Re: Thucydides+Tyrrhenian again

Back tracking



This issue brings up the entire relationship of the Graeco-Armenic
relationship to the Yamnaya and Srubnaya cultures. Scope, Scale, and
all important, timing. Although the Yamnaya and Srubnaya may
represent a continuum, within this complex a Graeco-Armenic block
would have had to remained a discrete unit. Also its spatial
distribution within the Yamnaya-Srubnaya complex would have to have
been elongated on a east to west axis. Either this, or the leading
edge of the Srubnaya was primarily Graeco-Armenic. Still this may not
provide adequate time for the Achaean Greeks to take part in the late
EH III destruction in Greece. The nesting of Geaeco-Ae=rmenic within
a Yamnaya-Srubnaya continuum may be the only answer.

Again this would most likely associate the Pelasgians with the late
EH II destruction levels at many eastern Greek and western Anatolia
sites. This would also tie the Pelasgians to the so-called Minyan
ware in Greece and in northwestern Anatolia as introduced at the Troy
IV and V resettlements. Although it is claimed than Minyan ware is
Not present in the Balkans there is a dominant early EB III two-
handled beaker ware type in Bulgaria. This appears to the forerunner
of Minyan ware.

The spatial elongation of a Graeco-Armenic linguistic unit within a
Yamnaya-Srubnaya complex followed by a Urnfield-like complex may
explain some of the major and basic differences between material
assemblages of the Achaean and Dorian Cultures.

But I see now that a similar path was taken by Rex and John Croft in
March



JS CRARY