My last day before experiencing tech withdrawal. I'm going to try to
address by catch up as many of Dennis' counterpoints as possible from a group of
his messages on the issue. The essence of our separation is one key
group of points (correct my perception here as appropriate):
1. (Me) Pelasgians were specific people that
are culturally definable, and impacted intrusively on mainland Greece in the
period of EBA following c. 3000 BCE, from the east, and are distinct from
Tyrrhenians (at least in time and tech).
2. (Dennis) All (pre Mycenean) mainland
Greek autochthons were referred to as Pelasgi (in any linguistic
form), they are not a specific people, are not distinct from
Tyrrhenians, and they did not impact culturally to the east or west of
mainland Greece.
So, may I suggest we keep or correspondence (excepting specific rebuttal to
my counters below) to evidence and argument on those specific points, lest we
fall into a perpetual counter assertion mode, and become a
potential annoyance to others on the list?
Dennis, responding to John Croft; 21 March, Subject -
same:
>I've no argument against the Tyrrhenians/Pelasgians
originating in the Neolithic cultures of NW Anatolia. Basically we're in
agreement that Tyrrhenians = Pelasgians.
Here, at least, we have moved to the east of mainland Greece. If we
list major resident (autochthonous) factors contributing to championed later
Greek cultures, these (P's and T's) belong in a similar bag. But that is
not what we are doing.
>...and that the term was used by classical Greek writers
as a general term for natives.
The core of our disparity, and I insist it is not the case. It is
true, however, that many classical scholars interpret that this is the
intent of the reference by the writers; but an equal number, Britannica, and I:
disagree. The references are always to a specific named people among
others.
>We seem in fact to be
in agreement that the Greeks were numerically superior while the
Tyrrhenians/Pelasgians were technically more advanced. This would account
more realistically for me for the facts that
the Pelasgians adopted Greek speech, while the Greek-speakers retained the
Pelasgian name.
I have no argument with this beyond the "to tight" association of
Tyrrhenians and Pelasgi. Yes, both were there at the same time, and both
autochthonous, but not "same". Then I get confused: who are these
"Greeks" faced with tech superiority of T/P's..if all autochthonous Greeks were
Pelasgi? I suspect, that by the time of significant colonization (to the
west) Pelasgi as an identifiable major mainland group were gone (the
"identity" retained sub-regionally..but far from uniformly) and just memory
evident in a traditional application of similar place names; but linguistic
homogeny in the colonizing power spheres was not yet
achieved. (Hence..Etruscan and Lemnan was not Greek.)
>{John:...unity of culture in the Aegean was not of
Phoenician provenance but came from Anatolia}Dennis: But apart from
the Tyrrhenian/Pelasgian Troy I/II period, which ended by 2250, and does not
seem to have extended as far as the southern Aegean and Crete in any case,
Anatolia. particularly during the period of Hittite domination, seems quite
absent from the Aegean sphere - "not one shard of Minoan/Mycenean pottery found
at Bogazkoy" I remember reading somewhere.
Agreeing with
John here, to the rare totality :-) Again, Dennis at least you are
allowing Anatolian presence by Pelasgi here. As for Bogazkoy and Aegean
shards: It's kinda' hard to park a boat there. It would seem that trade
interest was logically and prudently coastal to the "Sea peoples"..with an
apparent interest in placing colonies at river mouths..to get trade out..it
does not flow upstream as smoothly (The Nile one distinct possible
exception) and internal trade was left to the redistribution markets of
locals (or resident colonists). Pottery does not travel as well overland as it
does over sea. Hittites never controlled the North Anatolian Aegean coast,
and If I recall correctly: only held a small portion of Aegean coast late
in their rise. (As John suggests: possibly putting some more Pelasgi cousins
into Greece.) It would also seem that Hittite trade focus,
as established before their apex..was overland to the east. And then
they were crushed: John suspects north easterners in this effort...I agree with
those that suggest westerners.
On the rest of your Mediterranean comments: of course. If sea trade
was successful and perhaps even older than we credit...where is the mystery in
mixed crews and dispersed cargoes..or even Semites in Crete?
I do challenge a bit your assertion that Egyptian dominance of the Levant
as implied "throughout this period" is significant. I don't think it
was ever significantly continuous..but intermittent and strained. In any
case..they thought in terms of land dominance and political
stability..which just made better customers to the remote sea
traders. With or without colonies, they would boat in without threat
to present what had to be welcome support for any local city economy, regardless
of the nationality of any sovereign.
Dennis responding to John Croft 28 March, Subject: [cybalist] Pelasgians -
another (last) word:
>How did you arrive at these place names? Just by having an
initial P followed by L?
I would have thought your first two contained the
element "palai-" "old". Phylakopi has an initial aspirated 'p', so how does that
relate to "pelasgos"? The
Greeks did not "drop" their
esses.
