Instrumentos y métodos para recolectar información ________________ 31

(Most of the arguments, especially linguistic arguments, are irrelevant, and like the whole concept, met strenuous objections from different angles. In this discourse, M.Gimbutas departs from the Kurgan traditions, and switches to the Indo-European traditions, which are totally incompatible with the Kurgan traditions in almost all aspects, thus she is breaking the logical sequence of the Indo-European Kurgan pedigree. The argumentation is notable for its advocacy and one-sidedness, the 35+ Türkic ethnoses historically known as carriers of the Kurgan Culture, are not subjected to the same analysis as the analysis afforded to the author's theory, they even are not mentioned by name, and obliquely called “others”. This brings about an “arymaspu” vision, using Scythian-Türkic expression, i.e. “half-eyed”, as, for example with Greek “hippo” for horse, which is a form of Türkic “jaby/jupax”, and a mountain of others. See A. Dybo Pra-Altaian World for juxtaposition of proto-Altaic and proto-Indo-European.)

The proto-Indo-European (PIE) culture, as reconstructed on the basis of comparative Indo-European linguistics and mythology and supported by early historic records, coincides well with archeological data. In this section I shall touch upon the linguistic and mythological evidence relevant to the question of identity between the Kurgan and proto- Indo-European traditions.

Languages, like cultures, act as living organisms: they constantly change and live through periods of convergence and divergence. Although we cannot go back much further than Volga Neolithic and Eneolithic of the 6th and 5th millennia BC, we can reconstruct certain characteristics of this culture that are in agreement with linguistic and mythological elements. The period around 5000-4500 BC is marked by incessantly growing mobility and trade. I

therefore assume the possibility of linguistic consolidation in process at this period, just before the proto-Indo-European outburst into Europe. The hypothetical PIE language does not reflect preagricultural conditions. As linguistically

reconstructed, domesticated animals (including the horse), mobility, and the classed patriarchal society, are among the most characteristic phenomena of the PIE culture. The Kurgan culture of the 5th millennium BC in the Volga forest- steppe and steppe and its newly acquired territory north of the Black Sea agrees with much that is reconstructed on a

linguistic basis as PIE.

Domesticated Animals

Domesticated animals played a paramount role in the PIE culture as shown by the common names for sheep (*owis), cattle (*gwows), steer (*(s)tauro), pig (*sus and *porkos), horse (ekwo-ekwa), goat (*aigis, os), and dog (*kwon-kun-) in most of the Indo-European languages. There is another name for “cows and sheep”: *peku(s): Latin pecus, Old Indic

pasu, Baltic peku. Since this word has a family of related words connected with the meaning “fleece,” “hair,” and “to

comb” (Greek pekos, “fleece”; Old High German fahs, "skin hair”; Lathi pectere, “to comb”), it is assumed that peku originally connoted a woolly animal, probably a sheep, and that there was a stage when only sheep were domesticated and the other animals were not. The words for wool and weaving are clearly PIE (Old Church Slavic vluna, Lithuanian

vilna, German Wolle, Old Indic wina; German weben, “weave,” Old Indic vabh-) and may date back to the early phase of

animal domestication.

394

Cattle must have been the treasured possession of a family, clan, or tribe and were used in exchange, the trend also attested by words and early historic records. In Sanskrit, the term for lord means “lord of cattle.” The earliest written sources, the Iliad and the Rigveda, speak of how a bride or weapons are obtained in exchange for cattle. Cattle (pecus) were the main possession that had the meaning of our word money. Hence, the Latin name for money, pecunia. This role of cattle continued up to the 20th century (as dowry for instance, in rural areas). Activities associated with cattle in Indo-European mythic and epic literature very clearly illustrate the importance of cattle raiding. The growth of private ownership derived a powerful impetus from the domestication of cattle.

The name for the domesticated horse is preserved as Latin equos, Gothic aihva-, Lithuanian asva. The PIE form is reconstructed as *ekwos or *ekwa. Comparative Indo-European mythological research indicates the unquestionably prime role of the horse (particularly the white horse) as a sacred and sacrificial animal, the incarnation of divine power of the God of the Shining Sky. Archeology supports the linguistic and mythological evidence for an early date of horse domestication, probably no later than the end of the 6th millennium BC. The horse was a sacrificial and riding animal and as such was used in warfare from at least the middle of the 5th millennium BC. The earliest warriors were equipped with spear points, daggers, bows and arrows, and were able to shoot from horseback much like the historic Indo-Europeans, Scythians, Sarmatians, and others. In cult, the horse as a divine and sacrificial animal is attested as early as its known use for riding.

