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

Re: Glen & Joseph's Tyrrhenian

Expand Messages
  • Joseph S Crary
    Peter I believe this deduction is in part due to an equating the Etruscans with the Villanova Culture and certain weapon types found in Italy and Sardinia.
    Message 1 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Peter


      I believe this deduction is in part due to an equating the
      Etruscans with the Villanova Culture and certain weapon types found
      in Italy and Sardinia. There also are complexes known as the pre-
      Villanova and Terremare Culture. The most significant problem is one
      must be very careful about the dating of these culture, as there have
      been few attempts to establish a relative sequence. Several
      conflicting chronologies are current. One dates the Terremare to 2000
      BC another as late as 1000 BC. The same can be said of the pre-Villa
      and Villanova cultures as well.

      Still, several points are clear. The Terremare complex is
      contemporary with the Temperate European Late Bronze Age and the
      beginning of the Urnfield Culture. The Villanova Culture overlaps
      with the latter stages of the Terremare complex, thus it occupies
      both a Late Bronze and Early Iron Age temporal placement. Both the
      Terremare and Villanova cultures are associated with Urnfield Culture
      and the arrival of Italic speaking people and their mixing with local
      groups. This can be seen in items of dress, weapons, burial patterns,
      and architecture. In all this the Tyyrhenians appear nowhere, except
      for Late Bronze Age weapons and bronzes. The complex that is
      associated with the historic Etruscans does not appear until the
      beginning of the ninth century. However, I can not stress more the
      perceived gap between the end of the 13th century Sea Peoples and the
      early 9th century Etruscans of Italy may be more apparent than real.
      Here only time will tell.


      JS Crary
    • Rex H. McTyeire
      JS Crary asks: O-:Any questions? Yes..the same one. O-:Thus, again Lemnian and O-:by extension Tyyrhenian are Pelasgian. Where/why the by extension . If you
      Message 2 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        JS Crary asks:
        O-:Any questions?

        Yes..the same one.

        O-:Thus, again Lemnian and
        O-:by extension Tyyrhenian are Pelasgian.

        Where/why the "by extension". If you mean some T's became absorbed into
        a P. world..no contest. But that simply means some remnant T.'s became
        Pelasgianized..it does not go to the pre-Pelasgic language.

        Cu Stima;
        Rex H. McTyeire
        Bucharest, Romania.
      • Joseph S Crary
        The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to Etruscan-Tyyrhenian. In fact they are so similar that it is clear to even the most casual
        Message 3 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to
          Etruscan-Tyyrhenian. In fact they are so similar that it is clear to
          even the most casual observer that Lemnian and Etruscan-Tyyrhenian
          had a close common ancestral language. We know the Lemnos people from
          the period of the Lemnos Stele were called Pelasgian; as a general
          term. Thus the Language of the Lemnos Stele is Pelasgian. Again,
          because Lemnian is so similar to Etruscan it is also a Pelasgian
          Language.

          Pelasgian
          |__________________________________________
          Tyyrhenian | Pelo-Pelasgian? Attic-Pelasgian?
          _____ |______ |
          Lemnian Etruscan Raetic
        • Rex H. McTyeire
          O-:The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to O-:Etruscan-Tyyrhenian. Where does the label T. come from on the above equation? Because
          Message 4 of 19 , Sep 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            O-:The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to
            O-:Etruscan-Tyyrhenian.

            Where does the label T. come from on the above equation? Because some
            called the place the Etruscans emerged Tyrrhenia?

            O-: fact they are so similar that it is clear to
            O-:even the most casual observer that Lemnian and Etruscan-

            To this point I agree.

            O-: Tyrrhenian

            It is when you add this, that things get confused between a pre-Pelasgic
            Aegean/Greek mainland language, peoples in Greece and (maybe) Anatolia
            before EBA; and a place sometimes called Tyrrhenia in what is now Italy.


            O-:had a close common ancestral language.

            Etruscans and Lemnians..yes. Factor in the Tyrrhenians?

            O-:We know the Lemnos people from
            O-:the period of the Lemnos Stele were called Pelasgian; as a general
            O-:term. Thus the Language of the Lemnos Stele is Pelasgian. Again,
            O-:because Lemnian is so similar to Etruscan it is also a Pelasgian
            O-:Language.

