European Civilization built ond Proto-Indo-European and Semitic foundations

[APO276]

The Greeks who were Indo-European were farmers. The Scythians were nomads / pastoralists who lived in chariots and they were not Indo-European. Scythians being 'Eastern Iranic' speakers is just a speculation based on no actual evidence.
In the same lands that were inhabited by Scythians in the Middle Ages (from 860 AD) we find the Turkic-speaking Pechenegs. They also lived in chariots. They didn't have houses, they moved with them because the chariots were their homes. They were an 'ethnos fereoikon'. Ethnos = group of people, and 'fereoikon', from 'fero' = carry and 'oikos' = home

[9.12] Πατζινάκαι δὲ παρὰ τὸν ἀπόπλουν ἐλλοχήσαντες, ἔθνος νομαδικὸν τοῦτο καὶ πολυάνθρωπον, φθειροφάγον τε καὶ φερέοικον, ἐπ΄ἀμαξῶν ὡς τὰ πολλὰ βιωτεῦον, σχεδὸν διέφθειραν ἅπαντας, καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν Σφενδοσθλάβον τοῖς λοιποῖς συγκατέσφαξαν.

The same things that are said by Herodotus about the Scythians, were said by Leo the Deacon (born ca. 950) about the Pechenegs. They were the same people or closely related.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Interesting and maybe possible, but what would be the finds in these archeological areas to proof it was not?. I guess for someone to propose that something is a myth has to be justified with some sort of evidence. No? What we know for sure is that there were hundreds of female figurines and statues excavated from these sites and also the temples of Malta. What would be the evidence for a counter theory. Just saying its a myth is not enough.

I'm not an expert at all. I've read a few pages from books and articles online, and I've read archaeologist say that the Neolithic Europeans Gimbutus claimed were matriarchal were clearly male-lead based on archaeological evidence. I'm turned off by Gimbutus, because I read in Latin class a few years ago a narrative about the pre-history of Greece inspired or written by Gimbutus. It demonizes Steppe people and men in general, even though there were just as many Yamnaya women as men . That's why my post was angry.

I don't buy into labeling so many millions of humans who live across thousands of miles and thousands of years, such as Neolithic Europeans, into a simplistic label. Maybe some of their cultures were matriarchal and peacful. I don't like putting them all under the same category though. So, i'd rather you say *some* Neolithic Europeans were matriarchal.

Of course I do not agree. Human population are / were not always under a state of war. One probably will find a long stretches of time when war was not necessary in many areas of the globe and only initiated mostly in time of environmental distress which would effect food production and water availability. That could also be a result of over population besides other factors besides the greed factor to make a particular state or domain richer by plunder or piracy, but it is not something done by default. A continuous war is only something from the fragment of ones imagination.

I'm not saying humans are always at war. I'm saying toughness or whatever you want to call(physical strength, mental strength/toughness) correlates with leadership and power. People compete for leadership and power, and toughness is how you get it. In this case men are the best candidates to the be the leaders for humans. IMO, humans are always competing, we just rarely compete with violence. However the same rules aptly for our competition as with other animals. A big difference is we use talking much more. The most charming people will often be the most powerful. However, especially with men, if the charming can't defend themselves either with violence or money or something else valued in society(powerful allies/friends), they'll lose their power and respect.

Furthermore, women are attracted to men who are leaders, powerful, and have resources in society. It's in their DNA. This is not the case for men, they aren't anymore attracted to powerful women.

 

[Milan]

I'm not an expert at all. I've read a few pages from books and articles online, and I've read archaeologist say that the Neolithic Europeans Gimbutus claimed were matriarchal were clearly male-lead based on archaeological evidence. I'm turned off by Gimbutus, because I read in Latin class a few years ago a narrative about the pre-history of Greece inspired or written by Gimbutus. It demonizes Steppe people and men in general, even though there were just as many Yamnaya women as men . That's why my post was angry.

You sure that's demonization?
Many want to identify as glorious warriors instead of peaceful farmers who were also led by woman
What is irony to me, if the Balkan population is at least partly descendant of this people,I will always choose womans to lead us thought.
It's about change anyway

 

[Milan]

The Greeks who were Indo-European were farmers. The Scythians were nomads / pastoralists who lived in chariots and they were not Indo-European. Scythians being 'Eastern Iranic' speakers is just a speculation based on no actual evidence.