Metallurgy

Linguistics has failed to reconstruct a common word for metallurgy. This should not be surprising since the early Kurgans (Kurgan I) did not have this technology. Copper items were introduced to them by the Old Europeans through barter with the Cucutenians. Metallurgy was acquired considerably later, in the second half of the 4th millennium BC from Transcaucasia when it was transmitted north of the Black Sea, and with Wave No. 2 to east-central Europe.

Weapons

The following words can be reconstructed from original Indo-European terms for weapons. 124

*(H)nsi, a cutting and slashing weapon, “sword,” originally a flint knife or dagger (Germanic xsaxsaz “sword” often substitutes for “knife”); Old Indic asi-, Lat. ensis(Türkic gücü, Rumanian kucit [c = ts], alt. Türkic kılıç = kılıch, Old Türkic

kingirak => Greek akinak => Chinese ge)

*keru, “spearhead,” “blade,” or some sort of casting weapon (Vedic saru- meant “dart,” “arrow,” or “spear”; Germanic cognate is *xeruz)

*Eengh-es-u, “spear,” thrusting weapon; and *ghai-so-s, “casting spear,” “a javelin” (the source of Old Irish gae and Proto Germanic *zaizas, Old Indic hesas, “missile”)

*taqso-m, “bow”; Greek tokson, M Persian taxs, Latin taxus (Germanic forms for are cognates of Türkic: Türkic bük-

“bend”, bükle- “lay down by bending”, bükir “hunchback; bent”, Turkish iğri büğrü “curve”, böğür “side”, and in Germanic: Old English bäc, Modern English bow “bow weapon, to bow, to bend”, back “back”, German bogen “bow weapon, to bow, bend, arch, vault”, biegen “to bend, to arch”, bug “a bend; a joint”, bücken “to bend”, bückel “hump; back”, Old High German buogen “to bend”, Slavic bok “side”. The M Persian is useless without detail etymology, much of its vocabulary is non-IE borrowings. The Türkic “bow weapon” is jaj, yay)

*isu- arrow(head) (Türkic oq/uq, aka ok/uk)

weapon” jaj, yay, aja/əja)

*Aek-on, “slingstone” *Aek-mon-, “stone hammer”

These words support an early use of weapons which is in agreement with archeological evidence (see figs. 10-2, 10-4,

10-7, 10-35, 10-41, 10-42, 10-43, 10-45, 10-46) (and totally irrelevant for the author's cause, because 120,000 years ago the hunter-gatherers already had weapons and their names, so what?).

Vehicles

Mobility is unquestionably a PIE characteristic, since horse riding was the prime means of Kurgan mobility.

There is a sea of difference between mounted riding and carriage riding, and confusing them is perilous. PIE does not have terms for horseback or mounted riding, only for carriage riding, while Türkic has them. Relevant citation from A. Dybo Pra-Altaian World:

“6. The core of the pra-Altaian economy appears to be seasonal pastoralism, or a developed seasonal hunting with a corral component. There are terms associated with horses and riding. The role of agriculture was less significant. The main tool was probably a kind of hoe (possibly also used for harvesting wild roots).

For the pra-Indo-Europeans the main type of economic activity were agriculture and well-developed sedentary pastoralism. Apparently, there were specific implements to harnessed plowing. There is a name for hay (absent in the PA), which may indicate a winter livestock housing (as opposed to the change of pastures among the pra-Altaians). In PIE is restored terminology of horse husbandry, but not horse

riding. The cattle terminology is more developed in the PIE than in the PA...

8. In the PA, the terminology of clothing and footwear is more differentiated, for example, it contains the names for pants and kneeguards (which is associated with horse riding), which the PIE does not have” The reconstructed PIE form for vehicle (German Wagen, Lithuanian vezimas, Polish woz) is a form with the root *wegh-. Even parts of the vehicle are reconstructible: wheel — *rotha (Lithuanian ratas, German Rad, Old Indic rathah, "chariot,” Latin rota); axis — *ak'sis, lynch *pin (tulis in Lithuanian, Greek, and Germanic); and yoke — yugom (very well attested). The family of the root wegh- is associated with words for lifting, carrying, lever, and sleigh. This may imply that the original “vehicle” was for weight lifting or levering, or was a sledge. Even if it was not a four-wheeled cart in its original form, the proto-Indo-Europeans must have been acquainted with wheeled wagons from Kurgan I times (Attaching proto-Indo-European cart to Kurgans is a slippery slope, without Kurgans the proto-Indo-European cart hangs in thin air, which it should not do, as wheeled transportation appears simultaneously in far-away and patently non-IE places. References to *forms are dubious, the IE Indians were the last ones to get the idea). So far, the earliest evidence for the existence of wheels are miniature clay models of wheels found in Old European settlements (Cucuteni A and Karanovo VI phases) dating from the middle of the 5th millennium BC. No parts of actual vehicles of this period have ever been found. The question as to who first invented the vehicle cannot as yet be solved (Accordingly, the source of the IE borrowings has not been established)

