GREEK PREHISTORY AND IE (EVIDENCE?)

[X99Lynx at aol.com]

I wrote:
>>Yes.  SORRY.  But yes.  Not 'the introduction of agriculture as such' - The
>>term 'middle neolithic' as applied to Europe as a whole (not locally)
>>encompasses my 4500-4000BC date.  For some reason you are calling the whole
>>process 'early neolithic'.  Neolithic is basically a distinction from
>>mesolithic.  Early neolithic in Europe as a whole generally denotes the
>>period before 5000BC.  Locally the term is sometimes used when different
>>sub-periods can be identified.  But in terms of Europe, farming 'as such' is
>>also being introduced in the late neolithic and in some areas even in the
>>'European iron age.'

In a message dated 2/13/2000 5:02:19 AM, sarima at friesen.net wrote:
>This is a different use of the terms than I am familiar with.  I guess I
>have not often come across their use for "Europe as a whole".

I did not get a chance to respond to this post earlier.

A good sense of how period classifications are applied can be gotten from
John Collis' The European Iron Age (1984), a still impressive overview of the
archaeology of the late bronze, iron and early Roman periods.  Although it
does not deal with the neolithic, it does make clear how the categorization
of "Europe as a whole" during a period correlates with local classifications.

sarima at friesen.net also wrote:
>But this still doesn't change the basic facts: the agricultural revolution
>is too old, and took too long to spread over Europe, for it to be
>associated with PIE.  Whether one uses local terminology or pan-European
>terminology does not change this fact.

Knowing the terminology helps to avoid misstatements about the facts.
And I'm becoming more convinced that in fact a certain neolithic culture
spread farming too fast, populated Europe too thoroughly and was too
technologically advanced not to be associated with PIE.

Regards,
Steve Long