Embedded Files
Image shows the spread of farming as determined by archaeology from Mesopotamia and Levant through Anatolia and into Europe. These farmers started to migrate starting around 9600 BCE and reached Britain by 4100 BCE. Akkadian is the native language of northern Mesopotamia so that language traveled with the farmers. Map from Gronenborn, D., & Horejs, B. (2023). Online at: https://www.academia.edu/9424525/Map_Expansion_of_farming_in_western_Eurasia_9600_4000_cal_BC_update_vers_2023_1_?email_work_card=title
Detailed Spread of Indo-European People Traced With Material Tradition Lineages
Detailed Spread of Indo-European People Traced With Material Tradition Lineages
(September 2, 2024) The original extent of the Eurasian steppe. Notice the lands along the Danube rivers where the merger of Indo-European culture with Druid culture's Corded-Ware material tradition (3000 BC – 2350 BCE) would have taken place. (image from Encyclopedia Britannica at: https://www.britannica.com/place/the-Steppe
Indo-European Homeland In 3350 BCE
Indo-European Homeland In 3350 BCE
(October 31, 2023) This material culture existed for about 400 years before it started to expand.
Start of Rapid Expansion 3000 BCE
Start of Rapid Expansion 3000 BCE
(October 31, 2023) The Indo-Europeans moved first into the Balkans and then followed the rivers northward.
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNv3R1xS6so&t=46s
Indo-European People In 2500 BCE
Indo-European People In 2500 BCE
From: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNv3R1xS6so&t=46s
Indo-European People In 2300 BCE
Indo-European People In 2300 BCE
(October 31, 2023) At this time they were expanding into western Europe.
Indo-European People In 2000 BCE
Indo-European People In 2000 BCE
(October 31, 2023) Italy was now settled by Indo-Europeans. The big mystery is why the Estruscans continued to speak Akkadian while the future Romans started speaking a mixture of Akkadian and Indo-European known at Latin. The future lands of Greece were only now conquered being one of the last European mainland holdouts. This was when the Minoans started writing for temple and trade purposes.
Indo-European People In 1000 BCE
Indo-European People In 1000 BCE
(October 31, 2023) Only the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, and Israelites remained unconquered.
Animation of Indo-European Genetic Spread
Animation of Indo-European Genetic Spread
(October 31, 2023) An excellent video by The Geographer. While being more warlike and having a godfather/war-chief type of culture, Indo-European genetic spread was mostly from having better farming methods then the slash and burn methods used by the Akkadian speaking Neolithic farmers outside of annual flooding river valleys. The Indo-Europeans simply came in and took over abandoned fields left by the Akkadian speakers and made it a permanent farm with crop rotation and manuring. When Akkadian speaker farms lost their fertility no more good vacant land was available to turn into a farm.
Europedia Correlates Material Traditions and Genetics Of The Neolithic Farmers
Europedia Correlates Material Traditions and Genetics Of The Neolithic Farmers
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș Material Traditions (c. 6200-4500 BCE)
Starčevo–Kőrös–Criș Material Traditions (c. 6200-4500 BCE)
(May 26, 2024) This tradition represents the advance of Early Neolithic farmers from Anatolia to south-east Europe. Material traditions are not culture which can only be discovered from ancient texts but which can be hinted at from burial customs. Material traditions only show the range of a people's interconnection by the trade links which is affected by geography, technology level, and politics.
Very few graves have found in the Starčevo culture, and those were generally single graves. Most burials identified belonged to women or children. They were inhumed under the floors of personal residences as they were in Anatolia, a practice that continued until 4000 BCE. Graves rarely contained goods. When they did, it was pottery, grinding stones, flint tools or jewelry.
DNA tests show these people had fair skin, brown eyes and dark hair, while Mesolithic Europeans had darker skin, dark hair, but blue eyes.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Very few graves have found in the Starčevo culture, and those were generally single graves. Most burials identified belonged to women or children. They were inhumed under the floors of personal residences as they were in Anatolia, a practice that continued until 4000 BCE. Graves rarely contained goods. When they did, it was pottery, grinding stones, flint tools or jewelry.
DNA tests show these people had fair skin, brown eyes and dark hair, while Mesolithic Europeans had darker skin, dark hair, but blue eyes.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Linear Pottery (LBK) Material Traditions (c. 5600-4250 BCE)
Linear Pottery (LBK) Material Traditions (c. 5600-4250 BCE)
(May 26, 2024) Represents the northwestern advance of Early Neolithic farmers from the Starčevo-Körös culture across central Europe, starting from what is now Hungary and spreading northwest.
Burial customs began to change during this time. Cemeteries containing from 20 to 200 graves make their appearance from 5000 BCE and included both male and female skeletons, apparently arranged in groups based on kinship.