That is true in reality for all Indo-Europeans probably.

 

[Yetos]

I'm not an expert at all. I've read a few pages from books and articles online, and I've read archaeologist say that the Neolithic Europeans Gimbutus claimed were matriarchal were clearly male-lead based on archaeological evidence. I'm turned off by Gimbutus, because I read in Latin class a few years ago a narrative about the pre-history of Greece inspired or written by Gimbutus. It demonizes Steppe people and men in general, even though there were just as many Yamnaya women as men . That's why my post was angry.

I don't buy into labeling so many millions of humans who live across thousands of miles and thousands of years, such as Neolithic Europeans, into a simplistic label. Maybe some of their cultures were matriarchal and peacful. I don't like putting them all under the same category though. So, i'd rather you say *some* Neolithic Europeans were matriarchal.



I'm not saying humans are always at war. I'm saying toughness or whatever you want to call(physical strength, mental strength/toughness) correlates with leadership and power. People compete for leadership and power, and toughness is how you get it. In this case men are the best candidates to the be the leaders for humans. IMO, humans are always competing, we just rarely compete with violence. However the same rules aptly for our competition as with other animals. A big difference is we use talking much more. The most charming people will often be the most powerful. However, especially with men, if the charming can't defend themselves either with violence or money or something else valued in society(powerful allies/friends), they'll lose their power and respect.

Furthermore, women are attracted to men who are leaders, powerful, and have resources in society. It's in their DNA. This is not the case for men, they aren't anymore attracted to powerful women.

Well the big difference is the religion
at VARNA Necropolis we know that their society was patriarchical, although old Europe
also at Crete, Μινως was ruler
BUT RELIGION PRIEST WERE FEMALE.
the term is also known at minor Asia as Anahitta Emithea(Ημιθεα) etc,
Womens part at society was not at war or production, but at society and everyday living,
their high priests and deitys were female,
the ultimate power was when a king married a high priestess,
and that was common,
were women have divine/religious power (mind/head) and men have physical (body, execute mind's orders)

with exception ancient Egypt, and later Rome,
where they unite religion with rulling class by claiming Pharaoh/Ceasar etc to be a God,

womens power was religion,
so the case of matriarchical/patriarchical is something not easily to be understood,


by what I know such societies existed even 4-5 centuries after christianity,
were female priests and teachers were FORBIDEN
a good example to understand also even today at Greek islands,

THE WOMEN STAY AT VILLAGE AND RULE THE VILLAGE,
ALL HOUSES BELONG TO WOMEN AND GO FROM MOTHER TO DAUGHTER,
even the goats to some,
BUT
ALL BOATS, BELONG TO MEN,



MATRIARCHICAL SOCIETY TODAY
even under Islam is the oasis of Shiva at Egypt,
were the fields/gardens belong to women.

 

[Maleth]

I'm not an expert at all. I've read a few pages from books and articles online, and I've read archaeologist say that the Neolithic Europeans Gimbutus claimed were matriarchal were clearly male-lead based on archaeological evidence. I'm turned off by Gimbutus, because I read in Latin class a few years ago a narrative about the pre-history of Greece inspired or written by Gimbutus. It demonizes Steppe people and men in general, even though there were just as many Yamnaya women as men . That's why my post was angry.

I don't believe that the counter arguments were based on archaeological evidence but rather as a general biological factor. Some say having a female deity does not mean that women are ruling a society. One can agree or not. When one puts together the socio political and socio economic situation and evolution of this period plus the archaeological evidence it can make Gimbutas theory very possible (and in my opinion probable). I think everyone would agree that Marija Gimbutas could have gone over board with the projections mixed with folklore but the basics are very relevant indeed.

I don't buy into labeling so many millions of humans who live across thousands of miles and thousands of years, such as Neolithic Europeans, into a simplistic label. Maybe some of their cultures were matriarchal and peacful. I don't like putting them all under the same category though. So, i'd rather you say *some* Neolithic Europeans were matriarchal.

One can only relate to what is found and excavated and all the clues that can draw some kind of picture that makes sense.

