Admin note and apologies: I have been slow to
respond in preparation for a move and tech realignment. I will be down
from about 5 April until c.16 April to implement the changes and a new house.
I will come back up on cable vice dialup, with significantly enhanced
capabilities, Win2000, and 20 gig of new d-space (I may pull full copies of the
classics into that void). My e-address will remain the same, and I will
catch up on the debate(s) via the archive after the 16th. (I may visit the local
Net cafe for a Guinness and mail check in the interim.) I will try to
catch up on all correspondent's points here, briefly (except Dennis.)
Sabine: I value your input, but some of your
messages show up in my system as rows of little boxes..with scattered
correctly formatted phrases:-) Usually, I only get the gist if someone
else responds and attributes your input in their message. I hope my new
system will delete this annoyance..I will advise after the 16th.
You said:
I see the Pelasgian culture as 'sitting' on
all
the coasts of the Aegean (possibly from Neolithic times) and
heavily
influencing the later cultures and languages of the same area - or
even
plainly developing into them (because I don't see any reason that
Pelasgian
was not a (P)IE language).
I agree with the essence of that, but leaning toward definition at the cusp
of EBA by new intrusion (at the Anatolian Aegean coast), which would include in
the defined culture; people and influences from earlier presence, by definition
Neolithic.
Then, Re Labyrinth:
The actual pattern of the so-called 'Cretan
Labyrinth' is not even proved
for Minoan times - they had only certain
inconographic fore-runners as
spirals and meanders said to have developed
into the actual shape (this may
or may not be true...), but certainly the
'idea' of labyrinth goes back to
Minoan times and Pelasgian origins (or even
those before???)
Concur. As for the mystical versus the store house..I accept the mystical
origin (Pelasgian Crete or Anatolia, or resilient of Neolithic influences in
both areas)..but see the association of the man made storehouse into the
resilient mythos post-Minoan, say Mycenean or later..without conflict to your
view, as Ariadne replaced Potnia.
Mark Odegard: Your input on Labyrinth, horse's, dogs
and the teasing IE indicators noted with intense interest. Plugging in
Iphi puzzles and "bull" + Artemis influence in Anatolia ,Crete and Greece:
I was looking for support for the Pelasgic wave at the EBA cusp..but concede the
evidence here may be equally northern but pre-Pelasgic, as well as Pre EBA (I.E.
Neolithic). Is it possible that these influences via Taurian or N/NE
Pontic impact on the Tyrrhenian influence John keeps insisting on? I have
to rethink Italy as Tyrrhenian center, and consider N/NE Pontic: with Italian
Tyrrhenia as resilient vestige of Neolithic North Eastern influence.
John?
Glen Gordon: Conceding that the above may be closer
than my original concept, I may have to concede to two distinct IE or PIE
waves. But then, I also have to maintain that with the Lemnan link,
Etruscan is closer to the second (Pelasgic) than the first (Tyrrhenian)..which
gets us back to (and reinforces) my resistance to that name for your branch, if
it includes only Etruscan, Lemnan and Raetii. (Yes..I did go to your site; and
I downloaded the tree). In that scenario, I can even concede a Balkans
fulcrum as possible even probable for Tyrrhenian influence into Anatolia, Greece
and Italy.. redefining older Neolithic Oscan (which could have lots of
"semitish"?). But relegate Tyrrhenian to only substrata under Pelasgic by the
time of Etruscan intrusion into Italy (nautical) after 800 BCE.
I have a rule of thumb standard critique for all existing positions on
pre-Dorian Aegean: "It is not that simple" :-). So, if I apply
that to your tree: I concede (Indo)Tyrrhenian existed as a first major
wave, It was pre-EBA and linguistically extinct in most Aegean coastal to
Italian areas by 800 BCE , surviving perhaps in Anatolian interior pockets (and?
perhaps as Samnite in Italy and a small pocket of rural "Tyrrhenians" in
Thessaly? but leaving substrata in many Aegean languages). Now, if I
wished to pretend I was a linguist, I wold have to suggest that IndoTyrrhenian
existed as a branch, BUT did not end linearly in Etruscan, Lemnan, and
Raetii. Rather, a second branch, IndoPelasgic, ends with those three
regional expressions of the same Aegean language, as well as many other
Aegean and Anatolian coastal variances.
John Croft: Okay! I'm beginning to see
Tyrrhenians. But I still separate them distinctly from Pelasgians in time
and culture. (And I would not discount Levantine Tyre so easily)
You Said:
1. Pelasgian = native "Sons of the Soil" and
was used by classical
Greeks to describe any Aegean group whom the Greeks
thought was
"native" to the area.
Generally concur, but not to the extent Dennis takes it. By any
definition, Pelasgians were autochthonous to classical era Greeks.
They were the forebares, but not all the people in native or autochthonous
status were forebares (or more pointedly, claimed as such); only the Sons of
Zeus are claimed. A specific people, and referred to as such and as
intrusive. There is never any reference to all peoples in Greece as
Pelasgic, before some plateau in time, which would have to be the case if
Dennis were correct. They are always opposed to, in conflict with,
intrusive upon, loosing to, or taking from: specifically named "others";
or proudly and boldly referenced with honor, as the distinguishing and distinct
source of a man or group in power.
2. Tyrhhenian = a more slippery concept that
may have changed its
linguistic affiliation as time went on.
Concur. See above. And I am reorienting my thinking on Italy
center
for these older "others".
7. By classical times, another acculturation
occurred with increasing
Grecianisation of their language and culture, with
the result that
Tyrhhennoi were seen as a non-Hellenic underclass
etymologically and
linguistically connected with their own
Pelasgi.
Yes. Were both IE or PIE?. Certainly they (Tyrrhenians) are included
among the autochthons as distinct from Pelasgi. Certainly, no classical
writer or tale spinner is spouting honorifics to Hellenic leaders as:
"Kinglyprince, Son of the Tyrrhennoi\Tyrsenoi", (while acknowledging they were
there). Whether accurate or not, they are nodding to a preferred lineage
from among a group of potential forebares. Nowhere is "Son of Zeus"
associated with Tyrrhenians, but always "Son of Zeus" (Dodonean) is used to
reinforce the specific identity/lineage from
Thessaly/Larisa/Pelasgia/Dodona: usually via Argos (mirrored from
Thessalian Argusa). Therefore either all the classic writers are
wrong, OR Pelasgi were specific (even preferred) autochthons among others.
They were autochthons, but not all autochthons were they:-)
Concuring with the rest of your numbered points,(deferring cautiously only
on the specific linguistic points beyond my knowledge). As for your
father's ax..I think maybe by Etruscan intrusion: the Lydian head was replaced
three times and perhaps the handle only once, but Tyrra was, yes, still
Tyrra:-).
The time line: No real argument, just seeing Pelasgi as addressing the
Aegean water barrier westward with EBA tech @ c.3000 BCE, and we would have to
date Neo-L to EBA transition across Anatolia to define P's as Neolithic or EBA
in Anatolia (I still favor a P package with EBA tech attached as they spread). I
would separate P's from T's in time. Are we east to west linearly, or NE forking
to west and east? Not sure.
Then of course there is the persistant Dennis
P. Will address that in a separate missive, hopefully before my
machine goes down on the fifth. Bye.
La Revedere;
Rex H. McTyeire
Bucharest, Romania
<
rexbo@...>