Mark Odegard offers Herodotus:
[1.57.1] What language the Pelasgians spoke I cannot say definitely. But if
one may judge by those that still remain of the Pelasgians who live above
the Tyrrheni in the city of Creston--who were once neighbors of the people
now called Dorians, and at that time inhabited the country which now is
called Thessalian--
[1.57.2] and of the Pelasgians who inhabited Placia and Scylace on the
Hellespont, who came to live among the Athenians, and by other towns too
which were once Pelasgian and afterwards took a different name: if, as I
said, one may judge by these, the Pelasgians spoke a language which was not
Greek.
[1.57.3] If, then, all the Pelasgian stock spoke so, then the Attic nation,
being of Pelasgian blood, must have changed its language too at the time
when it became part of the Hellenes. For the people of Creston and Placia
have a language of their own in common, which is not the language of their
neighbors; and it is plain that they still preserve the manner of speech
which they brought with them in their migration into the places where they
live.
[1.58.1] But the Hellenic stock, it seems clear to me, has always had the
same language since its beginning; yet being, when separated from the
Pelasgians, few in number, they have grown from a small beginning to
comprise a multitude of nations, chiefly because the Pelasgians and many
other foreign peoples united themselves with them. Before that, I think, the
Pelasgic stock nowhere increased much in number while it was of foreign
speech.
Rex adds:
What interests me most about this input from H. is that he is implying that
both
(Tyrrhenian and Pelasgi languages) still exist in pockets as he writes.
Significant there I think, is that they are still distinct to him,
ethnically and linguistically. Many other references apply to linguistic
pockets of Pelasgi in Greece and Anatolia as late as c1200 BCE..while
stating that the other (Greek) cities and States are ethnically Pelasgi
derived, but now speaking other (Greek) languages, under other names. Here
H. seems to also refer to Thessalians as distinct, but: IAW
Pseudo-Apollodorus Library e.6.15 (referring to Post-Troy "Danaans" {who
are former Pelasgi>Argives>Achaeans}:
"Antiphus, son of Thessalus, went to the Pelasgians, and, having taken
possession of the country, called it Thessaly."
Others write that Thessaly was previously "Pelasgiotis". While Argives and
Ionians and Arcadians came out of "Pelasgia". There are three peoples cited
linearly in terms of occupying "Greece" before the Dorian dominance: Oscan,
Tyrrhenian, then the first to attain full dominance: Pelasgi. I see the
Pelasgi period in Greece as the collision/overlap of two cultural spheres:
The earlier (Italy centered) Tyrrhenian; and the later (Anatolia centered)
Pelasgi. If that is close to accurate, the linguistics would be
different..but both contributing to the later Greek, and perhaps existing
pre-Greek as some kind of combination linguistically in areas of the
mainland and some Aegean islands (?). Here H. also has NW Anatolian
Pelasgians (pushed out?) and arriving in Thessaly. Other Pelasgians were
still found in Anatolia as far North as (near) Smyrna by post-Troy Danaans,
apparently happily coexisting with the Hittites. H's last line above, gets
close to suggesting smaller numbers of Greek speakers dominated larger
numbers of others including Pelasgi. Which tracks with my thinking.
Mark comments:
>I've yet to read an authority of repute who will unequivocally state the
Pelasgian >language was Indo-European. To the contrary, all you read are
explicit denials for >such a possibility.
Yes. Well, I knew that would spice up the discussion. Please remember my
arguments are primarily historical, and I can't even get close to presenting
solid
linguistic arguments. I welcome, however (certainly on this list)
linguistic evidence
opposing my historical speculation (which is what it is, but not entirely
baseless).
There are folks still arguing for an Anatolian origin of IE..which I
entertained in the past and rejected. But..we have a group of pre-Hittite
(IE?) languages influencing Hittite. If we time all of that after c2000
BCE, there is not really enough time for
the pre-Hitties to be established well enough to influence Hittite. They
all either
came in together (with the apparent influence compiled earlier) OR..they
seceded
from a broader in place predecessor (Possibly my Pelasgians?) Now,
apparently Palaic was in place before Hittite occupation of the neighboring
(overlapping? same?) space. Say Pala and Pelasgi about ten times real
fast..:-)
Mark:
>Using mentions made by Herodotus et al. of Pelasgians on Lemnos, the
Lemnian >inscriptions are sometimes identified as being in the Pelasgian
language, and as >these inscriptions are closely related to Etruscan, the
Pelasgian language is >sometimes placed in the Tyrrhenian group.