I am not sure how/why we try to define what may be pre or proto Greek in
Greek terms. Of course it changed over 2 thousand years and several
languages. The answer to the first question is: context. If we have a
postulated movement of people from one place (with a recognizable place name
tradition) and we see a similar tradition applied in the areas through which the
postulated movement is suggested to pass, I don't think it is fantasy to
consider the reoccurring tradition an indicator or supporting point..regardless
of original "t" or "g" (particularly when the style and apparent tradition
seems to be limited specifically within the area of postulated influence and
contact). As for Greeks dropping esses, it would seem that the tradition
included some deliberate differentiation in place names,(not simply a
reapplication of the name for the people) including a deliberate and
common prefix with other and varying suffixes. Therefore:
Phylakopi does not have to relate specifically to Pelasgos/Pelast/Pelasgoi/..if
it links to place names and tradition used in areas known to be occupied by the
subject people. Certainly no people ran around naming new
cities.."old city"....nor did they (in any language) attempt to name
their new or old cities as meaning "Autochthopolis" :-)
As for _-kopi_: Kapi is still in use in modern Turkish Anatolia
for a settlement area (not usually a city, but a village, or maybe a region or
area within a city), and always with a prefix, but usually two words, as
in: _Hosgun Kapi_. So linking Phylakopi to Phyla and other
PH's in known Pelasgic Areas, or PH..K's is
not "circumstantial".
Dennis responding to Rex,30 March, Subject: same as one
above
>But who named these Larissai, and more
importantly when? I have offered a
possible derivation meaning "Entry to
Fertile Land" from the Egyptian. Do
you have another explanation of the
name?
All I can say is Homer used the term for the Anatolian version as "Fertile
Larissa, home of the warlike Pelasgians". It could have picked up the
meaning fertile by association and transfered to other fertile areas, as in
Greek Larisa, which is also associated with Pelasgians. Certainly Homer
would not purposefully state "fertile fertile". If it was renamed,
why the association in that name, and why the transference to Greece with the
associated people? Therefore its similar city/area/place name use
(elsewhere) in the postulated area of influence is more than
circumstantial. It does not change the context if it meant "cabbage
patch"..then "cole slaw"..then "place of foreign salads". I find it
illogical to argue that central focus points of Pelasgian occupation on two
sides of the Aegean (as well as scattered about other points in and off the
Aegean) just got accidentally renamed in Egyptian, totally "circumstantially" to
same context references to Pelasgic occupation. That is my whole
point, really, when the number of apparent "coincidental circumstances" reaches
a certain point, it is time to reevaluate the conclusions that forced them as a
group into that category of thought. (And Danaus was not buried in an
Oldinthus ;-)
>Assuming
"Rasenna" is Etruscan, do you know that "-n-" is a adjectival ending in that
language to derive people from a place name, as it is in
English?
It is no assumption. I believe (a form of ) Rasennes/Rasenna
is attested as Etruscan, while Etruscan is later Latin for the same
people. There are also place names in Italy associated with this
appellation AND Etruscans. As for the second part: No I don't know
that. What I know is that people calling themselves Rasennes went to Italy
and named places there that way. I know some linguists link their
language to people in Lemnos. I know many (at least three) Greek writers
in the classical literature further link them to Lemnos and Lydians near Larissa
(Anatolia). I know Pelasgians are purported to have lived there. I
know Strabo calls them Larisseans meaning Pelasgi from Larissa. I know
(La)Riseans and Rasennes would seem to be similar WITHOUT all those other
circumstances :-)
>This list is
the equivalent of throwing dust in your opponent's eye. There are obvious
Pelasgian references scattered amongst these words. Many contain the element
"palai/e" meaning "old". This is the normal Greek word for "old". Does it derive
from Pelasgos or does Pelasgos derive from it? I favour the second.
Gibralter it is not, but neither is it dust: I'll compromise
to pebbles against the housing facility of your
conceptual stubborness.:-) Which is older..Pelasgiotis
or the naming of Paleopolis/Neapolis in Italy? (Even if first attestd
contemporaneously.) Will you argue that a word for old in a pre-Greek
language survived and was used to name cities in a tradition similar to that
used inside Greece before Greek? Then people speaking the language of the naming
of Paleopolis, wandered around writing volumes about "Oldasgiotis" and the "Oldasgians" that lived there (always as a proper
noun)? You then have to explain the circumstances that everywhere these
"Oldasgians" (are purported to have) lived: all the place names are simply
coincidentally the same or similar.
>I look forward to your
derivations and explanations of these words.
Don't hold your breath Dennis. I am resting
on the abundance of association, context and "circumstances". Supported,
not defined, by classical interpretation and arch. If I wanted to pretend
to linguistic arguments, I would not perform the suicidal act on this list
occupied by such respected practitioners of the discipline. No
No. Not this idiot.
