, and up into southern France and North-eastern Spain. They seem to have had some pretty solid stone fortifications as well. I think they at first resisted the Carthaginians, and then gradually intermixed with them to a limited extent. Their religion...have you discovered anything about the ancient Sardinian religion, S'mon? It's pretty amazing how the Sardinians maintained themselves through Carthage, the Roman Empire, and up to our current times. Does that blow your mind? I saw some scholar talking about how their genetics have remained largely "pure" over the centuries, and as you mentioned, their language is still somewhat intact. I read somewhere where later on, the Sardinians resisted the Carthaginians and the Romans fiercely, and I guess the Romans just decided to live peacefully with them. Which seems really odd, knowing what we do about the Romans, you know? How the hell did the Sardinians manage to *not* assimilate? They evidently didn't intermarry too much, and they maintained their language? WTF, S'mon? LOL. How did they do that, you know?
I always figured the Indo-Europeans moved into Europe. That doesn't surprise me. Can you imagine riding into Europe at such a time? The whole place must have been very different, and then these different peoples already living there. There languages were different--it makes me wonder, how did they manage to communicate? No translators around, after all. LOL.
I have always been taught the same Aryan migration/invasion thing too. Part of them came west, going into Anatolia, while others went further north, into western Russia and Poland. Meanwhile, another branch went into Persia, and still yet, another branch went into northern India. What is this controversy I have heard about in India, that the "Aryan Invasion" theory has been debunked? WTF? Since when, and by whom? Besides written scholarship, my own university studies reflecting this theory, Professor Michael Wood--he's from your neighborhood--in his Story of India series, which he produced just a few years ago--he also embraces the Aryan Invasion theory, supporting it by the Vedas, the caste system, the Hindu religion, and the Sanskrit language, with detailed parallels with other Indo European languages. His remarks lined up with everything I have studied over here, so I thought, well, that seems pretty well established. Where the hell do these...Aryan Deniers come from? Evidently, they claim the Aryan Theory is all a "Colonial Invention" imposed on them by the White British, because dark Indians could never have created such a vast civilization and culture, it had to come from outside India. I'm like, WTF? That isn't really what the Aryan Theory is about. No where does it detract from native, Dravidian accomplishments and contributions. Besides, it isn't like India, especially northern India, hasn't been invaded by a dozen other cultures over the last two thousand years, so what's the problem with accepting that the Aryans also invaded and brought culture and religious influence into India? Hell, the Greeks, the Persians, the Kushans, the Arabs, the Mongols, all came and hung out for several centuries, you know? I'm not seeing what the hate for the ancient Aryans is for. Then again, I'm wondering, if the Aryan Theory has been "debunked" as these Indian scholars claim--at least some of them--because other Indian scholars seem quite gracious in accepting the Aryan Theory just fine--I haven't ever heard *any* western, non-Indian scholar claim that the Aryan Theory has been "debunked" now, or any time in the past. You hear anything about this kind of thing, S'mon?
Yeah, I'm not sold on the "Matriarchy" theory, either. One of my professors--an Anthropologist--he was a student of Gimbutas when she was alive and teaching at UCLA. He told me she was brilliant, very gifted, and contributed a huge amount of scholarship...but she was also controversial, and he wasn't sure of her "Matriarchal" theory, either, though he did allow that Matrilineal customs are extensively found throughout quasi-primitive cultures, even today. He admired and respected Gimbutas, though he told me he wouldn't as a scholar and a scientist, die on the hill of screaming that Old Europe was formed around a Matriarchy. LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Re the Dravidians, they also seem to have been lighter skinned Caucasian invaders into India from the nw. Likely they brought agriculture in with the early Indus river valley civilisation. There is a very common sequence also seen in Africa and the Americas where farmers totally displace hunter gatherers then are partially displaced by pastoralists.
Quote from: SHARK;1072627Greetings!
Well, well. Apparently, about a year ago, at some great seminar held in Chicago for Historians, Anthropologists and Archeologists, Lord Colin Renfrew conceded that Dr. Marija Gimbutas had been right about her Kurgan Theory, and that his own "Anatolian Hypothosis" had been wrong.