            I agree..many do not..even on the period or the direction of flow of
            influence...but that still hasn't got a rats derriere to do with an
            Indo-Tyrrhenian language group. There were no Aegean Tyrrhenians left
            able to colonize anything by the Ninth BC, Villanovan HAS been separated
            from Etruscan; even at same sites..It was...had to be..a ninth BC import
            to a place already called Tyrrhenia; with a foreign language. (I say
            nautical FROM the Aegean). It therefore was not Tyrrhenian..even if
            Italy was the (much older) Tyrrhenian center, unless you want to put a
            Tyrrhenian center to the North that sent ground waves SE and SW over a
            coupla K years; and ignore the nautical aspects (hard to do with
            Lemnos).

            O-: Pelasgian
            O-: |__________________________________________
            O-: Tyyrhenian | Pelo-Pelasgian? Attic-Pelasgian?
            O-: _____ |______ |
            O-: Lemnian Etruscan Raetic

            Why follow P with T when all references to Greece are the reverse? Back
            Tyrrhenian up to before Pelasgian..vary some substrate...and spread the
            Pelasgian. Why Not (?) :

            Oscan
            |
            Tyrrhenian
            |
            |_______________________________________________

            |
            Westward->Pelasgian (dominates/mixes w/) Tyrrhenian (Dies
            slowly/pocketed)
            |____________________________________|

            |
            |
            Displaced by Greek
            |
            Peripheral
            Neo-Pelasgian(w/Tyrrhenian substrate)

            |
            _______ spread from Aegean center
            NAUTICALLY and survived only as_
            |Lemnian |
            Etruscan | Raetic*

            (*earlier Aegean import {me- before
            9th}or corrupted Etruscan {Livy-after 9th})

            Rex
          • Joseph S Crary
            Rex What do you know of the Tyras community of the southwestern Ukraine? When was the first settlement established and from what district did they come? JS
            Message 5 of 19 , Sep 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              Rex

              What do you know of the Tyras community of the southwestern Ukraine?
              When was the first settlement established and from what district did
              they come?


              JS Crary
            • Joseph S Crary
              ... Actually, the Hellenic references indicate that P is an older and more generalized term, while T is more recent and specialized. Rex as you understand the
              Message 6 of 19 , Sep 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                From Rex:

                >Why follow P with T when all references to Greece are the reverse?<

                Actually, the Hellenic references indicate that P is an older and
                more generalized term, while T is more recent and specialized.

                Rex as you understand the weakness in the dating for LB to EI Egypt,
                Near East, and Aegean before the 7th century, I suggest that the
                three centuries between the Sea Peoples and Tyrrhenians may soon melt
                into something far less. Although Manning has placed the Thera
                event at 1628 this can simply not work as it requires the early 18th
                Dynasty to be moved back some 200+ years. No room for it. Manning
                kind of left out the 1052 event from his Test of Time. I believe this
                was because it did not fit with his conclusions. How Typical

                The far better placement of this event is at 1052 and there are
                several reasons why the Egyptian chrono can easily be reduced during
                the 3rd Intermediate Period. At this point I remain uncommitted
                either way, however a reduction would clear up a number of nagging
                historical, archaeological, and linguistical questions.
                This issue should come to a head and be resolved in a few years.


                Any questions?


                JS Crary
              • MrCaws@hotmail.com
                ... Mr. McTyeire: I like your model for Neo-Pelasgian and such. I just had a few questions if you have the time: Do we know anything about these old
                Message 7 of 19 , Sep 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In cybalist@y..., "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@r...> wrote:

                  Mr. McTyeire:

                  I like your model for Neo-Pelasgian and such. I just had a few
                  questions if you have the time: Do we know anything about these old
                  Tyrrhenians of the Aegean and Greece era?

                  What about the Taruisa/Trsh peoples? Are these unrelated, or could
                  these be a people who bear the Tyrrhenian name due to T. cultural
                  influence?

