--- In cybalist@..., MrCaws@... wrote:
> --- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:
> > --- In cybalist@..., MrCaws@... wrote:
> > > --- In cybalist@..., cas111jd@... wrote:
> > >
> > > Myth is filled with
> > > legendary half-truths that aren't usually accurate in a
> historical
> > > snese, but nonetheless have an underlying factual basis of
some
> > >
> > > Aeneas makes a good case and point. The tradition making Aeneas
> the
> > > legendary patriarch of Rome etc. is obviously not historical
> fact.
> > > Connections between the Romans and Trojans are pretty
> > > fanciful.However, the Etruscans, whatever you believe about
them,
> > >did
> > > have significant cultural influence(maybe more than that) from
W
> > > Anatolia. If you notice that the Roman culture borrowed a lot
of
> > > their ideas from the Etruscans, it seems not unlikely that this
> > >tale
> > > might refer to the good old Rasna, retouched to meet Roman
> > >needs.That
> > > there is some truth there, even if it is obscured by its
> legendary
> > > nature and nationalistic sentiment. Skeptics might look at the
> part
> > > discussing how some of Aeneas' companions ended up settling at
> > > Sardinia. Connections between Etruscans and Sardinia are pretty
> > > numerous. Of course, theis is not to say that Aeneas was an
> actual
> > > guy, but is shows how similar traditions can have something to
> say
> > >if
> > > looked at critially.
> > Connections between Etruscans and Carthage also abound. There's
> your
> > Dido episode.
>
> True that. In fact, Carthage and Etruria did have a sort of stormy
> love affair, often allies, sometimes enemies.
> The Sardinia incident is mentioned in a more off-handed way, which
> is why it looks more like unadulterated pseudo-history than the
> heavily dramaticized Dido incident. Plus,
>
> > If he was actual, he might have spoken a form of Lemnian. That
> would
> > make him an Etruscan on arrival in Italy. So the Aeneas story is
> the
> > story of an Etruscan founding the city of Rome (or of Etruria?)
>
> Yes, I would say the latter. I don't buy Aeneas as a single
person,
> or even a single incoming wave of people, but as an influential
group
> of traders that catalyzed the rise of Etruria, sure, I buy that. In
> fact, it's pretty much my favorite theory.
>
> -Mr. Caws
Well, we would need one of our resident know-it-alls to fill in the
details more accurately than I can recall without digging through my
notes, but these theories have major problems:
1. the Trojan war occurred around 1250 BC. This would have been the
time of Aeneas, who first settled amongst kindred Thracian tribes of
northern Greece.
2. the collapse of the Mycenaean culture nearby bronze age cultures
occurred about 1200 BC, followed by a depopulation of Greece and much
of Anatolia, and the Mycenaean colonization of Cyprus, Pamphylia, and
the attack of the Sea Peoples across the eastern Mediterranean until
their defeat against Egypt. Some may have ended up sailing into the
western Mediterranean, but that is another subject.
3. No significant Aegean-Anatolian cultural influence is discernable
in the western Mediterranean until centuries later. As I recall, the
metallurgy of Sardinia (it was a source of copper) improved after
1200 BC, but that's about it.
First Phoenician and then Greek traders and settlers opened up the
western Mediterranean after the 'Dark Age' ended around 800 BC. Only
after this time in the "Orientalizing" period did significant Greek
influence reach Etruria. This included Greek deities such as Apollo,
who we also find in Hittite records as Apulianas of the vassal state
of Wilusa (Ilion). Only in the Iron Age did the Etruscan alphabet
appear. If we are to believe that the Etruscans are descended from
the people of Lemnos, some explanations are necessary:
How did the population of a tiny island like Lemnos come to populate
a large state like Tuscany?
Given that Etruscan was a non-IE language, how did its parent
population ever manage to survive the waves of Anatolians, Thracians,
and Greeks through the Mediterranean? Not even the Minoans could do
that. Herodotus says the Tuscans were descended from a faction of
Lydians that left in a drought in the 9th century BC. Lydia was, I am
certain, an IE Anatolian-speaking state since Middle Bronze Age
times.
Now, the only way to explain any of this, as far as I can tell, would
have to include arguments such as:
the Etruscan alphabet was written only on perishable materials such
as leather and papyrus before it is found carved in stone in the
eighth (or whichever) century.
the refugees from Anatolia were too few in number to impact the
indigenous early Etruscan language.
the Lemnos stele is not necessarily proof of Etruscan language or
origin. After all, about every city in Anatolia had its own, if
similar, script that lasted into Roman times. This shows the
fractured nature of the Anatolian city-states that apparently were
more worried about keeping their own distinct identities than
communicating with each other. Perhaps some day some more evidence of
Anatolian alphabets will be uncovered showing a clearer picture of
the place. Unfortunately, the Greeks and Romans used old buildings
and cities as quarries for their new buildings and cities, so lotsa
luck on that!
Besides the Lemnos stele and its obvious similarity to the Tuscan
alphabet, there are the names of the Tuscan rulers of Rome. Tarquinas
Superbus and Tarquinas Priscus are, IMO, titles. They relate to the
name of the Armenian king Tigranes, the Greek word tyrant, and the
name of an early Welsh king whose name I cannot recall at the moment.
Anyways, I believe the name translates as something like 'lord', but
in any event is for a sovereign. The Tuscan city of Tarquina was
located on the coast of southern Tuscany, which may have been a
landing spot for the Anatolian refugees, no matter what ethnic
identity or century of arrival you believe them to be.
As for Aeneas: the Romans grafted a lot of Greek mythology onto their
own. Indeed, they shamelessly adopted wholesale the Greek myths of
Zeus, Hera, Aphrodite, etc to their deities Jupiter, Juno, Venus, and
so on. Why should we not believe Aeneas was also adopted? After all,
the archaeology of Rome shows little more than some wattle and daub
huts before the Tuscans took over the place in the eighth century.
Surely cultured princes such as Aeaneas and his retinue (or whatever
refugees there were) could show the local rubes something better than
this.