SHARK
I have been following her research and quoting her books since around 2000 or so when I accidentally discovered her archaeology research, while I was doing research on ancient farming techniques and crop yields for D&D. I wish she were still alive, because I would buy her dinner anytime, and would have really enjoyed sharing an evening and learning more about her research, i.e. discoveries that she didn't put in her books. The style and description of that early peaceful EEF civilization (Pre-Kurgan) what she calls the
Karanov Culture after the village where she did the archaeology dig. As far as I can tell, it was the closest civilization to the legendary
"Garden of Eden" as we knew it. This matriarchal society of people lived in scattered clans and families in mostly open wilderness. They built beautiful homes on hillsides overlooking rich and fertile European Valleys, and did not have any organized militia, government, or military. They built these gorgeous Neolithic stone circles, that i suspect was very much used as temporary meeting places and festival locations for the nomadic peoples. Yes, there were farmers, but all the evidence points to a nomadic mixed gatherer/hunter/farming civilization, that only later, after the Kurgan invasion settled into permanent agricultural settlements. All the indications show that the Karanov would settle temporarily into an area, hunt and farm until game became scarce, and then the clan would move on into a new unspoiled river valley and start again, later returning to an earlier river valley where they had previously planted crops, to harvest their earlier agricultural work , after the population level of the game level in that earlier settled valley had returned. They traveled on foot and did not use mounts and portage animals until after the invasions of the Kurgan Steppe warriors. They also armed themselves and began fortifying their settlements. For a time though, living with these people was like living in Eden.
More notes on my earlier research for D&D, and Dr. Gimbutas work regarding this in the old rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroups here;
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.frp.dnd/vdtQZu_itRE/ZlSTiCcsRrEJ;context-place=searchin/rec.games.frp.dnd/farming%7Csort:date
Lots of interesting speculation here, maybe a bit exaggerated. Large cities before the Minoans in Europe, and scrolls with writing before Egypt? Never heard of this? But, sure, I think you will find lots of fascinating things going on in Europe at the time if you dig into it. I still think that if you try to find something comparable to Ancient Egypt in the mid 3rd millennium BC, you will find relatively little. When Europeans started studying those cultures, it was not for lack of trying to find similar things in Europe (BTW my latest readings indicate that Egypt was not really behind Sumer either). But yes, it seems like newer studies show Europe might have been very early in the development of bronze for instance.
As for the Indo-European Aryan invasion of India; something like that definitely did happen, but maybe slightly less dramatic than previously thought. The Aryans (that is, the Indo-European people who actually called themselves that) seem to have come from Afghanistan, as their hymns actually refer to flora and topography of that region. Some people have tried to make it into a peaceful invasion, but that seems a bit too rosy for me. Sometimes they clashed with locals for sure. As you mention, several other invasions have come to India the same way. But yeah, people seem to try to bury the word "Aryan", because Hitler.
For some cool pre-historic stuff, also check out the finds at Predmosti, Czech Republic (25 000 years ago). These were some of the main mammoth-hunters in Europe. They were anatomically modern, and culturally modern (grave goods and the whole nine yards) but with a few weird Neanderthal-like features, like robust bones (though DNA shows relatively little evidence of any more Nenderthal DNA than normal in Europe). I imagine that the culture depicted in the movie "Alpha" is not too far off.
I also think that someone should make a B-movie about the fossil Flores "hobbits" in Indonesia. Imagine: tiny guys hunting miniature elephants and komodo dragons :D
Quote from: GameDaddy;1072640I have been following her research and quoting her books since around 2000 or so when I accidentally discovered her archaeology research, while I was doing research on ancient farming techniques and crop yields for D&D. I wish she were still alive, because I would buy her dinner anytime, and would have really enjoyed sharing an evening and learning more about her research, i.e. discoveries that she didn't put in her books. The style and description of that early peaceful EEF civilization (Pre-Kurgan) what she calls the Karanov Culture after the village where she did the archaeology dig. As far as I can tell, it was the closest civilization to the legendary "Garden of Eden" as we knew it. This matriarchal society of people lived in scattered clans and families in mostly open wilderness. They built beautiful homes on hillsides overlooking rich and fertile European Valleys, and did not have any organized militia, government, or military. They built these gorgeous Neolithic stone circles, that i suspect was very much used as temporary meeting places and festival locations for the nomadic peoples. Yes, there were farmers, but all the evidence points to a nomadic mixed gatherer/hunter/farming civilization, that only later, after the Kurgan invasion settled into permanent agricultural settlements. All the indications show that the Karanov would settle temporarily into an area, hunt and farm until game became scarce, and then the clan would move on into a new unspoiled river valley and start again, later returning to an earlier river valley where they had previously planted crops, to harvest their earlier agricultural work , after the population level of the game level in that earlier settled valley had returned. They traveled on foot and did not use mounts and portage animals until after the invasions of the Kurgan Steppe warriors. They also armed themselves and began fortifying their settlements. For a time though, living with these people was like living in Eden.