                  Also, not to harp on Lemnos too much, but the arch. record shows new
                  settlements around the turn of the second millenium, roughly the time
                  that the Pleasgians tradtionally arrived on Lemnos.
                  Back in the Early bronze age(especially the former, I believe),
                  Poliochni was a wealthy metropolis.
                  Were the inhabitants likely Tyrrhenians, Pelasgians, both or neither
                  in your view?

                  -Mr. Caws






                  > O-:The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to
                  > O-:Etruscan-Tyyrhenian.
                  >
                  > Where does the label T. come from on the above equation? Because
                  some
                  > called the place the Etruscans emerged Tyrrhenia?
                  >
                  > O-: fact they are so similar that it is clear to
                  > O-:even the most casual observer that Lemnian and Etruscan-
                  >
                  > To this point I agree.
                  >
                  > O-: Tyrrhenian
                  >
                  > It is when you add this, that things get confused between a pre-
                  Pelasgic
                  > Aegean/Greek mainland language, peoples in Greece and (maybe)
                  Anatolia
                  > before EBA; and a place sometimes called Tyrrhenia in what is now
                  Italy.
                  >
                  >
                  > O-:had a close common ancestral language.
                  >
                  > Etruscans and Lemnians..yes. Factor in the Tyrrhenians?
                  >
                  > O-:We know the Lemnos people from
                  > O-:the period of the Lemnos Stele were called Pelasgian; as a
                  general
                  > O-:term. Thus the Language of the Lemnos Stele is Pelasgian. Again,
                  > O-:because Lemnian is so similar to Etruscan it is also a Pelasgian
                  > O-:Language.
                  >
                  > I agree..many do not..even on the period or the direction of flow of
                  > influence...but that still hasn't got a rats derriere to do with an
                  > Indo-Tyrrhenian language group. There were no Aegean Tyrrhenians
                  left
                  > able to colonize anything by the Ninth BC, Villanovan HAS been
                  separated
                  > from Etruscan; even at same sites..It was...had to be..a ninth BC
                  import
                  > to a place already called Tyrrhenia; with a foreign language. (I say
                  > nautical FROM the Aegean). It therefore was not Tyrrhenian..even if
                  > Italy was the (much older) Tyrrhenian center, unless you want to
                  put a
                  > Tyrrhenian center to the North that sent ground waves SE and SW
                  over a
                  > coupla K years; and ignore the nautical aspects (hard to do with
                  > Lemnos).
                  >
                  > O-: Pelasgian
                  > O-: |__________________________________________
                  > O-: Tyyrhenian | Pelo-Pelasgian? Attic-Pelasgian?
                  > O-: _____ |______ |
                  > O-: Lemnian Etruscan Raetic
                  >
                  > Why follow P with T when all references to Greece are the reverse?
                  Back
                  > Tyrrhenian up to before Pelasgian..vary some substrate...and spread
                  the
                  > Pelasgian. Why Not (?) :
                  >
                  > Oscan
                  > |
                  > Tyrrhenian
                  > |
                  > |_______________________________________________
                  >
                  > |
                  > Westward->Pelasgian (dominates/mixes w/) Tyrrhenian
                  (Dies
                  > slowly/pocketed)
                  > |____________________________________|
                  >
                  > |
                  > |
                  > Displaced by Greek
                  > |
                  >
                  Peripheral
                  > Neo-Pelasgian(w/Tyrrhenian substrate)
                  >
                  > |
                  > _______ spread from Aegean
                  center
                  > NAUTICALLY and survived only as_
                  > |Lemnian |
                  > Etruscan | Raetic*
                  >
                  > (*earlier Aegean import {me- before
                  > 9th}or corrupted Etruscan {Livy-after 9th})
                  >
                  > Rex
                • Glen Gordon
                  Rex, do I properly understand then that you think of Etruscan, Lemnian and Rhaetic as Pelasgian languages, rather than Tyrrhenian? I don t know whether I ve
                  Message 8 of 19 , Sep 3, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Rex, do I properly understand then that you think of Etruscan,
                    Lemnian and Rhaetic as "Pelasgian" languages, rather than
                    Tyrrhenian?

                    I don't know whether I've gotten more confused or not but I've been
                    thinking some more about Herodotus' nebulous labelling and I've come
                    to an idea, which may be quite old and boring, or it may be new
                    and exciting. I hope I can explain this because it's really, really
                    complicated...

