Re: [tied] Re: Views about Etruscan

I'm following the new round of points on this subject with
interest. Those that have been on list a couple of years will remember
that this tree was circumnavigated repeatedly several years ago. I
agree with most of what J.S. Crary is discovering in his study..with one
big exception: " and by extension- Tyrrhenians"..IE lumping or relating
the influences. (Which has also been my biggest single problem with
Glenn's over-lumping of Lemnos with his Indo-Tyrrhennian grouping title.
Enter also Mr. Caws moving the influence from Crete/Cyprus
omnidirectionally by sea trade..countering it got to Crete/Cyprus before
the later exchange by the same mechanism..earlier.)

Take the group of classic authors and focus on the point, beyond just
H.: and the following is clearly implied:


Tyrrhenians were in Greece, not alone, but dominant before Pelasgians
arrived.
Newcomers from Anatolia replaced them in dominance..and were called
Pelasgian.
Pre-Doric Hellenes included but were not limited to Pelasgians, in my
view only referring to a common culture developing in place.
Lacedaemanians may have been other intrusives.
Pelasgians were linguistically distinct from Tyrrhenians.
Some Tyrrhenians pockets survived until just before H.'s time, some
possibly even later.

Piotr then offers:
O-: Well, what proof is there that the Pelasgians were linguistically
homogeneous and that, say, the "Pelasgians" of Lemnos spoke a language
necessarily related to other Aegean substrate languages? By assuming
that they did you overstep the limits of whatever information is
available. What could Herodotus know of the language(s) of the pre-Greek
"barbaroi" of the Peloponnese and Attic, extinct long before his time?
He sticks the label "Pelasgian" on just about anyone who lived in the
region before the coming of the Greeks.

I can't claim P. homogeneity..but the record suggests a closer
relationship among a Pelasgic group..then among a pre EBA group of
Tyrrhenian speakers. Yes..H. and others do blanket the Aegean periphery
with Pelasgians..but as intrusives. It is the point to be disproved
with linguistic or other evidence, and fits better than a Tryyhenian
continuity from ca 7,000 BCE through and beyond EBA. It is not:
"ignorable".

J.S. Crary again..and my biggest point of contention with his position:

O-: "Tyrrhenian is also a Pelasgian language."

I don't think so. and why must it be. If you get past modern
grouping/lumping/naming...beyond the evidence. IE you are saying: If
Glenn calls Lemnos "Tyrrhenian" and it is Pelasgic..Then Pelasgic =
Tyrrhenian. I counter: No..the Tyrrhenian label is
inappropriate..there was a break in Tyrrhenian by Pelagic before Greek,
and Lemnos/Etruria are resilient of the latter, not the former..but
would have Tyrrhenian substrate. It is too big a "lump" in time.

Ed Robertson then comes back with the Implication from H. that T.'s and
P.'s are distinct people. I agree..and it is not just H. that presents
that picture. Careful with Homer though; he uses all the above terms
interchangeably (and is scolded for it by his later reviewers) ..but he
still implies a T/P distinction.

JS Crary then again attempts to equate T/P. I would accept that pre-
Dorian Greeks inhabitants were both T and P, or Hellenes emerged from
elements of both, with other elements; but not T = P as a simple
reference/name change in time. Pelasgians came, found Tyrrhenians
there..the former dominating the latter over time but never displacing
completely.

Slàinte mhath;
Rex H. McTyeire