Re: Tyrrhenian context

From: MrCaws@...
Message: 8988
Date: 2001-09-03

--- In cybalist@..., "Joseph S Crary" <pva@...> wrote:
> Context
> is every thing and Glen I thought you were the rebel? Your
> appears to be the same unchanged opinion, written slightly
> differently, in spite of quit clear evidence to the contrary.
> I may be wrong but,
> it appears that you are justifying a premature use of terminology
> made by an earlier generation. As you know Herodot and Thucydides
> were contemporaries and I think both were right. We also have
> Hellanikos (Roman Antiquities) in Dion. Hal. I, 28, from Lesbos and
> Anticlides in Strab. V, 2, 4, both of which call the Lemnians,
> Pelasgians. The only time Tyrrhenian is used is to draw a closer
> connection between the Lemnians and Etruscans. Because Thucydides
> makes the point I suggest this link was based on language and the
> history of a common origin. In a general sense I would place this
> origin in Anatolia and call it Pelasgian.
> The reason I call Tyrrhenian a Pelasgian Language is this:
> Tyrrhenian is a term used exclusively to explain the dispersal of a
> demographic, culture, and most likely a language from western
> Anatolia. For an extended period this term was applied almost
> exclusively to this group in west central Italy. Tyrrhenian is used
> by the Hellenics as a national term for the Etruscans. Thus, the
> available evidence demonstrates that Tyrrhenian is a term applied
> specifically, both temporally and spatially.
> In contrast Pelasgian is a term used both specifically and in a
> general sense. However, it is not used as a term for the aboriginal
> peoples. Rather it was used to designate a segmented demographic,
> culture, and most likely a language group situated in both
> Greece, and the southern Balkans. Temporally, Pelasgian is used to
> designate this collective before and after the Tyrrhenian event.
> Because of this general usage as it is applied to Lemnos coupled
> similarities found in this and the Etruscan languages, Tyrrhenian
> be called Pelasgian.
> Because of perceived confusion over the nature of origin and the
> extensive and well-documented material culture of the historic
> Etruscans, archaeologist and linguists of the early 20th century,
> some reason used the Hellenic term Tyrrhenian. They apply it to
> anything that is Etruscan-like. Thus, using the same logic
> becomes Tyrrhenian, just as the English would become the American
> language.
> I believe the important thing here is that the center of
> Pelasgian/Tyrrhenian Languages was the Aegean until the end of the
> Late Bronze Age. It may prove interesting to find how much of this
> language group survived in the Hellenic period.
> If anyone has any evidence, textual or otherwise from the 5th and
> centuries BC (or earlier) that would add to this discussion I would
> appreciate it. Opinions are good when they are based on some form
> evidence with a context that can be evaluated. Opinions based on
> personal belief have less value. I've always found that it is
> important not to intertwine elements of one personal belief system
> with long passed cultures and languages.
> Hope this clears my position
> JS Crary

The term Tyrrhenian. Now, Herodotus says that the Tyrrhenians came
to the West after the Euboeans paved the way. So, I don't see the
term Tyrrhenia meaning Italy prior to the Etruscan arrival unless
Herodotus really got mixed up.
If Trsh and Taruisa did refer to the Tyrrhenians, we got 'em at the
right place and the right time at the end of the bronze age. If the
settlements at Lemnos were built around 1000 BCE however we got to
ask where they came from before that. Well, in my view the sea bound
Tyrrhenians were already pretty mobile, and came to Anatolian shores
((Lydia?) with others to settle after the collapse of Middle Bronze
Age Crete, whatever happened exactly. West Anatolia became a hot
spot. The legends and evidence for a movement at this time is pretty
good(I've got more, still working)
I am not saying that the Tyrrhenians had to be Cretans originally,
indeed Lemnos, home of Poliochni, a rich metropolis in the maritime
troia culture, would be familiar turf .
I do not find it hard to believe that linguistically the Pelasgians
and Tyrrhenians were related. After all, didn't these questions start
getting raised by the -nthos place names in Greece?
I like Glen's idea that the Tyrrhenians were a sea going people
where the Pelasgians were their Greek mainlander cousins. If they did
emerge from similar movements out of W. Anatolia/Aegean
then the Tyrrhenians might be considered older as well as distinct,
as they stayed in the islands like their mutual ancetors. Smite me if
I am ignoring a stumbling block. Mine is a working hypothesis.
-Mr. Caws