Re: [tied] Re: Odin as a Trojan Prince

----- Original Message -----
From: <MrCaws@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2001 3:49 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: Odin as a Trojan Prince


> --- In cybalist@..., "Alexander Stolbov" <astolbov@...> wrote:
> > The idea that in the basis of both Greek and Roman mythologies lies
> > ultimately the same Aegean source only slightly coloured with
> sparse IE
> > motifs seems to me rather likeable too.
> >
> > However we may not equate Helladic Pelasgians and the Anatolian
> ancestors of
> > Etruscans. Pelasgians appeared in Greece before Greeks, i.e. not
> later than
> > in the Middle Bronze Age. Archaeology allows us think that
> population of
> > Middle Greece (Early Helladic II B), Cyclades (Early Cycladic II B)
> and the
> > West Anatolian coast (Troy II) was since the middle of the 3rd
> millennium
> > actually the same and had eastern roots. Perhaps the main "Aegean"
> > mythological ideas were formed in that period (if not earlier). But
> the
> > destinies of the west and east coasts of the Aegean sea were
> different. The
> > former was "covered" by the Greek superstratum, and the latter - by
> Luwian
> > one. Besides, more than 1500 years had to pass before the Greek
> mythology
> > was formulated by Hesiod & Homer and Etruscans left for Italy.
> > So in my opinion we should treat Pelasgians and Etruscans as
> cousins.
> >
> > Alexander
>
>
>
> Question: Where do the Lemnians fit in this? Without going out of my
> depth in dangerous linguistic waters, aren't Etruscan and Lemnian
> close enough that they must be on the same side of the significant
> linguistic division you are talking about?

Yes, I think so. If we call Etruscans and Pelasgians cousins, we should call
Etruscans and Lemnians brothers.


Sorry, I didn't understand the next question as a whole, so I'll try to
comment parts of it.

> Might Luwian and later Lycian and Lydian be the incoming IE Anatolian
> language with a Pelasgo-Tyrrheno-Aegeanic-whatever substrate,

Yes, definitely. Like Hittite is an IE Anatolian language with the Khattic
substrate.

> and
> thus the Etrusco-Lemnian are languages that actually missed most of
> the Indoeuropeanization?

Difficult to say.

> And thus being *potentially* more akin to
> mainland Pelasgian survivals than the Indo-Europeanized W. Anatolian
> cousins that you talked about?

When speaking about cousins I meant Pelasgian (which was a substrate
language for Greek) and (pre-)Etruscan (which had to be a substrate language
for Luwian or one of its branches if we trust the Lydian origin story). I
guess both Pelasgian and pre-Etruscan in Asia Minor were influenced by IE
languages but in different ways.

Alexander