More notes on my earlier research for D&D, and Dr. Gimbutas work regarding this in the old rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroups here;
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.frp.dnd/vdtQZu_itRE/ZlSTiCcsRrEJ;context-place=searchin/rec.games.frp.dnd/farming%7Csort:date
I have my doubts about this account. How do they know it was a matriarchy, for starters, and are we sure they were so peaceful?
I say this because several cultures have been thought to be peaceful, only to turn out to be rather nasty upon further studies. The ancient Maya is a prime example (and they generally built few fortifications for some reason, but could be as brutal as any culture in history). Another one is the Minoan civilization, often thought to be peaceful and matriarchal, but this is untrue and doubtful respectively. Both of these seem to have practiced human sacrifice too.
Using 'civilisation' to refer to any culture, or to any culture with permanent settlements, tends to risk obscuring the very large gap between actual civilisations such as Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Assyria, Persia; and non-civilised societies such as northern Europe until the High Middle Ages.
I remember going to the British Museum many years ago to see the relics of "Anglo Saxon civilisation", mostly from Sutton Hoo. The best stuff the Anglo-Saxons had to offer. I pass through the vast monuments of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Assyria, I go upstairs - and there are these tiny pathetic bits and bobs, relics of a clearly barbaric society. I'm sure they had things going for them, but they were in no way comparable to the Civilisations.
Quote from: GameDaddy;1072640I have been following her research and quoting her books since around 2000 or so when I accidentally discovered her archaeology research, while I was doing research on ancient farming techniques and crop yields for D&D. I wish she were still alive, because I would buy her dinner anytime, and would have really enjoyed sharing an evening and learning more about her research, i.e. discoveries that she didn't put in her books. The style and description of that early peaceful EEF civilization (Pre-Kurgan) what she calls the Karanov Culture after the village where she did the archaeology dig. As far as I can tell, it was the closest civilization to the legendary "Garden of Eden" as we knew it. This matriarchal society of people lived in scattered clans and families in mostly open wilderness. They built beautiful homes on hillsides overlooking rich and fertile European Valleys, and did not have any organized militia, government, or military. They built these gorgeous Neolithic stone circles, that i suspect was very much used as temporary meeting places and festival locations for the nomadic peoples. Yes, there were farmers, but all the evidence points to a nomadic mixed gatherer/hunter/farming civilization, that only later, after the Kurgan invasion settled into permanent agricultural settlements. All the indications show that the Karanov would settle temporarily into an area, hunt and farm until game became scarce, and then the clan would move on into a new unspoiled river valley and start again, later returning to an earlier river valley where they had previously planted crops, to harvest their earlier agricultural work , after the population level of the game level in that earlier settled valley had returned. They traveled on foot and did not use mounts and portage animals until after the invasions of the Kurgan Steppe warriors. They also armed themselves and began fortifying their settlements. For a time though, living with these people was like living in Eden.
More notes on my earlier research for D&D, and Dr. Gimbutas work regarding this in the old rec.games.frp.dnd newsgroups here;
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.games.frp.dnd/vdtQZu_itRE/ZlSTiCcsRrEJ;context-place=searchin/rec.games.frp.dnd/farming%7Csort:date
Greetings!
Hello, GameDaddy! Outstanding! You know, Gimbutas also wrote some monumental works on the pagan Baltic Peoples, the Slavs, and other aspects of Eastern and south-eastern Europe. Of special note, apparently, she was the first scholar to ever produce such. Beforehand, it seems that everyone ignored the cultures of the Pagan Baltic peoples, and the Slavs. I think that the Karanov culture is quite interesting. Eden indeed, Gamedaddy! I do, however, question the rule of Matriarchy. I don't doubt that there was a significant status for women, but regardless of whatever status culturally, socially, or politically women may have, that does nothing for the raw, powerful status of men. Even if warfare was otherwise rare, can you imagine a community of women trying to farm? I think men's raw strength, physicality, and superior skills with tools--on that alone--would mitigate for at least a more balanced political dynamic than having a matriarchy would seem to indicate. Still, Gimbutas's theories exploring a society without heirarchy--and focused on women, and Goddess-centered religion seems intriguing.
I'm kind of reminded of how I had to take one of my professors to task for his jibbering about the "Cult of Domesticity" during the 1700 and 1800's in America, about how women were not allowed to work, and that they were beautiful, and fragile, and helpless, and creatures not to be taken seriously outside the realms of weaving, cooking, and childcare.