                    I always note that people to this very day confuse culture with
                    language. That is, some people consider language as a part of
                    culture and some consider the two to be seperate things. Certainly,
                    in comparative linguistics, we all know that language (whether
                    considered part of the cultural kit and kaboodle or not) can
                    spread in ways seperate from other cultural traits over a period
                    of time. Likewise, a particular culture or cultural trait, however
                    we may define it, might expand across linguistic boundaries. Thus,
                    culture and language can go very seperate ways.

                    So, if we apply this mundane revelation to the diverse input of
                    Classical Greek authors on non-Greek peoples, we might be tempted
                    to conclude, as I am now, that the Pelasgian/Tyrrhenian contrast
                    implied different things to different people in different eras of
                    Greek civilisation. How might we unravel this mess?

                    First, let's focus on Herodotus. Then, let's quickly take a trip
                    to China... What?? Why China? Well, I know some handy things about
                    Chinese and cultural nomenclature because, for one thing, there is
                    a difference in terms given to Chinese mainlanders as opposed to
                    those who have travelled overseas. The "overseas Chinese" are
                    refered to as /Hua-ren/. How does this relate to our T/P dilemma?

                    Let's imagine that there are two peoples called the Pelasgians and
                    the Tyrrhenians. Let's pretend they spoke the same language but
                    had somewhat different cultures. Now, let's imagine further that
                    the Pelasgians initially lived on the coastal mainland and that the
                    related Tyrrhenians had moved to the islands and maybe even in
                    Anatolia at some early date. Got it so far?

                    Now, let's say I'm the famous classical Greek author Glenesios of
                    Lesbos. What am I to do? If I were to speak purely linguistically,
                    I might validly refer to the Ts and Ps interchangeably as if they
                    were the same people. If I were speaking culturally, it would
                    then depend on my attitudes on language as a significant part
                    of culture or not. Perhaps I might think that culture and language
                    are seperate, in which case, I would refer to the Ts and Ps as
                    seperate people since they have differing cultural traits other
                    than language. Or perhaps, I may think that the cultural traits are
                    not so different to call them by different names and I may again
                    use Tyrrhenian and Pelasgian interchangeably.

                    Even more confusing: Consider that there may have been different directions
                    of movement concerning non-Greek culture(s) versus
                    non-Greek language(s) in the era before Herodotus'. Perhaps
                    Herodotus was trying to capture a vary complicated picture but was
                    unequipped with the proper labels to fully explain definitively.

                    If we begin by assuming that there is a large element of truth to
                    Herodotus' accounts of Greek history, could we conclude that
                    Herodotus was speaking of the Ts and Ps BOTH culturally and
                    linguistically at the same time? Is it possible that the idea of
                    Pelasgians coming after the Tyrrhenians refers to mainland
                    Tyrrhenians taking control of already Tyrrhenian-speaking islands?
                    Is it possible that on linguistic lines, Lemnian and Etruscan
                    are both Pelasgian (according to Herodotus) AND Tyrrhenian (by
                    the word of Thucydides) at the same time, while along
                    cultural lines, Lemnian and Etruscan are simply Tyrrhenian (perhaps
                    with Pelasgian influence)?

                    Have I said something stupid or is there wisdom underneath my
                    madness? So many questions so little time.

                    Summary:

                    "Pelasgian" = 1a. non-Greek autochthonous people originally
                    inhabiting Greece but later driven to the
                    Aegean islands, traditionally speaking a
                    language derived from Proto-Tyrrhenian.

                    1b. non-Greek people in general

                    2. the ProtoTyrrhenian-derived language of the
                    Pelasgians

                    So basically, meaning 1a shifts towards 1b over time because of
                    confusion based on what I just said above. Thus, Etruscan, Lemnian
                    and Rhaetic are related languages belonging to the Tyrrhenian
                    family of languages whose people are a cultural mix of Pelasgian
                    and Tyrrhenian... Anybody have a bottle of Advil?

