Rex,
I have snipped out a
couple of things you said in your last posting, which I think are very important
to this whole Pelasgian question :
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.
and
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:-)
All the classical authors are
considered to be wrong when it comes to Egyptian/Phoenician colonisations and
influence upon the Greeks. Why is this so? Their stories were discredited early
in the 19th century by a method known as "source criticism". Briefly stated, it
said that since Herodotos and other Athenian writers had a contemporary motive
for creating Greek-Egyptian connections (i.e. the Athenian-Saite alliance), that
their testimony was flawed and could not be relied upon.
Well, this method can be applied
in spades to the Pelasgians. John has already touched upon possible internal
Athenian political motives for glorifying the Pelasgian ancestors. To this I
would add, the need to accentuate the differences between Hellenic, but
non-Pelasgic, Sparta and Hellenic and Pelasgic Athens, and
to extend Athens' allies by claiming for them a Pelasgian ancestry
wherever possible. Later, after the conquests of Alexander, this glorified and
extended Pelasgic past gave the Greeks a history to compare with those of the
ancient empires they had conquered.
So, in short, I am saying - yes,
the classical Greeks' testimony is flawed, and is not to be taken at face
value. Is there any genuinely independant corroborative evidence for these
widespread, sea-faring, dynamic, trading Pelasgians? Are they mentioned by the
Hittites, Ebla, Ugarit, Byblos, Tyre, Egypt, Akkad, Linear B, Doric Greeks? (You
can't count Livy, Paeligni are not Pelasgi.)
Since you find it impossible to
define exactly who these Pelasgians were, it is impossible to cite archaeology
or linguistics to support your claim. I would say that the history of the
Bronze Age Aegean can be seen as an internally consistent whole without the
Pelasgians, provided the Egyptians and Phoenicians are included in the mix. At
least for these two groups, there is archaeological and linguistic evidence to
support (or refute) the idea, together with citations from all the ancient
authorities as well as cultic and mythological
parallels.
Cheers
Dennis