In my own family, I have records and testimony of family relatives out west during the 1800's. The women needed men, for certain. The men were the man of the house. True. But the idea that women were some helpless, fragile, inferior creature? I told my professor, do you know what rural farm-life was like on the frontier? To survive, to make the farm go, and keep 8 or 10 kids alive, the men and women had to both work very hard and long hours, each and every day to even have a chance of survival. When the man came in from a long day out in the fields, working the farmland, orchards, and chopping wood, he was exhausted. The woman? What had she been doing all day? Besides watching children, she was washing clothes; she was gathering eggs, tending to the chickens, pigs, and nearby cattle; she was cooking, working back and forth to keep the fire and stove going properly, to make sure the meals were done right; she was sewing, and mending clothing for everyone; the wife was canning, stomping on and preparing fruits and jams for the cellar; she also was chopping firewood, and keeping the stocks up; she would also tend to small repairs about the house. All the while, keeping a loaded shotgun close at hand. At the end of the day, the wife was utterly exhausted as well, just like her man. I hardly believe that after taking a bath, the two of them laying in bed together after making love, the husband would somehow believe in any way that his wife was fragile, helpless, and inferior. Different, for certain, but the whole "Cult of Domesticity" had to be more or less restricted as the priveleged philosophy of upper class, wealthy citizens living in Eastern cities. Those ideas would also have zero traction with the hard-working families toiling away in the urban working classes of the cities, let alone out on the harsh, wild frontier. My professor agreed, and promptly changed his lectures to reflect such distinctions.
I kind of see primitive, Neolithic cultures being organized in a similar, balanced manner. In a harsh, rugged environment, there isn't honestly much room for fancy "political" ideas. People are entirely too busy with working, breeding, caring for children, and enjoying a bit with the family and neighbors. Even though the technology is different, out west, you still see only a very basic law and political structure. The larger population, besides being suspicious and very independent, just didn't have much of a need for law or politics. So, I can see how in a primitive form, a Neolithic culture may have embraced similar ideas and perspectives. I do imagine though, as the quasi-settlement's populations became larger, 10,000 or more, they probably did need to develop more political organization, laws and such.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I have to admit I am finding this thread to be a very interesting read, especially as a fan of history.
This may be before the time discussed in the thread, but I've been thinking about ideas for a game with a Pleistocene-inspired setting, dealing with prehistoric man such as Cro-Magnon in Europe and the Paleo-Indians in the Americas.
Quote from: SHARK;1072627...Gimbutas further maintains that this civilization of "Old Europe" was matrilineal, egalitarian, and worshipped the Great Goddess. This culture was highly productive, artistic, woman-centered, and peaceful. ...
Quote from: Trond;1072646I have my doubts about this account. How do they know it was a matriarchy, for starters, and are we sure they were so peaceful?
I say this because several cultures have been thought to be peaceful, only to turn out to be rather nasty upon further studies. ....
They don't. Pure Speculation.
Combined with a lot of wishful thinking when "interpreting" artifacts they do not understand.
Without any written records it's all guess work.
Quote from: Trond;1072645Lots of interesting speculation here, maybe a bit exaggerated. Large cities before the Minoans in Europe, and scrolls with writing before Egypt? Never heard of this? But, sure, I think you will find lots of fascinating things going on in Europe at the time if you dig into it. I still think that if you try to find something comparable to Ancient Egypt in the mid 3rd millennium BC, you will find relatively little. When Europeans started studying those cultures, it was not for lack of trying to find similar things in Europe (BTW my latest readings indicate that Egypt was not really behind Sumer either). But yes, it seems like newer studies show Europe might have been very early in the development of bronze for instance.
As for the Indo-European Aryan invasion of India; something like that definitely did happen, but maybe slightly less dramatic than previously thought. The Aryans (that is, the Indo-European people who actually called themselves that) seem to have come from Afghanistan, as their hymns actually refer to flora and topography of that region. Some people have tried to make it into a peaceful invasion, but that seems a bit too rosy for me. Sometimes they clashed with locals for sure. As you mention, several other invasions have come to India the same way. But yeah, people seem to try to bury the word "Aryan", because Hitler.
For some cool pre-historic stuff, also check out the finds at Predmosti, Czech Republic (25 000 years ago). These were some of the main mammoth-hunters in Europe. They were anatomically modern, and culturally modern (grave goods and the whole nine yards) but with a few weird Neanderthal-like features, like robust bones (though DNA shows relatively little evidence of any more Nenderthal DNA than normal in Europe). I imagine that the culture depicted in the movie "Alpha" is not too far off.
I also think that someone should make a B-movie about the fossil Flores "hobbits" in Indonesia. Imagine: tiny guys hunting miniature elephants and komodo dragons :D
Greetings!