                    -------------------------------------------------
                    gLeNny gEe
                    ...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

                    home: http://glen_gordon.tripod.com
                    email: glengordon01@...
                    -------------------------------------------------


                    >O-:We know the Lemnos people from
                    >O-:the period of the Lemnos Stele were called Pelasgian; as a general
                    >O-:term. Thus the Language of the Lemnos Stele is Pelasgian. Again,
                    >O-:because Lemnian is so similar to Etruscan it is also a Pelasgian
                    >O-:Language.
                    >
                    >I agree..many do not..even on the period or the direction of flow of
                    >influence...but that still hasn't got a rats derriere to do with an
                    >Indo-Tyrrhenian language group. There were no Aegean Tyrrhenians left
                    >able to colonize anything by the Ninth BC, Villanovan HAS been separated
                    >from Etruscan; even at same sites..It was...had to be..a ninth BC import
                    >to a place already called Tyrrhenia; with a foreign language. (I say
                    >nautical FROM the Aegean). It therefore was not Tyrrhenian..even if
                    >Italy was the (much older) Tyrrhenian center, unless you want to put a
                    >Tyrrhenian center to the North that sent ground waves SE and SW over a
                    >coupla K years; and ignore the nautical aspects (hard to do with
                    >Lemnos).
                    >
                    >O-: Pelasgian
                    >O-: |__________________________________________
                    >O-: Tyyrhenian | Pelo-Pelasgian? Attic-Pelasgian?
                    >O-: _____ |______ |
                    >O-: Lemnian Etruscan Raetic
                    >
                    >Why follow P with T when all references to Greece are the reverse? Back
                    >Tyrrhenian up to before Pelasgian..vary some substrate...and spread the
                    >Pelasgian. Why Not (?) :
                    >
                    > Oscan
                    > |
                    > Tyrrhenian
                    > |
                    > |_______________________________________________
                    >
                    >|
                    > Westward->Pelasgian (dominates/mixes w/) Tyrrhenian (Dies
                    >slowly/pocketed)
                    > |____________________________________|
                    >
                    > |
                    >|
                    > Displaced by Greek
                    >|
                    > Peripheral
                    >Neo-Pelasgian(w/Tyrrhenian substrate)
                    >
                    >|
                    > _______ spread from Aegean center
                    >NAUTICALLY and survived only as_
                    > |Lemnian |
                    >Etruscan | Raetic*
                    >
                    > (*earlier Aegean import {me- before
                    >9th}or corrupted Etruscan {Livy-after 9th})
                    >
                    >Rex
                    >
                    >


                    _________________________________________________________________
                    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
                  • Joseph S Crary
                    Context is every thing and Glen I thought you were the rebel? Your appraisal appears to be the same unchanged opinion, written slightly differently, in spite
                    Message 9 of 19 , Sep 3, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Context

                      is every thing and Glen I thought you were the rebel? Your appraisal
                      appears to be the same unchanged opinion, written slightly
                      differently, in spite of quit clear evidence to the contrary.

                      I may be wrong but,

                      it appears that you are justifying a premature use of terminology
                      made by an earlier generation. As you know Herodot and Thucydides
                      were contemporaries and I think both were right. We also have
                      Hellanikos (Roman Antiquities) in Dion. Hal. I, 28, from Lesbos and
                      Anticlides in Strab. V, 2, 4, both of which call the Lemnians,
                      Pelasgians. The only time Tyrrhenian is used is to draw a closer
                      connection between the Lemnians and Etruscans. Because Thucydides
                      makes the point I suggest this link was based on language and the
                      history of a common origin. In a general sense I would place this
                      origin in Anatolia and call it Pelasgian.

                      The reason I call Tyrrhenian a Pelasgian Language is this:

                      Tyrrhenian is a term used exclusively to explain the dispersal of a
                      demographic, culture, and most likely a language from western
                      Anatolia. For an extended period this term was applied almost
                      exclusively to this group in west central Italy. Tyrrhenian is used
                      by the Hellenics as a national term for the Etruscans. Thus, the
                      available evidence demonstrates that Tyrrhenian is a term applied
                      specifically, both temporally and spatially.

                      In contrast Pelasgian is a term used both specifically and in a
                      general sense. However, it is not used as a term for the aboriginal
                      peoples. Rather it was used to designate a segmented demographic,
                      culture, and most likely a language group situated in both Anatolia,
                      Greece, and the southern Balkans. Temporally, Pelasgian is used to
                      designate this collective before and after the Tyrrhenian event.
                      Because of this general usage as it is applied to Lemnos coupled with
                      similarities found in this and the Etruscan languages, Tyrrhenian can
                      be called Pelasgian.


