Views about Etruscan

From: Glen Gordon
Message: 8799
Date: 2001-08-28

>I agree with most of what J.S. Crary is discovering in his study..
>with one big exception: " and by extension- Tyrrhenians"..IE lumping or
>relating the influences. (Which has also been my biggest
>single problem with Glenn's over-lumping of Lemnos with his
>Indo->Tyrrhennian grouping title.

Over-lumping how? Explain more. The language on the Lemnos Stele
is very closely related to Etruscan. As already stated, the
Tyrrhenian grouping of Etruscan, Rhaetic and Lemnian is hardly
risque. With Tyrrhenian on the one hand, and IE on the other,
there are still uncanny similarities in morphology that can't be
satisfactorily explained through coincidence.

>It is the point to be disproved with linguistic or other evidence,
>and fits better than a Tryyhenian continuity from ca 7,000 BCE
>through and beyond EBA. It is not: "ignorable".

If this is meant to be a portrayal of my own views, the above is
incorrect. My view of the Eastern Mediterranean is quite boring
and predictable since it consists of the usual thought that the
area was always cosmopolitan and engaged in sea trade since the

As of current, I do not claim that the Tyrrhenians existed in the
Balkans since 7000 BCE. I have set the date at 5500-5000 BCE for
the first instance of Tyrrhenian in Greece. Tyrrhenian speaking
peoples would have come from the north interloping on sea peoples
speaking "Proto-Vinca" (ancestor to Hattic) at this early date.
There was also a Semitic-related substrate (Semitish), spoken
by early agriculturalists, affecting Vinca, Tyrrhenian and IE.

Of course, by the dawn of history, the Vinca and their language
had already moved into Turkey (5000-4000 BCE) and the Anatolians
would come to live on the doorstep of the Tyrrhenians. My suspicion
is that, if we can gloss anything real and historic from Herodotus'
accounts, he is probably speaking mostly of either Tyrrhenian and
Anatolian speaking peoples.

>O-: "Tyrrhenian is also a Pelasgian language."

>I don't think so. and why must it be.

I don't think so either.

>I counter: No..the Tyrrhenian label is inappropriate..there was a
>break in Tyrrhenian by Pelagic before Greek, and Lemnos/Etruria are
>resilient of the latter, not the former..but would have Tyrrhenian
>substrate. It is too big a "lump" in time.

Wait, you're saying that Etruscan and Lemnian are descendants of
a Pelasgo-Tyrrhenian creole?? Are you speaking genetically,
culturally or linguistically, or a combination of two or all of
these three? How does Rhaetic and Camunic fit into your equation
(and perhaps optionally, EteoCypriot)?

gLeNny gEe
...wEbDeVEr gOne bEsErK!

email: glengordon01@...

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at