Re: [tied] Semitoid, PIE, Tyrrhenian, etc.

From: MrCaws@...
Message: 7309
Date: 2001-05-13

--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Glen Gordon
> To: cybalist@...
> Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Semitoid, PIE, Tyrrhenian, etc.
> ]

My issue with positioning Tyrrhenian in the Balkans so early is that
I connect it with the Lefkandi culture, which came in from the east
circa 2300-2200 most likely due to pressure from incoming IE groups.
Coming from the east, it was probably Anatolian in origin.

My reasoning for this connection is admittedly a combination of
evidence and intuition, though. The introduction of Lefkandi to Crete
coincides roughly with palatial Minoan civilization, and seems to
have intoduced a number of cultural innovations connected with Crete.
The marked cultural differences have me convinced that this was a
true turning point for the culture. The peaceful nature of this
Lefkandi movement makes me think that there was already cultural
contact of an economic variety. This could be similar to Phoenician
implantation in N. Africa due to similar political/military pressure.

Etruscan has always had peculiar similarities with Anatolia while
definetly having Cretan and Aegean characteristics.

Lefkandi did move west to mainland Greece, which would explain the
Tyrrhenian place-names and such in the region.

Rhaetic could be an example of early Etruscan or pre-Etruscan metal
trade, maybe Mycenaean trading posts etc.

> > My reasons for this positioning of Tyrrhenian in the Balkans
isn't in order to posit an arcane substrate. The reasons are based on
the fact that Lemnian thrived in the area, then there's the
Tyrrhenian sounding cityname of Yttenia (Tetrapolis) in the area, as
well as the likelihood that Tyrrhenian languages are closely related
to IndoEuropean just to the north/northeast of the area.
> I wouldn't dispute the view that the Tyrrhenian homeland was in the
general vicinity of the Balkans, though as regards the
possible "material" identification of the Proto-Tyrrhenians, there
are a number of cultures to choose from, especially (parts of) the
Vinc^a cultural complex. The Starc^evo phase of the Balkan Neolithic
could well represent the influence of "Semitish" immigrants from the
Near East.
> > Hmm, but I have trouble accepting that IE was "a stone's throw"
away from Anatolia and yet it failed to cross over until after 4000
BCE. Usually, people don't view the IE population as makers of wine
and yet we have *woinos... so... someone had to have made
> that wine! It wasn't the Semitic afaik.
> The IEs expanded north and west into the North European Plain (and
only then eastwards into Ukraine) rather than south and east, because
the Balkans, the western coast of the Black Sea (or of the lake that
preceded it) and the Near East were already densely populated by
carriers of highly advanced neolithic cultures, who formed an
effective ethnic barrier to relatively non-aggressive "demic spread".
In the north, there were only sparse mesolithic populations that
could be absorbed or ignored by the Linear Ware farmers. Various IE
groups began to penetrate the southern Balkans, Anatolia and Iran in
the early Bronze Age, when it made little difference in which
direction they migrated as long as they had sufficient military means
to launch a successful conquest. I think that during the initial
phase of the IE dispersal the Proto-Anatolians stayed behind close to
the Danubian homeland (expanding slowly towards the lower Danube
basin) and so became the first IE group to be pushed into Anatolia as
the Proto-Iranians started a chain of migrations round the Black Sea,
forcing their immediate western neighbours to look for new homes in
the Carpathian region and the Balkans.
> Piotr