The mobility of the Kurgans before their infiltration into Europe was probably similar to that of the later inhabitants

of the steppe — the Scythians, Sarmatians, and others (Of unnamed “others” we know Guties ~ Guzes, and Tukri ~ Türks,

then Zhou with their compatriots Chunwei, Xunyu, Shanrong, Xianyun, and Hunyu before the Scythians and Sarmatians, all of them horseback riders who probably had a word for their horseback riding). Herodotus describes the Scythians as having no permanent structures or crops to defend, free to move about with their wagons, their possessions, and their livestock, and able to elude an enemy or to shoot at him from horseback whenever they chose. Indeed, it was easy for the Kurgans to burn their pit dwellings and set out for the next territory.

395

Social Structure

The PIE culture, as shown by comparative Indo-European linguistics and historical evidence and supported by archeology, can be described as a patrilineal society under the patriarchal leadership of a warrior chief. Age was the determining factor for leadership by this chief, who may have played an active role only in times of stress when greater group cohesion was necessary. Exogamous marriage occurred between small, mobile patrilocal families, members of a larger clan or tribe. A separate class of priests is unlikely to have been established by the proto period. Females

wife is evidenced by epic songs and legal texts. Under the influence of the Indo-European culture, Neolithic women's influence collapsed and they became private property in the new trading and raiding society. (These descriptions totally conflict with the descriptions of the oldest sources, e.g. Herodotus, which were astounded by the egalitarian customs of their Kurgan contemporaries, in contrast with their own sexist customs. This astonishment also applies to the non-IE Etruscans, which only emphasizes the primitive patriarchy of the IE's vs. Kurgans and and other non-IE's. Piling together the mute archeology and voiced historical evidence makes the line of logic both confused and profoundly inaccurate. Kurgans were egalitarian, IE were not.)

The evidence for patriliny, patrilocality, and patripotency furnished by proto-Indo-European kinship terminology is excellent. 125 There is general agreement among philologists and linguists that the PIE terms which concern familial and marital relationships describe a system of patrilineal inheritance and post-marital residence. For example, the basic terms that exist for one's parents' generation imply the domination of the male relations: father — *pHte:r; mother — *maHte:r; mother's brother or mother's father — *awyos; and father's brother — *pHtrwos. Common terms for both the maternal and paternal aunts are conspicuously absent. The terms for a person's own generation include; the brother — *bkraHte:r, which comprises a wide range of male peers (who traditionally form a patrilineal group with important ritual and political functions); the sister — *sweso:r which means “own” (“the woman of my clan”); the son- — *swHnws [*swH, “to give birth,” suggesting a strong tie between mother and son); and daughter — *dhwgHte:r (which seems to be related to milking, “to milk” or “milkmaid”). Words also exist for the husband's parents (*swekwHs and *swekwios), the husband's siblings (*gHlows, feminine; “daHywe:r, masculine), in addition to the son's wife (*snwsos) and daughter/sister's husband (*genHi). The widow (*wydh, meaning “to be empty, inadequate”) is recognized as a discrete status, where the widower is not.

There is no corresponding similarity of terms for the bride's family. The Indo-European wife would have joined her husband's household where she lived together with his father and brothers. This can further be interpreted as evidence of an exogamous pattern of marriage. (The exogamous conclusion totally conflicts with the historical records, which allow incestuous IE marriage within the family, necessitated by sedentary farming that precludes infinite subdivision of the farmland. In contrast, the Türkic Kurgans are strictly and exaggeratedly exogamous, at times disallowing marriages between lines that are separated by 40+ generations, or more then a millennia in time. Here again, interpretation replaces facts)

