You may (?!) be right, Glen, on subject verb agreement re: "lot"..but I have
a few obscure defenses. I will check and concede or argue:-) (I think we
have resolved that the Baltic for Balkans typo was mine, not yours.)
Me: If Tyrrhenian center was Italy, It could have influenced
Etruscan after movement, and contribute to any difference between it and
Lemnian.
You: Huh? Etruscan comes from Tyrrhenian. They aren't separate.
New Me: I know, IAW your scenario and the name of the language branch. But
they should be. The biggest problem here may simply be the name of the
branch (Tyrrhenian). Otherwise, we are just getting to Etruscan from
significantly different roads.
Me: Lemnian got to Lemnos by boat from Anatolia. Then by boat to Italy as
Etruscan, and Raetian may simply be a tribe of Etruscans (if Livy is right).
Romansh or Raeto-Romance is simply a post Roman composite of Raetii people,
other Etruscan legionnaires, and Latin..stranded and moving north (down Alp
slope). What Livy may be overlooking is that Raetii may stem from an earlier
arriving Aegean colonization wave, pre- Etruscan..but from the Aegean..with
a similar language.
Me: Etruscan can stem from intrusive IE (possibly conceding down to
PIE)altered by up to 2,500 years of local Aegean influence before the move
to Italy, and 2 to 4 centuries of Italian influence after the move.
You: I severely doubt. Any particular evidence for this....?
NewMe: I think there is much: but first we have to ID the problem and
differences in the way we are looking at it.
Your way of looking at it:
If I take your scenario, apply it to Aegean and environs, and try to overlay
the classic authors, and the existing evidence; this is what we have:
Tyrrenian (as PIE IndoEtruscan), leaves IE Central for the Balkans c
4,500 BCE. Either it moves into Italy and then Greece, or simultaneously
moves down into both from the Balkans, to dominate and/or displace the
Oscans. It also gets into coastal Anatolia. It survives (at least in parts
of Anatolia) the Pelasgi Early Bronze wave c3000 BCE as it redefines the
rest of the Aegean, including Lemnos. The Tyrrhenian pocket in Anatolia
takes Lemnos from the Pelasgi. Elements of the Anatolian and Lemnos.
Tyrrhenians go back to Tyrrhenia in Italy, (where the earlier Tyrrhenians
have been displaced / absorbed / dominated by a combination of Aegean
colonization and Gaulic intrusion + the passage of 2,300 years) to become
the Etruscans and Raetii. We have an Etrusco-Lemnan branch of Tyrrhenian.
c700 BCE. The Anatolian pocket disappears..Lemnos is reabsorbed back into
the Aegean and Greek world. Etruscans are sole survivors till absorbed by
Rome...leaving a vestigial corrupted Latinized memory (barely) in Romansch.
My way of looking at it: (without starting from an existing branch name.)
Tyrrhenians are a tribe on a sea in Italy, of unknown but non-IE origin,
maybe distinct from Oscan only by their nautical adaptations, or maybe
intrusive from the North. Whether they name the sea, or the sea names them,
or both get applied by Greeks later is also unknown. They expand and
incorporate other tribes definitely including Oscans. They project nautical
influence into Greece..and culturally dominate the Oscans there..Oscans are
absorbed and disappear. They do not make significant progress into Anatolia,
but may have a limited west coast presence. c3000 BCE, the Pelasgi arm of
IE Central (IE or PIE, still favoring the former), departing somewhat
earlier,crossing Anatolia, begins to dominate the Aegean, bringing with it
early BA tech.
