Responding to D.Poulter, as the "conceptual
opposition" to the Macro-Pelasgia line of thought, and points of mutual
interest in John Croft's consensus check conclusions.
First: Dennis, I really do appreciate your interest and opposition to the
point, as (although I have arrived at a stronger position behind the
proposal) it was a straw man put forward to collect facts and points
contraindicating my conclusions; particularly in the fields beyond my
experience, such as linguistics.
John Croft posited as his second consensus seeking point:
>> 2. A Pelasgian-Tyrsenoi aristocracy, travelling from the Pontic,
>> through the Caucasas, Paphloginia and settling NE Anatolia. >>Moving
across the Dardanelles and into Lemnos, Imbros, and the
>>north Aegean circa 3,000 BCE, possibly as far as Macedonia.
>>They .establish Early Macedonian I, II and III.
Dennis Poulter counters:
>Tyrsenoi, yes - Pelasgian no. Why aristocracy? These
>people were obviously metallurgists and builders too. I assume you >mean NW
Anatolia.They also established Troy I/II, Limantepe, >Poliochni and Thermi
(Lesbos).
I add:
Agreeing with Dennis that the movement and influence we are all addressing
for this time was not simply an aristocracy, but a broad
intrusive settlement, varying regionally as to presence and absence of
conflict. But of course, I say yes Pelasgi, no Tyrsenoi. Both of you (and
all interested listers): Why Tyrsenoi..what is that based on beyond a couple
of T's and R's in place names swamped by Pel/Pal place names? Where is any
tradition or indication that any TR people moved in and brought new
tech/myth/war/ag c.3000 BCE? Where? I gave some ground that Troy could
have been intrusively occupied from the North West..separating it from this
c.3000 at the Aegean wave..but Sabine's vase art is strongly guestioning
even that separate source of influence into the North Aegean and across to
Etruscan. Who are the Tyrsenoi? Indigenous people (Tyrrhenians?) in the way
of the Pelasgi, and dominated by them in numbers and technology, not just
aristocracy.
John's number three:
>> 3. An IE movement circa 2250 BCE from the Pontic Steppes via
>>Usatova and related burnings, across the Dardanelles, driving
>>people from group 1 across the Cyclades into southern Greece
>>(related cultures). The Shift from Early Helladic I to II. This
>>introduced Anatolian cultures into the area (but Crete was avoided,
>>shifting >smothly from Early to Middle Minoan). Bell Beaker >>cultures
throughout Western Europe (inc Italy)
Dennis counters:
>>I don't agree with this account of the shift EHI/EHII. The ceramic >>style
is considered to be a devlopment of EHI, while architecture >>(House of
Tiles,Rundbau) are considered quite distinct from Troy >>I/II. Spyridon
Martinatos claimed that the Rundbau were granaries >>closely resembling
those illustrated from Egypt. The same
>>archaeologist also claimed to have found pottery of this
>>period associated with the Bronze Age drainage/irrigation works of >>Lake
Kopais (Boeotia), which in turn resemble those of Arkadia
>>(including the Tiryns dam). I don't see this level of organisation >>being
the work of displaced Anatolian neolithic farmers.
Agreeing with Dennis that innovations in Greece were not the work of
displaced Anatolian neolithics, but arguing they were the result of the wave
of new EBA Pelasgi..via Anatolia..dominating the Gk mainland over time. My
subject (via Anatolia) culture got there, but (disagreeing with John) not
avoiding Crete, influencing there as well enroute through the Cyclades.
This does not prevent nor deny Bell Beaker influence from the North in
Greece and/or Italy. Where is the rule that only one people can provide
influence to a specific area in a given period? We are talking
settlements/cities..in a broad area before the concept of defended States.
John:
>> 4. The 2000BCE expansion of the Thraco-Cimmerian cultures >>drives
Achaean Greeks into Thessaly (circa 1950 BCE) establishing >>themselves at
Dimini. Expansion of Illyrian IE cultures into Italy as >>the Terramare
Venetic peoples.
Dennis:
>Maybe this is just terminology, but why Achaeans? Is there any >evidence
for this name at this early date? I would just say "proto->Greeks", among
whom I would place the Pelasgoi.
Arrrgh! John? How does Thrace drive people from the south to the north? Am I
missing something here? Are you suggesting a late intrusive distinct Achaean
group? Non-Concur (I will leave Illyrian/Terramare/Tyrrhenians alone here.)
Dennis? Agreeing with "among" the proto-Greeks and including Pelasgoi, BUT:
Argos was settled early bronze by Pelasgi, and legend has them coming from a
preestablished presence in Thessaly. It was a new city..it was Pelasgic..It
was intrusive. The area in which it was founded may already have been known
as Achaea..the eastern portion of the Peloponnese. IAW Strabo..any people
already there at this occurence would have been Tyrrhenian and/or Oscan.
Argos (as Argives) thrived and expanded influence..incorporating Mycenea
into a new reference to a broader Achaea. Pelasgian Argos was the center of
this growth, not Mycenea..we just call the resulting culture "Mycenean"
because Schleimann excavated there. Pelasgians were not limited to
Argos..but it seems to be the historical first (P)settlement in the
Peloponnese at EBA. By c.1300 BCE all of the Peloponnese were incorporated
and referred to as Achaean Pelasgia..and a bit of Thessaly was included.
