Back to Dennis Poulter, and the conceptual opposition to "Macro-Pelasgia".
Sorry, Dennis, for the delay of 13 days in responding.
Dennis contributes:
> I have already posted that in Hesychios' dictionary, an alternative form
is
> given as PELASTIKOS, which when combined with Philistia and Egyptian
> prst, makes me think that in fact PELAST- is the original form. John's
post > above concerning Phlastia is, to my mind, additional evidence.
> Further, the sequence /-sg-/ seems unlikely, or at least un-Greek. Other
> than before or after a voiceless stop, or word finally, /s/ in Greek
> aspirated to /h/ and ultimately disappeared. This, to me, lends weight to
> the idea that the original form had a /t/ not a /g/.
> Now, further to Rex's info above that Pelasgos was originally an
> adjective, and if the original form was *pelastos, this suggests the
> possibility that what we have here could be a superlative
> of /palaios/, /*palai+istos/ (the comparative /palaiteros/ shows that the
> thematic /o/ could be dropped).
> So /*pelastos/ could simply mean "oldest, most/extremely ancient".
> The name Palaechthon also looks like /palai/+our old friend /chthon/
> "earth" as in autochthon.
Excuse me if I miss some valuable linguistic argument here, I can't really
counter in the same language. I think part of the problem is we have a
reference that comes to us from an earlier linguistic influence, but exists
only in later Greek and Latin expression, and associated place names to the
east and west. As far as (later) Greek is concerned, I think the Pel/pal
forms that came from the influence I'm trying to sell..grew to exist in many
different forms.
We use paleo- for old, (via the latin?). I choose to see Palaechthon as
similar to your reference above, but more as "specific original" rather
than "general autochthonous". It is used many times by the classical
writers as a part of a title or accolade for a specific leader or King.
(Hero/King) as "Son of Palaechthon"....doesn't just mean older than dirt.
It means: derived from "our" esteemed original stock..directly related to
our origins..kin to our founders and forefathers.
> Even if my derivation is wrong, I'm still pretty sure that the original
word
> had a /t/, which would rule out parallels with /g/ words that have been
> cited, such as Paeligni and pelagos.
I'm not sure linguistically, but as I have suggested before, the Peligni,
and Pelignian labels only exist in Latin for a post colonization people that
don't show up previously. Can a different language not account for
this apparent corruption? (On the western side: only _Palici_ shows up in
the Greek, and this for a specific Sicilian group.) However, by this time,
in Greek..paleo already has a simple "old" meaning..as in the early
"granddaughter" colonies into the Greek mainland (Grandaughter because they
were sponsored by existing Island Greek colonies west of Italy). The best
known of these: Paleopolis and Neapolis (which would become the
resiliently Hellenic Naples). The meaning here clearly: the old city and
the new city, or the first and the second chronologically.
Additionally: Pelasgia (Peloponnese) and Pelasgiotis (Thessaly) do come to
us in the Greek as specific place names of specific people:
Pelasgi/Pelasgians. The original, by all counts, was probably not Greek,
and may have your "T". All Greek use seems to be with the "G", and none
with the "T". How different is Greek _Pelasgi_ from Latin _Peligni_? when
both refer to a specific people. Livy says: "Pelignian native troops".
Certainly he does not mean the redundant: autochthonous native troops? I
also note many modern scholarly types referring to them as the "Palusta",
which includes your "T", but I have no memory of seeing that in Greek. It
is closer to the Egyptian Plst (Peleset) that way though.
> If I'm right however, this bears out my contention that Pelasgian is not
> the name of any one people, but of extremely ancient people in general.
To be fair to your position, it is a conclusion common among Greek scholars
who focus on only the classical period, and only the Greek mainland
geographically. It is however, in my view, a dismissal of a frequent
annoying reference, which does not hold up in light of the larger EBA Aegean
picture. Brittanica on the point: "The Pelasgi were mentioned as a specific
people by several Greek authors, including Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides,
and were said to have inhabited various areas, such as Thrace, Argos, Crete,
and Chalcidice." This does not preclude the later Greek use of the term
(and other forms of it) for old and/or autochthonous, nor does this fact
explain the specific references to a specific people. Strabo defines them as
a people we would call autochthonous to classical Greece..but he is quite
specific that they were not the first such people, (and therefore not the
only such people) just the first to dominate Greece. Even domination does
not imply "uniform" or "alone" throughout
Greece.
> The problem I've always had with this macro-Pelasgia idea is the
> relationship of the non-Greek Pelasgians with the Pelasgians of Argos who
> must have been Greek-speaking. If not, where did the Greek language
> come from?
I must confess to the same problem and question. I am not knowledgeable
enough linguistically to comment, either. So far, only John Croft has
addressed this aspect of the problem. I'm hoping some other knowledgeable
linguists on this list will pick up this ball and speculate with it awhile.
But..any way you cut the pie..it is the same problem. If you suggest that
Pelasgians of Argos spoke Greek @ EBA, while the others didn't..then you
still have the problem of where did they come from with this language. Then
who are these rural Pelasgi in the 5th century BCE in Thessaly that
Herodotus refers to? THE pre-Greek autochthons? No, because in the same
paragraph he contrasts their language as distinct from the even older
Tyrrhenians nearby. The Greek authors that address the Issue all conclude
that Pelasgic was not Greek. (I am not comfortable with even calling it
proto-Greek..and John Croft is on record for opposing that.
I will assert it must have contributed greatly, however. I have no Idea how
much influence separates a substratum from a proto-language. We are also
talking about close to 2 thousand years from Pelasgic intrusion to Classical
Greek. What influences have we missed? What would be the result of 2,000
years of mixing Pelasgic with precursors, and new influences? Obviously it
is Greek...but with pieces of data missing.
> By the way, Rex, would I be right in assuming, from your reading of the
> Suppliants, that you agree that the colonization of Pelasgian Argos by
> Danaos the Egyptian is to be taken seriously as a historical reality? The
> colonisation of Greece by Egyptians and Phoenicians certainly more than
> fulfils your criteria :
I will surprise you on the Phoenicians, but re Danaus, I concede the
indicator is there, but only for his arrival from outside, not necessarily
Egyptian "colonization". But the indicator comes from many other writers
implying the same thing, writing interpretations of history; not just
Aeschylus writing "historical novels". Specifically Danaus is purported to
be expelled from Egypt (OR!) Libya, and gets to Argos with a viable claim to
the throne..with varied reports of retainers, no army. Often there is a
context of decrying returning Greeks, because they get mixed with
"barbarians" in the generations that they are gone. My conclusion: Danaus
assumed the throne under unusual circumstances after coming from the African
continent through Anatolia. Speculation: He was a returning relative of
the still reigning Achaean royal house after a near feudal royal marriage
into a foreign royal house (a generation or so before), giving him a
stronger claim to the throne than any surviving locals of that house; at
least to a city throne, from which he may have expanded militarily.
The Phoenicians: I think they were a composite group, like the Philistines,
including Aegean colonization in the mix long before they did their own
colonizing.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>