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

[cybalist] Re: Macro-Pelasgia

Expand Messages
  • Rex H. McTyeire
    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
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 29, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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.

      John:
      > 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.

      John:
      >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.

      John:
      >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
      <rexbo@...>
    • John Croft
      Thanks Rex for your examination of the sticking points ... narrowing the ... there is ... Regarding Tyrrhenian-Pelasgoi link, I would like to take it one
      Message 2 of 5 , Mar 1 3:41 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks Rex for your examination of the "sticking points"

        > 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).

        Regarding Tyrrhenian-Pelasgoi link, I would like to take it one step
        further and look at a Tarusha(Trojan)-Peleset/Pelasgoi(Philistine)
        link. A good reference on this is the web site http://www.phoenixdatas
        ystems.com/goliath/c3/c3d.htm

        I also think the references to Pelasgoi-Lemnian links and
        Etruscan-Lemnian links are important here. Lemnos was not that big a
        centre and although it could have been a cross roads for multiple
        linguistic groups it is unlikely that two unrelated linguistic groups
        were equally dominant at much the same time.

        I too find Tyyra a little remote an issue, but if we accept a
        Tarusha-Tyrsenoi link then Anatolia is a clear connection here.

        > 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.

        Scullard in his book on Etruscan cities is a good reference here Rex.
        Personally I find Rasena a possible (Ty)Rasena=Tyrsenoi a pretty good
        fit myselt. The abandonment of the Ty element would need to be
        checked. I personally would like to check the ancient source for this
        Rasena name and see if there is not an explanation somewhere there. I
        suspect that there is an Italic gloss in there somewhere (the same that
        added the "E" to the *Trus(c)an name)

        > 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.

        Boian A is probably a bit too early for Thracian, although with a great
        number of these cultures, survival of autochthonous groups under an IE
        elite for a considerable length of time is possible. I tend to follow
        McEvedy in considering the Boian A as another one of the cultures
        steamrollered by Anatolians in their path down the Balkans and into
        Anatolia.

        > John:
        > > 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.

        Yes I do remember the Mysian attack. Mind you there is another
        Etymology of Mushki that links it to a pre-Hittite city in North East
        Turkey, in the post on the Kurds and Halafian Tholoi that I recommended
        today. I wouldn't know but is there any possibility that Mysian =
        Armenians? It would be interesting as this is generally the period
        that it is assumed that Armenian entered the middle east... Still, one
        needs to take equivalent care of equating names with a single language.
        Just look at the Hittites, for instance - same name - two destinct
        languages (Khattic and Neshite!). I repeat again, we must be careful
        we are not dealing with similar things with the Moesia-Mysia-Mushki, or
        the Etruscan-Tyrrhenian-Tyrrsenoi-Troasja-Tarusha etc.
        >
        > John:
        > >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?

        I suspect a Dorian-NW Greek connection is the best fit of the evidence.
        Whether the story of returning Herakleans is a posteriori myth used to
        justify occupation of the Mycenaean realm, or whether it contains some
        cernel of truth is hard to say (it maybe both! Certainly the Spartan
        kings derived their genealogies from Hercules)

        > 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...unti
        l more
        > data can distinguish.

        Reading Scullard on the Italics today suggests that Oscan is Samnite
        and clearly Italic. He has fun tying in the origins with the
        appearance of the Villanovans as an IE Urnfield people who gave up
        their language to a "more cultured" element coming in over the sea.
        >
        > John:
        > >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 feel that Pelasgians were non-Greek speaking peoples underneath the
        arrival of Greek. Personally I find the Dimini culture and its
        fortification in Thessaly, with links up through the Vardar gap into
        the northern Balkans to be synonymous with the arrival of IE
        proto-Greek. Iocolos was seen by later Greeks as the source of Hellen,
        the place from which the various Hellenic dialects later diverged. As
        such they were a superstrata which diverged over a substrata of
        Pelasgians, thereafter taking some Pelasgian elements with them (eg
        Grey Minyan Ware etc?)

        Even in Mycenaean times, I find that, particularly the first part of
        the period, Greek would have been limited fairly closely to the
        distribution of the palaces. I find the idea that the Arcadian dialect,
        by late Mycenaean times was differentiating into two Arcadio-Cyprian
        and Ionian (as yet not separated between Attic and Ionian) a fairly
        convincing argument. Only in Thessaly do we find a post Mycenaean
        split between Aiolic/Thessalian, NW Greek/Doric occurring, to give the
        pattern of dialects found in classical times.

        Hope this helps in clarifying my views. Sabine, as a scholar of this
        area and period, I'd be interested in your views.

        Finally, as regards your plea for a linguistic label for Pelasgian and
        IE as "proto" or "pre". I wonder whether the facts don't make such
        neat categories very difficult. Perhaps they started as a pre, but
        with increasing IE admixtures over the course of the centuries became
        similar to proto- and even finished up, with increasing Greek admixture
        as a lower class group speaking a lower class bar-bar Greek (with a few
        other words surviving thrown in). By the time of the classical period
        this may have been the case.

        Regards

        John
      • Ivanovas/Milatos
        Hello, I like the way Rex put the points together we ve discussed so far (although on some of them I just don t see enough data to decide in any direction.
        Message 3 of 5 , Mar 1 11:13 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello,

          I like the way Rex put the points together we've discussed so far (although
          on some of them I just don't see enough data to decide in any direction.

          Although this might be of interest:
          Rex wrote:
          >Rasenna doesn't seem to fit<

          I'm not a fan of the Tyrrhenoi-Troy equation (I believe the point of origin
          was larger, possibly including Troy, but extending further down south, but
          that's just my guess).
          The -Vnna suffix fits certainly quite well, because it's typical for
          Anatolian languages. cf. Arinna, but to my opinion here belong also the
          Cretan goddess Diktynna and the - unknown, but mentioned among other god's
          names in Linear B - Cretan Pi-pi-tu-na, especially interesting as there is a
          Hittite plant with the same reduplication and another suffix - also unknown,
          it seems : pi-pi-tar.

          So we'd have to find a (P)IE meaning for *ras- ...

          Any suggestions?

          There is also an interesting Etruscan vase showing the traditional
          connection labyrinth-Troy (tracing from the Tragliatella Oinochoe, Rome, 7th
          cent. BC., see attachment). This could have taken the way via Greece, though
          (there was e.g. one similar labyrinth on the back of a LB tablet from Pylos,
          13th cent. BC., the Knossian labyrinth-depictions(!) are later, as far as I
          know).

          The mythological connections I see are manyfold, as I'm specially studying
          those figures with a '-minth' suffix this would lead too far to explain, but
          whoever is interested will see the connections easily.

          Best wishes from Crete

          Sabine Ivanovas
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.