Through Crete, Cyclades and then Pelopennese and Thessaly they dominate
but coexist with the Tyrrhenian..pushing them out or totally absorbing them
in some places. (Excepting Attics who retain the strongest pre Pelasgi
residuals..but still culturally mixed). Tyrrhenian provides significant
strata to the new proto Greek language: Pelasgi. Some insular pockets of
Tyrrhenian remain, finally reduced to a few small areas in Thessaly by c500
BCE. The situation in the Aegean expands influence outward under separate
cities..Till Danaan emergence, which eventually leads to disruption of the
marketing system and economy: =decline. Meanwhile the Greek mainland and the
Aegean sphere has been colonizing the Tyrrhenian coast. The Tyrrhenia in
Italy has become a Greek/Aegean place. Tyrrhenian (as a language, people,
culture, ethnic group) all but disappears except for varying regional
degrees of influence on remaining cultures/languages from Anatolia to
Italy..they go the way of the Oscans.
Dorian intrusion redefines the Greek mainland before effecting the
Aegean..and generates IE Greek..while out areas are still speaking variants
of Pelasgi and children. Before the Classical age can re "Greekify" the
Anatolian and Aegean spheres: A Lydian city and Lemnans, speaking
Pelasgi..send new colonies to Italy = Rasenna = Etruscans. Because their
associated sphere is now most prominently represented by the strength of
their presence in "Tyrrhenia"..the Aegean elements of this colonization
reapply the old name to the whole represented by one area in Lydia, Lemnos,
and many cities in Etruria and northward to the Alps. Both Diodorus and
Herodotus are right, and Livy is very close.
Below is just rehashing my perception of Glen's perception in the 17 points:
(I still question: 6,7,13,16 and dispute: 9,10,11,17.)
1. Dene Caucasion entered Anatolia before 25kya
(With my assumption that this could be a southern intrusion to the east
...and actually entering Anatolia from the east?) Thereby including
the "Semitish" influences which were nearly erased over time..incorporating
points 2&3..so they can be deleted except as additional ag related Semitic
input c6K BCE (as at #14).
4. Stands: IE Anatolian is the first branch separating from "IE Central"
(North and N.East of the Black Sea), therefore the oldest. (Pre-separation)
They traded with Semitic and Kartvelian speakers to the south and then with
Finno-Ugric to the north.
5. Stands: PIE and Etruscan are very closely related.
6. Etruscan differs enough (from PIE) to be separate. (Adding)Because:
Etruscan seperated a thousand years before the split of IE into its own
dialects. It erased previous Semitish languages from the "agricultural
spread" in eastern Europe. Germanic and Celtic later erased the rest of
these Semitish languages in western Europe.
7. Etruscan can't be IE, unless you extend IE back before 4,500 BCE
(adding) Because: a) The date is the time of a distinct _spread_. The
dialectal fracture could have occurred earlier. and b) Separate borrowings
of Semitic loanwords.
8. Etruscan is linked to Lemnian, a close sister language. (Definitely.)
9. Etrusco-Lemnian (branch) sprang from a linguistic and/or physical
migration from the point of origin to Balkans c4500BCE. (adding) Both
linguistic and physical migration.
10. Anatolian follows in (Adding: at least) two waves into Anat.
11. First Anat. wave was Lycos-Lydian
12. Second Anat. wave was Lucian Hittite
13. IE exists at 3500 BCE (Modified:) Not quite. The remainder of IE
existed in the area of the Pontiac-Caspian c.3500 BCE. The IE dialects
could have fragmented before then. This is the date of a _spread_ of IE
dialects out from the area. Only the IndoEtruscans/IndoEuropeans (circa
6,000-3,500 BCE) were from (IE Central)
14. Corrected: Greece was Semitic since c6000 BCE (advent of agriculture).
Tyrrhenian enters later, yielding Tyrrhenian/Semitic by c3000 BCE.
15. Tyrrhenian could be Pelasgic (adding) at least in part (not sure.)
16. Tyrrhenian as language group includes: Lemnian,Etruscan, Rhaetian
17. Etrusco-Lemnian must be Balkan centered to get to Lemnos and Italy.
(adding) Rethinking the idea and considering a combination of land and sea
movement of Tyrrhenian languages.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>