Hello Trond! Yes, cities does sound fantastic, doesn't it? Still, according to several scholars that were discussing such in several different videos that I watched claimed that the peoples of Old Europe had urban settlements of 10,000 to 15,000 people, and some may have been up to 50,000 people. Apparently, such claims are based on the archeological discoveries of houses stretching for acres and acres. You know how they do all that math, measuring agriculture, estimated people living in each house and so on. As a historian, I find it also incredible to believe, though I also confess that due to the arrogant prejudice of "Modernism"--over the last 500 years, the prevailing wisdom that we are the most advanced, and that our ancient ancestors were hopelessly primitive and inferior. The more I have studied the ancient world, the more I have been convinced of that prevailing arrogance, and convinced that our ancient ancestors were far more advanced, and far more capable than we have ever imagined. From this, in addition to geo-people showing that the climate was much different, food yields were far more prodigious and varied, as well as rich animal populations, far greater rainfall--I have to confess that while incredible, such achievements would be theoretically *possible*. I have learned that it is far better to error on the side of allowing the incredible, the prodigious, instead of dismissal.
Of course, as GameDaddy mentioned, in this far different world, with agriculture booming, who knows what these people's life expectancy was, their breeding capabilities, and their urban planning? From what I have seen, they organized enormous agriculture-based communities, rows and rows of thatched houses, wattle and daub, houses of stone foundations, wood, thatch. Simple, easy houses that could be quite large, easy to make and repair, and yet sturdy and rugged at the same time. It seems, if you can imagine this, instead of "cities" as we commonly understand them, they were linked agricultural villages all grouped together, extending for great distances hither and anon. Lots of hunting and gathering going on, as well as agriculture, farming, orchards, and fishing along numerous rivers, providing an environment of incredible abundance. Occasional temple-like structures, stone monoliths, a greathouse for storing or other organization, a few workshops, and then more and more houses, going in all directions. So, beyond such structures, lots of houses, not really much in the form of what we would call "Urban Architecture"--so also distinctly different from what the Minoans were later doing. I suppose such is possible, as it would reflect a different cultural and resource management mind-set. Try to find some videos on Old Europe; Thracians; Danube Civilization; Vinca and Trippallia cultures; Gold Smithing in Bulgaria and the Danube regions in ancient times. Very interesting stuff.
In addition, the scroll thing. Apparently they discovered writing in the ancient Thracian and Danube cultures, again, before the Phoenicians. Writing on gold tablets and strips, extensive heiroglyphics similar to the Egyptian, but different; the scholars maintained that their research shows that the cultures of Old Europe had developed their own language and a written form of their language before the Phoenicians and the Egyptians. The scholars talked about some words showing Indo-European influence, while most of such seems entirely different from, and pre-dating the arrival of the Indo-Europeans into Old Europe. I don't know. I'm not a linguist, or an anthropologist. LOL. I find it fascinating that they may have been developing their own written language, even before the ancient Phoenicians, though. Something similar to the early heiroglyphic writing of the ancient Egyptians! That is just mind-blowing, you know? Of course, such speculations do not mean that they are correct, but the possibilities! What if such were true? It is staggering! I'm blown away though, by the evident sophistication and depth of this Old Europe civilization. As I said with S'mon, while they may not have reached some uber-civilized level, the evidence certainly teases that they were far more advanced and sophisticated than we have previously believed. This is the first European civilization literally out of the Stone Age, and dominating the Copper Age.
Mammoths in Czechoslovakia? I love mammoths! That's awesome, Trond! I'm also persuaded that mammoths--unlike what many experts have claimed for generations--mammoths may not have died out in the Ice Age of 10,000 years ago, but seem to have survived on far longer. The rows of houses built out of mammoth bones and mammoth tusks! Imagine, whole villages made of houses like that! LOL. Apparently, that is what has been found, which according to the dating, shows that these human populations--in the 6500 BC and down era--were certainly hunting and gathering, but also getting into agriculture in a big way. Along the way, I suppose progressively, they also were still hunting mammoths! And remember, there were still herds of the gigantic prehistoric Aurochs around even in Germany during the 16th century, when they were finally killed off.
Aurochs were like, hippo-sized, furry cattle, with enormous horns, extending from either side. We also know that the ancient Romans, way back in the day, had regular contct with the immense Aurochs, so..maybe further north, and north-east, way up there, there were still small herds of mammoths moving about? LOL. I don't think the mammoths survived until the Roman times, but with the culture of Old Europe, were talking about several thousand years *before* the rise of Rome. (750's BC). So, on that premise, *shrugs*--maybe the people of Old Europe still had access to mammoths, especially further to the north east, and especially so in the 6000's BC, as opposed to the 3,000's BC. Incredible stuff, Trond!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Trond;1072646I have my doubts about this account. How do they know it was a matriarchy, for starters, and are we sure they were so peaceful?