                      Because of perceived confusion over the nature of origin and the
                      extensive and well-documented material culture of the historic
                      Etruscans, archaeologist and linguists of the early 20th century, for
                      some reason used the Hellenic term Tyrrhenian. They apply it to
                      anything that is Etruscan-like. Thus, using the same logic Pelasgian
                      becomes Tyrrhenian, just as the English would become the American
                      language.


                      I believe the important thing here is that the center of
                      Pelasgian/Tyrrhenian Languages was the Aegean until the end of the
                      Late Bronze Age. It may prove interesting to find how much of this
                      language group survived in the Hellenic period.

                      If anyone has any evidence, textual or otherwise from the 5th and 4th
                      centuries BC (or earlier) that would add to this discussion I would
                      appreciate it. Opinions are good when they are based on some form of
                      evidence with a context that can be evaluated. Opinions based on
                      personal belief have less value. I've always found that it is
                      important not to intertwine elements of one personal belief system
                      with long passed cultures and languages.

                      Hope this clears my position


                      JS Crary
                    • MrCaws@hotmail.com
                      ... appraisal ... Anatolia, ... with ... can ... for ... Pelasgian ... 4th ... of ... The term Tyrrhenian. Now, Herodotus says that the Tyrrhenians came to the
                      Message 10 of 19 , Sep 3, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In cybalist@y..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@d...> wrote:
                        > Context
                        >
                        > is every thing and Glen I thought you were the rebel? Your
                        appraisal
                        > appears to be the same unchanged opinion, written slightly
                        > differently, in spite of quit clear evidence to the contrary.
                        >
                        > I may be wrong but,
                        >
                        > it appears that you are justifying a premature use of terminology
                        > made by an earlier generation. As you know Herodot and Thucydides
                        > were contemporaries and I think both were right. We also have
                        > Hellanikos (Roman Antiquities) in Dion. Hal. I, 28, from Lesbos and
                        > Anticlides in Strab. V, 2, 4, both of which call the Lemnians,
                        > Pelasgians. The only time Tyrrhenian is used is to draw a closer
                        > connection between the Lemnians and Etruscans. Because Thucydides
                        > makes the point I suggest this link was based on language and the
                        > history of a common origin. In a general sense I would place this
                        > origin in Anatolia and call it Pelasgian.
                        >
                        > The reason I call Tyrrhenian a Pelasgian Language is this:
                        >
                        > Tyrrhenian is a term used exclusively to explain the dispersal of a
                        > demographic, culture, and most likely a language from western
                        > Anatolia. For an extended period this term was applied almost
                        > exclusively to this group in west central Italy. Tyrrhenian is used
                        > by the Hellenics as a national term for the Etruscans. Thus, the
                        > available evidence demonstrates that Tyrrhenian is a term applied
                        > specifically, both temporally and spatially.
                        >
                        > In contrast Pelasgian is a term used both specifically and in a
                        > general sense. However, it is not used as a term for the aboriginal
                        > peoples. Rather it was used to designate a segmented demographic,
                        > culture, and most likely a language group situated in both
                        Anatolia,
                        > Greece, and the southern Balkans. Temporally, Pelasgian is used to
                        > designate this collective before and after the Tyrrhenian event.
                        > Because of this general usage as it is applied to Lemnos coupled
                        with
                        > similarities found in this and the Etruscan languages, Tyrrhenian
                        can
                        > be called Pelasgian.
                        >
                        >
                        > Because of perceived confusion over the nature of origin and the
                        > extensive and well-documented material culture of the historic
                        > Etruscans, archaeologist and linguists of the early 20th century,
                        for
                        > some reason used the Hellenic term Tyrrhenian. They apply it to
                        > anything that is Etruscan-like. Thus, using the same logic
                        Pelasgian
                        > becomes Tyrrhenian, just as the English would become the American
                        > language.
                        >
                        >
                        > I believe the important thing here is that the center of
                        > Pelasgian/Tyrrhenian Languages was the Aegean until the end of the
                        > Late Bronze Age. It may prove interesting to find how much of this
                        > language group survived in the Hellenic period.
                        >
                        > If anyone has any evidence, textual or otherwise from the 5th and
                        4th
                        > centuries BC (or earlier) that would add to this discussion I would
                        > appreciate it. Opinions are good when they are based on some form
                        of
                        > evidence with a context that can be evaluated. Opinions based on
                        > personal belief have less value. I've always found that it is
                        > important not to intertwine elements of one personal belief system
                        > with long passed cultures and languages.
                        >
                        > Hope this clears my position
                        >
                        >
                        > JS Crary

