Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1729[cybalist] Re: Macro-Pelasgia

Expand Messages
  • Rex H. McTyeire
    Feb 29, 2000
      I 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.

      John offers:
      > I like Piotr's point of Tarusha-Troasja-Tyrsenoi-Tyrrhenoi-Etrusca as
      > different names for the same area/same people. Whether they >spoke the
      same language over the full transition is another matter. >...(snip)...Thus
      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.

      John again:
      >The Thracian area 3,500 - 3,000 BCE was occupied by the Boian A
      >culture, with the neighboring Vinca peoples, part of Gambutas' >Old Europe.
      Not much evidence of Kuban (Indo-Etruscan) incursians >here, but plenty of
      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 a
      movement 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
      Tyrrhenian-Tyrrsenoi-Trojan-Tyrra-Etruscan, however.

      >Professor Finlay, the Cambridge Classicist gives fairly convincing
      >evidence that shows the "Dorian Invasion" did not bring down the
      >Mycenaeans, and probably occurred as late as 1,000 BCE.

      My most recent marker was a broader 1,100 to 1,000 bracket: usually stated
      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 to
      >say, definitively one way or the other. Too much rope here with >which to
      hang ourselves.

      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. >the
      Helladic 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.

      La Revedere;
      Rex H. McTyeire
      Bucharest, Romania
    • Show all 5 messages in this topic