I'm not saying humans are always at war. I'm saying toughness or whatever you want to call(physical strength, mental strength/toughness) correlates with leadership and power. People compete for leadership and power, and toughness is how you get it. In this case men are the best candidates to the be the leaders for humans.

I really do not think so and if anything its an equal call. I guess you are ignoring the fact that many women have influenced their 'husbands' on various issues it is also seen through out documented history and even more modern scenarios. The myth of Adam and Eve comes to mind were Eve convinced Adam to eat the apple (with disastrous outcomes in this regards) as human kind then according to the myth had to suffer for ever because of Eve's decision. This is isngraned in a patriarchal religion to never trust a woman and ingrained in a religious believe that was very different to the 'Old European' Scenario and even to a certain extant to later so called Pagan religions who also seemed to have a more trustworthy approach towards womens leadership. The only difference this pretext was used to subjugate women and not trust their intellect and deeply en grained in a state of believe which is still very present in many forms and sizes up till the present day.

IMO, humans are always competing, we just rarely compete with violence. However the same rules aptly for our competition as with other animals. A big difference is we use talking much more. The most charming people will often be the most powerful. However, especially with men, if the charming can't defend themselves either with violence or money or something else valued in society(powerful allies/friends), they'll lose their power and respect.
Furthermore, women are attracted to men who are leaders, powerful, and have resources in society. It's in their DNA. This is not the case for men, they aren't anymore attracted to powerful women.

Thats too much of a sweeping statement. I would say that some women are attracted to powerful men, many others prefer to have more subdued or 'submissive' husband. There is no one fit all scenario when it comes to appeal when one takes in consideration a society as a whole.

 

[Fire Haired14]

I don't believe that the counter arguments were based on archaeological evidence but rather as a general biological factor. Some say having a female deity does not mean that women are ruling a society. One can agree or not. When one puts together the socio political and socio economic situation and evolution of this period plus the archaeological evidence it can make Gimbutas theory very possible (and in my opinion probable). I think everyone would agree that Marija Gimbutas could have gone over board with the projections mixed with folklore but the basics are very relevant indeed.

Whatever, it could be true. I did read an article where an archaeologist said a famous Neolithic culture in the Balkans that Gimbutas said was female lead was actually male-lead.

One can only relate to what is found and excavated and all the clues that can draw some kind of picture that makes sense.

That's true, however I always try to be as aware of diversity as much as possible when thinking of living and dead people.

This is isngraned in a patriarchal religion to never trust a woman and ingrained in a religious believe that was very different to the 'Old European' Scenario and even to a certain extant to later so called Pagan religions who also seemed to have a more trustworthy approach towards womens leadership. The only difference this pretext was used to subjugate women and not trust their intellect and deeply en grained in a state of believe which is still very present in many forms and sizes up till the present day.

I dis agree with this. The story of adam and eve has absolutely nothing to do with not trusting women, you're reading too much into it. And patriarchal society doesn't mean anti-female society. We don't have a time machine and so we don't know how Neolithic Europe would have thought of that.

Thats too much of a sweeping statement. I would say that some women are attracted to powerful men, many others prefer to have more subdued or 'submissive' husband. There is no one fit all scenario when it comes to appeal when one takes in consideration a society as a whole.

That is a sweeping statement, however most would agree much smaller percentage of men are attracted to powerful women.

 

[Maleth]

I dis agree with this. The story of adam and eve has absolutely nothing to do with not trusting women, you're reading too much into it. And patriarchal society doesn't mean anti-female society. We don't have a time machine and so we don't know how Neolithic Europe would have thought of that.

You do not need a time machine. There is a lot of literature, and there are a lot of lifestyles one can follow as a result. The story of adam and eve is followed by stories that women should not be equal to man. I am not condemning or praising this psyche. I am just comparing. Maybe there were valid reasons and maybe not. I am not sure what was in the mind of those people who concocted these stories to lower the woman role in the affairs of a particular society (that is not my intention). There are other mentions within the concoctions of these Religions example that god created the world then he was bored and he created someone in his own image so he created a man (we still call human kind men) then he created the animals, then he looked over the animals to find a companion for Adam and he found none so took a rib and created a women to be his helper. Thats even before the story that the woman (Eve) ate an apple and convinced Adam to take a bite too. They suddenly realized they were naked and god was so angry he scorned them and told Eve now women have to suffer all their life by having lots of pain to deliver off spring and Adam has to work hard to support the family. (This is all in the old testament) Old Europe seem to have had a different approach towards fertility and did not see birth as a punishment from god but rather a blessing (or so it seems since we do not have any writings unlike the middle eastern traditions)