I say this because several cultures have been thought to be peaceful, only to turn out to be rather nasty upon further studies. The ancient Maya is a prime example (and they generally built few fortifications for some reason, but could be as brutal as any culture in history). Another one is the Minoan civilization, often thought to be peaceful and matriarchal, but this is untrue and doubtful respectively. Both of these seem to have practiced human sacrifice too.
Greetings!
Indeed, Trond. I am also sceptical of all this mushy, peaceful cultures talk as well. However, noting that human sacrifices were embraced, such does not preclude the society over all as not being peaceful and not warlike. In Professor Bettany Hughes, she maintains that in her show about the Minoans--produced in recent years--that the Minoans did seem to have limited human sacrifice, but she also explains that there are no fortifications, anywhere. Nor are there armaments and weaponry, nor are there any artistic glorification of weapons, warfare, warriors, anywhere in Minoan civilization. No weapons or armour in any grave-goods either. That backs up and supports what Professor Gimbutas claimed decades ago, that the Minoans were an egalitarian, peaceful, women-focused society that worshipped the Great Goddess. Professor Bettany Hughes also agrees, that women and priestesses were the main focus, and were immensely powerful and influential. The Minoans, she claims, while they may have worshipped one Greater Goddess, it is at least certain that their religious belief was absolutely dominated by the worship of multiple goddesses. There are no significant signs of male gods and male worship until the final decades of the Minoan civilization, largely after the eruption of the Island of Thera.
Interesting, though, huh?
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Hi Shark!
Yes this is indeed very interesting stuff. That does not quite fit what I have found in my own readings though. I do have some books on the Minoans where they do point out their more warlike nature too. As far as weapons go, Minoans were known to make the so-called "bronze age rapiers" (https://www.flickr.com/photos/kiminoa/6327075014), daggers, and helmets made from boar tusks. Warfare might have been mostly small-scale, perhaps between cities. Or maybe even more like family/clan vendettas like we see on Crete still today.
There's no doubt that goddesses were important to them, BUT also notice that bull that pops up everywhere in their art?
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fandrewgough.co.uk%2FP2001.jpg&f=1
It is also found in some very early Anatolian art, and the Mycenaeans (influenced by Crete) also depict the same bull at about the same time. Later Greeks also associated Crete with bull-imagery (e.g. the Minotaur). And also note that in later Greek mythology Zeus could transform into a bull. He did so on Crete no less.
https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F736x%2F3d%2F3b%2F38%2F3d3b38c5c86163f7c904f9dcf22d284c.jpg&f=1
So it is very possible that the Minans did indeed have a male god, depicted in the shape of a bull, and that this was basically the same bull-god seen elsewhere around the Mediterranean. For all we know, it might actually have been the Minoan equivalent of Zeus.
One more weird and interesting thing about Minoans; their dress emphasized the sexes more than most. The women wore dresses that exposed the breasts and emphasized the hips, and the men wore some sort of codpiece. Some of the women were no doubt powerful, as high priestesses or queens. Did they have kings? Who knows, but the later Greeks suggested that they did. There is one slightly tricky thing about interpreting too much from religious images alone; if we do this with Ancient Athens for instance, we could easily get the impression that women were much more powerful than they actually were, given all the depictions of their patron goddess Athena etc.
Quote from: S'mon;1072660Using 'civilisation' to refer to any culture, or to any culture with permanent settlements, tends to risk obscuring the very large gap between actual civilisations such as Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Assyria, Persia; and non-civilised societies such as northern Europe until the High Middle Ages.
I remember going to the British Museum many years ago to see the relics of "Anglo Saxon civilisation", mostly from Sutton Hoo. The best stuff the Anglo-Saxons had to offer. I pass through the vast monuments of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Assyria, I go upstairs - and there are these tiny pathetic bits and bobs, relics of a clearly barbaric society. I'm sure they had things going for them, but they were in no way comparable to the Civilisations.
There is some truth to this, but there is also some bias in terms of building material and similar. Build a house out of stone and its remains will last a long time, while building a house of wood will leave little trace. Thousands of years later, people might judge that the person in the wood house was a pathetic cretin compared to the person in the stone house. But at time time, the wood house might have supported a better standard of living than the stone house - so who was really more sophisticated? Likewise, elaborate graves are great archeological finds that reveal a lot - but judging societies by how elaborate their graves are can be deceptive.
