--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "ehlsmith" <ehlsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@> wrote:
> > .......................
> > > This doesn't look good for Maeonian being of the Etruscan
family, as
> > > Beekes wants it to be. ..............
> >
> > Beekes does not claim Maeonian belonged to the Etruscan family,
he
> > claims that Etruscan was a remnant language located in the same
area
> > of Anatolia as was Maeonian(later Lydian)before being displaced
by
> > Phrygian invasions.
> >
>
> Come to think of it, that would imply that in pre-classical times
the
> IE Lydians and proto-Etruscan Maeonians lived in the same state, Old
> Maeonia, and in classical times, after the Etruscans left, they
lived
> in separate states, Lydia and Maeonia.
No, as Beekes states Maonian (his preferred spelling) was an older
term for *Lydian* (page 10),he does not use it to refer to Etruscan
(page 10). I would say that he more than implies, he explicitly
maintains that Tyrsenoi and Maonians lived in close proximity in pre-
classical times. I don't recall whether he maintains that area was
ruled by a unitary state or not. That area was northwestern Anatolia
near the Hellespont and the Sea of Marmara. After the Phrygian
invasion of the area pockets of both Tyrsenoi and Maonians were left
in the area, and he also suggests the Mysians may have been a
Phrygian-influenced group of Maeonian-speakers. Another group of
Maonian speakers were found in central western Anatolia, the area
around Sardis, the classical Maeonia, later Lydia. Beekes says he is
not sure if this last group were driven south by the Phrgians or had
already lived there previously, since he does not know the southern
limits of the earlier Maonian-speaking area.
> That doesn't add up. The
> problem is that Beekes doesn't place the Urheimat of the Lydians as
he
> does for that of the Etruscans/Maeonians. A scenario where Lydia(ns)
> expanded from the south into the Dardanelles area would provide
that.
Since he maintains that Lydian is synonymous with Maeonian, to the
extent that he has established an urheimat for the Maeonians he has
one for the Lydians, assuming one accepts his identification (and I
believe that is non-controversial; it's his identification of Maonia
with Masas which may be more open to question)
Regardless of what one may think of Beekes' conclusions, it
mischaracterizes them to suggest that he is equating Maeonian with
Etruscan, rather than with Lydian.
Best regards,
Ned Smith