Re: Affects of immigrant communities in language change

From: Joseph S Crary
Message: 8375
Date: 2001-08-07

I was writing in very broad and general
terms and what your writing about
Is an even messier, more complex, can of worms.

In truth,

I really don't know much about the people the Romans called
Tyrrhenian. What I do know is that historically the Tyrrhenian
Etruscan city-state confederation dominated central
Italy with many of the Italic tribes as vassals. In
fact before the early 4th century Roma was a minor cluster of
villages and hamlets around a hill-top fortress
controlled directly or indirectly by the
Etruscans. However, a large intrusion of Celt Gaesatae
followed by a mass Celt migration from north
and central Europe. This destroyed or reduced
the Etruscans city-states and Italian tribes to
vassalage for years.

The thing that has always troubled me about the time dept of
Tyrrhenian is that the Etruscan culture appears to developed
in the LB and EI age from the Villanova Culture.
As you know the Villanova is the central Italian
variety of the Urnifeld Culture. The culture in
Italy before the Villanova intrusion is a
mix to Tumulus Culture and something else, possibly local.
Thus, because this forms a single, rather homogeneous expression,
whatever cultural-linguistic complex establish IE Italic
also appears to have established the Tyrrhenian
Etruscan complex as well. This is why the
Italic-Tyrrhenian lingo thing has always been a problem.
They should be very similar not very different.

The other problem is that the culture preceding the Villanova-
Urnfiled in Italy, is very similar to the the Tumulus-Beaker
complex, which is clearly associated with the
development of proto-Celt. As you know with the
exception of the q-p shift and subject-first,
Italic and primitive Celt lingos are not that different.
There just isn't much room in Italy for an PIE
language to survive. This is because the people associated
with IE languages tend to seek out and occupy the most
central or economic geographic setting.
Thus, the replacement of earlier IEs by bigger
and badder IEs is not a question of if, but rather when.

Another problem is the Tyrrhenian foundation mythology.
Herodotus wrote that the Tyrrhenians were the result of a
sea-born western Anatolic migration. Herodotos, claimed these people
were called Pelasgians, adding that they also
occupied the islands of Lemnos and Imbros, as well.
Interestingly, Thucydides wrote that the inhabitance
of Lemnos and Imbros were called Tyrrhenians.
Strabo. V, 2, 4, wrote that the Pelasgians-Etruscans
migrated to Italy with a king called Thyrrenos
and they were the same ethnic groups that settled several Aegean
isles, as well as several coastal areas.
This includes the Greek peninsula of Akte.

Getting back to the foundation myth, Telephus, has two
sons Tarchon and Tyrrhenus. Tarchon founds the
Etruscan city of Tarquinia and Tyrrhenus is the
hero-king of the Tyrhenians. If I remember correctly
wasn't there a Hittite god called Telepinus, or something
like that?

So what does it all mean? I not sure. I appears that
there may have been a deeply rooted non IE/PIE peasantry
overlain by compressed strata of proto-Celt/Italic
dominated by some Anatolic expression, with abandoned material
trappings but not the lingo?

Sorry i really dont know much about the Etrus--

JS Crary