 

[Taranis]

The Greeks who were Indo-European were farmers. The Scythians were nomads / pastoralists who lived in chariots and they were not Indo-European. Scythians being 'Eastern Iranic' speakers is just a speculation based on no actual evidence.
In the same lands that were inhabited by Scythians in the Middle Ages (from 860 AD) we find the Turkic-speaking Pechenegs. They also lived in chariots. They didn't have houses, they moved with them because the chariots were their homes. They were an 'ethnos fereoikon'. Ethnos = group of people, and 'fereoikon', from 'fero' = carry and 'oikos' = home

That is funny, if the Scythians purportedly were not Eastern Iranic speakers, why is it then that not only the Greeks, but also the Persians and Han Chinese record them as having Iranic names?

 

[Angela]

You do not need a time machine. There is a lot of literature, and there are a lot of lifestyles one can follow as a result. The story of adam and eve is followed by stories that women should not be equal to man. I am not condemning or praising this psyche. I am just comparing. Maybe there were valid reasons and maybe not. I am not sure what was in the mind of those people who concocted these stories to lower the woman role in the affairs of a particular society (that is not my intention). There are other mentions within the concoctions of these Religions example that god created the world then he was bored and he created someone in his own image so he created a man (we still call human kind men) then he created the animals, then he looked over the animals to find a companion for Adam and he found none so took a rib and created a women to be his helper. Thats even before the story that the woman (Eve) ate an apple and convinced Adam to take a bite too. They suddenly realized they were naked and god was so angry he scorned them and told Eve now women have to suffer all their life by having lots of pain to deliver off spring and Adam has to work hard to support the family. (This is all in the old testament) Old Europe seem to have had a different approach towards fertility and did not see birth as a punishment from god but rather a blessing (or so it seems since we do not have any writings unlike the middle eastern traditions)

Exactly right. That view of women became part of western civilization. There's a great book on 17th century England called, "The Weaker Vessel ", by Antonia Fraser. It's a very detailed view, from actual written materials of the period, of the attitude toward women at that time. The Adam and Eve story was referred to time and again as the basis for those attitudes. Women were believed to be more easily tempted than men, more prone to sexual lust, less strong willed, less "godly", which Eve proved not only by succumbing to the wiles of the serpent (let's not miss the phallic, fertility imagery here) but by tempting Adam in turn, and so was the "weaker sex". The travails of childbirth, the death of so many women in childbirth were proclaimed over and over again, even from the pulpit, to be a just punishment for all of that. Obviously, such "weaker vessels", could not be trusted with the reigns of government. Of course, Elizabeth I was already dead by then, or she might have had something to say about that.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234625.The_Weaker_Vessel

All the biblical scholars whose works I was force fed contrasted that view with Canaanite religious practices, where, although there was a wind god or a god of storms, sometimes originally called EL (from which the Jews got Elohim and perhaps later Yahweh, and later yet a name they would not pronounce), and later Baal, there was also a very important mother, fertility goddess, with her own temples and priestesses (and even male acolytes), similar to the mother goddess worshiped by the serpent priestesses of Crete, where the rites were often celebrated by orgiastic rituals at planting and harvest times.

That's what all the Jewish religious leaders, the Judges and Prophets, were ranting about. Deuteronomy says "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine protitute." Jeremiah rants about faithless Israel going up into the hills and committing adultery under the spreading trees. That's why they were so incensed when, much later, Solomon was still permitting some of his wives to keep worshiping her, and even attended some of her rites. Later sages blamed the fall of the kingdom on that. A lot of these passages in the O.T. are about trying to stamp out this prior, female-centered religion.

