1729[cybalist] Re: Macro-Pelasgia
- Feb 29, 2000I think consensus escapes us at the moment, but we seem to be narrowing the
field of objections to identifiable points.
Primary among these are:
1) Linguistic associations/relationships of various named groups.
2) (D.Poulter) extent of Pelasgic influence E/W of Greece.
3) Pelasgic linguistic relationship/influence to/on later Greek
4) Tyrrhenian influence/definition/origin relative to Pelasgic.
5) Tyrrhenian relationship to Tyyra specifically, Anatolia in general.
6) Etruscan/Tyyra/Tyrrhenia/Trojan relationship.
7) Regional links in lang/tech/culture/time/myth
8) Linguistic "label" for Pelasgic: IE, Proto, or pre?
I remain opposed to D.Poulter on (2), generally question (5),
request justification for John's and other's positions on (4,6);
while seeking guidance, discussion and input on (1,8). I suggest there is
much more supporting (7) than has been discussed, and am softening my
position on (8).
Noting Sabine's and Mark Odegard's input on the classic writers: I think
any single statement by an author from the c. period is a useful indicator.
It is not "fact", and as in Strabo fussing at Homer, can be contradictory to
another writer's position. However, when a constant implication appears in
literature across periods and cultures (Livy) that also finds support in
scattered arch results, it is not a single indicator any longer, and must be
addressed. As Mark and Sabine suggest: ignoring it requires significant
contrary indicators. One can not "opinion" or "guess" away the "reinforced"
indicator with out proof.
> I like Piotr's point of Tarusha-Troasja-Tyrsenoi-Tyrrhenoi-Etrusca assame language over the full transition is another matter. >...(snip)...Thus
> different names for the same area/same people. Whether they >spoke the
we must be wary of identifying the
Tarusha->Troasja-Tyrsenoi -Tyrrhenoi-Etruscans as one (linguistic) people
>(even though quite possibly they were!)I counter that linking T's and R's in a circle around a region without
more..can cause problems. This would be stronger if the Etruscans had
labeled themselves, but Rasenna doesn't seem to fit. I may simply be
missing data here? I still see a problem in the
Italy>Balkans>Troy>(Tyrra/Lemnos)> back to Italy linking.
>The Thracian area 3,500 - 3,000 BCE was occupied by the Boian ANot much evidence of Kuban (Indo-Etruscan) incursians >here, but plenty of
>culture, with the neighboring Vinca peoples, part of Gambutas' >Old Europe.
evidence of movements out of "Old" Anatolia.
Do you see Boian A as the mother of IE Thrace, yielding the named
eastern Danube tribal groups? I still don't (pick one) understand/
accept/acknowledge/ the necessity of the "Indo-Etruscan" arm/branch/group.
No question or problem with a "revolving door"
at the Dardanelles, however.
> Moesia-Mysia-Mushki I see as a movement of Thraco-Phrygian, not >as amovement of Trojan-Tyrsenoi.
And therefore, I have no problem with the possibility of Troad ocupation by
non-Danubians, non-Anatolians. There are even indicators in the classics
there was a distinction beyond just regional overlordship between Mysia
itself and The Troad. (Remembering a story of "lost" Menalaian participants
off loading south of Troy and taking losses against unintended Mysian
combatants.) Again questioning the circular link
>Professor Finlay, the Cambridge Classicist gives fairly convincingMy most recent marker was a broader 1,100 to 1,000 bracket: usually stated
>evidence that shows the "Dorian Invasion" did not bring down the
>Mycenaeans, and probably occurred as late as 1,000 BCE.
by me as post 1,100. I have no problem with tightening that a century and
blaming it on Finlay. Given your exception of Mycenaeans (to me means:
Pelasgi>Argives>Achaeans>Danaans) how do you see Greek language developing
with out significant pre-Dorian influence? What about the possibility that
Dorians were just Northern Greeks gaining dominance (as returning Herakleans
as is sometimes claimed) and how does this impact on the linguistic picture?
John, re Oscans:
>Hmm. They still may have been Italics. Impossible at this time tohang ourselves.
>say, definitively one way or the other. Too much rope here with >which to
Concur on the last point: My only position is they were the earliest
named ethnic/cultural group per Strabo, in Italy and Greece:
and last distinct in the region around Pompeii, Herculaneum. Haven't tried
to center them in either Greece or Italy..equal representation...until more
data can distinguish.
>Rex when you say Proto-Greeks are you referring ethnically (eg. >theHelladic I,II and III cultures), or linguistically. I would agree >with the
former, but not with the latter.
Your reference was to D.Poulter's use of "proto-Greek", but I have used it
in the discussions and a response to you re Pelasgi. My meaning is
ethnic/cultural, allowing influence from "Strabo's" pre-Pelasgi Tyrrhenians
(as opposed to the east to west flowing Tyrrhenians you define). I don't
speak fluent linguistics. That said, I am curious as to how you define
Greek linguistic origins if you limit Dorian impact, and try to exclude
proto status to Pelasgians (linguistically)?
I will address your conclusions, as well as D.Poulter's last in later
missives. This is enough to chew on for a while.
Rex H. McTyeire
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>