The proto-Indo-European *pot denotes the male family head, patri potestas, or chief. An additional pair of

correspondences, *genH-os/*genH-r provides further evidence of a patriarchal society: *genH-os is used to describe the patrilineal group into which an individual married, while the masculine noun *genH-r refers to the most prominent member of that group. The picture of an Indo-European community leader (*pot or *dompoti) painted by mythological and legal texts appears to be a despotic, and probably polygynous, warrior-patriarch who ruled his family or clan with absolute power over life and death. (This MO may only apply to the sedentary societies; in the mobile societies the escape capabilities are infinite, which necessitates a consensus rule, attested in millennium-old near-parliamentary system of leadership that is superbly documented and preserved to this day in elected Khans, Kagans, Sheikhs, and Aldermen. This consensus structure extends to the state forms, which out of necessity maintain a high degree of autonomy for its constituents, who may at any time vote with their feet and leave a despotic leader)

The status of women was clearly inferior. The term for “bride price” derives from *wedh, "to lead” evocative of chattel. It has been suggested that females represent a “positive nuisance” to the stability of a mobile, warlike tribe.

(This IE tradition is utterly incompatible with Kurgans, and conflicts with historically attested and widely popularized facts about Kurgans)

Linguistic paleontology has provided evidence for the social organization above the immediate family. The *domos (*dreb in western PIE) or house belonging to a single family, also belonged to a small patrilocal extended family, or *weik. Residents of a *weik might further identify themselves as members of a common descent group, the *gen or clan, and chose marriage partners from within their largest ethnic group or tribe, the *teuta. (For Kurgans, this conflicts with historically attested facts)

Agriculture and Its Increase in the European Branch

In the Kurgan culture of the steppe, agriculture was secondary to a pastoral economy. However, considerable knowledge of agricultural terminology in the European branch of the Indo-Europeans is suggested by lexical studies. It follows that the increase of agriculture is synchronous with a decrease of nomadism after the incursion of the Kurgan (Maikop) people into Europe, and especially into the territories where agriculture was a millennial tradition.

Some agriculture was practiced by the proto-Indo-Europeans. There are common names for "grain,” “grinding” and “quern,” “to sow,” and “to cut”; and the word for “hoe”, mat(e)ya, is widespread. Of great importance is the preservation of the names for millet (*meli, *melyom, *melya) for a lesser kind of wheat or grass, couch grass, sedge, spelt, rye grass: *puras, os; and for cereal used for fermentation and brewing: “yewos, pl. *yewoi. The root yew- is associated with the

family of words having the meaning to gush or emanate, boil, ferment, agitate, rouse.

So far only millet has been identified in Kurgan sites of the Dnieper-Volga steppe. There is no trace of einkorn and emmer wheat, barley, oats, or rye, although stone hoes, sickle blades of flint, and quern stones have been found in settlements. Large hoe-like tools known from several settlements are considered to be primitive plowshares. It seems that the Kurgan people in their original home engaged in an extensive form of wild-grass economy. Except for millet, a “ground” cereal; *yewos, a cereal used for fermentation; and *pwis, a grass or spelt wheat, there are no other

well-attested words for cereals, and there is no archeological evidence for their existence. (We can only be impressed by the amazing inertia in the Kurgan cultures, on their way to, and entering the New Age, the assortment of the grains used by the Kurgan peoples almost did not change, displaying remarkable conservatism for over 7,000 years. For millennia, millet remained the predominant grain of Kurgans from Danube to Huanhe. Only in the northern belts it was replaced by a bulbous substitute. In the 17th-18th cc millet was replaced in the west with the maize grain in areas where maize corn can be cultivated. In most cases, the dependent farming people provided alternate grains, like rice and wheat. Chinese annual tithe to the Hun's Shanyu, of which we have data, was “10 thousand dans of rice wine, 5 thousand hu of millet”, which required supply trains in tens of thousands horse-drawn lorries. The “extensive form of wild-grass economy” , implying any degree of cultivation, is as much nonsense, the steppes and horses remained wild, hence the nomadic economy. The

difference between the horse breeding Kurgans and farming IE's is of a day and night character, absolutely impossible to err.)

Common names for rye, barley, and oats are found only in the European branch of the Indo-European languages. *rughis “rye” is known in. The word for “oats” with the root *aw- is known in Slavic, Baltic, and Latin. “Barley” apparently designated “food derived from cereals” as Latin, Germanic, and Slavic forms suggest: Latin far and farina-, Old Nardic barr, “barley”; Gothic barizeins, “of barley”; Old Church Slavic brasno, “food”; Serbian brashno, “flour”; and Russian borosno, “rye flour” (The words common to such divergent groups as Slavic, Baltic, Germanic, and Celtic point to a “Sprachbund” unrelated to the either the alleged proto-IE nor to the Kurgan languages. The unexplained difference in the farming lexicon between the European and Asian branches of the Indo-European languages points to the demographical