This narrow thinking can lead to major misconceptions, like the supposed great mystery of Stonehenge and other sites. Because they rarely used stone, many thought that the society around Stonehenge were unsophisticated primitives - and it was a great mystery that they could arrange the stones. But it is possible to have an organized, powerful, and thriving society without significant stone structures. That people consider it a deep mystery and suggest aliens or the supernatural reveals flaws in our thinking rather than anything about the site.
About writing - there is the controversy in interpretation of the Vinca symbols in the Danube Valley, which some claim may be the oldest writing system discovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin%C4%8Da_symbols
Hopefully improved techniques and more discoveries will lead to better understanding of the Vinca symbols.
Quote from: SHARK;1072670That backs up and supports what Professor Gimbutas claimed decades ago, that the Minoans were an egalitarian, peaceful, women-focused society that worshipped the Great Goddess. Professor Bettany Hughes also agrees, that women and priestesses were the main focus, and were immensely powerful and influential. The Minoans, she claims, while they may have worshipped one Greater Goddess, it is at least certain that their religious belief was absolutely dominated by the worship of multiple goddesses. There are no significant signs of male gods and male worship until the final decades of the Minoan civilization, largely after the eruption of the Island of Thera.
I know little about the Minoans, but I think there's a tendency to project modern interpretations onto matrilineal / egalitarian societies, esp. that more egalitarian means more like modern feminism. I think in particular about the Haudenosaunee (aka Iroquois) - who were matrilineal and relatively egalitarian between the sexes. They had strong gender roles, but women had positions of respect. Unlike the Minoans, though, they were warlike, and they had a mix of male and female gods.
The lack of fortifications and the lack of glorified weaponry is significant, but it doesn't mean that they didn't have sacrifices, for example.
Quote from: jhkim;1072704This narrow thinking can lead to major misconceptions, like the supposed great mystery of Stonehenge and other sites. Because they rarely used stone, many thought that the society around Stonehenge were unsophisticated primitives - and it was a great mystery that they could arrange the stones. But it is possible to have an organized, powerful, and thriving society without significant stone structures. That people consider it a deep mystery and suggest aliens or the supernatural reveals flaws in our thinking rather than anything about the site.
Fair enough - and I'm not totally against the view that there have been several relatively advanced pre-Classical Era cultures in Europe, judging by what we know, with relatively high density populations at times - parts of the Scottish Highlands may have had more people several thousand years ago than today. I also think there's plenty of evidence for several waves of violent invasions.
Quote from: S'mon;1072660Using 'civilisation' to refer to any culture, or to any culture with permanent settlements, tends to risk obscuring the very large gap between actual civilisations such as Greece, Rome, Egypt, Babylon, China, India, Assyria, Persia; and non-civilised societies such as northern Europe until the High Middle Ages.
I remember going to the British Museum many years ago to see the relics of "Anglo Saxon civilisation", mostly from Sutton Hoo. The best stuff the Anglo-Saxons had to offer. I pass through the vast monuments of ancient Egypt, Greece, Rome and Assyria, I go upstairs - and there are these tiny pathetic bits and bobs, relics of a clearly barbaric society. I'm sure they had things going for them, but they were in no way comparable to the Civilisations.
Greetings!
LOL! S'mon! Indeed. I'm reminded of the *awe* that Celtic and Germanic barbarians--nobles of course, either taken as hostages/guests by the Romans, or as legitimate allies--felt when they first experienced the city of Rome. Heated floors? Glass Mirrors? Hot and cold bathhouses? Fine clothing? Finely cooked, and spiced hot food? Fresh water piped in at will? Yeah, it all blew their minds!
In the primary texts, as well as historical commentary, there's often this discussion of the cultural tension, and the barbarian's growing resentment over the Roman's *cultural* influence over their native societies. In the end, the barbarians essentially lost. I pondered why? Having some notable experience with women, I reflected on the potential social pressure placed upon the barbarian tribe's chieftains and warrior elite--both by the general populace, but most especially the women.
Imagine the German and Celtic wives chattering to their husbands at night about the Roman settlement's bathhouses, running water, and other fineries. Think about the stupid importance of having routine access to fucking *soap*. Hot water to bathe in, and so much more. I recall listening to one scholar--I think it was either Simon Schama, or Michael Wood, musing on how persuasive the mercantile and cultural influence of Roman technology and commerce must have represented. Of course, the barbarians *could* access much of this through long, difficult trade, or even through their own efforts--but all of that represented much more expense, effort, and difficulty--and even when achieved, was largely limited to the aristocracy. Bowing to Rome meant that *everyone* could enjoy hot and cold water, fresher, hot food, clothing, perfume, and so on much easier, more reliably, and on a mass scale never dreamed of by the barbarians. Trade and cooperation with Rome really *did* mean that your entire standard of living took an enormous jump upwards. I watched a video of some historians talking about Cologne, Trier, and some German cities--Roman cities--on the Rhine border. New excavations showing vast bathhouses, neat houses, plumbing, and so on--they said during peaceful times, there was a constant flow of barbarian peoples in and out of the Roman frontier--marrying Roman Legionnaires, trading, enjoying the Roman cities, as the Romans did not restrict them, and in fact encouraged them--how all of that must have had a huge impact not only on every barbarian that experienced such--but also how they, in turn, influenced their families back across the Rhine.