Rex:
Strabo puts the same three "layers" of people in Pompeii and Herculaneum,
Pelasgi overlaying Tyrrhenian, then Oscan. Again Distinct (or does he mean
Etrurians/Pelasgi are the same?). Why can't the Etruscan linked Lemnos
inscriptions be Pelasgian as distinct from Tyrrhenian, and later. If
Pelasgians can be proto Greek, why can't they be proto Etrurian. If they
can colonize Pompeii, et el, why not contribute to what made Etruscan
distinct from Tyrrhenian in Italy? I think I have to challenge the
Pelasgi/Tyrrhenian grouping. (BTW after three years in Turkey, I assure you
the academic community there would insist that the root of Etruscan was
Anatolian; and deny you "cei" if you disagreed :-)
Mark:
>Herodotus uses the term Pelasgian to mean the non-Greek-speaking
autochthons of >Greece.
Rex:
I know. But he is writing late and defining a Greek/Persian world. Others
(earlier)refer to the same Pelasgi everywhere one turns in Anatolia, and
even H (see below) acknowledges some Anatolian and Aegean island residual
Pelasgian. Non-Greek does not mean non-IE. Pelasgian hasn't much meaning
to my scenario if restricted to mainland Greece..but that is my point: it
isn't.
Mark:
>Whatever language[s] they spoke cannot be directly related to the Lemnian
>inscriptions, but only indirectly, by proximity.
Rex:
Only so if you assume they (Pelasgi) are a Greek "mainland only" presence,
or that that is their center. Consider:
Pausanius: 7.2.2 (Minyae were)..expelled from Lemnos by Pelasgians..
Herodotus: 2.51 (Samothrace).. its Pelasgian inhabitants..
Herodotus: 5.26.1 This Otanes, then, who sat upon that seat, was now made
successor to Megabazus in his governorship. He captured Byzantium,
Calchedon, Antandrus in the Troad, and Lamponium, and with ships he had
taken from the Lesbians, he took Lemnos and Imbros, both of which were still
inhabited by Pelasgians.
Herodotus: 6.136.2 Miltiades was present but could not speak in his own
defense, since his thigh was festering; he was laid before the court on a
couch, and his friends spoke for him, often mentioning the fight at Marathon
and the conquest of Lemnos: how Miltiades had punished the Pelasgians and
taken Lemnos, delivering it to the Athenians.
Herodotus: 6.137.4 ..Pelasgians departed (Athens) and took possession of
Lemnos, besides other places..
Mark:
>Lemnos was probably as linguistically mixed as was Crete, in that it was a
major >trading center. Finding Greek and Tyrhennian inscriptions on Lemnos
should >probably be no more suprising than finding Greek and Hebrew
inscriptions on >Manhattan Island.
Rex:
No real argument with the first line..but there are suggestions that
Pelasgians dominated at several points. My only concern with the second
line is an assumption that the inscriptions are Tyrrhenian..and that that is
synonymous (or even similar) with Pelasgian, when we don't know if the
Tyrrhenians were there, but have several clear references that the
Pelasgians definitely were there. We also have "Poliochni" on the east coast
with an early bronze arch layer at c. 3000 BCE (and three older
layers..going well past 5K BCE)
Mark:
>As for Greece, my own view is it was fundamentally non-IE in character
until
>the advent of chariot warfare (after 2000 BCE).
Rex:
Chariots got older this year, Mark. My new guess for IE into Greece..lets
relate to the known early bronze age site in Lemnos: 3000 BCE. Maybe even
enough time for Luwian and Palaic to secede from Pelasgian..and
differentiate enough to have an impact on middle bronze Hittite?.
(I am way out of my element on these linguistic arguments..the rest of you
folks:
correct me, and participate. Thanks for the quality and detail of your
response Mark, I really do appreciate the interest. I learn something on
this list every day, and certainly learn by "developing and supporting"
arguments.)
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>