Re: PNC Playland

--- In cybalist@..., "Rex H. McTyeire" <rexbo@...> wrote:

> Ed (erobert52@...) says in part:
>
> > There is evidence of Etruscoid adstrate/substrate influence on

Lydian

> > (or rather, its ancestor). So they must have been in the vicinity

for a

> > while. There is evidence of IE Anatolian areal influence on

Etruscan,

> > so they must have been there for a while. Most classical sources

keep

> > saying they came from Lydia, (including Vergil, who came from an
> > Etruscan speaking area) ...

>...but one should not take their geographical accuracy for granted.
>
> Agree on the last, but the sheer predominance of the indicators by

the

> chroniclers, AND the linguistic indicators you mention..can't be

ignored

> either. Your thoughts are interesting: we covered some of this

ground last

> year, but you provide a new slant on it.
>
> > After all, I keep meeting Eastern Europeans who
> > think Scotland is in England, and this is after they have visited

the

> > place. Even Western Europeans used to think this until recently.
>
> But no Scots make this mistake (check the last name :-).
>
> > Yes, there is obviously a problem with Etruscan surviving the

second

> > millennium BC in Anatolia with all that was going on. Because,
> > clearly, it didn't.
>
> Why would there be a conflict with larger elements branched into

Italy,

> surviving longer than the parent?
>
> > The whole Pelasgian thing is problematic, so I would not take it

for

> > granted that they and the Tyrrhenians are identical or even

related

> > or that the Etruscans stayed long in the Aegean.
>
> I think they did, perhaps were defined there, and we are just

limited to

> late western evidence after (just) portions migrated/colonized

westward.

> The issue you make however with differentiating Pelasgian from
> Tyrrhenian...seems to bear directly with the flow of the

chronicler's

> implications, (Even Herodotus, referencing surviving small pockets

of

> Tyrrhenian speakers in the North of Greece, identifiable solely

because they

> are linguistically distinct from neighbors supports the separation,

I

> think.) I also think by the time the Proto-Etruscans got to Italy,

it was

> already known as Tyrrhenia..which Is why I have a problem with

Glen's name

> for the group, even as he seems to support the link to Anatolia

strongly.

> (No, Glen ..I will offer no alternative..I'll let linguists name

linguistic

> groups..I'll just scream when they don't seem to fit. I have

suggested that

> what we see in Etruscan contains late surviving Aegean

Pelasgian..but if

> so, however you define it..it was not limited to Western

Anatolia. :-)

>
> > Raetic is problematic too. I think a genetic relationship between

Etruscan

> and Raetic is far from being proved.
>
> Livy compresses historically (in my view) to call the latter a

barbarized

> and corrupted form of the former..but I believe he is missing an

element.

>
> > It is not even clear that the inscriptions ascribed
> > to Raetic are all in the same language. I for one am sure there

are a

> > couple of Celtic ones in there.
>
> If I am right, the two: (Celt and intrusive Anatolian/Aegean) would

already

> have been well mixed when the folks who would define Etruscan;

arrived.

>
> >The idea that Etruscan influences in Raetic are due to nothing

more than a

> late northern
> >military excursion has not been disproved.
>
> This assumes (as Livy did) that the only possible dispersion to

Raetic had

> to come from the Etruscan areas after Etruscan arrival. Why limit

to that

> speculation? Raetic may be well be remnants of pre-Etruscan but

Aegean

> colonial efforts into Italy, with a related earlier form of a

regional

> language.
>
> Cu Stima;
> Rex H. McTyeire
> Bucharest, Romania

I agree with the idea of earlier Aegean influence for Raetic. Iron
trade with continental Europe is well documented in late second
millenium BCE, and could account for this. Aegean influence thus
acted on the Villanovans likewise, and as trade intensified around
the turn of the millenium or so, Villanovan culture was quickened and
became gradually overwhelmed by the Aegean population and culture.
This would explain the continuous transformation of Villanovan to
Etruscan culture, and why the boundaries of Etruria closely mimic the
old Villanovan territory.