Dennis in "Pelasgian or Nubian Dodona" 3 April
Come on Dennis: Even Herodotus clearly labels this as a speculative belief,
after hearsay myth from priests/priestesses, and tells the story of a
(single) slave girl possibly taken one place and possibly sold in another (with
her sister as a Dove also in Libya (Siwa?). I don't have an arboreal
reference, but somehow I don't think oak trees play a big part in the landscape
at Siwa. The association of Ammon with Zeus is, like the name of Egyptian
Thebes (of a hundred gates): Greek. And the Doves, like the Storks and
Pigeons of Dodona, and the Etruscan shields: Pelasgian.
Dennis in Pelasgian Consensus:
>..."source
criticism". Briefly stated, it said that since Herodotos and other Athenian
writers had a contemporary motive for creating Greek-Egyptian connections (i.e.
the Athenian-Saite alliance), that their testimony was flawed and could not be
relied upon.
I would hardly call
Herodotus (or Homer) Athenian writers. Both were Anatolian born, and Herodotus
was born in Bodrum (Hailcarnassus) and probably Carian, under Persian rule, and
politically ambivalent at best to pro-Persian. Yes, he spent some time in Athens and probably met
Sophocles, before moving to an Italian colony. In reference to the
Dodonan/Egyptian Dove story..I think I would also be inclined, however, to
invoke this Greek-Egyption connection clause. If for no other reason: the
way H. himself couches the story.
> ...glorifying
the Pelasgian ancestors. To this I would add, the need to accentuate the
differences between Hellenic, but non-Pelasgic, Sparta and Hellenic and Pelasgic
Athens, and to extend Athens' allies by claiming for them a Pelasgian
ancestry wherever possible. Later, after the conquests of Alexander, this
glorified and extended Pelasgic past gave the Greeks a history to compare with
those of the ancient empires they had conquered.
My interest is not the validity of the association in the glorifying of
the
Pelasgian past, nor the accuracy of the conduit for specific lineage
or leadership. As previously stated: it is the selection of this group and
the context and implication of a specific people. There is no distinction
in inventing a connection to people existing only as all other autochthons (or
pre-Dorians), when as you yourself believe, a claim to Egyptian grandeur could
be supported by the inventors.
>So, in short, I am saying - yes, the classical Greeks' testimony is
flawed, and is not to be taken at face value.
In one story or writer, I agree with you completely. I am talking
about an ever-present implication exceeding "general autochthonic" and
indicating specific identity, culture, language and intrusive presence.
> Is there
any genuinely independant corroborative evidence for these widespread,
sea-faring, dynamic, trading Pelasgians? Are they mentioned by the Hittites,
Ebla, Ugarit, Byblos, Tyre, Egypt, Akkad, Linear B,
This one bothers me, Dennis: You can't be serious. All
we know of Pala
and Palumnili comes from Hittite, while one of the reasons we
were so late in Identifying the Hittite culture is that Herodotus and other
Greek tradition writers don't even mention them (Or don't distinguish them from
Phrygians). We know they were there. Masriqian calls them Peleste
(with your "t")..the Egyptians Plst..in a context clearly not referring to
Pacific Islanders, but Aegean/Med people engaged in Sea stuff....coming by sea
dynamically to threaten the Delta. (I've posted my thoughts on that military
effort earlier).
> (You can't count Livy,
Paeligni are not Pelasgi.)
I don't know that..and you haven't supported the
position.
> Since you find
it impossible to define exactly who these Pelasgians were, it is impossible to
cite archaeology or linguistics to support your claim.
How exact would you like me to be? I think I have
defined them in the context of my straw man as well as any EBA people in the
area could be described. So far, I have heard assertive argument, but have
seen no
evidence contra-indicating the straw man..while aggressively
looking for it.
>I would say that the history of the Bronze Age
Aegean can be seen as an internally consistent whole without the
Pelasgians, provided the Egyptians and Phoenicians are included in the mix. At
least for these two groups, there is archaeological and linguistic evidence to
support (or refute) the idea, together with citations from all the ancient
authorities as well as cultic and mythological
parallels.
Sure. If you can convince yourself that the several hundred distinct
references to them aren't there, or just mean old, and are used as place names
because the Greeks liked to name new cities "old". That no one founded
Argos EBA, that Poliochni did not go EBA at c.3000 BCE with nautical input, that
"circumstantial" and similar "p-l" and other place and people names don't
persist in all contact areas defined.
All three groups existed. In terms of Greek
or Aegean influence, I don't think you can compare the references to
Pelasgi to the references of odd commercial and political contact and
transmitted influences of Phoe./Egypt.'s
A slave girl and Danaus (even with 50 daughters) do not a
redefinition of Greek as Egyptian make. Semitic traces and even
Egyptian colonists on Crete do not
kill the Pelasgi..nor change the course of EBA Aegean.
La Revedere;
Rex H.
McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<rexbo@...>