                        The term Tyrrhenian. Now, Herodotus says that the Tyrrhenians came
                        to the West after the Euboeans paved the way. So, I don't see the
                        term Tyrrhenia meaning Italy prior to the Etruscan arrival unless
                        Herodotus really got mixed up.
                        If Trsh and Taruisa did refer to the Tyrrhenians, we got 'em at the
                        right place and the right time at the end of the bronze age. If the
                        settlements at Lemnos were built around 1000 BCE however we got to
                        ask where they came from before that. Well, in my view the sea bound
                        Tyrrhenians were already pretty mobile, and came to Anatolian shores
                        ((Lydia?) with others to settle after the collapse of Middle Bronze
                        Age Crete, whatever happened exactly. West Anatolia became a hot
                        spot. The legends and evidence for a movement at this time is pretty
                        good(I've got more, still working)
                        I am not saying that the Tyrrhenians had to be Cretans originally,
                        indeed Lemnos, home of Poliochni, a rich metropolis in the maritime
                        troia culture, would be familiar turf .
                        I do not find it hard to believe that linguistically the Pelasgians
                        and Tyrrhenians were related. After all, didn't these questions start
                        getting raised by the -nthos place names in Greece?
                        I like Glen's idea that the Tyrrhenians were a sea going people
                        where the Pelasgians were their Greek mainlander cousins. If they did
                        emerge from similar movements out of W. Anatolia/Aegean
                        then the Tyrrhenians might be considered older as well as distinct,
                        as they stayed in the islands like their mutual ancetors. Smite me if
                        I am ignoring a stumbling block. Mine is a working hypothesis.
                        -Mr. Caws
                      • jdcroft@yahoo.com
                        For another 2 cents worth Yes it does seem that the TRWS mentioned in Egytpian records may be the Tyrsenoi, that later, through a consonental shift, become
                        Message 11 of 19 , Sep 3, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          For another 2 cents worth

                          Yes it does seem that the TRWS mentioned in Egytpian records may be
                          the Tyrsenoi, that later, through a consonental shift, become
                          Tyrrhenoi. The connection with Pelasgian is a close one, and I would
                          see them as essentially the same people. Greek and Roman sources
                          also put Pelasgian in Southern Italy, and in Anatolia. It has been
                          suggested that the people were a substrate language group throughout
                          Anatolia, from the Caucasas to Italy where *-inthos, *-ossos, and *-
                          indos place names show a common source.

                          As regards to influence on Greek, I have seen it reported that up to
                          30% of classical vocabulary was non-Greek in origin. The proportion
                          rates much higher where nautical terms, or terms related to
                          Mediterranean agriculture are referred to. I understand terms of
                          abuse are also non-Indo-European in origin. Given the fact that the
                          Greeks themselves seem to use "Pelasgian" as we use the
                          term "Aboriginal", I would suspect that these words are Pelasgian in
                          origin. I know of no linguistic work that is (yet) comparing this
                          substrait language with Proto-Etruscan, Lemnian or anything else for
                          that matter. I do know that it has been reported that the number of
                          substrait words present in Attic and Ionian generally seems higher
                          than in Dorian or NW Greek. Clearly more work is needed here.

                          There is a good archive on "Macro-Pelasgian" on cybalist which I
                          would recommend to all who are interested in this interesting topic.