We don't know if there was ever a time when the mother goddess and her priestesses ruled alone, but we do know that as late as the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Near East, long after any Indo-European invasions, the priestesses of the mother held a great deal of power. Most notably, one of the King's most important acts was the "sacred marriage" re-enacted every spring with the priestess of the mother goddess. It was called Hieros Gamos. These rites were still sometimes practiced in ancient Greece.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hieros_gamos

"The world's oldest epic poem, the Epic of Gilgamesh, evidences a culture in which the enactment of the hieros gamos by humans was a well established practice, and sexual union with the priestesses of the goddess Ishtar was seen as a civilizing function in the city of Uruk. When Gilgamesh discovers his nemesis, the wild man Enkidu, Gilgamesh's strategy for civilizing him is to send Shamhat, the priestess of Ishtar, to teach Enkidu how to live as a cultured human being. She first uses her feminine charms to seduce him into a week-long sexual initiation and then teaches him the other ways of civilized men."

 

[APO276]

That is funny, if the Scythians purportedly were not Eastern Iranic speakers, why is it then that not only the Greeks, but also the Persians and Han Chinese record them as having Iranic names?

Can you make a list of those Iranic names?

 

[Fire Haired14]

LMAFO. The story of adam and eve means nothing to gender relations or sexism. You guys are in fact reading way too much into it. I never in my life thought it meant women are not trustworthy. Only feminists would looking for something to complain about would interpret it that way. There's no Semitic way of looking at women, there's Joe's way and Tony's way and Tommy's way, everyone is unique. Arabs and Assyrians and Jews aren't the same.

 

[Maleth]

Exactly right. That view of women became part of western civilization. There's a great book on 17th century England called, "The Weaker Vessel ", by Antonia Fraser. It's a very detailed view, from actual written materials of the period, of the attitude toward women at that time. The Adam and Eve story was referred to time and again as the basis for those attitudes. Women were believed to be more easily tempted than men, more prone to sexual lust, less strong willed, less "godly", which Eve proved not only by succumbing to the wiles of the serpent (let's not miss the phallic, fertility imagery here) but by tempting Adam in turn, and so was the "weaker sex". The travails of childbirth, the death of so many women in childbirth were proclaimed over and over again, even from the pulpit, to be a just punishment for all of that. Obviously, such "weaker vessels", could not be trusted with the reigns of government. Of course, Elizabeth I was already dead by then, or she might have had something to say about that.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234625.The_Weaker_Vessel

All the biblical scholars whose works I was force fed contrasted that view with Canaanite religious practices, where, although there was a wind god or a god of storms, sometimes originally called EL (from which the Jews got Elohim and perhaps later Yahweh, and later yet a name they would not pronounce), and later Baal, there was also a very important mother, fertility goddess, with her own temples and priestesses (and even male acolytes), similar to the mother goddess worshiped by the serpent priestesses of Crete, where the rites were often celebrated by orgiastic rituals at planting and harvest times.

That's what all the Jewish religious leaders, the Judges and Prophets, were ranting about. Deuteronomy says "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine protitute." Jeremiah rants about faithless Israel going up into the hills and committing adultery under the spreading trees. That's why they were so incensed when, much later, Solomon was still permitting some of his wives to keep worshiping her, and even attended some of her rites. Later sages blamed the fall of the kingdom on that. A lot of these passages in the O.T. are about trying to stamp out this prior, female-centered religion.

We don't know if there was ever a time when the mother goddess and her priestesses ruled alone, but we do know that as late as the Bronze and Iron Ages in the Near East, long after any Indo-European invasions, the priestesses of the mother held a great deal of power. Most notably, one of the King's most important acts was the "sacred marriage" re-enacted every spring with the priestess of the mother goddess. It was called Hieros Gamos. These rites were still sometimes practiced in ancient Greece.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Hieros_gamos

"The world's oldest epic poem, the Epic of Gilgamesh, evidences a culture in which the enactment of the hieros gamos by humans was a well established practice, and sexual union with the priestesses of the goddess Ishtar was seen as a civilizing function in the city of Uruk. When Gilgamesh discovers his nemesis, the wild man Enkidu, Gilgamesh's strategy for civilizing him is to send Shamhat, the priestess of Ishtar, to teach Enkidu how to live as a cultured human being. She first uses her feminine charms to seduce him into a week-long sexual initiation and then teaches him the other ways of civilized men."