And so it remained until Danaus renamed its people from Pelasgi to Danaans.
Therefore:
People?: (Tyrrhenian/Oscans) displaced by Pelasgi (c.3000
BCE)=Argives=Achaeans=Danaans.
Places? Achaea(eastern Peloponnese) before EBA / Argos + parts of Achaea =
Pelasgia @ EBA /+Mycenea NLT 1300 BCE = Achaean Pelasgia; Expanding to a
larger Achaea, till Pelops renames the southern sector as: Peloponnese,
displacing usage of Pelasgia.
John again:
>> 5. The 1900 BCE establishment of the Neshite-Hittite monarchy,
>>and expansion westwards, drives Pelasgians across the Aegean into
>>Thessaly, Attica and the Argos. From Thessaly the Hellenes spread
>>southwards at the same time through Boetia, Attica, the Argolid >>and
Achaea. The Persids rule Mycenae from 1600 BCE. They open >>the Black Sea
route to the Caucasian Kolchis (Argonauts).
Dennis Poulter responds:
>The ancients saw the Hellenes as having been Pelasgian, and the
>Pelasgians (at least some) as having become Hellenic. In other
>words, Pelasgians and Hellenes are fundamentally the same, not >different
people.
Agreeing completely here with Dennis (we will differ enough elsewhere :-)
John, you and Glen (to a lesser extent) are trying to define a new
dominating influence from NNE Pontic to each group, regional, city, and area
name fluctuation inside mainland Greece. The Hellenes are the Pelasgi..the
Pelasgi were north and south in mainland greece at EBA. Argos is in Achaea.
Many influences come with Sea Trade, from the Black Sea and elsewhere: they
don't invert the basic building blocks of Greece. The Dorians were the first
major disruption of this stack of blocks, 1,800 years after they were laid,
and they quite possibly were only Northern Greek. They did however dominate
the still named Pelasgi at the time. What good is a sea trade tradition if
it can't root out and bring home what it finds of interest and value where
ever ships port? Every shard change is not a complete ethnic redefinition,
nor is every name change.
John's Number 6:
>> 6. After Thera, 1450, Minoans taken over by Achaeans from the
>>Mainland (Theseus). The 1400BCE expansion of the Hittite New >>Empire
over the Arzawan (Luwian-Tyrsenian) kingdom drives the >>house of Pelops
into the Pelopponesse. They adopt Greek and >>come to rule in Mycenae and
Sparta (as the house of Atreus).
Dennis retorts:
>Slightly irrelevant, but general consensus is tending towards an early
> 7th century (approx. 1625BCE) date for the eruption of Thera's >volcano.
Nevertheless, the Mycenean (not Achaian yet) takeover of >Crete dates from
around 1450. I would contend that Pelops' invasion >represents the Achaian
takeover of the Persid kingdom(s), and >Crete. This would explain somewhat
the Dorians' claim to be the >returning Heraklids. This would also provide a
source for the Cretan >Pelasgians, i.e. Myceneans who did not succumb to the
Achaians, >but whose cultural and economic centre had been occupied.
Rex:
Yes..Thera gets incidental to the main points. Disagreeing with Dennis:
Achaea is older than Argos. Achaean is a better name for the culture than
Mycenean, but are culturally synonymous. Achaea geographically is an area,
Argos and Mycenea simply cities. Argos driven Achaean Pelasgia..did
dominate Mycenae..but it is unclear (to me so far) that significant
hostilities were involved (But could have displaced people to Crete and
elsewhere...of course: I think Pelasgi were already among the settled since
EBA in Crete..and more came after 1450? after 1200?.)
As for John: still wanting justification for Tyrrhenian/Trysenian
prominance in Anatolia(??). Hittites? Did they displace people or
assimilate them? Pelops and friends may have come from Anatolia (maybe
not)..but as a son of Zeus..he was Pelasgian going to
(Pelasgia=Achaea=Peloponnese).
An outside house dominating Sparta? Perhaps my history is weak on this
one...but I thought the (Dorian) Spartans remained distinct and in charge of
their area unmolested till much later classical disputes?
Dennis Closing:
>I notice you've made no mention of pre-Sea People Pelasgians in >Italy, a
contention I disagree with. It seems obvious to me that the >Tyrrhenian Sea
was named by the Greeks for the Etruscans, who >were already established
there. References to Pelasgians in Italy >merely mean "indigenous" or
"autochthonous". (BTW I don't think the >proposed connection
"Paeligni -Pelasgi" works.)
Rex:
How far back is "Pre-Sea people"?
Pelignian as Pelasgi is not critical, even to Pelasgi in Italy, but it does
have to be explained as a reference to pre-Etruscan, pre-Roman native
troops..in Tuscany. Like Etruscan, it is a Roman label, and could easily
still be corrupted Pelasgian..in my view. I think Tyrrhenian (sea) is much
older than Etruscan arrival, but concede it could be a Greek application.
But this is just that "all T's and R's" are related thing again. Don't like
it with out other reasons for the link.
John? Accepting Samnite is native including whatever was left of the
Neolithic Oscans..what happened to the Tyrrhenians in Italy? Included in
Samnite? (and no real argument against Italy as oscan center.)
Still have one outstanding response due on Dennis' counters:
will follow.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>