Going down the checklist of enormous attributes of Roman civilization, I then looked into the various political struggles throughout the barbarian world, some nobles bitterly arguing for resistance against Rome, with others demanding that the tribes submit to Rome, and become friends of Rome. I could just imagine the arguments going on around the hearth fires in the barbarian camps! I can also see how insidiously the Roman luxury undermined the barbarian's will to resist. When you think about how the barbarians were actually living, compared to what was available to even an ordinary Roman, the overwhelming feeling of such an enormous conflict can be seen, and at the same time, an incomprehensibly powerful seduction on so many levels to embrace joining the Romans. Powerful stuff!
"I like taking hot baths and smelling nice! Don't you want me to smell nice? Don't you want me to be clean????" LOL. I can also see why so many Celtic and German girls were so eager to marry a Roman Legionnaire. It instantly raised their social status, besides entirely changing their entire way of life and standard of living.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Jaeger;1072665They don't. Pure Speculation.
Combined with a lot of wishful thinking when "interpreting" artifacts they do not understand.
Without any written records it's all guess work.
Greetings!
Yeah, the conclusions seem to be quite a stretch, to my mind. However, Gimbutas was also an expert in anthropology, and art history, so she pioneered various works in understanding artifacts and objects--and the information gleaned from them--apart from actual written texts. I think there is *some* merit to this--after all, anthropologists and archeologists have deciphered a whole lot of information from cultures precisely through such methods. Of course, there is an importance to not merely what is *said* but also by what is *not said*. In the field of Communications, we can see some of this borne out by how somewhere like 65% of all communication between people is *non-verbal*. So it seems there is some merit to gleaning knowledge from symbols, art, artifacts, physical buildings, tools, and so on--by what is found, and by what *isn't found*. I think that's where they are coming from with this stuff.
In the matriarchy thing, they cite the absence of weapons, armour, no signs of fighting, no glorification of warrior culture--found in so many other cultures--and the prominence of women in all of the art work, female symbology, as well as burial goods and such, all showing not merely noble women, but ordinary women, enjoying high status, participating in activities along side men, and more--all of which is *different* from what they have found in male-dominated, warlike, "patriarchal" societies. I can see how women would in such a culture have a higher status, or be more egalitarian, though I don't see how that means that men would somehow not be politically involved. Why would women have all of the power? The supposition that the culture as a whole was egalitarian, women centered, so therefore everyone embraced such, so there was apparently no warfare, and no need for warriors, and they had a society without heirarchy. Hmmm...yeah. It does seem quite utopian to me. LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: jhkim;1072704I know little about the Minoans, but I think there's a tendency to project modern interpretations onto matrilineal / egalitarian societies, esp. that more egalitarian means more like modern feminism.
Oh, yes, there's a lot of projection going on. It is often striking how people see a lot of these "peaceful" and "egalitarian" societies in cultures that existed before writing, or whose writings are hard to decipher. Then, the moment we understand the sources and history a bit better, they are gone.
But I think the Minoans have been particularly attractive to people projecting their own views on them. And I can see why, they are enigmatic in many ways. The Maya is an example of a culture in which the rosy view has been completely debunked.
There is a whole shitload of ridiculous pseudo-scholarship going on here.
We still have ZERO proof that all those fat-"venus" statues weren't children's dolls or some kind of magic ward against morbid obesity or ugly and dangerous feminists.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073266There is a whole shitload of ridiculous pseudo-scholarship going on here.
We still have ZERO proof that all those fat-"venus" statues weren't children's dolls or some kind of magic ward against morbid obesity or ugly and dangerous feminists.
Greetings!
LOL! Don't you just love the fat "Venus" statues? LOL.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: RPGPundit;1073266There is a whole shitload of ridiculous pseudo-scholarship going on here.
We still have ZERO proof that all those fat-"venus" statues weren't children's dolls or some kind of magic ward against morbid obesity or ugly and dangerous feminists.
There's no context whatsoever other than "we found this here and the strata reveals it was buried at this time." Damn things could be stone age porn for all we know.