                          Regards

                          John
                        • Joseph S Crary
                          John Yes, interesting Initially, when in school I thought I had this Sea Peoples thing all figured out. I supposed that they all had come from someplace in the
                          Message 12 of 19 , Sep 3, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            John

                            Yes, interesting

                            Initially, when in school I thought I had this Sea Peoples thing all
                            figured out. I supposed that they all had come from someplace in the
                            middle Mediterranean; Italy and Sardinian. That by sea they helped to
                            over through the old palace system of the Aegean, Anatolia, Levant,
                            and Palestine.

                            However, Glen has caused me revisit this issue and I clearly see now
                            I was wrong and the archaeology simply doesn't fit.

                            Also interesting are the Egyptian records that appear to list a
                            specific cluster of ethno-districts in western Anatolia and eastern
                            Aegean. At Karnak Merneptah recorded the A-qi-ya-wa-sa-Ekwesh, Ta-ru-
                            sa-Tursha, Rw-ku, Sa-ra-d-n-Sherden, and Sa-k(a)-ru-su-Sheklesh.
                            Again Ekwesh-Achaeans, Tursha-Tyras, Sherden-Sardis, and Sheklesh or
                            Sikels-Sagalassa all appear to be of ethno-districts in western
                            Anatolia and eastern Aegean.

                            I notice that the term Peleset is missing here.

                            However, about 25 years latter Ramses III lists the Pe-ra-sa-ta-
                            Peleset, Tjikar-Tjekker, Sa-k(a)-ru-su-Sheklesh, Danuna-Danu, and
                            Wasasa-Weshesh at Medinet Habu. Here the Peleset are named but the
                            Teresh-Tursha-Tyrrhenoi are missing. Could this be because the
                            Peleset is a more general term that includes the Tursha, Rw-ku, and
                            Sa-ra-d-n-?

                            Have to return to the field for another week

                            JS Crary
                          • tgpedersen@hotmail.com
                            ... I just found Donald McKenzie: South Seas, Myths and legends (1930) on sale. Only 49.00 kr.! I m now on page 221 Tane the Divine King about the
                            Message 13 of 19 , Sep 4, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In cybalist@y..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@d...> wrote:
                              > However, about 25 years latter Ramses III lists the Pe-ra-sa-ta-
                              > Peleset, Tjikar-Tjekker, Sa-k(a)-ru-su-Sheklesh, Danuna-Danu, and
                              > Wasasa-Weshesh at Medinet Habu. Here the Peleset are named but the
                              > Teresh-Tursha-Tyrrhenoi are missing. Could this be because the
                              > Peleset is a more general term that includes the Tursha, Rw-ku, and
                              > Sa-ra-d-n-?
                              >
                              > Have to return to the field for another week
                              >
                              > JS Crary

                              I just found Donald McKenzie: "South Seas, Myths and legends" (1930)
                              on sale. Only 49.00 kr.! I'm now on page 221 "Tane the Divine King"
                              about the Polynesian water god. He compares him with the Egyptian
                              Ptah-Tanen, the composite sky and earth god.

                              Torsten
                            • Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
                              On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 02:49:09 -0000, Joseph S Crary ... [Apologies if someone already mentioned this, I m catching up with over 900
                              Message 14 of 19 , Sep 6, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Sun, 02 Sep 2001 02:49:09 -0000, "Joseph S Crary" <pva@...>
                                wrote:

                                >The Lemnians of the 6th century used a language very similar to
                                >Etruscan-Tyyrhenian. In fact they are so similar that it is clear to
                                >even the most casual observer that Lemnian and Etruscan-Tyyrhenian
                                >had a close common ancestral language. We know the Lemnos people from
                                >the period of the Lemnos Stele were called Pelasgian; as a general
                                >term. Thus the Language of the Lemnos Stele is Pelasgian. Again,
                                >because Lemnian is so similar to Etruscan it is also a Pelasgian
                                >Language.
                                >
                                > Pelasgian
                                > |__________________________________________
                                > Tyyrhenian | Pelo-Pelasgian? Attic-Pelasgian?
                                > _____ |______ |
                                > Lemnian Etruscan Raetic
                                >

                                [Apologies if someone already mentioned this, I'm catching up with
                                over 900 messages]

                                Unfortunately, the term "Pelasgian" is already taken. In linguistics,
                                it's used for the putative language(s) of Pre-Greek, non-Greek
                                *Indo-European* dwellers of Greece.
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.