I never even thought about that when I was doing my analogy, but what you wrote is so well connected and with a deeper understanding. That sheds much more light on the subject.

 

[Maleth]

LMAFO. The story of adam and eve means nothing to gender relations or sexism. You guys are in fact reading way too much into it. I never in my life thought it meant women are not trustworthy. Only feminists would looking for something to complain about would interpret it that way. There's no Semitic way of looking at women, there's Joe's way and Tony's way and Tommy's way, everyone is unique. Arabs and Assyrians and Jews aren't the same.

Were do you think the male attitudes say in Saudi Arabia (women cannot even drive) and Iran come from? Where do you think the idea that women cannot vote in elections and getting half pay to that of a man come from just a few decades ago in the west? Do you think its simply a justifiable biological factor? Its all connected. You just have to clear the mental mist then its not too difficult to understand

 

[Sile]

Were do you think the male attitudes say in Saudi Arabia (women cannot even drive) and Iran come from? Where do you think the idea that women cannot vote in elections and getting half pay to that of a man come from just a few decades ago in the west? Do you think its simply a justifiable biological factor? Its all connected. You just have to clear the mental mist then its not too difficult to understand

Ancient Diety practice in the world is a Female form............
current diety has not changed it is the same as in ancient times.

What forced this false change in history is the fault of religions from Judaism, Christianity, Moslem etc etc to today.
All modern religions are anti-female.

 

[Angela]

LMAFO. The story of adam and eve means nothing to gender relations or sexism. You guys are in fact reading way too much into it. I never in my life thought it meant women are not trustworthy. Only feminists would looking for something to complain about would interpret it that way. There's no Semitic way of looking at women, there's Joe's way and Tony's way and Tommy's way, everyone is unique. Arabs and Assyrians and Jews aren't the same.

There are whole fields of scholarship like comparative religions and biblical archaeology and scriptural analysis, not to mention the history of ancient Near Eastern civilizations and of Europe itself with which you apparently have absolutely no familiarity. If you had you would never claim so ridiculously that religious beliefs do not affect societal attitudes, mores, and structures. Religion is one of the most powerful of cultural influences. When you attend university you should take some of these courses and educate yourself. Then we can discuss it rationally if we are both still here. Until you have a basis for discussion there is no point continuing.

And watch your mouth.

 

[Tomenable]

Before Christianity there was no Knighthood

By knighthood I mean "a social class specialized in warfare", which is something typical for most of IE societies:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I#t=6m47s

 

[Angela]

Maleth I never even thought about that when I was doing my analogy, but what you wrote is so well connected and with a deeper understanding. That sheds much more light on the subject.

I am glad you found it helpful. Those classes on comparative religion and all the history classes I took have never had a pay off in terms of income, but they have enriched my life and made what I see about me more intelligible.

If you ever have some free time you might consider picking up a copy of The Source by James Michener. It is a fictionalized account of the excavation of a tell or archaeological mound in Israel. It is a really great, fun read, and the early chapters cover a lot of these topics, including the initial development of religion, the conflict between the Canaanites and the Hebrews, etc., even the later great conflict between the Pharisees and the Christians. I was thrilled when my kids were assigned it in school, as it is one of my favorites, and although it is fiction, it contains a wealth of information not contradicted by any actual histories I have read.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12657.The_Source

 

[Yetos]

Ancient Diety practice in the world is a Female form............
current diety has not changed it is the same as in ancient times.

What forced this false change in history is the fault of religions from Judaism, Christianity, Moslem etc etc to today.
All modern religions are anti-female.

big True,
'woman is only for reproduction, does not have orgasm, does not have a will, and should not teach, and is allowed to beat your wife, even to drop acid at her face, etc etc'

 

[Yetos]

Were do you think the male attitudes say in Saudi Arabia (women cannot even drive) and Iran come from? Where do you think the idea that women cannot vote in elections and getting half pay to that of a man come from just a few decades ago in the west? Do you think its simply a justifiable biological factor? Its all connected. You just have to clear the mental mist then its not too difficult to understand

no it is tottaly different,
even inside a family and in house,
that is why gossip is strong at these societies,

BUT SOCIAL GENDER RIGHTS AND DEMANDS
HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW Tommy SEE WOMEN.