DNA tests show these people had fair skin, brown eyes and dark hair.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Burial customs began to change during this time. Cemeteries containing from 20 to 200 graves make their appearance from 5000 BCE and included both male and female skeletons, apparently arranged in groups based on kinship.
DNA tests show these people had fair skin, brown eyes and dark hair.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Megalithic Material Traditions (c. 4800-2000 BCE)
Megalithic Material Traditions (c. 4800-2000 BCE)
(May 26, 2024) The origins of the Megalithic material traditions in Europe remains controversial and incomplete. At this time the remaining Mesolithic people were interbreeding with the Near Eastern farmers. Later the Indo-European invaders started doing the same. DNA testing of remains from burials around Megalithic sites shows that paternal ancestry was overwhelmingly Mesolithic European, while maternal ancestry was predominantly East Mediterranean. Why this is the case is unknown.
Ancient DNA tests have shown that Atlantic Megalithic people had a variety of skin tones ranging from pale-intermediate to dark. Almost all had brown or black hair. The majority had brown eyes. They like the earlier Neolithic farmers were lactose intolerant.
This map is incomplete as Megalithic structures are also found as far east as the Caucuses. Again, material traditions do not define culture.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
Ancient DNA tests have shown that Atlantic Megalithic people had a variety of skin tones ranging from pale-intermediate to dark. Almost all had brown or black hair. The majority had brown eyes. They like the earlier Neolithic farmers were lactose intolerant.
This map is incomplete as Megalithic structures are also found as far east as the Caucuses. Again, material traditions do not define culture.
More information at: https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/haplogroups_of_neolithic_farmers.shtml
The problem of archaeology today is that it has no overarching theory to guide the interpretation of archaeological finds. This started to change with the first Book by Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994) published in 1982 in which she presented the Goddess Theory of European civilization to challenge the nationalist and patriarchal orthodoxy of Greek and Hebrew Source priority. At the time she was professor Emeritus of Archaeology at UCLA.
When the Goddess theory was later discredited what remained was the old nationalistic Greek and Hebrew Source Theory. This combined with the competitive nature of Academia these day is leading to a segmentation of archaeology and linguistics into narrow nationalist specialties pandering to nationalist funding sources. The result is fake history from academic linguists whose "translations" end up being mostly names representing their own nations language. Another result of this is the rise of pseudoarcheology from people who realize the old nationalist models are not valid and so are grasping at any alternative.
https://www.opusarchives.org/marija-gimbutas-collection/
When the Goddess theory was later discredited what remained was the old nationalistic Greek and Hebrew Source Theory. This combined with the competitive nature of Academia these day is leading to a segmentation of archaeology and linguistics into narrow nationalist specialties pandering to nationalist funding sources. The result is fake history from academic linguists whose "translations" end up being mostly names representing their own nations language. Another result of this is the rise of pseudoarcheology from people who realize the old nationalist models are not valid and so are grasping at any alternative.
Reference
https://www.opusarchives.org/marija-gimbutas-collection/Reference
Druid Civilization Theory Supersedes European Goddess Theory
Druid Civilization Theory Supersedes European Goddess Theory
(Feb. 6, 2023) Before there was this Druid theory of European cultural origins there was the Goddess Theory by Marija Gimbutas (1921-1994). She was the first to realize that the archaeological evidence pointed to an earlier and different civilization existing prior to the traditional Greek and Hebrew sources of European civilization.
Yet she failed in defining this earlier civilization for these reasons:
This was before the earliest European archaeological texts were translated so she was going in blind using only archaeological finds which can be interpreted many different ways.
She was mentally trapped and viewed deities in the Biblical way as lord gods, that is, only as people and not also as powers.
She was monotheistic postulating a single Goddess instead of goddesses.
She was caught up in the feminist movement of the era so she simply ignored any evidence contrary to her Goddess superiority concept. In her magnum opus book in which she presented her views (“The Language of the Goddess from 1989) she even turned the masculine icon of the bull into a feminine “regeneration” icon (page 188).
In Gimbutas’ last book The Civilization of the Goddess, which synthesizes the work and theses of her previous books (Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe 1974/1982 and The Language of the Goddess 1989/1991), she wrote,
- “The primordial deity for our Paleolithic and Neolithic ancestors was female, reflecting the sovereignty of motherhood. In fact, there are no images that have been found of a Father God throughout the prehistoric record. Paleolithic and Neolithic symbols and images cluster around a self-generating Goddess and her basic functions as Giver-of-Life, Wielder-of-Death, and as Regeneratrix.”
Further in Civilization of the Goddess Gimbutas outlines the symbolic understanding Old European societies had of the universe and the divine. She wrote,
- “The multiple categories, functions, and symbols used by prehistoric peoples to express the Great Mystery are all aspects of the unbroken unity of one deity, a Goddess who is ultimately Nature herself.”
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse