Where'd the Romans come from?
Steve Thurston
> The Luka, I believe, were the people of Pelasgian Lykosaura, also in
> Arkadia, rather than Lykia in south west Turkey (as is often said) on the
> grounds that this region in Turkey did not receive its name until after
> Troy. I would be most interested to know where you got the reference to Luka
> in the first place.
Hi,
The Lukka lands are frequently mentioned in Hittite texts and can be
securely located in southwestern Anatolia, centered roughly around the
area that was known as Lycia in the Classical era. Although the
Hittites appear to have applied the term "Lukka lands" to a somewhat
greater area than what Classical "Lycia" applied to.
There are numerous reasons to place the Lukka lands in this area.
Older arguments against it were largely swept away with the discovery
of the so called Bronze Tablet and the geographic evidence it yielded.
Arguments for Hittite geography are not simple to present, but in
addition to the general area for the Lukka lands, some cities can be
plausibly, if not certainly, located in this area too, which help
secure its Hittite identity as the Lukka lands:
(Classical) Xanthos (Lycian Arnna) = (Hittite) Arinna in the Lukka
lands
Tlos = Dalawa
Perge = Parha
Kestros River = Kastaraya River
Idyma = Utima
Colbassa = Kuwalapassa (Although the location of Colbassa is
uncertain)
Lycaonia probably owes its name to the Lukka as well, although this
development would have occured after the collapse of the Hittite
empire, since this area was known simply as the Lower Land to the
Hittites.
Regards,
Steve Thurston
I speak only for myself.
Majin Kai
> announcement of finding what is believed to have been the original
> settlement that became Rome. I don't remember much more than that. If
> that turns out to be correct then digging there should relate them to
> other people leading to where they came from.
>
> I would guess one of the problems is how early they started conquering
> their neighbors leading to a mixed culture very early in their history.
Hm, I think I heard of this too. Wasn't the settlement found dated
circa 1100-1000 B.C.? That'd put it at the time of the Villanovans I
believe, much too early for Etruscan influence to take root. Greece
was still in its dark ages so that'd rule them out of the picture.
Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
theory as any.
grapheus
> Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
> growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
> Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
> dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
> theory as any.
This is probably the best solution !.. Your first idea - inspired by
the Legend - of linking the Romans to the Lukka does'n't fit in with
the Legend itself : the Lukka were NOT the same people as the
Trojans... Your last idea - Romans being a mixture of Villanovians
and of immigrants (Etruscans AND Trojans) - is a lot more satisfing,
fitting in with both the archaeological and the legendary data.
For the question : "Who were the Trojans?", see now J.Faucounau's book
in French "Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oublié" (You may
get it at the e-bookshop ALAPAGE <http://www.alapage.com> Search
under the author's name)
grapheus
Neville Lindsay
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
Dear J. Faucounau
Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite hopeless.
The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of Rome
(753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
NL
Majin Kai
My original idea about the Luka didn't fit very well with the
established facts of either factual history or historical legend. I
went back and looked over some of my books and basically reconfirmed
this just to make it official :) Lo and behold, yep, the Luka are a
seperate entity entirely from the ancient Trojans and seem to only
appear during the Trojan War as fighting alongside them against the
Greeks. Nothing more (in Greek legend) is mentioned of them as far as
I can tell whereas we've got a whole host of references about Trojan
expatriates or Greeks returning home after the war ended.
So now I focus my attention on the ancient Italic peoples, the
Villanovans in particular, to see what I come up with. I've an older
book around my place somewhere called 'The Mute Stones Speak' which is
about archaeology and pre-Roman Italy. I'll give this a looksee if I
can find it (I just moved so it's probably still in a box somewhere :)
And about the book you referenced. Has it been published in English?
My French leaves more than a little to be desired ;)
Thanks!
>
> grapheus
grapheus
Dear Professor-Doctor Lindsay !
It is very kind of you to think that I could be the respected old
scholar J. Faucounau ! Thank you ! I am very honoured !..
But you are AS WRONG in this supposition as *in your chronological
remark* !!! You forgot that legends can be perdurable, and cross
centuries !.. And in the case of Rome, the gap in time is not so great
!.. On the other hand, there is ALWAYS some truth behind a Legend...
Only *dogmatic people* are denying that !..
Respectfully yours
grapheus
o8TY
--
o8TY
"Majin Kai" <majin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com...
> "o8TY" <ob...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:<S9O49.10966$Cq.4...@ozemail.com.au>...
> > Pavsanias [viii.41.1] says it was Evander from Pallantion in Arkadia
Greece
> > about sixty (60) years before the fall of Troy. Aeneas (or Ainaias in
> > Pavsanias), about whom the Aenead was written, sailed from Troy after
its
> > fall to (what later became known as) Rome. Since the Arkadians were also
> > early settlers of Troy, it would be reasonable to suggest that Aeneas
joined
> > his compatriot in Rome.
> >
> > The Luka, I believe, were the people of Pelasgian Lykosaura, also in
> > Arkadia, rather than Lykia in south west Turkey (as is often said) on
the
> > grounds that this region in Turkey did not receive its name until after
> > Troy. I would be most interested to know where you got the reference to
Luka
> > in the first place.
>
> Hm, Lykosaura... Would that be Lycaonia?
>
I meant Lykosoura (the oldest city in Greece) in Arkadia, below Mt Lykaion,
founded by Lykaon, son of Pelasgos [Pavsanias viii.2.1].
For reference to Lykia (nee Milyas), Cilix and Sarpedon in sw Turkey see
Apollodorus iii.1.1-2 and Herodotus 1.173. There were two Sarpedons, one a
son of Zeus, the other a son of Poseidon. The former, in coming from Arkadia
may have re-named Milyas after Lykaon.
As for Lukka or Luka in Hittite texts, I believe these to be too ancient for
Rome.
> Anyways, I came across the reference to the Luka whilst reading about
> the ancient Sea Peoples. I've also read that the ancestors of Rome,
> proto-Romans if you will, had migrated into Europea via Anatolia.
>
> And I had had the thought that Lycia, and thence the Luka, could be
> the ancestors of Rome due to the near-similarities between Lycia/Lykia
> and and the Greek word 'lykos', or wolf.
>
> Unlikely but, at least to me, intriguing enough to warrant me asking
> :)
>
> > Hope this helps
>
> Yes it did, thank you.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <sGZ49.349$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> news:01HW.B9798A270...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 1:27:24 -0500, Majin Kai wrote
>> (in message <e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com>):
>>> I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
>>> Rome, and have more or less come up with squat. All that I know is
>>> that the Romans were an Indo-European people who migrated to Italy
>>> circa 1000 B.C. or so and who, eventually, settled on the hills of
>>> Rome.
>>> If anyone can help me to shed some light on this somewhat perplexing
>>> problem I'll be *very* appreciative :)
>> More likely than not, the people who would eventually become "Romans"
>> migrated into Italy from mainland Europe just like the rest of the Italic
>> people. In the context of the Indo-European macroculture, the Italics are
>> most closely related to the Celtic people (who also used to inhabit the
>> better part of central and eastern Europe).
> Except that the Italics are typical Mediterranean types - rather different
> from the Gallic types - look at Northern and Southern Italy today to get a
> rough idea.
The modern Gallic/Celtic tribes have been diluted by millenia of
interbreeding with Germanic peoples. The Italics have not (except possibly in
Spain). Don't forget that this divergence happened something like 5000-6000
years ago. A lot has changed since then.
--
Daniel Seriff
I never worry that all hell will break loose. My concern is that only part of
hell will break loose and be much harder to detect.
-Carlin
Daniel Seriff
(in message <Wp959.3760$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
> Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite hopeless.
> The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of Rome
> (753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
Trying to match *any* ancient legend with the archaeological record is
foolish. It's inherently unscientific, and uses as source material a document
written by people who had no way of knowing or recording the events about
which they wrote.
If the archaeological record resembles the legend, that's great, but using
the latter as if it were a factual document isn't history.
--
Daniel Seriff
Bears are crazy. They'll bite your head if you're wearing steak on it.
- SG
o8TY
> My original idea about the Luka didn't fit very well with the
> established facts of either factual history or historical legend. I
> went back and looked over some of my books and basically reconfirmed
> this just to make it official :) Lo and behold, yep, the Luka are a
> seperate entity entirely from the ancient Trojans and seem to only
> appear during the Trojan War as fighting alongside them against the
> Greeks. Nothing more (in Greek legend) is mentioned of them as far as
> I can tell whereas we've got a whole host of references about Trojan
> expatriates or Greeks returning home after the war ended.
>
With reference to my post above, even the Romans recognised Pallantion in
Arkadia as playing a significant role in their early history. After all,
they believed that the Paladion was named after Pallantion, so much so that
they exempted Pallantion from Roman taxes under several emperors. And if you
read very closely you will find that Troy was settled by the Arkadians, and
that it was they who bilt the walls of Troy. Another part of the equation is
that in the Iliad, Zeus was on the side of the Trojans and Zeus was born in
Arkadia.
Cheers
Joe Bernstein
Majin Kai <majin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So now I focus my attention on the ancient Italic peoples, the
> Villanovans in particular, to see what I come up with. I've an older
> book around my place somewhere called 'The Mute Stones Speak' which is
> about archaeology and pre-Roman Italy. I'll give this a looksee if I
> can find it (I just moved so it's probably still in a box somewhere :)
I recommend a couple of books.
<History of Earliest Italy>, Massimo Pallottino, 1991 translation of
1984 Italian original. Very speculative but Pallottino knows his
stuff (he's one of the major experts in this century on the Etruscans).
Fairly easy to read; not a lot of references.
<The Beginnings of Rome>, T. J. Cornell, 1995. Extremely careful looks
at *lots* of evidence. The title is for your purposes misleading,
however; Cornell is looking at major topics in Roman history from
its founding to 264 BC, so only the earlier parts of the book will
be relevant to your inquiry. Cornell's writing is more difficult
than Pallottino's, but his detective-style approach makes for more
drama, if you will. He includes *incredible* numbers of references,
generally to scholarship as far back as about 1600 and sometimes
further.
My own take on things is that since the Romans spoke, as far back as
we have any evidence, an Italic language, they have to come from
the same general neighbourhood as the other Italic-speakers, and
this rules out unequivocally any arrival by boat from places where
Italic-speakers didn't live. I'm not especially impressed by the
idea that the Romans, being Special, therefore had to be Different
from their neighbours. One thing Cornell usefully focuses on is the
fact that the city of Rome was *big*, physically, compared to other
early cities; it is not abnormal or unreasonable for a big city to
wind up conquering smaller cities, cf. Athens, Babylon. Therefore
I'm inclined to accept the Italo-Celtic link and the assumption that
the Italics got to Italy the same way most of the Indo-European
speakers got to most of their lands, some combination of migration
and interbreeding. (I'm profoundly skeptical that either Bengal or
Ireland saw mass migrations, so I certainly don't require that Italy
did either; but I do require that there be similar explanations for
the Latins as for the Oscans and the Umbrians.)
Finally, although you've been told that you shouldn't be skeptical
about the <Aeneid> story just because it's got chronological
difficulties, please note that there's considerable reason to think
Vergil was making it up, that the story of early Rome was markedly
different before him and that the Romans themselves knew about his
chrological gap; see if you will the relevant chapters of <The Gods
in Epic> by D. C. Feeney (about Ennius and about Vergil) on this, and
I think Cornell also talks about it at length.
Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
<http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
Matt Giwer
>> Italian Arkies are very interested in that also. Last year there was an
>>announcement of finding what is believed to have been the original
>>settlement that became Rome. I don't remember much more than that. If
>>that turns out to be correct then digging there should relate them to
>>other people leading to where they came from.
>> I would guess one of the problems is how early they started conquering
>>their neighbors leading to a mixed culture very early in their history.
> Hm, I think I heard of this too. Wasn't the settlement found dated
> circa 1100-1000 B.C.? That'd put it at the time of the Villanovans I
> believe, much too early for Etruscan influence to take root. Greece
> was still in its dark ages so that'd rule them out of the picture.
Around the time is one data point. A problem with data collection is
a good place for a city in Roman times has always been a good place.
Italy, particularly southern Italy, has to become rich. Rome is
moderately rich and even putting in a new parking lot can result in
important finds. A rich Italy will build a lot of parking lots. But
Italy has been moderately poor since archaeology became of interest so
they haven't been modernizing most towns and cities. Doing so would
vastly increase the number of chance discoveries. (This is also an
arguemnt against biblical Israel as the state
of Israel has been building modern cities right and left and rarely is
anything found.)
> Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
> growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
> Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
> dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
> theory as any.
Italy isn't the best country for homogeneity in ancient times. Mountains
cut it down the middle, there are areas where trying to walk around the
peninsula along the shore is difficult. It would be natural for any
culture to spread out and diverge in relatively isolated settlements.
Picking any one group as the progenitor simply because it is currently
somewhat well known is risky at best.
In addition, humans out of Africa have to have been all along the norther
shores of the Med for at least 20,000 years and more likely 40,000. In
that light it is difficult to say there could have been a progenitor
culture unless it was spread by conquest as in Greece and Rome.
--
Violence in the Mideast will end when Israelis get
back to Israel where they belong.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 478
Matt Giwer
> majin...@hotmail.com (Majin Kai) wrote in message news:<e69ebdaf.0208...@posting.google.com>...
>> Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
>>growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
>>Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
>>dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
>>theory as any.
> This is probably the best solution !.. Your first idea - inspired by
> the Legend - of linking the Romans to the Lukka does'n't fit in with
> the Legend itself : the Lukka were NOT the same people as the
> Trojans... Your last idea - Romans being a mixture of Villanovians
> and of immigrants (Etruscans AND Trojans)
No matter how one takes the story or the archaeology you can't of people
known by city names any more than a local city-state. Dropping them into
a larger culture does not appear to help without being able to delineate
the cultural matches and divergences.
> - is a lot more satisfing,
> fitting in with both the archaeological and the legendary data.
> For the question : "Who were the Trojans?", see now J.Faucounau's book
> in French "Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oublié" (You may
> get it at the e-bookshop ALAPAGE <http://www.alapage.com> Search
> under the author's name)
--
When dealing with Zionists you have to hold their feet to the facts
every minute. No matter which of their lies you correct, they will
return next week as though it had never been corrected.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 515
Inger E
there is simply no connection between Troy nor with Greece and Romans. While
it's true that Greeks lived on the "tooths of the boot" and on the Sardinia
there is simply nothing to link that fact with the Romans. Actually if you
look around you will find that latest artifacts found points to a longer
settling by the Romans in the areas around today's Rome. Intermarriages with
Etruscian, probably as well as other groups living there back then, Celts
might be but I doubt it.
Inger E
"o8TY" <ob...@ozemail.com.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:e9d59.11354$Cq.4...@ozemail.com.au...
Majin Kai
Hm, how far back does human habitation go in Italy? The neanderthals
were quite prevalent in prehistoric Europe but modern humans only
begin to firmly take root at the end of the last Ice Age.
The Etruscans weren't Indo-European, so what's the chance of them
having been a vestige of Europe's original, aboriginal inhabitants?
I've heard it said that Basque might be representative of the original
Europeans. Could some of the peculiarities and mysteries of Roman
history be attested to the fact that they're closely related to
Europe's original inhabitants? (Probably not)
Off-topic, but I'm trying to look at all potential angles simply to
assuage my curiousity :)
Chris Camfield
[snip]
>It is very kind of you to think that I could be the respected old
>scholar J. Faucounau ! Thank you ! I am very honoured !..
>But you are AS WRONG in this supposition as *in your chronological
>remark* !!! You forgot that legends can be perdurable, and cross
>centuries !.. And in the case of Rome, the gap in time is not so great
>!.. On the other hand, there is ALWAYS some truth behind a Legend...
>Only *dogmatic people* are denying that !..
That there is ALWAYS truth behind a legend is a ridiculous assertion. For
starters, to prove it, you'd have to prove the truth behind every legend. If
you require that statement in order to prove the truths behind the legends,
ta-da, that'd be circular logic.
The evidence that a bunch of Trojans settled in Italy and started the Roman
people just isn't there. The existence of the tradition is interesting and
prompts the question of why the tradition exists. But it could possibly be
answered by the desire of the Romans to fit themselves into the narratively
richer mythology of the Greeks, for instance.
Chris
Matt Giwer
Off hand I don't know of any particular date for earliest Hxx habitation
in Italy but since HSN, neanderthal, is at least 100,000 years in France
and Germany it is difficult to imagine they were not in Italy. Same
issue with Arcaic HSS at 40,000 and HSS at 20,000 we have the same
difficulty imagining the absense.
Add to that the sudden end of the Ice Age about 10,000 years ago meaning
the sea level was 300 feet lower 20-100,000 years ago. That means people
could walk the coast from Egypt to Gibralter without having to climb
many hills. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where all the Hxxs
were not in Italy.
I have posted some speculations on this here. The other entry route is
due north out of Africa and living on the tundra and mammoths or some
such. Then as the ice age breaks the Fulda Gap opens first as a route
into Europe. So there are separate coastal and northern routes. I am
searching for info on sea level and glacial extent for that period. I
have found a little but far from enough to speculate on details.
> The Etruscans weren't Indo-European, so what's the chance of them
> having been a vestige of Europe's original, aboriginal inhabitants?
The skulls we find are neither Neanderthal nor Archaic so what do you
mean by original? Our kind of HSS have that 20-40,000 year history in
Europe which is far older than IE. But also so much older that there
could have been several intervening migrations.
And then the problem of the current estimate of the population of Europe
arising from something like 6 males and 9 females. That would appear
barely enough to allow both pre and post IE.
> I've heard it said that Basque might be representative of the original
> Europeans. Could some of the peculiarities and mysteries of Roman
> history be attested to the fact that they're closely related to
> Europe's original inhabitants? (Probably not)
> Off-topic, but I'm trying to look at all potential angles simply to
> assuage my curiousity :)
This is off topic in that it is pre-history and therefore by definition
not history. But as the impact of Rome in the post Roman period is part
of the discussion so to is what lead to the historic period.
We have played with this pre-history rather gingerly as the little bit of
data we have so far is counter intuitive. The oldest version was "Was IE
invasion or dispersion?" That went around as usual absent additional
information. The few genetic origins threw both possibilities into the
proverbial cocked hat. [I just realized the proverbial cocked hat is
also proverbial.]
What truly contrasts the Etruscans and Romans is their approach to life
and afterlife. The little Etruscan written material we have could simply
have been stylized beyond recognition. And we don't have examples of
"Roman" until long after it would have diverged on its own.
Which leads to the Basques. They are as Christian as anyone else. They
had their centuries exposure to Rome from south and north before that.
Basques are all speculation because if they had anything else unique
like the Etruscans they have had over 2000 years to lose it. Serious
archaeology in the region could answer a lot of questions as it did for
the Etruscans.
--
What is the difference between the major media
in the US and a government controlled media?
Ever wonder?
-- The Iron Webmaster, 1649
grapheus
> > On the other hand, there is ALWAYS some truth behind a Legend...
> >Only *dogmatic people* are denying that !..
>
> That there is ALWAYS truth behind a legend is a ridiculous assertion.
That what some dogmatic academics were saying when H. Schliemann
discovered Troy!...
> For
> starters, to prove it, you'd have to prove the truth behind every legend. If
> you require that statement in order to prove the truths behind the legends,
> ta-da, that'd be circular logic.
>
The circular reasoning exists only in your mind !.. You forgot that
archaeology is MUTE when there are no inscriptions !.. In such a case,
Legend can help in understanding the archaeological facts !.. This is
exactly the case with the beginnings of Rome...
>
> The evidence that a bunch of Trojans settled in Italy
Why "a bunch" ?? At the beginning, Rome was no more than a small town
on the Tibre river, like Paris was no more than a small town, well
situated for crossing the Seine. In other words, it was a "emporium",
where foreign traders had established commercial shelters.
> and started the Roman
> people just isn't there.
> The existence of the tradition is interesting and
> prompts the question of why the tradition exists.
Ah, ah !.. At least you recognize that !..
> But it could possibly be
> answered by the desire of the Romans to fit themselves into the narratively
> richer mythology of the Greeks, for instance.
>
Such a supposition is ridiculous !.. It totally ignores the way the
Proto-Ionians during the Early Bronze Age, *and their successors
after*, were establishing "emporia" in foreign land !.. In the case
of Rome, and taking into account the pretty *late date* of its
foundation, it is a normal thing that the rich entrepreneur(s) who
created the emporium must have protected it with *mercenaries*,
recruited amongst the Tursha/Proto-Etruscans and Trojan refugees,
having fled Troy after the Mycenaean conquest of the city !...
If you had read J.Faucounau's papers on similar subjects (to the best
of my knowledge, he has not dealt with the beginnings of Rome), you
would get a better understanding of the Proto-History of this
Villanovian town !..
grapheus
Agamemnon
>Pavsanias [viii.41.1] says it was Evander from Pallantion in Arkadia Greece
>about sixty (60) years before the fall of Troy. Aeneas (or Ainaias in
ie. 1243 BC.
>Pavsanias), about whom the Aenead was written, sailed from Troy after its
>fall to (what later became known as) Rome. Since the Arkadians were also
>early settlers of Troy, it would be reasonable to suggest that Aeneas joined
>his compatriot in Rome.
>
>The Luka, I believe, were the people of Pelasgian Lykosaura, also in
>Arkadia, rather than Lykia in south west Turkey (as is often said) on the
>grounds that this region in Turkey did not receive its name until after
>Troy. I would be most interested to know where you got the reference to Luka
>in the first place.
Actually Lycia was named after Lycus the son of Pandion which dates this
name for the colony to 1246 BC which is when Aegeus regained the Athenian
throne. The Greek colony was originally founded by Serpedon in about 1300
BC.
Herodotus:
[1.173.1] The Lycians are in good truth anciently from Crete; which island,
in former days, was wholly peopled with barbarians. A quarrel arising there
between the two sons of Europa, Sarpedon and Minos, as to which of them
should be king, Minos, whose party prevailed, drove Sarpedon and his
followers into banishment. The exiles sailed to Asia, and landed on the
Milyan territory. Milyas was the ancient name of the country now inhabited
by the Lycians: the Milyae of the present day were, in those times, called
Solymi. So long as Sarpedon reigned, his followers kept the name which they
brought with them from Crete, and were called Termilae, as the Lycians
still are by those who live in their neighbourhood. But after Lycus, the
son of Pandion, banished from Athens by his brother Aegeus had found a
refuge with Sarpedon in the country of these Termilae, they came, in course
of time, to be called from him Lycians. Their customs are partly Cretan,
partly Carian. They have, however, one singular custom in which they differ
from every other nation in the world. They take the mother's and not the
father's name. Ask a Lycian who he is, and he answers by giving his own
name, that of his mother, and so on in the female line. Moreover, if a free
woman marry a man who is a slave, their children are full citizens; but if
a free man marry a foreign woman, or live with a concubine, even though he
be the first person in the State, the children forfeit all the rights of
citizenship.
>
>Hope this helps
Agamemnon
wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:06:32 -0500, Neville Lindsay wrote
>(in message <sGZ49.349$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>
>> "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
>> news:01HW.B9798A270...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
>>> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 1:27:24 -0500, Majin Kai wrote
>>> (in message <e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com>):
>>>> I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
>>>> Rome, and have more or less come up with squat. All that I know is
>>>> that the Romans were an Indo-European people who migrated to Italy
>>>> circa 1000 B.C. or so and who, eventually, settled on the hills of
>>>> Rome.
>>>> If anyone can help me to shed some light on this somewhat perplexing
>>>> problem I'll be *very* appreciative :)
>>> More likely than not, the people who would eventually become "Romans"
>>> migrated into Italy from mainland Europe just like the rest of the Italic
>>> people. In the context of the Indo-European macroculture, the Italics are
>>> most closely related to the Celtic people (who also used to inhabit the
>>> better part of central and eastern Europe).
>> Except that the Italics are typical Mediterranean types - rather different
>> from the Gallic types - look at Northern and Southern Italy today to get a
>> rough idea.
>
>The modern Gallic/Celtic tribes have been diluted by millenia of
>interbreeding with Germanic peoples. The Italics have not (except possibly in
CRAP. The amount of Germanic M170 linage DNA dilution in French DNA is only
17% and 8% in Italian populations and non existent in the Spanish.
The French are almost exclusively M173. The northern Italians are mostly
M173 and M172 and the southern Italians mostly resemble the Greeks being of
the M35/M172/M173 combination.
Both Northern Italians and Souther Italians are 10% of the M201 Caucasian
linage which originated from Georgia.
>Spain). Don't forget that this divergence happened something like 5000-6000
>years ago. A lot has changed since then.
CRAP. It occurred in 200 BC when the Germanic tribes migrated into the
Balkans and into France. The migration was RECORDED by eye witnesses.
The Tyrhennians of Northern Italy according to Herodotus were Carian
colonists who settled there in 1600 BC. This explains the presence of the
M172 DNA linage to the extent of 14%.
The presence of 10% M201 Caucasian linage is because the Colchians
(Georgians) settled in Italy in 1246 BC which is recorded by Apollonius.
The Greeks also colonised southern Italy at the same time as the Colchians
and continued their colonisation until 200 BC.
The Romans came to Italy from Illyria in about 1173 BC and thus would have
been of the M35/M172/M173 mixed linages like the Albanians and Greeks.
Presumably M173 was the original linage that settled in Italy sometime
around 2500 BC which is the same time they entered the Balkans where they
merged with the indigenous M172 and M35 linages which were in the Balkans
since at least 5000 BC and began speaking Pelasgian Greek.
Agamemnon
>> Italian Arkies are very interested in that also. Last year there was an
>> announcement of finding what is believed to have been the original
>> settlement that became Rome. I don't remember much more than that. If
>> that turns out to be correct then digging there should relate them to
>> other people leading to where they came from.
>>
>> I would guess one of the problems is how early they started conquering
>> their neighbors leading to a mixed culture very early in their history.
>
> Hm, I think I heard of this too. Wasn't the settlement found dated
>circa 1100-1000 B.C.? That'd put it at the time of the Villanovans I
>believe, much too early for Etruscan influence to take root. Greece
>was still in its dark ages so that'd rule them out of the picture.
Dark ages my arse.
1100 BC was the height of the Heraklid era and an period major Hellenic
colonization of Asia-Minor and Palestine.
>
> Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
>growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
>Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
>dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
>theory as any.
1173 BC is the date when Aenus traveled to Italy via Carthage and founded
the settlement that became Rome. By 1100 BC stone structures should have
began to replace the ordinal wooden ones both in Carthage and in Rome.
Agamemnon
wrote:
>
>"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
>news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
>> majin...@hotmail.com (Majin Kai) wrote in message
>news:<e69ebdaf.0208...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>> > Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
>> > growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
>> > Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
>> > dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
>> > theory as any.
>>
>> This is probably the best solution !.. Your first idea - inspired by
>> the Legend - of linking the Romans to the Lukka does'n't fit in with
>> the Legend itself : the Lukka were NOT the same people as the
>> Trojans... Your last idea - Romans being a mixture of Villanovians
>> and of immigrants (Etruscans AND Trojans) - is a lot more satisfing,
>> fitting in with both the archaeological and the legendary data.
>> For the question : "Who were the Trojans?", see now J.Faucounau's book
>> in French "Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oubli?" (You may
>> get it at the e-bookshop ALAPAGE <http://www.alapage.com> Search
>> under the author's name)
>>
>> grapheus
>
>Dear J. Faucounau
>
>Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite hopeless.
>The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of Rome
>(753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
>
IDIOT. What gap are you talking about ? There is NO gap in the recorded
king list of the Romans which begin in 1173 BC and continue up until the
foundation of the Republic without a break. There are 14 generations
recorded from Aenus to Romulus which works out at about a generation ever
33 years.
>NL
>
Agamemnon
wrote:
>o8TY and other,
>there is simply no connection between Troy nor with Greece and Romans. While
>it's true that Greeks lived on the "tooths of the boot" and on the Sardinia
>there is simply nothing to link that fact with the Romans. Actually if you
>look around you will find that latest artifacts found points to a longer
>settling by the Romans in the areas around today's Rome. Intermarriages with
>Etruscian, probably as well as other groups living there back then, Celts
>might be but I doubt it.
You are a FOOL.
The Romans were the Praetorian ARISTOCRACY and had absolutely NOTHING to do
with the common or garden Italians who did not consider themselves to be
Romans in any way. The Romans were all decended from foreign immigrants.
They were of shorter stature than the Italians and even spoke a different
language.
Inger E
you can take a look in the mirror and see the person who is what you say I
am. The Greeks did manythings but they certainly wasn't the founder of Rome
no matter what myths and tales say.
The Romans were from the surronding land around todays Rome and there were
also a few living on one of the hills in the early days before Rome was
founded.
There might have been Greeks living in Ostia Antica, but the mosaic's faces
casts doubt even if there are mosaics, that I admit, looking more like
Greekian ones.
Inger E
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> skrev i meddelandet
news:9q3dlugkag5k7e4mc...@4ax.com...
Daniel Seriff
(in message <4f2dlugkcbn3c6tua...@4ax.com>):
> IDIOT. What gap are you talking about ? There is NO gap in the recorded
> king list of the Romans which begin in 1173 BC and continue up until the
> foundation of the Republic without a break. There are 14 generations
> recorded from Aenus to Romulus which works out at about a generation ever
> 33 years.
Repeat to yourself, numerous times:
"THEY MADE IT ALL UP"
Stupid limey fucko.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <bsvclu0qmqggbhong...@4ax.com>):
>> The modern Gallic/Celtic tribes have been diluted by millenia of
>> interbreeding with Germanic peoples. The Italics have not (except possibly
>> in
>
> CRAP. The amount of Germanic M170 linage DNA dilution in French DNA is only
> 17% and 8% in Italian populations and non existent in the Spanish.
Prove it.
> The French are almost exclusively M173. The northern Italians are mostly
> M173 and M172 and the southern Italians mostly resemble the Greeks being of
> the M35/M172/M173 combination.
Prove it.
> Both Northern Italians and Souther Italians are 10% of the M201 Caucasian
> linage which originated from Georgia.
Prove it.
>> Spain). Don't forget that this divergence happened something like
>> 5000-6000 years ago. A lot has changed since then.
>
> CRAP. It occurred in 200 BC when the Germanic tribes migrated into the
> Balkans and into France. The migration was RECORDED by eye witnesses.
I wasn't talking about the Germanic migration, fuckwit. In fact, I wasn't
talking about the Germanics at all in this particular sentence. Please to be
paying attention (my expectations for this are not high).
> The Tyrhennians of Northern Italy according to Herodotus were Carian
> colonists who settled there in 1600 BC. This explains the presence of the
> M172 DNA linage to the extent of 14%.
Prove it.
> The presence of 10% M201 Caucasian linage is because the Colchians
> (Georgians) settled in Italy in 1246 BC which is recorded by Apollonius.
Prove it.
> The Greeks also colonised southern Italy at the same time as the Colchians
> and continued their colonisation until 200 BC.
Prove it.
> The Romans came to Italy from Illyria in about 1173 BC and thus would have
> been of the M35/M172/M173 mixed linages like the Albanians and Greeks.
Prove it.
> Presumably M173 was the original linage that settled in Italy sometime
> around 2500 BC which is the same time they entered the Balkans where they
> merged with the indigenous M172 and M35 linages which were in the Balkans
> since at least 5000 BC and began speaking Pelasgian Greek.
Prove it.
--
Daniel Seriff
Torah! Torah! Torah!
- War cry of the kamikaze Rabbis
Matt Giwer
> ccam...@sympatico.ca (Chris Camfield) wrote in message news:<3d55e733...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
>>On 10 Aug 2002 11:08:12 -0700, grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote:
>>>SNIP
>>> On the other hand, there is ALWAYS some truth behind a Legend...
>>>Only *dogmatic people* are denying that !..
>>That there is ALWAYS truth behind a legend is a ridiculous assertion.
> That what some dogmatic academics were saying when H. Schliemann
> discovered Troy!...
Except that he did not discover Troy although that is commonly said. And
the last I heard the only thing later arkies have done is found the
level of the city that would have existed by the dating of the poems but
nothing which intrinsically identifies the city as Troy has been found.
Further what has been found so far indicates the city and the siege are
greatly exaggerated if it occured at all.
It is rather in the Jericho category.
>>For
>>starters, to prove it, you'd have to prove the truth behind every legend. If
>>you require that statement in order to prove the truths behind the legends,
>>ta-da, that'd be circular logic.
> The circular reasoning exists only in your mind !.. You forgot that
> archaeology is MUTE when there are no inscriptions !.. In such a case,
> Legend can help in understanding the archaeological facts !.. This is
> exactly the case with the beginnings of Rome...
Founded by twins suckled by wolves. That certainly helps my
understanding. How about yours?
--
The land is not Israel's to give.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 888
grapheus
Would you mind READING WHAT I WROTE ?.. I repeat it for you : Legend
is NOT History, but it MAY HELP understanding the ARCHAEOLOGICAL
FACTS.
Clear enough ?..
grapheus
grapheus
> The Greeks did manythings but they certainly wasn't the founder of Rome
> no matter what myths and tales say.
>
Hi, Inger !
You cannot dismiss the myth like that !.. Mainly when it can be
*explained* by a rational theory, I mean the "Proto-Ionian Theory" !..
Please, take into account the new light that this theory has brought
in the field of the relationships between the Mediterranean peoples
before making too definite statements !..
> The Romans were from the surronding land around todays Rome and there were
> also a few living on one of the hills in the early days before Rome was
> founded.
>
> There might have been Greeks living in Ostia Antica, but the mosaic's faces
> casts doubt even if there are mosaics, that I admit, looking more like
> Greekian ones.
>
See what I mean ?.. Think to an emporium, founded by a Greek
entrepreneur (or a merchant of Greek descent or of Greek culture), and
protected by mercenaries recruited amongst Tursha/Proto-Etruscans and
Trojan refugees...
> Inger E
Regards
grapheus
Roger Pearse
... said the gaul, as one plunged a sword in his back. <g>
Probably should have been in "Carry on Cleo", the only movie that
represents how the Roman Empire *really* was...
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Inger E
I forgot to tell you all two maybe three things:
A
I have checked the myths with other documentations, archaeological and
written sources.
B.
Due to the reason that a person close to my daughter have special knowledge
in the early Roman History I have gained more information than what persons
outside a few who is specialist in both Italian and Greek Archaeology and
written History have had the chance to have.
C.
I have had one of this worlds best teacher when it comes to analysing
ancient paintings, mosaics etc as a teacher and I still have the
analystexts he gave us available.
The latest knowledge is that the Romans from beginning where as I said
farmers from around Rome no Greeks involved at all. Btw. Have you had access
to pictures of the latest excavations in Rome? Monika my daughter was
allowed to take some pictures this Spring, interesting pictures btw.
Inger E
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
Agamemnon
wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:05:37 -0500, Agamemnon wrote
>(in message <4f2dlugkcbn3c6tua...@4ax.com>):
>
>> IDIOT. What gap are you talking about ? There is NO gap in the recorded
>> king list of the Romans which begin in 1173 BC and continue up until the
>> foundation of the Republic without a break. There are 14 generations
>> recorded from Aenus to Romulus which works out at about a generation ever
>> 33 years.
>
>Repeat to yourself, numerous times:
>
>"THEY MADE IT ALL UP"
>
>Stupid limey fucko.
Jewish racist bigot. Your torah was all made up.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <91eflus58mi6jp688...@4ax.com>):
That's right. Anyone who disbelieves your bizzare and completely irrational
fantasies is a "racist bigot". They have medication for you, you know.
> Your torah was all made up.
Prove it, fucko. And try quoting someone besides yourself, this time, since
it's already been firmly established that you're a shameless liar.
grapheus
"Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message news:<l7N59.3695$HY3.1...@newsc.telia.net>...
> Hi "grapheus",
> I forgot to tell you all two maybe three things:
> A
> I have checked the myths with other documentations, archaeological and
> written sources.
OK. So, I believe that you cannot deny the link established by the
myth with the GREEK Homeric legend... There MUST be some reason for
that !..
> B.
> Due to the reason that a person close to my daughter have special knowledge
> in the early Roman History I have gained more information than what persons
> outside a few who is specialist in both Italian and Greek Archaeology and
> written History have had the chance to have.
> C.
> I have had one of this worlds best teacher when it comes to analysing
> ancient paintings, mosaics etc as a teacher and I still have the
> analystexts he gave us available.
Ancien paintings and mosaic are irrelevant for the question of Rome's
origins. They are a lot LATER !..
>
> The latest knowledge is that the Romans from beginning where as I said
> farmers from around Rome
Not exactly : Following G.Sergi (Italia.. p.130) and R.Pittioni
("Italien..." p.288 ff), remains of farmers' round or elliptical HUTS
have indeed been found, dated from the 11th or 10th century, but also
GRAVES presenting some affinities with the later Etruscan inhumation
graves. These graves could be the traces of a non-farmer, foreign
population. They were mixed with URN graves of surely local origin.
All this reinforces the idea of an "emporium", established amongst a
Villanovian population, (probably of "Proto-Marino Culture").
> no Greeks involved at all.
Apparently no, I agree. But one may suspect the founder(s?) of the
"emporium" to have been or Greeks, or "descendents of Greeks", or at
least culturally linked to Greeks. Don't forgot that (Proto-Ionian
first, then Mycenaean and Proto-Ionian mongrels) Greeks had
established commercial relationship with the Italian coast since
c.1600 BC in round figure, if not early !
> Btw. Have you had access
> to pictures of the latest excavations in Rome? Monika my daughter was
> allowed to take some pictures this Spring, interesting pictures btw.
>
The only relevant excavations with the origins of Rome are the ones
concerning the 11th Century BC. To the best of my knowledge, there is
none to-day. The Italian archaeologists are too busy with the later
periods !..
regards
grapheus
Inger E
no we don't. My information is from this year's knowledge(excavations and
other analysed factors).
Inger E
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > We don't seem to have the same information :
>
> no we don't. My information is from this year's knowledge(excavations and
> other analysed factors).
>
> Inger E
Well, are these excavations relevant to the problem ? (See hereafter)
> > The only relevant excavations with the origins of Rome are the ones
> > concerning the 11th Century BC. To the best of my knowledge, there is
> > none to-day. The Italian archaeologists are too busy with the later
> > periods !..
grapheus
Edwin Menes
latest digs in the Forum, I believe, were under the auspices of the
Swedish Academy, and I'm pretty sure it's Americans who are currently on
the slope of the Palatine above the Forum and Colosseum. Results often
take forever to get published, so one has to look to conferences and
meetings (where oral reports are given). Or one has to know someone
connected to the dig.
From anything I've heard, Inger is right.
Schlau
> I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
> Rome, and have more or less come up with squat. All that I know is
> that the Romans were an Indo-European people who migrated to Italy
> circa 1000 B.C. or so and who, eventually, settled on the hills of
> Rome.
>
> been trying to do is find out where the Romans were BEFORE Rome was
> founded. A futile effort of course but I've made some interesting,
> and most likely untrue, correlations between Rome and ancient history.
>
> I've come across the Luka, a branch of the Sea Peoples, from Lycia in
> southwestern Anatolia. They were an Indo-European people who were
> pirates and raiders, fighting with the Hittites against Ramses II at
> Kadesh. They were also mentioned by Homer as having fought against
> the Greeks at Troy; could they possibly, in some form, be the
> historical ancestors of Rome?
That's the speculation for one of the origins of the Etruscans, from
Lydia around 1000 BC, not the Romans.
> I've never been able to discover *how* the
> Romans got to Italy in olden times: I've read authors saying they
> migrated from the Danube region, others saying that they were actually
> Greek colonists, another saying that they migrated from the Hittite
> Kingdom, yet another saying that they were Celts who migrated to Troy
> from Italy and then back to Italy again after Troy's fall (go figure
> on that last one).
The Romans, and Latins in general, were decendant of various
Indo-European speaking peoples that began to migrate into the
Italian Penisula around 1800 BC. They migrated across the Adriatic,
in addition to down the Penisula.
The languages these Indo-Europeans spoke were closly related to
Mycenean Greek as well as Celtic, hence the speculation among earlier
scholars to claim Greek or Celtic origins for the Latins. Part of the
confusion might stem from the fact that the Mycenean Greeks themselves,
as later Greeks would do, set up trading posts/colonies themselves in
Southern Italy & Sicily.
Also to add to the mix was the pre-Indo European peoples of the Italian
Peninsula who had been there since the stone age, most of them being
absorbed by the Indo-Europeans.
So where were the Romans before Italy ? Probably in the Danube Basin
or along the Eastern Adriatic Coast(Former Yugoslavia). And before that,
gets you into discussions/arguments on the origins of the Indo-Europeans
in general.
See:
"History of Rome"
Grant, Michael
NY, Scribners, 1978.
"A History of Rome to 565 6th ed."
Sinnigen, William G. and Arthur E. R. Boak
NY, Macmillan, 1965.
"Atlas of the Roman World"
Cornell, Tim and John Matthews
NY, Facts on File Publications, 1982.
--Oscar Schlaf--
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/schlaf/x1.html
"The great tragedy of Science: the slaying of a beautiful
hypothesis by an ugly fact."
— T. H. Huxley
grapheus
Do you mean that there have been *recent* excavations concerning the
XIth/Xth century BC ?.. If yes, have they lead to different
conclusions than the ones made from 1903 to 1926 on the Esquilin and
Quirinal Hills (and also the neighbouring Alban Hills), which have
shown a mixture of "Central Appenine" and "Proto-Etruscan" Cultures
?.. (I am asking this question because to the best of my knowledge,
all recent excavations were concerning later periods. But, of course,
some excavations may have escaped to my attention : I am not a
specialist in Italian archaeology. I am just trying to stay informed
about what concerns the Bronze Age - my true specialization - in the
diverse Mediterranean countries).
grapheus
grapheus
> majin...@hotmail.com (Majin Kai) wrote in message news:<e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com>...
> > I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
> > Rome, and have more or less come up with squat. All that I know is
> > that the Romans were an Indo-European people who migrated to Italy
> > circa 1000 B.C. or so and who, eventually, settled on the hills of
> > Rome.
> The Romans, and Latins in general, were decendant of various
> Indo-European speaking peoples that began to migrate into the
> Italian Penisula around 1800 BC. They migrated across the Adriatic,
> in addition to down the Penisula.
> The languages these Indo-Europeans spoke were closly related to
> Mycenean Greek as well as Celtic, hence the speculation among earlier
> scholars to claim Greek or Celtic origins for the Latins. Part of the
> confusion might stem from the fact that the Mycenean Greeks themselves,
> as later Greeks would do, set up trading posts/colonies themselves in
> Southern Italy & Sicily.
> Also to add to the mix was the pre-Indo European peoples of the Italian
> Peninsula who had been there since the stone age, most of them being
> absorbed by the Indo-Europeans.
This is a pretty good description of the Prehictoric Italy.
But I would consider the next question :
> So where were the Romans before Italy ?
as meaningless. It is like asking "Where were the New-Yorkers in 2000
BC ?"
The meaningful questions are, in my opinion : 1)- What were the
beginnings of Rome ? and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the
Legend ?..
regards
grapheus
Domenico Rosa
> "Majin Kai" <majin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com...
> > I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
> You would more profitably look for the origins of the peoples of central
> Italy. Rome was populated by a collection of masterless men and rapscallions
> who gathered there as a sort of thieves den. The story of the Aeneid is
> fable.
>
> After the settlement, they became land pirates and absorbed surrounding land
> to accommodate the growing population. In the process, they absorbed other
> Latins, whose names are obvious in the lists of Roman clans.
It is important to note that Livy himself wrote that the founders of
Rome were "a rabble of vagrants, mostly runaways and refugees" [Aubrey
de Selincourt, Livy: The History of Early Rome, The Heritage Press,
New York (1972) p 99]. Nevertheless, the descendants of these
"masterless men and rapscallions" developed a Civil Law and a Civil
Administration that continues to have a profound impact today.
Domenico Rosa
Schlau
Much like the origins of the Anglo-Saxons or Normans needs to be
studied to have an understanding of England, the origins of the
Romans needs to as well for the same reason.
> The meaningful questions are, in my opinion :
>
>1)- What were the beginnings of Rome ?
There are extensive writings that cover this.
> and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
The answer is no. Legend by it's very definition isn't rational
from an empircal standpoint, which is the standpoint of modern
archaeology and history.
legend [from Latin legenda, "for reading, to be read,"]
1. a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially
one popularly believed to be historical.
b. A body or collection of such stories.
c. A romanticized or popularized myth
While historians and archaeologists can look to legends, for possible
clues; legends shouldn't be thier guidelines by any means.
Black Feather
to Gaius Caesar--"Gallic War"). Most of them were Greek settlers.
What was their language? It was Latium/Latin relative of Gaelic, as is
Greek. Classical writers claim they were the "Trojans" come 'home'
after loosing the battle to the Hellens. The "Trojans" were the
Achaeans (Dananns/Danais and Argives -- Sea Peoples who conquered the
Peleponese and its Ionian inhabitants. They too, were 'called' Greeks.)
The 'two' would become an amalgamation according to those same writers.
'Phoenicians' = 'Venetians'. The 'Danais' become the 'Dons' -- of
Italy.
Black Feather
grapheus
The difference is 1)- that it is almost impossible to give a
definition of the word :"ROMANS" , and 2)- that there is a very good
chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
This is why I am saying that the question is meaningless.
>
> > The meaningful questions are, in my opinion :
> >
> >1)- What were the beginnings of Rome ?
>
> There are extensive writings that cover this.
>
But NONE really satisfactory !..
>
> > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
>
> The answer is no.
Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
!.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
*emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
Culture, brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
That this theory does'n't please many scholars - who prefer, like you,
to state as a POSTULATE that "Legend has no value" - is unimportant.
What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
theory...
grapheus
Inger E
you still haven't got it have you? Due to latest research it's possible to
say that the early Romans WAS FARMERS from the areas north and east of the
seven hills. On top of that there was a small minor village on one of the
hills going back at least to the early days of the Bronze Age.
Inger E
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
> > - T. H. Huxley
Neville Lindsay
"Domenico Rosa" <DR...@teikyopost.edu> wrote in message
news:915472c2.0208...@posting.google.com...
The product of putting down the overlords who were Brutus' colleagues and
successors.
NL
grapheus
> Grapheus,
> you still haven't got it have you? Due to latest research it's possible to
> say that the early Romans WAS FARMERS from the areas north and east of the
> seven hills. On top of that there was a small minor village on one of the
> hills going back at least to the early days of the Bronze Age.
>
> Inger E
This is NO BIG NEWS !.. Nobody, including me, has denied, that, on the
Palatine, remains of round or elliptical FARMERS' HUTS were
discovered, with corresponding urn tombs. (See one of my preceding
posts). But what are you doing of the INHUMATION GRAVES found nearby
WITH "Proto-Etruscan" artifacts? (c.1909, if I remember correctly..).
Just putting them aside - as you do with the Legend ! -, just because
they testify to the presence of foreigners at that time?..
Please see in particular G. Sergi in "Italia: le origini", Turin
1919...
I don't ignore that the Pallotino's School is denying ANY FOREIGN
INFLUENCE in Prehistorical Italy ( Even the Etruscans would be
"autochthonous" !!! ). But FACTS are stronger than DOGMA !..
grapheus
Schlau
> > > > > I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
Not any more or less then any other "nationality".
> and 2)- that there is a very good
> chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
> later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
> languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
The historical evidence point to founders of Rome being from one group of
Latin people as much as the original founders of New York were one group,
the Dutch.
> This is why I am saying that the question is meaningless.
>
> >
> > > The meaningful questions are, in my opinion :
> > >
> > >1)- What were the beginnings of Rome ?
> >
> > There are extensive writings that cover this.
> >
>
> But NONE really satisfactory !..
That's a matter of opinion. And with history, especially ancient
history, you're never going to get a full complete "satisfactory"
answer.
> >
> > > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
> >
> > The answer is no.
>
> Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
> !.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
> *emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
> not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
> Culture,
The central Appenines from at least around 1,000 BC were inhabited by
people other then Latins, the Oscans(Sabellians) and the Umbrians.
The Samnites, who fought the Greek city states in Southern Italy as well
as Rome, were Oscan(Sabellian) speakers.
> brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
people who had adopted Greek culture. Think it would be pretty obvious,
since the Romans picked up thier alphabet from the Etruscans, which they
wouldn't have done if they were originally Greeks themselves or had already
been influenced by Greeks.
> That this theory does'n't please many scholars - who prefer, like you,
> to state as a POSTULATE that "Legend has no value" - is unimportant.
In the case of the founding of Rome, many of the legends have already
been disproven thanks to archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics.
> What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
> And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
> theory...
That Greeks founded Rome or that Trojans did? Laudo vos latin.
Fama grapheus est magna pro eo stultus....
grapheus
This is the point I disagree with : the archaeological data
(discovered in 1909, if I remember correctly) have shown a mixture of
farmers with a Central Appenine Culture AND of peoples of
"Etrusco-Greek" Culture. (This term is mine : I prefer it to
"Proto-Etruscan", which has a more limited connotation).
grapheus
This is the point I disagree with : the archaeological data (found in
1909, if I remember correctly) show a MIXTURE of farmers of Central
Appenine Culture AND of another people with a "Etrusco-Greek" Culture
(This term is mine : I prefer it to "Proto-Etruscan, which has a more
limited connotation).
> > This is why I am saying that the question is meaningless.
> >
> > >
> > > > The meaningful questions are, in my opinion :
> > > >
> > > >1)- What were the beginnings of Rome ?
> > >
> > > There are extensive writings that cover this.
> > >
> >
> > But NONE really satisfactory !..
>
> That's a matter of opinion. And with history, especially ancient
> history, you're never going to get a full complete "satisfactory"
> answer.
>
Agreed !.. But some answers can be "more satisfactory" than others !..
The "Classical answer" that you are advocating does'n't EXPLAIN the
origin of the Legend : not particularly good !..
>
> > >
> > > > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
> > >
> > > The answer is no.
> >
> > Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
> > !.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
> > *emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
> > not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
> > Culture,
>
> The central Appenines from at least around 1,000 BC were inhabited by
> people other then Latins, the Oscans(Sabellians) and the Umbrians.
> The Samnites, who fought the Greek city states in Southern Italy as well
> as Rome, were Oscan(Sabellian) speakers.
>
You are bringing grain to my mill !... On a linguistical point of
view, Oscan and Umbrian Languages are the CLOSEST pre-Italic dialects
from Latin !.. And the difference between these languages with Latin
may be easily explained by the presence of a "Greek-Cultural Element"
at Rome... (For a better definition of the "Greek-Cultural Element",
see hereafter).
>
> > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
>
> There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> people who had adopted Greek culture.
Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
century..
> Think it would be pretty obvious,
> since the Romans picked up thier alphabet from the Etruscans, which they
> wouldn't have done if they were originally Greeks themselves or had already
> been influenced by Greeks.
Objection without value !.. At the period of the Rome beginnings, the
Greeks (and peoples of Greek Culture) still ignored the alphabet !..
They adopted it a bit later.
>
>
> > That this theory does'n't please many scholars - who prefer, like you,
> > to state as a POSTULATE that "Legend has no value" - is unimportant.
>
> In the case of the founding of Rome, many of the legends have already
> been disproven thanks to archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics.
>
So what ?.. It's obvious that Legend is NOT "History" !.. It does'n't
mean that there may be some kernel of truth in legends !..
>
> > What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
> > And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
> > theory...
>
> That Greeks founded Rome or that Trojans did? Laudo vos latin.
> Fama grapheus est magna pro eo stultus....
You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !... Please,
read at least the Chapter 5 of his book "Les Proto-Ioniens", and you
will find the answer!!!
It's always easy for the ignorant to scoff at a theory he TOTALLY
ignores !..
grapheus
Schlau
> sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message
"snip"
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a pretty good description of the Prehictoric Italy.
> > > > > But I would consider the next question :
> > > > >
> > > > > > So where were the Romans before Italy ?
> > > > >
> > > > > as meaningless. It is like asking "Where were the New-Yorkers in 2000
> > > > > BC ?"
> > > >
> > > > Much like the origins of the Anglo-Saxons or Normans needs to be
> > > > studied to have an understanding of England, the origins of the
> > > > Romans needs to as well for the same reason.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The difference is 1)- that it is almost impossible to give a
> > > definition of the word :"ROMANS" ,
> >
> > Not any more or less then any other "nationality".
> >
> > > and 2)- that there is a very good
> > > chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
> > > later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
> > > languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
> >
> > The historical evidence point to founders of Rome being from one group of
> > Latin people as much as the original founders of New York were one group,
> > the Dutch.
> >
>
> This is the point I disagree with : the archaeological data (found in
> 1909, if I remember correctly) show a MIXTURE of farmers of Central
> Appenine Culture AND of another people with a "Etrusco-Greek" Culture
> (This term is mine : I prefer it to "Proto-Etruscan, which has a more
> limited connotation).
Rome, AFTER, it was founded had Estruscan elements added to it, not
prior. The Etruscans were primarily merchants, not farmers. And the
seven hills that became Rome, wasn't of any interest to them until
after a community was established there.
And the early Greek influences are 2nd hand via the Etruscans, such
as the "Latin" alphabet, who the Greeks themselves borrowed from the
Phoencians..
> > > This is why I am saying that the question is meaningless.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > The meaningful questions are, in my opinion :
> > > > >
> > > > >1)- What were the beginnings of Rome ?
> > > >
> > > > There are extensive writings that cover this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But NONE really satisfactory !..
> >
> > That's a matter of opinion. And with history, especially ancient
> > history, you're never going to get a full complete "satisfactory"
> > answer.
> >
>
> Agreed !.. But some answers can be "more satisfactory" than others !..
> The "Classical answer" that you are advocating does'n't EXPLAIN the
> origin of the Legend : not particularly good !..
It's not suppose to, it's suppose to explain the actual
happening of events, not the "historical" fiction Greco-Roman
writers made up seven hundred to one thousand years after the facts,
which is what Virgil's "Aeneid" is.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
> > > >
> > > > The answer is no.
> > >
> > > Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
> > > !.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
> > > *emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
> > > not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
> > > Culture,
> >
> > The central Appenines from at least around 1,000 BC were inhabited by
> > people other then Latins, the Oscans(Sabellians) and the Umbrians.
> > The Samnites, who fought the Greek city states in Southern Italy as well
> > as Rome, were Oscan(Sabellian) speakers.
> >
>
> You are bringing grain to my mill !... On a linguistical point of
> view, Oscan and Umbrian Languages are the CLOSEST pre-Italic dialects
> from Latin !
Of Iron Age Italtic dialects Falisci and Hernici were the closest
to Latin, not Oscan or Umbrian.
> .. And the difference between these languages with Latin
> may be easily explained by the presence of a "Greek-Cultural Element"
> at Rome...
Actually the reverse is somewhat true as some Oscan(Sabellian)
dialects were modified as they came into contact Greek settlers to
Southern Italy and conqueored several Greek colonies, most notably
Cumae.
Illyrians also crossed over the Adriatic and settled in Lucania and
Bruttium(the heel of the boot), further modifiying the
Oscan(Sabellian) dialects there.
> >
> > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> >
> > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > people who had adopted Greek culture.
>
> Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> century..
???? How is that proof of Greeks?
And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
date back to 730 bc at the earliest. The local pottery of the time
also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
> > Think it would be pretty obvious,
> > since the Romans picked up thier alphabet from the Etruscans, which they
> > wouldn't have done if they were originally Greeks themselves or had already
> > been influenced by Greeks.
>
> Objection without value !.. At the period of the Rome beginnings, the
> Greeks (and peoples of Greek Culture) still ignored the alphabet !..
Around 900 BC or so actually, so around the same time. The previous
script of the Mycenean Greeks, Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
Rather curious if one were to suppose early "Greeks" founded Rome.
Also the Latin alphabet had to adopt the Y and Z to help pronounce
loan words from Greek, no native Latin words having any such sounds..
> > > What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
> > > And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
> > > theory...
> >
> > That Greeks founded Rome or that Trojans did? Laudo vos latin.
> > Fama grapheus est magna pro eo stultus....
>
> You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
> Please, read at least the Chapter 5 of his book "Les Proto-Ioniens", and you
> will find the answer!!!
Bit difficult as there isn't an English(or German) translation of
it and mon Francais n'est pas bon du tout..
> It's always easy for the ignorant to scoff at a theory he TOTALLY
> ignores !..
Generally speaking, I tend to try and read all the facts first,
before reading up on anyone's theories reguarding the facts, or as
often
is the case a rather inteperted meaning of a few select facts.
But given Mr. Faucounau's background in linguistics, his theory
reguarding the founding of Rome is primarily based on linguistics.
And that's really a rather problematic thing to do since there are no
records from the Romans themselves dating to the time period; the
script
of the thier most civilized neighbours, the Etruscans, remains
undeciphered, and the other Italic peoples of the time were total
illiterates and wrote nothing down. That leaves archaeological
evidence,
which does not point to Greek origins for the founders of Rome.
--Oscar Schlaf--
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/schlaf/x1.html
"You can fool some people sometimes, but not all the
people all the time"
grapheus
> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0208...@posting.google.com>...
> > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message
>
> "snip"
> > > > and 2)- that there is a very good
> > > > chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
> > > > later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
> > > > languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
> > >
> > > The historical evidence point to founders of Rome being from one group of
> > > Latin people as much as the original founders of New York were one group,
> > > the Dutch.
> > >
> > This is the point I disagree with : the archaeological data (found in
> > 1909, if I remember correctly) show a MIXTURE of farmers of Central
> > Appenine Culture AND of another people with a "Etrusco-Greek" Culture
> > (This term is mine : I prefer it to "Proto-Etruscan, which has a more
> > limited connotation).
>
> Rome, AFTER, it was founded had Estruscan elements added to it, not
> prior.
That it what you say, because you ignore the history of the Etruscans
!.. You are just considering the "AFTER", i.e. a later period that the
one I am talking about!..
I maintain that small groups of "Proto-Etruscans" have "visited" (if
not settled in) Italy SINCE THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD...
> The Etruscans were primarily merchants, not farmers.
I agree !..
> And the
> seven hills that became Rome, wasn't of any interest to them until
> after a community was established there.
There were settlers on the hills surrounding Rome *centuries* before
1,000 BC !.. And the "Proto-Etruscans" were INTERESTED by the LOCATION
of Rome near the Tiber : you seem to ignore, that, like Paris, it was
the easiest location for crossing the river !.. This has been
established by several scholars.
> And the early Greek influences are 2nd hand via the Etruscans, such
> as the "Latin" alphabet, who the Greeks themselves borrowed from the
> Phoencians..
NOW, you are IGNORING the early history of the Greeks, as resulting
from the "Proto-Ionian Theory" !.. But instead of looking at it (see
hereafter), you prefer staying with your obsolete concepts !..
> SNIP
> > > > > > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
> > > > >
> > > > > The answer is no.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
> > > > !.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
> > > > *emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
> > > > not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
> > > > Culture,
> > >
> > > The central Appenines from at least around 1,000 BC were inhabited by
> > > people other then Latins, the Oscans(Sabellians) and the Umbrians.
> > > The Samnites, who fought the Greek city states in Southern Italy as well
> > > as Rome, were Oscan(Sabellian) speakers.
> > >
> >
> > You are bringing grain to my mill !... On a linguistical point of
> > view, Oscan and Umbrian Languages are the CLOSEST pre-Italic dialects
> > from Latin !
>
> Of Iron Age Italtic dialects Falisci and Hernici were the closest
> to Latin, not Oscan or Umbrian.
>
The dialects you quote are considered as just variantes" of Latin, NOT
DIFFERENT DIALECTS from the "Italic IE-family" , which comprises
Latin, Oscan and Umbrian, a family which is OPPOSED to the other
languages spoken in Prehistoric Italy, like Venete, Messapian, Raetic,
Etruscan, etc.
>
> > .. And the difference between these languages with Latin
> > may be easily explained by the presence of a "Greek-Cultural Element"
> > at Rome...
>
> Actually the reverse is somewhat true as some Oscan(Sabellian)
> dialects were modified as they came into contact Greek settlers to
> Southern Italy and conqueored several Greek colonies, most notably
> Cumae.
Once again, you are looking to the "AFTER" !.. What you are mentioning
( which is true) does'n't contradict my description of OLDER EVENTS
!...
> Illyrians also crossed over the Adriatic and settled in Lucania and
> Bruttium(the heel of the boot), further modifiying the
> Oscan(Sabellian) dialects there.
>
> > > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> > >
> > > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > > people who had adopted Greek culture.
> >
> > Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> > like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> > century..
>
> ???? How is that proof of Greeks?
Please, read what I wrote : I did say "Peoples of Greek Culture", not
necessarily "Greeks". These TWO types of burial prove that there were
at least TWO types of people settled in the area : farmers AND
merchants !
> And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
> about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
> date back to 730 bc at the earliest.
Once again, you are just looking at the "AFTER" !.. Later Greek
pottery has nothing to do here : what ONLY counts is the type of
pottery found in the tombs not belonging to the Central Appenine
Culture !..
>The local pottery of the time
> also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
> parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
You are bringing again some more grain to my mill !.. Read the book
"Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié" , and you will
understand !..
>
>
> > > Think it would be pretty obvious,
> > > since the Romans picked up thier alphabet from the Etruscans, which they
> > > wouldn't have done if they were originally Greeks themselves or had already
> > > been influenced by Greeks.
> >
> > Objection without value !.. At the period of the Rome beginnings, the
> > Greeks (and peoples of Greek Culture) still ignored the alphabet !..
>
> Around 900 BC or so actually, so around the same time. The previous
> script of the Mycenean Greeks, Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !.. Maybe this will ring a clock into
your mind ?..
> Rather curious if one were to suppose early "Greeks" founded Rome.
What is so "curious" ??? Once again, I did'n't say "Greeks", but
"Peoples with an early Greek-Culture", closely linked to Greeks.
> Also the Latin alphabet had to adopt the Y and Z to help pronounce
> loan words from Greek, no native Latin words having any such sounds..
>
IRRELEVANT !
>
> > > > What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
> > > > And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
> > > > theory...
> > >
> > > That Greeks founded Rome or that Trojans did? Laudo vos latin.
> > > Fama grapheus est magna pro eo stultus....
> >
> > You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
>
> Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
> Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
1)- His decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is just a part of his
"Proto-Ionian Theory", which he has SUMMARIZED in the book I mentioned
hereabove about "Les Proto-Ioniens"...
2)- I already wrote, that, to the best of my knowledge, he has NOT
written anything about the beginnings of Rome (He just mentioned,
passim, in a paper dealing with "The Conquest of the West by the
Greeks", the South-Picenian Inscription of Castignano).
But I don't believe he would criticize *MY* historical reconstruction
of the beginnings of Rome, that is based upon his "Proto-Ionian
Theory"... A theory that I have seriously studied, contrary to you
!...
>
> > Please, read at least the Chapter 5 of his book "Les Proto-Ioniens", and you
> > will find the answer!!!
>
> Bit difficult as there isn't an English(or German) translation of
> it and mon Francais n'est pas bon du tout..
>
Surprising, if you are a linguist, that you are unable to read a book
in French !..
>
> > It's always easy for the ignorant to scoff at a theory he TOTALLY
> > ignores !..
>
> Generally speaking, I tend to try and read all the facts first,
> before reading up on anyone's theories reguarding the facts, or as
> often
> is the case a rather inteperted meaning of a few select facts.
So, why you don't carefully study the TWO types of tombs found in the
vicinity of Rome ?.. Up to now, everything you wrote was obviously
coming from "second hand opinions" (mainly from scholars of the
'Autochthonist Italian School'), not from a personal study of the
facts !..
> But given Mr. Faucounau's background in linguistics, his theory
> reguarding the founding of Rome is primarily based on linguistics.
I have to repeat it : HE DID NOT WRITE ANYTHING on the FOUNDING of
ROME !.. But, from the rest of his work (about the Greek and Etruscan
History, about "mercenaries", about the "Pelasgians", etc.), I don't
believe that he would refuse my own "historical reconstruction" !..
> And that's really a rather problematic thing to do since there are no
> records from the Romans themselves dating to the time period;
Except the Legend !.. But, you are dismissing it "a priori" !!!
> the script
> of the thier most civilized neighbours, the Etruscans, remains
> undeciphered,
Wrong !.. This is what the Pallotino's School is saying !.. No wonder
they cannot understand the language : they are refusing the
KRETSCHMERIAN APPROACH !!!
> and the other Italic peoples of the time were total
> illiterates and wrote nothing down.
Wrong again !.. You obviously IGNORE books, like the THREE-VOLUME
"Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy" by J. Whatmough !!!
> That leaves archaeological
> evidence,
> which does not point to Greek origins for the founders of Rome.
>
100% "Greeks" ? NO !.. But of Greek-culture, YES !..
The problem is that, as long as you will not *make the effort to be
informed*, you will never believe it !...
grapheus
HANSTEIS
>
>NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
>Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !..
I had't heard of this. Could you please give me a reference?
HANS...@AOL.com (John Stanley)
Oh, threats of hell and hopes of Paradise--
One thing at least is certain: This life flies.
One thing is certain, and the rest is lies:
The rose that once has blown forever dies.
Italo C
Schlau schreef:
<snip>
> > > The historical evidence point to founders of Rome being from one group of
> > > Latin people as much as the original founders of New York were one group,
> > > the Dutch.
Actually, in New Amsterdam the Dutch were not in the majority.
> >
<snip>
> > .. And the difference between these languages with Latin
> > may be easily explained by the presence of a "Greek-Cultural Element"
> > at Rome...
>
> Actually the reverse is somewhat true as some Oscan(Sabellian)
> dialects were modified as they came into contact Greek settlers to
> Southern Italy and conqueored several Greek colonies, most notably
> Cumae.
> Illyrians also crossed over the Adriatic and settled in Lucania and
> Bruttium(the heel of the boot), further modifiying the
> Oscan(Sabellian) dialects there.
AFAIK, the Illyro-Messapians were restricted to Apulia, Calabria especially (the peninsula part of Apulia
formerly called Calabria, not Bruttium, which nowadays is called Calabria). The Messapians settled among the
Iapyges, Peuceti and Dauni(acc. to Virgil, the Dauni also founded the city of Ardea, just below Rome), who
were unrelated to the Messapians and said emigrated there from the Aegean.
>
> > >
> > > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> > >
> > > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > > people who had adopted Greek culture.
> >
> > Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> > like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> > century..
>
> ???? How is that proof of Greeks?
> And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
> about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
> date back to 730 bc at the earliest. The local pottery of the time
> also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
> parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
Aegean style pottery(LH IIIc, if i remember correctly) has been found at Casale Nuovo near mt.Alban.
It's suggested that this(and other) specimen may not have been imported from the Aegean, but from one of the
settlements in the South that produced local Mycenaean style pottery.
<snip>
--
Italo
grapheus
> >Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
> >
> >NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
> >Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !..
>
> I had't heard of this. Could you please give me a reference?
>
See :<http://www.kranznet.indi.de/brzeit/goldfund/bernstein.htm>
<http://www.blfd.bayern.de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm>
On the amber Plate B, one may read the Proper Name Pa-nwa-ti(s), plus
an (unknown until now) ideogram representing a crown (probable meaning
: king or high priest?)
Regards
grapheus
For the
Arjan
news:01HW.B97AC5E10...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 20:06:32 -0500, Neville Lindsay wrote
> (in message <sGZ49.349$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>
> > "Daniel Seriff" <micro...@what.zzz> wrote in message
> > news:01HW.B9798A270...@news-server.austin.rr.com...
> >> On Fri, 9 Aug 2002 1:27:24 -0500, Majin Kai wrote
> >> (in message <e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com>):
[snip]
> > Except that the Italics are typical Mediterranean types - rather
different
> > from the Gallic types - look at Northern and Southern Italy today to get
a
> > rough idea.
> The modern Gallic/Celtic tribes have been diluted by millenia of
> interbreeding with Germanic peoples. The Italics have not (except possibly
in
> Spain). Don't forget that this divergence happened something like
5000-6000
> years ago. A lot has changed since then.
Maybe the Italians originally followed the pattern of other indo-europeans.
They installed themselves as an aristocracy and interbreeded with
a substantial local population. The influence of their language was much
bigger than their genes.
> --
> Daniel Seriff
>
Arjan
Arjan
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...news:<Wp959.3760$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>...
> > "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> > news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...> > news:<e69ebdaf.0208...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > > > Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans,
gradually
> > > > growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
> > > > Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
> > > > dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
> > > > theory as any.
> > >
> > > This is probably the best solution !.. Your first idea - inspired by
> > > the Legend - of linking the Romans to the Lukka does'n't fit in with
> > > the Legend itself : the Lukka were NOT the same people as the
> > > Trojans... Your last idea - Romans being a mixture of Villanovians
> > > and of immigrants (Etruscans AND Trojans) - is a lot more satisfing,
But why should such a people speak an Italian language?
> > > fitting in with both the archaeological and the legendary data.
> > > For the question : "Who were the Trojans?", see now J.Faucounau's book
> > > in French "Les Proto-Ioniens : Histoire d'un peuple oublié" (You may
> > > get it at the e-bookshop ALAPAGE <http://www.alapage.com> Search
> > > under the author's name)
> > >
> > > grapheus
> >
> > Dear J. Faucounau
> >
> > Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite
hopeless.
> > The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of
Rome
> > (753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
> > NL
>
> Dear Professor-Doctor Lindsay !
>
> It is very kind of you to think that I could be the respected old
> scholar J. Faucounau ! Thank you ! I am very honoured !..
> But you are AS WRONG in this supposition as *in your chronological
> remark* !!! You forgot that legends can be perdurable, and cross
> centuries !..
It can cross centuries but it can also change considerably
in one generation. It can be usefull material but only if handled
very carefully.
> And in the case of Rome, the gap in time is not so great
> !.. On the other hand, there is ALWAYS some truth behind a Legend...
Always and never are equally useless in this sense.
Besides "some truth" is not always the truth you want to hear.
> Only *dogmatic people* are denying that !..
Read Geoffrey of Monmouth.
The Brittons descend from the Trojans as well. (and I don't think he
invented the tale) The Franks did as well (I don't remember who invented
that but it may have been Gregory of Tours).
These stories have meanings and purposes and as such they have historical
value but not because they are litterary true.
The Aeneas story was a pretty late invention (Virgil could only have heard
from Aeneas through the Illiad). It was originally a Greek story usefull by
the Romans because it gave them a respectable identity. Its connection with
the Romulus and Remus story looks somewhat arteficial.
(Read T.J. Cornell: The Beginnings of Rome.)
There is a lot of historical meaning in that but not what you probably
want to hear.
> Respectfully yours
>
> grapheus
Arjan
Arjan
"Joe Bernstein" <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
news:3d55611f$0$184$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
> In article <e69ebdaf.02081...@posting.google.com>,
> Majin Kai <majin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So now I focus my attention on the ancient Italic peoples, the
> > Villanovans in particular, to see what I come up with. I've an older
> > book around my place somewhere called 'The Mute Stones Speak' which is
> > about archaeology and pre-Roman Italy. I'll give this a looksee if I
> > can find it (I just moved so it's probably still in a box somewhere :)
>
> I recommend a couple of books.
>
> <History of Earliest Italy>, Massimo Pallottino, 1991 translation of
> 1984 Italian original. Very speculative but Pallottino knows his
> stuff (he's one of the major experts in this century on the Etruscans).
> Fairly easy to read; not a lot of references.
>
> <The Beginnings of Rome>, T. J. Cornell, 1995. Extremely careful looks
> at *lots* of evidence. The title is for your purposes misleading,
> however; Cornell is looking at major topics in Roman history from
> its founding to 264 BC, so only the earlier parts of the book will
> be relevant to your inquiry. Cornell's writing is more difficult
> than Pallottino's, but his detective-style approach makes for more
> drama, if you will. He includes *incredible* numbers of references,
> generally to scholarship as far back as about 1600 and sometimes
> further.
>
> My own take on things is that since the Romans spoke, as far back as
> we have any evidence, an Italic language, they have to come from
> the same general neighbourhood as the other Italic-speakers, and
> this rules out unequivocally any arrival by boat from places where
> Italic-speakers didn't live. I'm not especially impressed by the
> idea that the Romans, being Special, therefore had to be Different
> from their neighbours. One thing Cornell usefully focuses on is the
> fact that the city of Rome was *big*, physically, compared to other
> early cities; it is not abnormal or unreasonable for a big city to
> wind up conquering smaller cities, cf. Athens, Babylon. Therefore
> I'm inclined to accept the Italo-Celtic link and the assumption that
> the Italics got to Italy the same way most of the Indo-European
> speakers got to most of their lands, some combination of migration
> and interbreeding. (I'm profoundly skeptical that either Bengal or
> Ireland saw mass migrations, so I certainly don't require that Italy
> did either; but I do require that there be similar explanations for
> the Latins as for the Oscans and the Umbrians.)
>
> Finally, although you've been told that you shouldn't be skeptical
> about the <Aeneid> story just because it's got chronological
> difficulties, please note that there's considerable reason to think
> Vergil was making it up, that the story of early Rome was markedly
> different before him and that the Romans themselves knew about his
> chrological gap; see if you will the relevant chapters of <The Gods
> in Epic> by D. C. Feeney (about Ennius and about Vergil) on this, and
> I think Cornell also talks about it at length.
He does. I am just re-reading it.
I am pretty impressed by the book. It looked at a lot of sources.
Reading the early chapters is a must for this discussion I think.
> Joe Bernstein
>
> --
> Joe Bernstein, writer j...@sfbooks.com
> <http://these-survive.postilion.org/>
HANSTEIS
>
>Maybe the Italians originally followed the pattern of other indo-europeans.
>They installed themselves as an aristocracy and interbreeded with
>a substantial local population. The influence of their language was much
>bigger than their genes.
I think you have a key point here. The language changes according to the power
group, but the "people," the gene pool, remains much the same.
Schlau
> sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0208...@posting.google.com>...
> > > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message
> >
> > "snip"
>
> > > > > and 2)- that there is a very good
> > > > > chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
> > > > > later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
> > > > > languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
> > > >
> > > > The historical evidence point to founders of Rome being from one group of
> > > > Latin people as much as the original founders of New York were one group,
> > > > the Dutch.
> > > >
> > > This is the point I disagree with : the archaeological data (found in
> > > 1909, if I remember correctly) show a MIXTURE of farmers of Central
> > > Appenine Culture AND of another people with a "Etrusco-Greek" Culture
> > > (This term is mine : I prefer it to "Proto-Etruscan, which has a more
> > > limited connotation).
> >
> > Rome, AFTER, it was founded had Estruscan elements added to it, not
> > prior.
>
> That it what you say,
That is what the archaeological record says.
> I maintain that small groups of "Proto-Etruscans" have "visited" (if
> not settled in) Italy SINCE THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD...
The Etruscans didn't arrive in Italy until the very end of the Mycenaen
Period or even after. 1100 - 1000 BC, the very same time Mycenean Greece
was collapsing.
> > And the
> > seven hills that became Rome, wasn't of any interest to them until
> > after a community was established there.
>
> There were settlers on the hills surrounding Rome *centuries* before
> 1,000 BC !
There isn't any archaeological evidence of the four regions that were
to make up Republican Rome; Palatina, Esquilina, Sucusana, and Collina
didn't having permanent settlments much prior to 1,100 BC at the
earliest...
>
> > And the early Greek influences are 2nd hand via the Etruscans, such
> > as the "Latin" alphabet, who the Greeks themselves borrowed from the
> > Phoencians..
>
> NOW, you are IGNORING the early history of the Greeks, as resulting
> from the "Proto-Ionian Theory" !
The "Proto-Ionian Theory" isn't the early history of the Greeks,
it's the theory of one historian.
> > SNIP
> > > > > > > and 2)- Is there a rational explanation to the Legend ?..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The answer is no.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, but this is the main difference of opinion between you and me
> > > > > !.. I consider that the theory that Rome was in the XIth century BC an
> > > > > *emporium* on the Tiber, created by foreigners of Greek Culture (if
> > > > > not Greeks themselves) in a country belonging to the Central Appenine
> > > > > Culture,
> > > >
> > > > The central Appenines from at least around 1,000 BC were inhabited by
> > > > people other then Latins, the Oscans(Sabellians) and the Umbrians.
> > > > The Samnites, who fought the Greek city states in Southern Italy as well
> > > > as Rome, were Oscan(Sabellian) speakers.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are bringing grain to my mill !... On a linguistical point of
> > > view, Oscan and Umbrian Languages are the CLOSEST pre-Italic dialects
> > > from Latin !
> >
> > Of Iron Age Italtic dialects Falisci and Hernici were the closest
> > to Latin, not Oscan or Umbrian.
> >
>
> The dialects you quote are considered as just variantes" of Latin,
> NOT DIFFERENT DIALECTS from the "Italic IE-family" , which comprises
> Latin, Oscan and Umbrian,
On the contrary..
http://members.tripod.com/~rjschellen/ItalicNums.htm#italic
> >
> > > .. And the difference between these languages with Latin
> > > may be easily explained by the presence of a "Greek-Cultural Element"
> > > at Rome...
> >
> > Actually the reverse is somewhat true as some Oscan(Sabellian)
> > dialects were modified as they came into contact Greek settlers to
> > Southern Italy and conqueored several Greek colonies, most notably
> > Cumae.
>
> Once again, you are looking to the "AFTER" !.. What you are mentioning
> ( which is true) does'n't contradict my description of OLDER EVENTS
> !...
Your claim was that Latin was differant from the other Italic
Indo-European languages due to the "Greek origins" of Rome, however it
is Oscan(Sabellian), not early Latin that has more of a Greek influence..
> >
> > > > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> > > >
> > > > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > > > people who had adopted Greek culture.
> > >
> > > Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> > > like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> > > century..
> >
> > ???? How is that proof of Greeks?
>
> Please, read what I wrote : I did say "Peoples of Greek Culture", not
> necessarily "Greeks".
It isn't proof of that either, doubly so when "greek culture" at the
time borrowed heavily from Asia Minor among other places, which of course
is one of the theorized origins for the Etruscans.
> These TWO types of burial prove that there were
> at least TWO types of people settled in the area : farmers AND
> merchants !
No, it doesn't prove that. Outside influences can gradually be adopted
without an influx of outsiders. Case in point being the adoption of
Phoencian script in Greece. The Phoencians didn't settle in Greece for
that to happen. Also the burial types doesn't prove a thing within
reguards to thier occuption, farmer or merchant, especially since
one of the burial methods was cremation, with doesn't leave much
to examine.
> > And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
> > about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
> > date back to 730 bc at the earliest.
>
> what ONLY counts is the type of
> pottery found in the tombs not belonging to the Central Appenine
> Culture !..
Why does that count? A few trade goods doesn't translate into "they
were Greeks or influenced greatly by Greeks" anymore then the Greek
pottery found in Egyptian tombs translates into great Greek influence
on Ancient Egypt. (Classical Egypt is something else).
> >The local pottery of the time
> > also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
> > parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
>
> You are bringing again some more grain to my mill !.. Read the book
> "Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié" , and you will
> understand !..
Read:
"The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
or
"Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians:
Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe"
by by Peter S. Wells
or
"The European Iron Age"
by John Collis
or
"The Iron Age in Italy"
by David Randall-MacIver
or
"Italy Before the Romans: The Iron Age"
by David Ridgway
Plenty of other books, and all in English as well..
> >
> >
> > > > Think it would be pretty obvious,
> > > > since the Romans picked up thier alphabet from the Etruscans, which they
> > > > wouldn't have done if they were originally Greeks themselves or had
> > > > already been influenced by Greeks.
> > >
> > > Objection without value !.. At the period of the Rome beginnings, the
> > > Greeks (and peoples of Greek Culture) still ignored the alphabet !..
> >
> > Around 900 BC or so actually, so around the same time. The previous
> > script of the Mycenean Greeks, Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
>
> NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
> Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !..
On a single piece of Amber..
http://www.blfd.bayern.de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm
> Maybe this will ring a clock into
> your mind ?..
It's called trade, and not necessarily direct either. Roman goods
have been found in China and vice versa, the direct contact between
Han China and Ancient Rome however was quiet limited..
> > Also the Latin alphabet had to adopt the Y and Z to help pronounce
> > loan words from Greek, no native Latin words having any such sounds..
> >
>
> IRRELEVANT !
Hardly. If the early Latins were "Greeks" or "Greek influenced", the
Republican writers of Rome wound't have had to introduce new letters to make
do with Greek words, they would have already been added before due to
the earlier influences.
> >
> > > > > What will count are the future excavations concerning this period !..
> > > > > And I am personnally pretty confident that they will confirm the
> > > > > theory...
> > > >
> > > > That Greeks founded Rome or that Trojans did? Laudo vos latin.
> > > > Fama grapheus est magna pro eo stultus....
> > >
> > > You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
> >
> > Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
> > Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
>
> 1)- His decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is just a part of his
> "Proto-Ionian Theory", which he has SUMMARIZED in the book I mentioned
> hereabove about "Les Proto-Ioniens"...
Which is in French, so unacessable to the majority of the world. That's
like me pointing you to a source in german and saying it explains all
my claims perfectly.
Read:
" Die Vekerzug-Kultur : Charakteristik der Funde"
by Jan Chochorowski
Es ist nicht mein problem, dass du nicht es lesen koennen..
> 2)- I already wrote, that, to the best of my knowledge, he has NOT
> written anything about the beginnings of Rome (He just mentioned,
> passim, in a paper dealing with "The Conquest of the West by the
> Greeks", the South-Picenian Inscription of Castignano).
> But I don't believe he would criticize *MY* historical reconstruction
> of the beginnings of Rome, that is based upon his "Proto-Ionian
> Theory"...
So it's your reconstruction of a theory by Faucounau,
which itself isn't accepted by the majority of the historical
community.
A theory based on a theory. Ok..
> A theory that I have seriously studied, contrary to you !...
Someone's personal theory isn't the same thing as the facts is
it?
> > > Please, read at least the Chapter 5 of his book "Les Proto-Ioniens", and > > you will find the answer!!!
> >
> > Bit difficult as there isn't an English(or German) translation of
> > it and mon Francais n'est pas bon du tout..
> >
>
> Surprising, if you are a linguist, that you are unable to read a book
> in French !..
I didn't say I was a linguist.
> > > It's always easy for the ignorant to scoff at a theory he TOTALLY
> > > ignores !..
> >
> > Generally speaking, I tend to try and read all the facts first,
> > before reading up on anyone's theories reguarding the facts, or as
> > often
> > is the case a rather inteperted meaning of a few select facts.
>
> So, why you don't carefully study the TWO types of tombs found in the
> vicinity of Rome ?..
See above for my comments on differing tomb types.
> Up to now, everything you wrote was obviously
> coming from "second hand opinions"
Your theory seems to be largly based on Faucounau's theory, in other
words, a second hand opinion..
> > And that's really a rather problematic thing to do since there are no
> > records from the Romans themselves dating to the time period;
>
> Except the Legend !
There's half a dozen legends on the foundings of Rome, written by
the Romans themselves. Virgil's just happens to be the most well
know is all..
.. But, you are dismissing it "a priori" !!!
>
> > the script
> > of the thier most civilized neighbours, the Etruscans, remains
> > undeciphered,
>
> Wrong !..
Etruscan has been deciphered then? That's a laugh..
> > and the other Italic peoples of the time were total
> > illiterates and wrote nothing down.
>
> Wrong again !.. You obviously IGNORE books, like the THREE-VOLUME
> "Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy" by J. Whatmough !!!
I said "of the time" meaning around the founding of Rome, 1000 BC.
Centuries later, as Whatmough discusses, is something else.
> > That leaves archaeological
> > evidence,
> > which does not point to Greek origins for the founders of Rome.
> >
>
> 100% "Greeks" ? NO !.. But of Greek-culture, YES !..
>
> The problem is that, as long as you will not *make the effort to be
> informed*, you will never believe it !...
The problem is that as long as you have a particular theory, you'll
alter(or ignore) facts to fit your theory instead of vice versa.
--Oscar Schlaf--
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
Robert Stonehouse
wrote:
...
>The Aeneas story was a pretty late invention (Virgil could only have heard
>from Aeneas through the Illiad). It was originally a Greek story usefull by
>the Romans because it gave them a respectable identity. Its connection with
>the Romulus and Remus story looks somewhat arteficial.
First found in Hellanicus, according to the OCD and West on Hesiod
Theogony 1008.
grapheus
> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0208...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message
> > >
> > > "snip"
>
> > I maintain that small groups of "Proto-Etruscans" have "visited" (if
> > not settled in) Italy SINCE THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD...
>
> The Etruscans didn't arrive in Italy until the very end of the Mycenaen
> Period or even after. 1100 - 1000 BC, the very same time Mycenean Greece
> was collapsing.
>
Would you mind reading what is written ?.. "Proto-Etruscans" are not
"Etruscans"!
They are their ancestors !..
But, of course, as long as you ignore the History of the Etruscans,
you cannot understand such an elementary thing !!!
> > > And the
> > > seven hills that became Rome, wasn't of any interest to them until
> > > after a community was established there.
> >
> > There were settlers on the hills surrounding Rome *centuries* before
> > 1,000 BC !
>
> There isn't any archaeological evidence of the four regions that were
> to make up Republican Rome; Palatina, Esquilina, Sucusana, and Collina
> didn't having permanent settlments much prior to 1,100 BC at the
> earliest...
>
This statement is ridiculous !.. Please, read books on the Cultures
from Gaudo, from Conelle, from Ortucchio, from Rinaldone, etc.. These
culture, in particular the Rinaldone one, GO BACK TO NEOLITHIC !..
>
> >
> > > And the early Greek influences are 2nd hand via the Etruscans, such
> > > as the "Latin" alphabet, who the Greeks themselves borrowed from the
> > > Phoencians..
> >
> > NOW, you are IGNORING the early history of the Greeks, as resulting
> > from the "Proto-Ionian Theory" !
>
> The "Proto-Ionian Theory" isn't the early history of the Greeks,
> it's the theory of one historian.
How do you know ?.. YOU RECONGNIZED THAT YOU HAVE NEVER STUDY IT !!!
>
>
> > > SNIP
> > > Of Iron Age Italtic dialects Falisci and Hernici were the closest
> > > to Latin, not Oscan or Umbrian.
> > >
> >
> > The dialects you quote are considered as just variantes" of Latin,
> > NOT DIFFERENT DIALECTS from the "Italic IE-family" , which comprises
> > Latin, Oscan and Umbrian,
>
> On the contrary..
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~rjschellen/ItalicNums.htm#italic
>
I don't see anything in this table contradicting what I said !..
Please, explain!..
>
> Your claim was that Latin was differant from the other Italic
> Indo-European languages due to the "Greek origins" of Rome, however it
> is Oscan(Sabellian), not early Latin that has more of a Greek influence..
Once again, you are unable to read me !.. I talked about "Peoples of
Greek Culture" !..
But it is true, how could you understand the difference ?.. You are
ignoring the Proto-Ionian Theory !!! It's like discussing African
History with an illiterate Eskimo !!!
>
>
> > >
> > > > > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > > > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> > > > >
> > > > > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > > > > people who had adopted Greek culture.
> > > >
> > > > Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> > > > like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> > > > century..
> > >
> > > ???? How is that proof of Greeks?
> >
> > Please, read what I wrote : I did say "Peoples of Greek Culture", not
> > necessarily "Greeks".
>
> It isn't proof of that either, doubly so when "greek culture" at the
> time borrowed heavily from Asia Minor among other places, which of course
> is one of the theorized origins for the Etruscans.
>
Same remark as above !.. It's a waste of time discussing African
History with an illiterate Eskimo : If you were aware of the
Proto-Ionian Theory, you would know that you objection has no value
!...
> > These TWO types of burial prove that there were
> > at least TWO types of people settled in the area : farmers AND
> > merchants !
>
> No, it doesn't prove that. Outside influences can gradually be adopted
> without an influx of outsiders.
Who talked about "AN INFLUX" of outsiders ?.. NOT ME !!! But about a
few itinerant merchands of foreign origin, accompanied by a few
mercenaries, YES !
> Case in point being the adoption of
> Phoencian script in Greece. The Phoencians didn't settle in Greece for
> that to happen.
TOTALLY IRRELEVANT !!!
> Also the burial types doesn't prove a thing within
> reguards to thier occuption, farmer or merchant, especially since
> one of the burial methods was cremation, with doesn't leave much
> to examine.
Except that they put the ashes in URNS of a particular type !..
>
>
> > > And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
> > > about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
> > > date back to 730 bc at the earliest.
> >
> > what ONLY counts is the type of
> > pottery found in the tombs not belonging to the Central Appenine
> > Culture !..
>
> Why does that count? A few trade goods doesn't translate into "they
> were Greeks or influenced greatly by Greeks" anymore then the Greek
> pottery found in Egyptian tombs translates into great Greek influence
> on Ancient Egypt. (Classical Egypt is something else).
Now, you are showing your IGNORANCE about the most early relationships
between Greeks and Egyptians !!!
>
>
> > >The local pottery of the time
> > > also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
> > > parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
> >
> > You are bringing again some more grain to my mill !.. Read the book
> > "Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié" , and you will
> > understand !..
>
> Read:
>
> "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
>
I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
A thing that YOU obviously ignore !
> or
>
> "Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians:
> Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe"
> by by Peter S. Wells
>
IRRELEVANT !!! I am talking about the BRONZE AGE, you quote a book
dealing with the IRON AGE !..
But you are probably unable to see the difference !!!
> or
>
> "The European Iron Age"
> by John Collis
>
SAME REMARK as above !
> or
>
> "The Iron Age in Italy"
> by David Randall-MacIver
>
SAME REMARK as above !
> or
>
> "Italy Before the Romans: The Iron Age"
> by David Ridgway
>
SAME REMARK as above !
> SNIP
> > > Around 900 BC or so actually, so around the same time. The previous
> > > script of the Mycenean Greeks, Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
> >
> > NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
> > Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !..
>
> On a single piece of Amber..
>
> http://www.blfd.bayern.de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm
>
YES ! But with a lot of other Mycenaean artifacts !.. Not enough for
you ?..
>
> > Maybe this will ring a clock into
> > your mind ?..
>
> It's called trade, and not necessarily direct either.
Ah, ah !.. Now you are calling up the "Theory of the Exchange-Chain",
in order to deny the obvious !..
> Roman goods
> have been found in China and vice versa, the direct contact between
> Han China and Ancient Rome however was quiet limited..
>
>
> > > Also the Latin alphabet had to adopt the Y and Z to help pronounce
> > > loan words from Greek, no native Latin words having any such sounds..
> > >
> >
> > IRRELEVANT !
>
> Hardly. If the early Latins were "Greeks" or "Greek influenced", the
> Republican writers of Rome wound't have had to introduce new letters to make
> do with Greek words, they would have already been added before due to
> the earlier influences.
You are once again clinging to you anachronistic view of the problem
!!! I told you that the introduction of the alphabet has been done
LATER !..
Are you not able to understand such a simple thing ?.. I repeat : I am
talking about the BRONZE AGE !...
> > > > You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
> > >
> > > Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
> > > Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
> >
> > 1)- His decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is just a part of his
> > "Proto-Ionian Theory", which he has SUMMARIZED in the book I mentioned
> > hereabove about "Les Proto-Ioniens"...
>
> Which is in French, so unacessable to the majority of the world.
Don't put the blame on me !.. Since several years, I tried to make it
known to English speaking people... But I cannot translate myself two
books and some 50 papers !...
> That's
> like me pointing you to a source in german and saying it explains all
> my claims perfectly.
Please, do so !.. I have no problem with German, neither ...
>
> Read:
> " Die Vekerzug-Kultur : Charakteristik der Funde"
> by Jan Chochorowski
>
> Es ist nicht mein problem, dass du nicht es lesen koennen..
Sorry, but ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE WRONG !!! Ich kann Deutch lesen !!!
>
>
> > 2)- I already wrote, that, to the best of my knowledge, he has NOT
> > written anything about the beginnings of Rome (He just mentioned,
> > passim, in a paper dealing with "The Conquest of the West by the
> > Greeks", the South-Picenian Inscription of Castignano).
>
> > But I don't believe he would criticize *MY* historical reconstruction
> > of the beginnings of Rome, that is based upon his "Proto-Ionian
> > Theory"...
>
> So it's your reconstruction of a theory by Faucounau,
> which itself isn't accepted by the majority of the historical
> community.
That is what YOU say, you the IGNORANT one !.. You would be more
credible if you would be able to tell us WHAT IS WRONG with J.F's
theory !!!
> A theory based on a theory. Ok..
>
>
> > A theory that I have seriously studied, contrary to you !...
>
> SNIP
> > So, why you don't carefully study the TWO types of tombs found in the
> > vicinity of Rome ?..
>
> See above for my comments on differing tomb types.
>
????????
>
> > Up to now, everything you wrote was obviously
> > coming from "second hand opinions"
>
> Your theory seems to be largly based on Faucounau's theory, in other
> words, a second hand opinion..
>
Correct !..
Plus a personal knowledge of Italian Archaeology concerning the Bronze
Age ...
>
> > > And that's really a rather problematic thing to do since there are no
> > > records from the Romans themselves dating to the time period;
> >
> > Except the Legend !
> .. But, you are dismissing it "a priori" !!!
> >
> > > the script
> > > of the thier most civilized neighbours, the Etruscans, remains
> > > undeciphered,
> >
> > Wrong !..
>
> Etruscan has been deciphered then? That's a laugh..
>
Please, go on laughing !.. I don't want to open a new chapter in this
discussion, so I will not answer...
> > > and the other Italic peoples of the time were total
> > > illiterates and wrote nothing down.
> >
> > Wrong again !.. You obviously IGNORE books, like the THREE-VOLUME
> > "Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy" by J. Whatmough !!!
>
> I said "of the time" meaning around the founding of Rome, 1000 BC.
> Centuries later, as Whatmough discusses, is something else.
"Of the time" is not correct : you should say :"of the time that I
consider" !..
Because "of the time" means for me a time, the BRONZE AGE, where
NOBODY, neither the Etruscans nor the other Prae-Italic peoples, knew
how to write !..
>
> > > That leaves archaeological
> > > evidence,
> > > which does not point to Greek origins for the founders of Rome.
> > >
> >
> > 100% "Greeks" ? NO !.. But of Greek-culture, YES !..
> >
> > The problem is that, as long as you will not *make the effort to be
> > informed*, you will never believe it !...
>
> The problem is that as long as you have a particular theory, you'll
> alter(or ignore) facts to fit your theory instead of vice versa.
>
I mentioned the FACTS supporting my theory : 1)- Since the beginning
of the Neolithic Period, the tribes living in to-day Italy were of
DIFFERENT cultures, and probably of DIFFERENT origins and languages...
During the Bronze Age, the situation has been made worse by the
ARRIVAL of diverses foreign populations, with, as a result, a terrible
MIXTURE of peoples, languages and cultures 2)- Concerning the Latium,
there is a STRONG TRADITION of AEGEO-ANATOLIAN IMMIGRANTS. Moreover,
the existence of TWO groups of peoples, with DIFFERNTS type of burial
and TWO different activities (farmers and merchands) confirms this
Legendary Tradition. 3)- This is in accordance with the Proto-Ionian
Theory, based upon FACTS outside Italy 4)- In the frame of this last
theory, Archaeological Facts AND Legendary Tradition can be put in
accordance. What I tried to show in this thread.
Now, that you believe it or not, I really don't care !... But I am
pointing out that the only thing you did is 1)- talking without having
taken the trouble to be informed 2)- just repeating second hand
opinions, made obsolete by J.F.'s work.
grapheus
Schlau
> sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.0208...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > "snip"
>
>
> > > I maintain that small groups of "Proto-Etruscans" have "visited" (if
> > > not settled in) Italy SINCE THE MYCENAEAN PERIOD...
> >
> > The Etruscans didn't arrive in Italy until the very end of the Mycenaen
> > Period or even after. 1100 - 1000 BC, the very same time Mycenean Greece
> > was collapsing.
> >
>
> Would you mind reading what is written ?..
You you mind reading some history books? There is no evidence of
any sort of Etruscan or "Proto-Etruscans" in Italy dating any further back
then 1200 BCE.
"Proto-Etruscans" are not
> "Etruscans"!
> They are their ancestors !..
Who prior to 1200 BCE at the earliest, weren't in Italy...
> > > > And the
> > > > seven hills that became Rome, wasn't of any interest to them until
> > > > after a community was established there.
> > >
> > > There were settlers on the hills surrounding Rome *centuries* before
> > > 1,000 BC !
> >
> > There isn't any archaeological evidence of the four regions that were
> > to make up Republican Rome; Palatina, Esquilina, Sucusana, and Collina
> > didn't having permanent settlments much prior to 1,100 BC at the
> > earliest...
> >
>
> This statement is ridiculous !.. Please, read books on the Cultures
> from Gaudo, from Conelle, from Ortucchio, from Rinaldone, etc.. These
> culture, in particular the Rinaldone one, GO BACK TO NEOLITHIC !..
Those are differing pottery types, wether or not they respresent whole
seperate cultures is still up to debate.
And no pottery from any of those "cultures" have been found
on any of the seven hills that were to become Rome.
> >
> > >
> > > > And the early Greek influences are 2nd hand via the Etruscans, such
> > > > as the "Latin" alphabet, who the Greeks themselves borrowed from the
> > > > Phoencians..
> > >
> > > NOW, you are IGNORING the early history of the Greeks, as resulting
> > > from the "Proto-Ionian Theory" !
> >
> > The "Proto-Ionian Theory" isn't the early history of the Greeks,
> > it's the theory of one historian.
>
> How do you know ?.. YOU RECONGNIZED THAT YOU HAVE NEVER STUDY IT !!!
If it were fact then it would be listed in the many books I have
read on the subject, but it seems restricted to one book. Really going
to claim all those historians are mistaken and Faucounau alone has
"the truth"? He the French ver. of Heyderdahl or Hancock?
> > > > Of Iron Age Italtic dialects Falisci and Hernici were the closest
> > > > to Latin, not Oscan or Umbrian.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The dialects you quote are considered as just variantes" of Latin,
> > > NOT DIFFERENT DIALECTS from the "Italic IE-family" , which comprises
> > > Latin, Oscan and Umbrian,
> >
> > On the contrary..
> >
> > http://members.tripod.com/~rjschellen/ItalicNums.htm#italic
> >
> I don't see anything in this table contradicting what I said !..
The very fact that Falisci is listed seperate from Latin and not
a branch of Latin should tell you something..
> > Your claim was that Latin was differant from the other Italic
> > Indo-European languages due to the "Greek origins" of Rome, however it
> > is Oscan(Sabellian), not early Latin that has more of a Greek influence..
>
> Once again, you are unable to read me !.. I talked about "Peoples of
> Greek Culture" !..
Irrelevant..Oscan(Sabellian) is closer to Greek (Ionian and Mycenean),
then Latin is, contrary to your claims. Hell Illyrian is closer to
Greek then Latin is.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > brings a rational explanation to the Legend, in accordance
> > > > > > > with the meagre archaeological data concerning this period.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There isn't any indication that Rome was founded by Greeks or
> > > > > > people who had adopted Greek culture.
> > > > >
> > > > > Once again, you are putting aside some archaeological discoveries,
> > > > > like TWO types of burial in the vicinity of Rome during the Xth
> > > > > century..
> > > >
> > > > ???? How is that proof of Greeks?
> > >
> > > Please, read what I wrote : I did say "Peoples of Greek Culture", not
> > > necessarily "Greeks".
> >
> > It isn't proof of that either, doubly so when "greek culture" at the
> > time borrowed heavily from Asia Minor among other places, which of course
> > is one of the theorized origins for the Etruscans.
> >
>
> Same remark as above !.. It's a waste of time discussing African
> History with an illiterate Eskimo : If you were aware of the
> Proto-Ionian Theory, you would know that you objection has no value
> !...
How does the "Proto-Ionian Theory" prove that differing burial customs
in the vincity of early Rome is proof of "Proto-Ionians"? Really come
on now.
> > > These TWO types of burial prove that there were
> > > at least TWO types of people settled in the area : farmers AND
> > > merchants !
> >
> > No, it doesn't prove that. Outside influences can gradually be adopted
> > without an influx of outsiders.
>
> Who talked about "AN INFLUX" of outsiders ?.. NOT ME !!!
> But about a few itinerant merchands of foreign origin, accompanied by a few
> mercenaries, YES !
That would be an influx of outsiders..
> > Also the burial types doesn't prove a thing within
> > reguards to thier occuption, farmer or merchant, especially since
> > one of the burial methods was cremation, with doesn't leave much
> > to examine.
>
> Except that they put the ashes in URNS of a particular type !..
If I bury a dead cat in a shoe box that says "made in China" on it,
it doesn't mean there's Chinese influences on my burial customs. Or
a little less off tangent being the Greek Urns found in Egyptian
tombs. No one seriously suggests that the Egyptians borrowed thier
burial methods from the Greeks because of that, do they?
> >
> >
> > > > And if you really want to discuss the archaeological record, how
> > > > about the fact that Greek wares found in the area of Rome, only
> > > > date back to 730 bc at the earliest.
> > >
> > > what ONLY counts is the type of
> > > pottery found in the tombs not belonging to the Central Appenine
> > > Culture !..
> >
> > Why does that count? A few trade goods doesn't translate into "they
> > were Greeks or influenced greatly by Greeks" anymore then the Greek
> > pottery found in Egyptian tombs translates into great Greek influence
> > on Ancient Egypt. (Classical Egypt is something else).
>
> Now, you are showing your IGNORANCE about the most early relationships
> between Greeks and Egyptians !!!
Egypt was the teacher and Greece the student...
"Egypt is the mother of us all"
- Herodotus.
> >
> >
> > > >The local pottery of the time
> > > > also bearing little resemblance to Greek pottery, the closest counter
> > > > parts out side of Italy being in the Danube Basin..
> > >
> > > You are bringing again some more grain to my mill !.. Read the book
> > > "Les Proto-Ioniens: Histoire d'un peuple oublié" , and you will
> > > understand !..
> >
> > Read:
> >
> > "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
> >
>
> I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
> have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
How so? What specifically has been made obsolete in Cambridge? Or
are you just making things up? Feel free to explain..
>
> > or
> >
> > "Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians:
> > Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe"
> > by by Peter S. Wells
> >
>
> IRRELEVANT !!! I am talking about the BRONZE AGE, you quote a book
> dealing with the IRON AGE !..
The Villanovans were already in the early stadges of the Iron Age by
1200 BCE..And the Etruscans upon arrival in Italy 1100 - 1000 BCE already
had Iron as well..
> > > > Around 900 BC or so actually, so around the same time. The previous
> > > > script of the Mycenean Greeks, Linear B, isn't found at all in Rome.
> > >
> > > NO, but it has been found ... in BAVARIA !.. More precisely on "the
> > > Amber Route", dated c.1550BC !..
> >
> > On a single piece of Amber..
> >
> > http://www.blfd.bayern.de/Aktuelles/Pressemitteilung/pr29.htm
> >
>
> YES ! But with a lot of other Mycenaean artifacts !.. Not enough for
> you ?..
>
> >
> > > Maybe this will ring a clock into
> > > your mind ?..
> >
> > It's called trade, and not necessarily direct either.
>
> Ah, ah !.. Now you are calling up the "Theory of the Exchange-Chain",
> in order to deny the obvious !..
Prove that is wasn't just trade. Can you do that using the material
evidence available? No you can't, that's what seperates theory and fact..
> >
> > > > Also the Latin alphabet had to adopt the Y and Z to help pronounce
> > > > loan words from Greek, no native Latin words having any such sounds..
> > > >
> > >
> > > IRRELEVANT !
> >
> > Hardly. If the early Latins were "Greeks" or "Greek influenced", the
> > Republican writers of Rome wound't have had to introduce new letters to make
> > do with Greek words, they would have already been added before due to
> > the earlier influences.
>
> You are once again clinging to you anachronistic view of the problem
> !!! I told you that the introduction of the alphabet has been done
> LATER !..
The spoken words of Latin didn't have those sounds until introduced
by Greco-Roman writers/linguistics in the 6th cen bc. Do you understand
the signifigances of that? Or how it shoots holes in the idea of much
earlier Greek influence on the Romans?
> > > > > You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
> > > >
> > > > Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
> > > > Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
> > >
> > > 1)- His decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is just a part of his
> > > "Proto-Ionian Theory", which he has SUMMARIZED in the book I mentioned
> > > hereabove about "Les Proto-Ioniens"...
> >
> > Which is in French, so unacessable to the majority of the world.
>
> Don't put the blame on me !
The fact that your method of debate seems to be continually refering
to the book, rather then giving translated quotes or evidence from other
sources, does place some blame on you.
> >
> >
> > > 2)- I already wrote, that, to the best of my knowledge, he has NOT
> > > written anything about the beginnings of Rome (He just mentioned,
> > > passim, in a paper dealing with "The Conquest of the West by the
> > > Greeks", the South-Picenian Inscription of Castignano).
>
> > > But I don't believe he would criticize *MY* historical reconstruction
> > > of the beginnings of Rome, that is based upon his "Proto-Ionian
> > > Theory"...
> >
> > So it's your reconstruction of a theory by Faucounau,
> > which itself isn't accepted by the majority of the historical
> > community.
>
> That is what YOU say,
You said the following didn't you? :
"*MY* historical reconstruction"
And Faucounau's theory isn't accepted by the majority of the historical
community is it?
>
> > > > and the other Italic peoples of the time were total
> > > > illiterates and wrote nothing down.
> > >
> > > Wrong again !.. You obviously IGNORE books, like the THREE-VOLUME
> > > "Prae-Italic Dialects of Italy" by J. Whatmough !!!
> >
> > I said "of the time" meaning around the founding of Rome, 1000 BC.
> > Centuries later, as Whatmough discusses, is something else.
>
> "Of the time" is not correct : you should say :"of the time that I
> consider" !..
> Because "of the time" means for me
Pas un anglophone indigene sont vous?
> a time, the BRONZE AGE, where
> NOBODY, neither the Etruscans nor the other Prae-Italic peoples, knew
> how to write !
The Etruscans weren't in Italy until the Iron Age..
>
> >
> > > > That leaves archaeological
> > > > evidence,
> > > > which does not point to Greek origins for the founders of Rome.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 100% "Greeks" ? NO !.. But of Greek-culture, YES !..
> > >
> > > The problem is that, as long as you will not *make the effort to be
> > > informed*, you will never believe it !...
> >
> > The problem is that as long as you have a particular theory, you'll
> > alter(or ignore) facts to fit your theory instead of vice versa.
> >
>
> I mentioned the FACTS supporting my theory
You made claims and then refered to one book, only written in French,
instead of providing translated quotes and/or other sources...
> 2)- Concerning the Latium,
> there is a STRONG TRADITION of AEGEO-ANATOLIAN IMMIGRANTS.
Not proven.
> Moreover,
> the existence of TWO groups of peoples, with DIFFERNTS type of burial
> and TWO different activities (farmers and merchands) confirms this
> Legendary Tradition.
Again no, two differing burial types does not prove the origins of any
of the peoples, nor does it give any indication of them being farmers
or merchants.
>
> Now, that you believe it or not, I really don't care !... But I am
> pointing out that the only thing you did is
> 1)- talking without having taken the trouble to be informed
I haven't taken the trouble to be informed of all the ins and outs of
the Flat Earth Society either, doesn't mean I don't know the world is
still a sphere however..
2)- just repeating second hand
> opinions, made obsolete by J.F.'s work.
You're using JF's second hand opinions, And who says Fauncounau's
work has made everything else obsolete? Just Faucounau of course,
and you. Funny that.
--Oscar Schlaf--
"'Theory' tends to be used to mean 'notion.' The statement
'I have a theory that the world is flat' asks for the question
'How interesting--what is your theory?' But cult archaeologists
miss or ignore this distinction between assertion and theory,
being content with particulars out of context."
- John R. Cole, 1980,
"Cult Archaeology and Unscientific Method and Theory,"
grapheus
As I wrote, there is no way talking African History with an illiterate
Eskimo !..
You may keep your opinion, based UPON OBSOLETE BOOKS and PAPERS !..
But don't expect me to SUM UP in a few posts a revolutionary theory
published (in French) less than one year ago and developping dozens of
aguments based upon dozens of FACTS !.. I consider as my duty to make
intelligent people AWARE of this theory.
I have given the references of it, and even the adress of the
e-bookshop where one may find the corresponding books
(<http://www.alapage.com>). BUT I DON'T FEEL OBLIGED TO TEACH IT TO
ILLITERATE GUYS like you !..
That the Legend concerning the foundation of Rome mentions the
intervention of people of Trojan origin IS A FACT.
That you are dismissing it as having no value is YOUR business. But at
least you know now, as the readers of this thread, that there are
other scholars, sharing a different opinion.
Have a good day !
grapheus
sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > Would you mind reading what is written ?..
>
> You you mind reading some history books? There is no evidence of
> any sort of Etruscan or "Proto-Etruscans" in Italy dating any further back
> then 1200 BCE.
The history books that you have in mind HAVE BEEN MADE OBSOLETE,
concerning THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM !!!
> > > The "Proto-Ionian Theory" isn't the early history of the Greeks,
> > > it's the theory of one historian.
> >
> > How do you know ?.. YOU RECONGNIZED THAT YOU HAVE NEVER STUDY IT !!!
>
> If it were fact then it would be listed in the many books I have
> read on the subject,
The books you have read have been ALL printed BEFORE 2000 !.. How
could they mention or discuss a theory ENUNCIATED IN 2002 ?..
>
> > Now, you are showing your IGNORANCE about the most early relationships
> > between Greeks and Egyptians !!!
>
> Egypt was the teacher and Greece the student...
>
> "Egypt is the mother of us all"
> - Herodotus.
>
WHO SAID THE CONTRARY ?.. Are'n't you able to understand the word
"relationship" = Verbindung in German ?..
> > > Read:
> > > "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
> > >
> >
> > I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
> > have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
>
> How so? What specifically has been made obsolete in Cambridge? Or
> are you just making things up? Feel free to explain..
>
As a beginning :
Read first the Chapter "Prehistory of the Greek Language" by John
Chadwick in the C.A.H. II,2.
Then, have a look at the following *SUMMARY* (And please don't tell me
that the arguments are weak !.. It's a SUMMARY, and as such, the
arguments have not been fully developped in it, but in papers
published in professional journals, in particular in the one quoted in
the Bibliography)
<http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v013.htm>
>
>
> > > > > > You have obviously never had a look at J.Faucounau's work !...
> > > > >
> > > > > Reguarding the founding of Rome? No. Reguarding the Phaistos
> > > > > Disk and his alleged translation of it, yes.
> > > >
> > > > 1)- His decipherment of the Phaistos Disk is just a part of his
> > > > "Proto-Ionian Theory", which he has SUMMARIZED in the book I mentioned
> > > > hereabove about "Les Proto-Ioniens"...
> > >
> > > Which is in French, so unacessable to the majority of the world.
> >
> > Don't put the blame on me !
>
> The Etruscans weren't in Italy until the Iron Age..
>
THAT IS WHAT YOU SAY !..
> > I mentioned the FACTS supporting my theory
>
> You made claims and then refered to one book, only written in French,
> instead of providing translated quotes and/or other sources...
>
YES ! I don't feel obliged teaching lazy people who don't want to make
the effort of being correctly informed BEFORE EMITTING IGNARROGANT
STATEMENTS !
> > 2)- Concerning the Latium,
> > there is a STRONG TRADITION of AEGEO-ANATOLIAN IMMIGRANTS.
>
> Not proven.
>
If the Legend is not "a strong tradition", what the hell it is ?..
>
> > Moreover,
> > the existence of TWO groups of peoples, with DIFFERENT types of burial
> > and TWO different activities (farmers and merchands) confirms this
> > Legendary Tradition.
>
> Again no, two differing burial types does not prove the origins of any
> of the peoples, nor does it give any indication of them being farmers
> or merchants.
>
And in your mind, I suppose that they *prove* the UNICITY of the
Prae-Italic Peoples, right ?.. Curious that the Prae-Italic Peoples
had so many different languages !.. But maybe "the existence of
different languages PROVES the unicity of peoples", like "different
burying customs PROVES the unicity of peoples", right ?..
All my congratulations for this VERY IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION of yours
to the Archaeological Science !.. A tremendous progress !...
Inger E
the Greeks never settled in the area of the seven hills. A myth can't be
taken as a proof. If you should use same criteria as you do when refering to
Greek artifact fond in today's Rome you could have arrived to same or equal
assumption re. Scandinavia if you looked at items from Bronze Age found
there. Items can be traded, directly or indirectly, graves can be of two or
more types from approx. the same age inside a small landarea. Nothing you
have presented in this questions prove your assumption true. If you have
more, please send them to us - building patterns, agricultural changes
within less than 50 years(it took 50-75 years for a change in the area south
Crimea to southern Greece to be seen at sites as far away as Östergötland
Sweden).
Inger E
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com...
grapheus
Dear Inger,
Why are you denying the historical value of the Myth, when it is
POSSIBLE to explain it ?..
> the Greeks never settled in the area of the seven hills.
Greeks themselves, probably no, I agree. But some of these various
"descendents of the Early Bronze Age Proto-Ionians", of which the
existence has been established by the J.F.'s work : WHY NOT ?..
> A myth can't be
> taken as a proof.
Surely. But it can give you precious indications about what has really
happened!.. Take as an example the Myth of the "Trojan War", which may
be - NOW - understood in the frame of the Proto-Ionian Theory. (I
agree that it was incomprehensible before, what has lead some scholars
to -even recently- deny that Hissarlik is Troy under the pretext that
no inscription saying :"This city is Troy" has been found !.. Like
you, they translate "absence of proof" by "Proof of absence" !!!).
> If you should use same criteria as you do when refering to
> Greek artifact found in today's Rome you could have arrived to same or equal
> assumption re. Scandinavia if you looked at items from Bronze Age found
> there.
There is also an explanation for that *within the frame of the
Proto-Ionian Theory* !.. But I cannot develop it there (too long to be
done in a few posts !).
> Items can be traded, directly or indirectly,
The Theory of the "intermediaries' chain" is mostly artificial : It
may apply to a few ISOLATED items, that's all. In the past, TRADING
WAS DONE BY ITINERANT MERCHANDS, often accompagnied by some soldiers,
with the blessing of some foreign monarch : See for instance the
"Kanesh-Kültepe karum"...
> graves can be of two or
> more types from approx. the same age inside a small landarea.
They ALWAYS translate some kind of differences : even to-day, tombs
are different when the religion of their "owners" is different !.. And
in the past, a cultural or religious difference was due to a different
origin (and often language). You may found dozens of examples. Why NOT
IN LATIUM, when it is a well-known FACT *that there were a mosaïc of
diverse peoples in Prehistoric Italy* ?...
> Nothing you
> have presented in this questions prove your assumption true.
PROOFS ?.. NO, I agree !.. But "strong presumptions" ? YES !.. (This
question is not as easy to prove than the Proto-Ionic decipherment of
the Phaistos Disk !..)
> If you have
> more, please send them to us - building patterns, agricultural changes
> within less than 50 years(it took 50-75 years for a change in the area south
> Crimea to southern Greece to be seen at sites as far away as Östergötland
> Sweden).
I can just refer you to J.F.'s work !.. And not only to his known
books, but to his c.50 published papers... It's impossible for me to
to more than what I have done (giving a summary, sometimes, of one or
two arguments, or just giving the adequate references)... (Maybe you
could also trying to write him, if you have a specific problem in mind
?..)
>
> Inger E
>
Regards
grapheus
Schlau
>
> As I wrote, there is no way talking African History with an illiterate
> Eskimo !..
> You may keep your opinion, based UPON OBSOLETE BOOKS and PAPERS !..
You insist the books and papers are obsolete but fail to explain
how. That is inadaquate and unacceptable in the academic community.
> But don't expect me to SUM UP in a few posts a revolutionary theory
> published (in French) less than one year ago and developping dozens of
> aguments based upon dozens of FACTS !..
While admitedly not fully aware of someone's personally theory, I am
rather aware of the archaeological evidence of the period that is
available, it hasn't changed. Someone's reiterpertation of the facts,
doesn't change what the facts are. Faucounau hasn't conducted any
new digs, he isn't an archaeologist after all. He has nothing new
to work with, just his personal reinterpertation of what is already
there. A theory doesn't change the facts.
And you personally further proceede to strech it, presenting your
own "extrapolations" and interperations that you admit Faucounau doesn't
cover, you just claim, without presenting any sort of evidence, that
Faucounau's theory proves everything you present. (I seriously doubt for
example Faucounau supports your claims that Falisci is just a dialect
of Latin, he being a rather well versed linguistic would know better.)
> That the Legend concerning the foundation of Rome mentions the
> intervention of people of Trojan origin IS A FACT.
That there is no archaeological evidence to support this, is a fact.
That other other legends besides the Trojan origins, was written
by the Romans themselves, is a fact.
> That you are dismissing it as having no value is YOUR business.
That you are accepting it, with no clear archaeological evidence, is
your buisness. That you're trying to present it to everyone else as
"fact", is everyone else's buisness.
>
> > >
> > > Would you mind reading what is written ?..
> >
> > You you mind reading some history books? There is no evidence of
> > any sort of Etruscan or "Proto-Etruscans" in Italy dating any further back
> > then 1200 BCE.
>
> The history books that you have in mind HAVE BEEN MADE OBSOLETE,
> concerning THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM !!!
Prove it.
> > > > The "Proto-Ionian Theory" isn't the early history of the Greeks,
> > > > it's the theory of one historian.
> > >
> > > How do you know ?.. YOU RECONGNIZED THAT YOU HAVE NEVER STUDY IT !!!
> >
> > If it were fact then it would be listed in the many books I have
> > read on the subject,
>
> The books you have read have been ALL printed BEFORE 2000 !.. How
> could they mention or discuss a theory ENUNCIATED IN 2002 ?..
No new archaeological evidence reguarding that time period has been
found since the books have been published. The facts haven't changed.
> >
> > > Now, you are showing your IGNORANCE about the most early relationships
> > > between Greeks and Egyptians !!!
> >
> > Egypt was the teacher and Greece the student...
> >
> > "Egypt is the mother of us all"
> > - Herodotus.
> >
>
> WHO SAID THE CONTRARY ?.. Are'n't you able to understand the word
> "relationship" = Verbindung in German ?..
I was using the Egyptians as an example. Just because some grave goods
found in Egyptian tombs have been Greek, does not then mean Egyptian
burial methods were greatly influenced by Greeks, just like Greek-type
pottery found in some Italian Iron Age graves means thier burial
customs were greatly influenced by Greeks, which was your claim.
> > > > Read:
> > > > "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
> > > >
> > >
> > > I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
> > > have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
> >
> > How so? What specifically has been made obsolete in Cambridge? Or
> > are you just making things up? Feel free to explain..
> >
>
> As a beginning :
> Read first the Chapter "Prehistory of the Greek Language" by John
> Chadwick in the C.A.H. II,2.
> Then, have a look at the following *SUMMARY* (And please don't tell me
> that the arguments are weak !..
You fail to understand the differance between fact and theory.
And one of Faucounau's methods of dimissing it is "ancient tradition",
which a silly idea in the extreme. It's like dismissing the linguistical
origins of Hebrew based on thier ancient tradition of the "Tower
of Babel" origin of languages.
>
> > > I mentioned the FACTS supporting my theory
> >
> > You made claims and then refered to one book, only written in French,
> > instead of providing translated quotes and/or other sources...
> >
>
> YES ! I don't feel obliged teaching lazy people
Perhaps you don't present any translated quotes because you are lazy..
> > > 2)- Concerning the Latium,
> > > there is a STRONG TRADITION of AEGEO-ANATOLIAN IMMIGRANTS.
> >
> > Not proven.
> >
>
> If the Legend is not "a strong tradition", what the hell it is ?..
First the Romans had multiple legends for thier origins, most of
them not including any immigration from the Agean or Anatolia.
Second:
legend [from Latin legenda, "for reading, to be read,"]
1. a. An UNVERIFIED story handed down from earlier times, especially
one popularly believed to be historical.
b. A body or collection of such stories.
c. A romanticized or popularized MYTH
In other words, not fact.
> >
> > > Moreover,
> > > the existence of TWO groups of peoples, with DIFFERENT types of burial
> > > and TWO different activities (farmers and merchands) confirms this
> > > Legendary Tradition.
> >
> > Again no, two differing burial types does not prove the origins of any
> > of the peoples, nor does it give any indication of them being farmers
> > or merchants.
> >
>
> And in your mind, I suppose that they *prove* the UNICITY of the
> Prae-Italic Peoples, right ?..
Didn't say that did I? The two differing burial types however don't
prove in of themselves what you're claiming however.
--Oscar Schlaf--
http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/schlaf/
grapheus
> > > > > "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
> > > >
> > > > I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
> > > > have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
> > >
> > > How so? What specifically has been made obsolete in Cambridge? Or
> > > are you just making things up? Feel free to explain..
> > >
> > As a beginning :
> > Read first the Chapter "Prehistory of the Greek Language" by John
> > Chadwick in the C.A.H. II,2.
> > Then, have a look at the following *SUMMARY* (And please don't tell me
> > that the arguments are weak !..
>
> You fail to understand the differance between fact and theory.
> And one of Faucounau's methods of dimissing it is "ancient tradition",
> which a silly idea in the extreme. It's like dismissing the linguistical
> origins of Hebrew based on thier ancient tradition of the "Tower
> of Babel" origin of languages.
>
>
Why did you suppress the reference I gave, that I repeat here :
<http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v013.htm>
To avoid readers to see your bad faith ?... There are THREE KINDS of
motives given : WHY ARE YOU JUST MENTIONING ONE OF THEM ?... What
about the others, like for instance the missing digamma in some
Mycenaean words ? Is it not A FACT ?...
grapheus
Schlau
> sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02082...@posting.google.com>...
> > grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> >
> > > > > > Read:
> > > > > > "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
> > > > >
> > > > > I pretty well know it !.. But I also know that several chapters of it
> > > > > have been made obsolete by the Proto-Ionian Theory !..
> > > >
> > > > How so? What specifically has been made obsolete in Cambridge? Or
> > > > are you just making things up? Feel free to explain..
> > > >
> > > As a beginning :
> > > Read first the Chapter "Prehistory of the Greek Language" by John
> > > Chadwick in the C.A.H. II,2.
> > > Then, have a look at the following *SUMMARY* (And please don't tell me
> > > that the arguments are weak !..
> >
> > You fail to understand the differance between fact and theory.
> > And one of Faucounau's methods of dimissing it is "ancient tradition",
> > which a silly idea in the extreme. It's like dismissing the linguistical
> > origins of Hebrew based on thier ancient tradition of the "Tower
> > of Babel" origin of languages.
> >
> >
>
> Why did you suppress the reference I gave, that I repeat here :
Snipping something isn't suppressing it, if it is then, why did you
supress so much of my follow up?
> <http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v013.htm>
>
> To avoid readers to see your bad faith ?... There are THREE KINDS of
> motives given : WHY ARE YOU JUST MENTIONING ONE OF THEM ?
None of his "proofs" to dismiss the current theories rests on any
solid archaeological evidence. That about sums it up...
Joe Bernstein
seeing someone display knowledge that I'm looking for, and it seemed
senseless to start a new thread in sci.archaeology hoping that that
person would see it there, rather than just inquire here.
Along the way other comments.
In article <adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>,
Schlau <sch...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> The Etruscans didn't arrive in Italy until the very end of the Mycenaen
> Period or even after. 1100 - 1000 BC, the very same time Mycenean Greece
> was collapsing.
My understanding of Pallottino's book was that the Etruscans were
probably directly descended from the Villanovans. Did I read wrong,
or are you disagreeing with Pallottino? And if the latter, is there
new evidence, or is this one of those endless debates?
> Outside influences can gradually be adopted
> without an influx of outsiders. Case in point being the adoption of
> Phoencian script in Greece. The Phoencians didn't settle in Greece for
> that to happen.
Um, although the Phoenicians probably didn't settle in Greece *in order
to ensure* that their script would be adopted there, my understanding
is that there *is* some evidence of Phoenician settlers in places
where the script might have been invented. Barry Powell, about whose
ideas I'm somewhat dubious, makes much of this, but that doesn't
necessarily mean he's wrong. I think Lefkandi - anyway some city on
Euboea - is the most relevant site; there's also been Phoenician
settlement indications somewhere on Crete.
I'm just talking small groups here, not The Phoenicians En Masse,
of course. I gather the Cretan example was probably multi-family
and multi-generational.
I think Robin Osborne's <Greece in the Making> talks about this.
> Read:
>
> "The Cambridge Ancient History: The Rise of Rome to 220 B.C.".
>
> or
>
> "Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians:
> Archaeology and Identity in Iron Age Europe"
> by by Peter S. Wells
>
> or
>
> "The European Iron Age"
> by John Collis
>
> or
>
> "The Iron Age in Italy"
> by David Randall-MacIver
>
> or
>
> "Italy Before the Romans: The Iron Age"
> by David Ridgway
>
>
> Plenty of other books, and all in English as well..
And this is the core of what I wanted to ask about.
Does any work exist at all, let alone in English, that surveys the
archaeology of Italy *over all* ? I know that there are billions of
books each on The Rise Of Rome, or The Etruscans And Their Mystery,
and so on, but I'm getting very frustrated trying to find *anything*
that deals with, say, the Italian Neolithic, and was published in
the last quarter-century. What am I doing wrong?
Specifically, <Italy before the Romans> ed. Ridgway is older than
I'd like, though I'll use it if I have to; the <Cambridge Ancient
History> appears to be under the impression that Italy did not
exist between the Palaeolithic and the late Bronze Age; the library's
copy of Collis's book is a permanent decoration in some professor's
office, so I don't even know if he *deals* with Italy (although
the Iron Age is anyway later than the gap I'm running into, being
covered inter alia by Pallottino and Cornell in their differently
insufficient ways)...
I've tried searching the Web, and found to my astonishment that
as against the (surprise) billions of sites on Rome, there is
only *one* easily found site that surveys prehistoric times,
and it, predictably enough, lists no references.
(<http://www.mi.cnr.it/WOI/deagosti/history/preistor.html>.)
Now, I'm trying to read up on the prehistory of pretty much the
entire eastern Mediterranean basin. I can't find anything about
Malta except a website; well, for Malta, I can live with that.
I can't find anything about Cyrenaica at *all*, which bugs me
no end but is not entirely surprising.
But *Italy*?
Was Ridgway's book just that immensely good that its treatment of,
say, the Upper Palaeolithic remains perfectly adequate thirty years
later? The mind boggles.
Or is it just that there are books in Italian that this library
didn't happen to buy?
References to journal articles, if that's where this sort of thing
is hiding, would be quite welcome.
Thanks in advance.
> It's called trade, and not necessarily direct either. Roman goods
> have been found in China and vice versa, the direct contact between
> Han China and Ancient Rome however was quiet limited..
Nonexistent according to Manfred Raschke in <ANRW>. (The detailed
reference has appeared at least twice in soc.history.ancient in recent
months, Google for it if needed; the abbreviated version is <ANRW
II.9.2>. Raschke's basic take on it was that the Han didn't trade
at all, they just handed stuff over to barbarians as subsidies,
and the barbarians then sold some of it to merchants elsewhere.
Ying-shih Yu wrote a book on Han trade in which he claimed otherwise,
but to put it bluntly, I found him over-optimistic - he saw thriving
trade routes lurking behind every smallest evidence - and unpersuasive.
And even he didn't claim that the Han talked directly to Rome.
(Googling myself for the short cite, I found Tito Sanchez condemning
Raschke as unscholarly in humanities.classics at about the time
I was reading the book; but I think he was confusing Raschke's
combative style with a lack of substance.)
grapheus
Another act of bad faith from you ! Why suppressing the sentence which
followed, that I repeat, AND WHICH ANSWER IN ADVANCE your remark ???
> What about the others, like for instance the missing digamma in some Mycenaean words . Is it not A FACT ?..
grapheus
PS : Maybe you will now object that an EPIGRAPHICAL FACT is not an
"archaeological fact", right ?...
grapheus
Sorry if I don't directly answer your questions. But you must know
that since the beginning of Archaeology, Prehistoric Italy has been an
entanglement of diverse and contradictory opinions. The VERY MEAGRE
archaeological facts have been interpreted in diverse ways by a lot of
dogmatic scholars with a lot of PRECONCEIVED ideas.
Mr Schlau has given in his posts a good example of this kind of
dogmatic approach. I made him aware of NEW DEVELOPMENTS in the field
of the Second Millenium BC Mediterranean History, which have DEEP
REPERCUSSIONS on the Prehistoric Italy, because they concern Greeks,
Etruscans and "Peoples of the Sea". All played a role in the Italian
Prehistory. I could also have mentioned the DNA recent researches,
which have had the same effect for a more remote past... But he has
stubbornly clung to a few books he read a few years ago !..
In my opinion, the time has not come to write a significant book on
Italian Prehistory : THERE ARE TWO MANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT DEFINITE
ANSWERS !..
What people can do is endlessly discussing on problems like : "Who
were the bearers of the Golasecca Culture ?" or "What is the
relationship between Etruscans and Villanovians ?", etc. Don't expect
finding a consensus !.. When one does has existed during a certain
time, it was ARTIFICIAL and ALWAYS due to the dictatorship of some
"High Priest" of a certain "School of thought", like during
Pallottino's time !..
Sorry, if I am looking pessimistic. But I consider that the Italian
Prehistory is very far away of being correctly understood !.. Too many
peoples involved, too many languages, too many cultures (Think about
the impressive list of them !), too many facts ignored or
misinterpreted !..
Considering, like Mr Schlau-I-know-it-all, that the last word has
already said, is just preposterous...
regards
grapheus
Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message news:<3d6592c0$0$173$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 9:28:06 -0500, Neville Lindsay wrote
>(in message <Wp959.3760$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>
>> Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite hopeless.
>> The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of Rome
>> (753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
>
>Trying to match *any* ancient legend with the archaeological record is
>foolish. It's inherently unscientific, and uses as source material a document
>written by people who had no way of knowing or recording the events about
>which they wrote.
Sounds like our contemporary journalists. :-(
>
>If the archaeological record resembles the legend, that's great, but using
>the latter as if it were a factual document isn't history.
Agreed, but it may be a good hint.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
>sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>> grap...@www.com (grapheus) wrote in message news:<337ae51f.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>> > sch...@my-deja.com (Schlau) wrote in message news:<adebbbc5.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > majin...@hotmail.com (Majin Kai) wrote in message news:<e69ebdaf.02080...@posting.google.com>...
>> > > > I've been digging around, trying to uncover the prehistoric origins of
>> > > > Rome, and have more or less come up with squat. All that I know is
>> > > > that the Romans were an Indo-European people who migrated to Italy
>> > > > circa 1000 B.C. or so and who, eventually, settled on the hills of
>> > > > Rome.
>> > > > SNIP
>>
>> > > The Romans, and Latins in general, were decendant of various
>> > > Indo-European speaking peoples that began to migrate into the
>> > > Italian Penisula around 1800 BC. They migrated across the Adriatic,
>> > > in addition to down the Penisula.
>> > > The languages these Indo-Europeans spoke were closly related to
>> > > Mycenean Greek as well as Celtic, hence the speculation among earlier
>> > > scholars to claim Greek or Celtic origins for the Latins. Part of the
>> > > confusion might stem from the fact that the Mycenean Greeks themselves,
>> > > as later Greeks would do, set up trading posts/colonies themselves in
>> > > Southern Italy & Sicily.
>> > > Also to add to the mix was the pre-Indo European peoples of the Italian
>> > > Peninsula who had been there since the stone age, most of them being
>> > > absorbed by the Indo-Europeans.
>> >
>> > This is a pretty good description of the Prehictoric Italy.
>> > But I would consider the next question :
>> >
>> > > So where were the Romans before Italy ?
>> >
>> > as meaningless. It is like asking "Where were the New-Yorkers in 2000
>> > BC ?"
>>
>> Much like the origins of the Anglo-Saxons or Normans needs to be
>> studied to have an understanding of England, the origins of the
>> Romans needs to as well for the same reason.
>>
>
>The difference is 1)- that it is almost impossible to give a
>definition of the word :"ROMANS" , and 2)- that there is a very good
>chance that, like the to-day New-Yorkers, the first settlers of the
>later city called ROME were a MIXTURE of peoples, with different
>languages, different origins, and different cultures !..
>This is why I am saying that the question is meaningless.
Yet - what part did the founding Patrician families play in all this?
Where did they come from? Why were they especially importantin the
annals of Rome?
--- snip ---
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote:
>On 9 Aug 2002 23:23:23 -0700, majin...@hotmail.com (Majin Kai) wrote:
>
>>> Italian Arkies are very interested in that also. Last year there was an
>>> announcement of finding what is believed to have been the original
>>> settlement that became Rome. I don't remember much more than that. If
>>> that turns out to be correct then digging there should relate them to
>>> other people leading to where they came from.
>>>
>>> I would guess one of the problems is how early they started conquering
>>> their neighbors leading to a mixed culture very early in their history.
>>
>> Hm, I think I heard of this too. Wasn't the settlement found dated
>>circa 1100-1000 B.C.? That'd put it at the time of the Villanovans I
>>believe, much too early for Etruscan influence to take root. Greece
>>was still in its dark ages so that'd rule them out of the picture.
>
>Dark ages my arse.
>
>1100 BC was the height of the Heraklid era and an period major Hellenic
>colonization of Asia-Minor and Palestine.
Umm - there seems to be a fair amount of evidence that post c 1200 BCE
Greece proceeded to slide into a vale of despond. By 1100-1000 BCe
they were on the slopes leading down.
>
>>
>> Maybe Rome simply began as a satellite of the Villanovans, gradually
>>growing more civilized and powerful over the centuries (after the
>>Villanovans themselves faded away) to the point where they began to
>>dictate terms to their neighbors..... I guess that's as plausible a
>>theory as any.
>
>1173 BC is the date when Aenus traveled to Italy via Carthage and founded
>the settlement that became Rome. By 1100 BC stone structures should have
>began to replace the ordinal wooden ones both in Carthage and in Rome.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>
>> My original idea about the Luka didn't fit very well with the
>> established facts of either factual history or historical legend. I
>> went back and looked over some of my books and basically reconfirmed
>> this just to make it official :) Lo and behold, yep, the Luka are a
>> seperate entity entirely from the ancient Trojans and seem to only
>> appear during the Trojan War as fighting alongside them against the
>> Greeks. Nothing more (in Greek legend) is mentioned of them as far as
>> I can tell whereas we've got a whole host of references about Trojan
>> expatriates or Greeks returning home after the war ended.
>>
>
>With reference to my post above, even the Romans recognised Pallantion in
>Arkadia as playing a significant role in their early history. After all,
>they believed that the Paladion was named after Pallantion, so much so that
>they exempted Pallantion from Roman taxes under several emperors. And if you
>read very closely you will find that Troy was settled by the Arkadians, and
>that it was they who bilt the walls of Troy.
At the risk of sounding pedantic, I presume that by 'Troy' you mean
Hissarlik?
>Another part of the equation is
>that in the Iliad, Zeus was on the side of the Trojans and Zeus was born in
>Arkadia.
>
>Cheers
>
Eric Stevens
o8TY
in particular. Reference was to the connection between the Pelasgians and
Dardanians, and to the Kylikes and Leleges.
It has been supposed that the main body of these people were exterminated
earlier on in the Trojan War by Axilles et al.
--
o8TY
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:kv4pmu8emld20icn2...@4ax.com...
Daniel Seriff
(in message <oo4pmukciphea9oin...@4ax.com>):
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 18:36:42 GMT, Daniel Seriff <micro...@what.zzz>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 9:28:06 -0500, Neville Lindsay wrote
>> (in message <Wp959.3760$Sy4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au>):
>>> Trying to match the Aeneas legend with the origin of Rome is quite
>>> hopeless.
>>> The gap between Troy (12 C BCE) and even the traditional founding of Rome
>>> (753 BCE) makes it a sheer nonsense and red herring.
>> Trying to match *any* ancient legend with the archaeological record is
>> foolish. It's inherently unscientific, and uses as source material a
>> document
>> written by people who had no way of knowing or recording the events about
>> which they wrote.
>
> Sounds like our contemporary journalists. :-(
And some of our historians, too. Especially some who are notorious on this
newsgroup.
>> If the archaeological record resembles the legend, that's great, but using
>> the latter as if it were a factual document isn't history.
>
> Agreed, but it may be a good hint.
Perhaps, but that hint only goes so far and can only be taken so seriously. I
certainly wouldn't want to go looking for Japan in 3,000 years using only
Clavell's _Shogun_ as a reference, great book though it is.
--
Daniel Seriff
Email allows people thousands of miles apart to instantaneously demonstrate
their inability to spell.
-Mil
Joe Bernstein
grapheus <grap...@www.com> wrote, in response to my plea for
sources of information about the subject mentioned in the header:
> Sorry if I don't directly answer your questions. But you must know
> that since the beginning of Archaeology, Prehistoric Italy has been an
> entanglement of diverse and contradictory opinions. The VERY MEAGRE
> archaeological facts have been interpreted in diverse ways by a lot of
> dogmatic scholars with a lot of PRECONCEIVED ideas.
> In my opinion, the time has not come to write a significant book on
> Italian Prehistory : THERE ARE TWO MANY QUESTIONS WITHOUT DEFINITE
> ANSWERS !..
> What people can do is endlessly discussing on problems like : "Who
> were the bearers of the Golasecca Culture ?" or "What is the
> relationship between Etruscans and Villanovians ?", etc. Don't expect
> finding a consensus !.. When one does has existed during a certain
> time, it was ARTIFICIAL and ALWAYS due to the dictatorship of some
> "High Priest" of a certain "School of thought", like during
> Pallottino's time !..
> Sorry, if I am looking pessimistic. But I consider that the Italian
> Prehistory is very far away of being correctly understood !..
I was reluctant to answer this followup, in the now evidently futile
hope that there would be another posted by someone whose views bear
at least some resemblance to my own.
So I'll just note that I *did* actually find a source in English on
Italy's prehistory, and that this led me to a source in Italian;
by various means, I've come gradually to the conclusion that the
latter is, anyway, the most recent comprehensive discussion of the
subject.
Grapheus seems to be under the misapprehension that scholarly books
should only be written when they contain all the answers about their
subjects. Perhaps this is why he's enamoured of revolutionary ideas,
since those, with depressing regularity, tend to offer omniscience to
their believers. I, however, would be satisified enough with a source
that told me *enough* about what's been found in the Italian soil
that I could form some sort of notion what to think about it myself,
in an admittedly uncertain world where I am often wrong. Now, this is
a tricky thing. My studies of Indian archaeology were deep enough to
make it clear to me the extent to which such works of synthesis can
mislead or misinform, even when the authors are evidently honest; my
work as a reporter has indeed shown me that this is a *necessary*
concomitant of synthesis. So I can't pretend when I read works of
synthesis that I'm getting unvarnished facts; I can only hope for a
level of competence that might allow some of the things I care about
to be represented in a way that at least vaguely resembles reality.
In this regard, actual facts are a Good Thing, which is why the best
syntheses for my present purposes are the kind of books archaeologists
call "textbooks", in which there are anyway pictures of stuff that's
been excavated, maps, references to site reports, etc. Even though
I have myself found things by looking beyond textbooks - and, as it
happens, things that are now commonly accepted in the field in question,
through no doing of my own, but pleasingly nonetheless [1] - I started
that looking *with* a textbook, and I think it helped rather than
harmed that effort. Whereas a hand-waving ten-page popular account
would not have.
Anyway, all of that said. Graeme Barker, who also, as it happens,
has done more than his share of work in Cyrenaica (another under-
synthesised region I mentioned in my prior post), wrote a thirty-
page discussion of recent work in the subject which amounts to a
very short synthesis (no details, no pictures, though). This
appeared in volume 67 of the <Papers of the British School at Rome>,
in pages something like 1 to 36, circa 1998? Sorry; I don't have it
to hand. Anyway, this in turn informed me of a book titled <Italia
Preistorica>, edited by Alessandro Guidi and Marcello Piperno,
which came out in 1992 from Laterza, and (according to Worldcat,
which is hardly always reliable) had a second edition a year later
from the same publisher. Despite a glowing review in the <American
Journal of Archaeology>, there appears to be no translation into any
other language. This is unfortunate for me, since I don't really read
Italian, but with a dictionary, what I know of French and Spanish,
and the pictures, I'll try to get by. For, um, five hundred or more
pages. Urg.
There are other, older, books titled <Italia Preistorica> too, by
the by; the next most recent known to me is a popular account, to
all appearances of the hand-waving variety, from 1983, by Enzo
Bernardini. This is at the local school's library; the other, I've
had to request by inter-library loan.
I'm embarked on a reading project that, if I can carry it through,
will take me to the time of Christ or so (ideally, AD 25) in all the
lands bordering the Mediterranean and, with much less emphasis,
in the hinterlands of Asia back to Oman, India, and Kazakhstan.
We'll see what happens. I'm still trying to sort out whether to
dump what I find on the Web or put it on Usenet first; if the latter,
the main newsgroup will be sci.archaeology.
Oh, and one other thing. While I was scanning the last decade of
the <AJA> looking, inter alia, for reviews of books like <Italia
Preistorica>, I found a review of one of Faucounau's books, which
was harsh, offered some details, and pointed to a long review
elsewhere which offered more. Full references if wanted.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Oh, India. Briefly, the Standard Wisdom up to about 1970 was
that the Aryans invaded what is now Pakistan and wiped out the
Indus Valley civilisation, then with their sturdy iron tools pushed
eastward, exterminating or enslaving the hunter-gatherers who then
occupied the previously impenetrable Ganges Valley jungle. For a
wide variety of reasons, this was no longer taken very seriously
after about 1970, but nobody had really gotten around to saying so
very clearly, so it's what I ran into first when I researched the
subject in 1985-86. It offended me because I was supposed to believe
that the Ganges Valley went from hunter-gatherers to cities in less
than a millennium, with no outside influence, and this struck me as a
vastly more compressed time frame than any other "pristine"
civilisation had had. I was therefore pleased to learn first that you
didn't need iron tools to cut down trees in the Ganges Valley, and
then second to stumble on the first site reports mentioning pre-Iron
Age settled peoples in the area. Those are now, of course, well
known, and this is one of many reasons the Aryan Invasion Theory is
so generally discredited in India (with other reasons being much
less, well, reasonable). I deserve no credit beyond simply that for
being persistent enough to find out what everyone else was finding out
at the same time; I certainly did nothing really to publicise what I
found.
Mind, not everything is so peachy keen. As recently as 1994,
when the full report on one of those sites, Narhan, was published,
its author, Purushottam Singh, could write that since calibration
of radiocarbon dates was still controversial, he would present his
dates according to two different half-lives of C14, and would
present calibrated dates for his chalcolithic samples, but without
believing them. He didn't even present calibrations for his Iron
Age samples, probably because they would have embarrassed him by
falling into the radiocarbon black hole of 800 to 400 BC. This
was not a particularly unusual attitude towards calibration in India
when I did my research, but I had hoped it would start dying out with
the publication of the major-league calibration tools in 1986 and
after. Alas no.
And then, of course, there's the whole Aryan Invasion imbroglio.
There's a very good account of that by Edwin Bryant called <The
Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration
Debate>. Full disclosure, I should note that I corresponded with
Bryant a little bit while he was researching that book; I saw
no sign on a quick skim that anything I said had affected what
he wrote, though. Indeed, my one dissatisfaction with that book
was that he glossed over something that had always been very plain
to me, namely the way in which the AIT had served the ideology of
the Congress Party at least as well as it had ever served that of
the British Raj (which is much of why it retained such prominence
in published work well into the 1980s). My own opinions are
extremely close to the position he describes as a modern day fallback
for pro-invasion views in his final chapter. He himself does not
take a stand, except that he sees no resolution to the debate other
than a generally accepted decipherment of the Indus Valley seals.
grapheus
> Anyway, this in turn informed me of a book titled <Italia
> Preistorica>, edited by Alessandro Guidi and Marcello Piperno,
> which came out in 1992 from Laterza, and (according to Worldcat,
> which is hardly always reliable) had a second edition a year later
> from the same publisher. Despite a glowing review in the <American
> Journal of Archaeology>, there appears to be no translation into any
> other language.
> the by; the next most recent known to me is a popular account, to
> all appearances of the hand-waving variety, from 1983, by Enzo
> Bernardini. This is at the local school's library; the other, I've
> had to request by inter-library loan.
>
You are re-inventing the wheel !.. Of course, there are a lot of books
about Prehistoric Italy !.. But, as somebody already noticed in this
NG a few days ago, there is *in all of them* a lack of information
concerning the "Proto-Historical Period". There are lots of
information about the Balzi Rossi, the Monte Pellegrino, the Levanzo
island's grotto caves, or about the figurines from Savigno, Chiozza di
Scandiano and other locations... NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE concerning the
origin of the "pre-Roman peoples", how these ethnies have been
created, generally by mixing of older prehistoric peoples... Even for
the presence of the Etruscans in Central Italy, there are a lot of
contradictory hypotheses, more or less plausible !..
This is not so surprising, in my opinion, as long as the NEW DATA
coming from J.Faucounau's work have not been fully integrated in the
History of the Mediterranean Peoples. Since years, I've tried to pass
this message, and to invite the readers of my posts to be aware of the
importance of these new data coming from the J.F.'s books and papers
about the Proto-Ionians, about the "Sea Peoples", about "mercenaries
in Pharaohs' time", etc.
But most of the time, the only answer I've received was like the
following one :
> Oh, and one other thing. While I was scanning the last decade of
> the <AJA> looking, inter alia, for reviews of books like <Italia
> Preistorica>, I found a review of one of Faucounau's books, which
> was harsh, offered some details, and pointed to a long review
> elsewhere which offered more. Full references if wanted.
> Joe Bernstein
Why you don't mention it ?.. It's the Review by the Belgian
Mycenologist Y. Duhoux of the J.F.'s book about the decipherment of
the Phaistos Disk in A.J.A. 104.3 (July 2000). Any specialist in the
field knows that this review is full of inaccuracies and even
stupidities. The bulk of Y.Duhoux' review consists in an ELEMENTARY
and TOTALLY WORTHLESS statistical approach of the Disk's syllabary,
concluding - OF COURSE !!! - that the syllabary proposed by J.F. was
"aberrant" !
This paper mentions also another Y.D.'s article (published in French,
this time), announcing that it would demonstrate "errors,
contradictions and incoherences" in the J.F.'s work. Well, this
so-called "killing paper", published in the Belgian journal
"L'Antiquite Classique", has made a flop !.. The controversy, opened
by Y. Duhoux, has turned to the confusion of this scholar, unable to
find anything but a few criticisms WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES, like :
"J.F. has written that a Linear A tablet had been found NORTH of the
Disk. This is wrong". What is true : the tablet was found to the EAST
!... Surely a "killing criticism" for such a revolutionary book !!!
grapheus
Inger E
I guess you don't have following books on your sleves but they exist:
Turcan T, The gods of ancient Rome Edinburgh 2000
Ingemark D, Gerding H&Castoriano M, Liv och död i antikens Rom, Lund 2000 (I
don't know if it's translated to English)
Ramage Nancy H/Ramage Andrew, Roman Art. Romulus to Constantine. second
eddition London 1995
Thomason B, Qualis vetus Roma fuit. Antika texter till Roms byggnadshistoria
i urval, Lund 1970 (selected latin texts of ancient text to Rome's
foundation/building history)
Inger E
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:337ae51f.02083...@posting.google.com...
grapheus
> Grapheus and Joe,
> I guess you don't have following books on your sleves but they exist:
>
> Turcan T, The gods of ancient Rome Edinburgh 2000
>
> Ingemark D, Gerding H&Castoriano M, Liv och död i antikens Rom, Lund 2000 (I
> don't know if it's translated to English)
>
> Ramage Nancy H/Ramage Andrew, Roman Art. Romulus to Constantine. second
> eddition London 1995
>
> Thomason B, Qualis vetus Roma fuit. Antika texter till Roms byggnadshistoria
> i urval, Lund 1970 (selected latin texts of ancient text to Rome's
> foundation/building history)
>
> Inger E
>
I've read the book n° 3, three or four years ago. As far as I
remember, the author has accepted the traditional date for the
beginning of Rome, i.e. 753 BC.
That is not what I call the "Proto-Historical Period", which covers
the 3d, the 2d, and the beginning of the First, Millenium BC. It is
mainly during this period, in particular from 1400 to 900 BC, that the
diverse Italian ethnic groups were formed.
Nota : I give to the word "ethnical Group" the meaning that P.Laviosa
Zambotti has given 50 years ago : "an aggregate of peoples, of diverse
origins, which has been moulded by historical vicissitudes into a
"homogeneous human group", at a given time. (Here : just before
History began, with the Roman conquest of all Italy).
regards
grapheus
Joe Bernstein
grapheus <grap...@www.com> wrote:
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:<3d6eba95$0$184$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>...
> > So I'll just note that I *did* actually find a source in English on
> > Italy's prehistory, and that this led me to a source in Italian;
> > by various means, I've come gradually to the conclusion that the
> > latter is, anyway, the most recent comprehensive discussion of the
> > subject.
> You are re-inventing the wheel !.. Of course, there are a lot of books
> about Prehistoric Italy !..
Well, I'm glad to hear it, and surprised that if you knew this you
didn't tell me so when following up to my post *asking* about such
books, which in case you've forgotten, was the main purpose of my
post that you followed up to.
I actually spent about an hour and a half going through the bibliography
of the article by Barker that I mentioned, looking for such books.
That's how I found Guidi/Perrino; Barker didn't just *tell* me, "go
here if you want more information". Not a single bloody one of the
many many books that have "further reading" sections in their back
pages actually told me about anything that went further back than
Ridgway's book, what, the 2nd millennium BC? When Italy is as far
as I know home to the oldest known human occupation in Europe! [1] I
don't know why nobody who writes in English thinks Italy existed before
2000 BC, but I wasted a *lot* of time finding the one exception.
So really. If you already knew of these books, you could have saved
me *hours* and HOURS. I do not appreciate that you instead used my
request for information as a springboard for talking some more about
your favourite theory.
> But, as somebody already noticed in this
> NG a few days ago, there is *in all of them* a lack of information
> concerning the "Proto-Historical Period". There are lots of
> information about the Balzi Rossi, the Monte Pellegrino, the Levanzo
> island's grotto caves, or about the figurines from Savigno, Chiozza di
> Scandiano and other locations... NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE concerning the
> origin of the "pre-Roman peoples", how these ethnies have been
> created, generally by mixing of older prehistoric peoples... Even for
> the presence of the Etruscans in Central Italy, there are a lot of
> contradictory hypotheses, more or less plausible !..
I'm a little confused here. Are you saying these books don't *cover*
the protohistorical period, or that they don't mention every single
idea people have had? In the former case, I'd be *very* surprised,
although I'm not going to see <Italia preistorica> Guidi et alii
for a while yet so I don't have definite evidence.
In the latter case, though, well, surveys like that aren't *supposed*
to cover every single hypothesis; they don't have room. I would
personally be quite satisfied with a survey that told me about
material culture and ignored ethnicity altogether. Ethnicity is
an interesting and worthwhile topic, and archaeology need not be
silent on it; but ethnicity is so much the overwhelming focus of
so much of what is written about the past that I routinely run into
problems finding any other approach, and if your only reason for
thinking that prehistories of Italy should not yet be written is
that you think the questions of *proto*historic ethnicity have not
yet been resolved, then frankly, I'd rather that prehistories of
Italy just give ethnicity a vacation and proceed normally. There
have been several syntheses of Indian archaeology in recent years,
an area where as you may have heard ethnicity is a hot issue, and
those are able to do just fine without talking about Aryans on every
single page.
> This is not so surprising, in my opinion, as long as the NEW DATA
> coming from J.Faucounau's work have not been fully integrated in the
> History of the Mediterranean Peoples. Since years, I've tried to pass
> this message, and to invite the readers of my posts to be aware of the
> importance of these new data coming from the J.F.'s books and papers
> about the Proto-Ionians, about the "Sea Peoples", about "mercenaries
> in Pharaohs' time", etc.
Personally, I'd be grateful if instead of posting the same things
over and over, you'd do something like translate one of the books
so I could draw some conclusions for myself. I'm more than half
inclined to think of Faucounau as a kook, if only because deciphering
one ancient text should not logically be enough to justify a revolution
in all of Mediterranean protohistory. But I'd much rather be able to
judge for myself without the amount of effort I need to put into
reading French.
> But most of the time, the only answer I've received was like the
> following one :
>
> > Oh, and one other thing. While I was scanning the last decade of
> > the <AJA> looking, inter alia, for reviews of books like <Italia
> > Preistorica>, I found a review of one of Faucounau's books, which
> > was harsh, offered some details, and pointed to a long review
> > elsewhere which offered more. Full references if wanted.
> Why you don't mention it ?..
Because I just happened to notice it as I was scanning the last
eight years of that journal, and didn't write anything down. The
back issues are kept far far away from the computers, so I would
have had to stop writing, save, close my telnet session, run over
to the back issues, scan *back* through looking for that review,
write down the details, and then run back to the computers and
reopen telnet and resume writing the post ... ugh. As it happens,
I was really hungry while writing that post, which made it even
tougher for me to imagine doing all this when I didn't even know
if there would be any need, that is, I didn't even know whether
anyone would be interested who wouldn't already be familiar with
the review in question.
As it turns out, there *wasn't* any need, because you promptly
followed up supplying the details I didn't have handy:
> It's the Review by the Belgian
> Mycenologist Y. Duhoux of the J.F.'s book about the decipherment of
> the Phaistos Disk in A.J.A. 104.3 (July 2000).
Thank you. This way if I ever decide to look into this topic, I
can find that review again.
> Any specialist in the
> field knows that this review is full of inaccuracies and even
> stupidities.
Not being a specialist, I will happily continue not knowing this,
however.
> unable to
> find anything but a few criticisms WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES, like :
> "J.F. has written that a Linear A tablet had been found NORTH of the
> Disk. This is wrong". What is true : the tablet was found to the EAST
> !... Surely a "killing criticism" for such a revolutionary book !!!
I have to admit that this struck me as a rather picayune way of
scoring points. But it did not strike me as the only thing in
the review. Which I'm still not going to go back to at this time.
Meanwhile, however, I'm currently reading about the Pliocene.
Which means I'm still over a million years away from the first
known humans in Italy, let alone Greece, and although I expect
to cover that million years before I'm next online, it's still
a *lot* of reading in, at last count, 74 books, before I get to
the 2nd millennium BC. I'm not even allowing myself to check books
out of the library yet unless they start in the 4th millennium BC
or earlier, so all of the 74 books sitting back at home are between
me and any concern whatever with the Phaistos Disk.
Oh, one other thing. I was surprised and pleased by your comments
about ethnicities changing over time a few paragraphs back. So few
of the people who have pet theories about ethnic groups in the past
have noticed this fact, and it does a good deal to improve my opinion
of you and, indirectly, of Faucounau, that you're aware of ethnicity
as a constructed rather than a fixed aspect of human nature.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Um, well, maybe; this depends on definitions of both "human" and
"Europe". As I understand it, the site of Isernia la Prieta, or some
such, is the oldest known site with ?hominid occupation in Europe,
by a wide margin, *except* for remains at Dimansi in Georgia, by an
even wider margin. I'm not thinking of Georgia as European for my
present purposes, which would no doubt offend the Georgians but there
you go; more to the point I'm not sure what species the Dimansi remains
are supposed to represent. (And Google is not helping, turning up no
results for example with "Dimansi Palaeolithic" and "Dimansi sapiens",
which I take as evidence that Google is home sick today.) I should be
able to say something more coherent about this stuff next week, when
I'm out of the Pliocene...
Joe Bernstein
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> Grapheus and Joe,
> I guess you don't have following books on your sleves but they exist:
>
> Turcan T, The gods of ancient Rome Edinburgh 2000
As I just posted elsewhere in this thread, I'm currently excluding from
my shelves any book whose starting point is later than 3000 BC; as
things are, I've had to pack up most of my own favourite books to
make room for all the library books that *do* start before 3000 BC.
Anyway, it would not be immediately obvious to me that a book about
Roman religion would also provide a survey of Italian prehistory.
But it's a Good Thing when you provide references, so I went and
checked, and this is what Turcan says on, oh, shoot, I forgot to
note the page number but it's something like page 7:
"Roman religion took shape and developed in the course of history,
but it is impossible to write a 'history of Roman religion'. With
a few rare exceptions, the evidence we have about worship is at
best datable to the last two or three centuries BC, even if it
refers to earlier times or deeds, and archaeology is grudging with
information about its practices."
He goes on to say that his approach is not chronological, but I
nevertheless feel safe in assuming that he nowhere discusses Italy's
Palaeolithic. So I go on to your next reference:
> Ingemark D, Gerding H&Castoriano M, Liv och död i antikens Rom, Lund
> 2000 (I don't know if it's translated to English)
Not so far as I can tell. Nor does the local library own a copy.
What time period does it start with?
> Ramage Nancy H/Ramage Andrew, Roman Art. Romulus to Constantine. second
> eddition London 1995
From page 11:
"Our beginning point is not a fixed date, but it falls somewhere about
1000 BC".
Definitely not the Palaeolithic.
> Thomason B, Qualis vetus Roma fuit. Antika texter till Roms
> byggnadshistoria i urval, Lund 1970 (selected latin texts of ancient
> text to Rome's foundation/building history)
I would be utterly shocked if there were ancient Latin texts containing
reliable information about the Italian Palaeolithic. In any event,
the local library also doesn't own this.
Thanks for the references, though. To look one of them up, I had to
finally make time to go to a little-used locked room in this library,
where I found a review of, hey, an on-topic reference of my own! (Yes,
of course, your references are on-topic, and mine are not... Anyway:)
<Etruscan civilization: a cultural history>. Sybille Haynes. 2000.
The reviewer was full of enthusiasm, complaining only that the
chronological organisation forced repetition. I personally think
that chronological organisation is a Great Good Thing, and am
looking forward to a better acquaintance with the book, somewhat
later this year.
Joe Bernstein
Inger E
sometimes you are funny :-) on topic, not on topic.... anyhow in all books
there are lines refering to Etruskian period and Pre-Etruskian as well. Will
return with pages.
Inger E
"Joe Bernstein" <j...@sfbooks.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3d714293$0$187$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...
Honest Aryan
> [1] Oh, India. Briefly, the Standard Wisdom up to about 1970 was
> that the Aryans...
...invade...
...and invade...
..and INVADE.
Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
"San Francisco Chronicle, 26 May, 1999
History of Ancient Indian Conquest Told in Modern Genes, Experts Say
Robert Cooke, Newsday
Like an indelible signature enduring through a hundred generations,
genes that entered India when conquering hordes swooped down from the
north thousands of years ago are still there, and remain entrenched at
the top of the caste system, scientists report. Analyses of the male Y
chromosome, plus genes hidden in small cellular bodies called
mitochondria, show that today's genetic patterns agree with accounts
of ancient Indo-European warriors' conquering the Indian subcontinent.
The invaders apparently shoved the local men aside, took their women
and set up the rigid caste system that exists today. Their descendants
are still the elite within Hindu society.
INVADING CAUCASOIDS
Thus today's genetic patterns, the researchers explained, vividly
reflect a historic event, or events, that occurred 3,000 or 4,000
years ago. The gene patterns ``are consistent with a historical
scenario in which invading Caucasoids -- primarily males --
established the caste system and occupied the highest positions,
placing the indigenous population, who were more similar to Asians, in
lower caste positions.''
The researchers, from the University of Utah and Andhra Pradesh
University in India, used two sets of genes in their analyses.
One set, from the mitochondria, are only passed maternally and can be
used to track female inheritance. The other, on the male-determining Y
chromosome, can only be passed along paternally and thus track male
inheritance.
The data imply, then, ``that there was a group of males with European
affinities who were largely responsible for this invasion 3,000 or
4,000 years ago,'' said geneticist Lynn Jorde of the University of
Utah.
If women had accompanied the invaders, he said, the evidence should be
seen in the mitochondrial genes, but it is not evident.
According to geneticist Douglas Wallace of Emory University in
Atlanta, the work reported by Jorde and his colleagues ``is very
interesting, and is certainly worth further study.''
Along with Jorde, the research team included Michael Bamshad, W.S.
Watkins and M.E. Dixon from Utah and B.B. Rao, B.V.R. Prasad and J.M.
Naidu, from Andhra Pradesh University.
UPWARDLY MOBILE WOMEN
By studying both sets of genetic markers, the research team found
clear evidence echoing what is still seen socially, that women can be
upwardly mobile, in terms of caste, if they marry higher-caste men. In
contrast, men generally do not move higher, because women rarely marry
men from lower castes, the researchers said.
``Our expectations in this natural experiment are borne out when we
look at the genes,'' said Jorde. ``It's one of the few cases where we
know the mating situation in a population for 150 generations. So it's
kind of a test for how well the genes reflect a population's
history.''
The ancient story holds that invaders known as Indo-Europeans, or true
Aryans, came from Eastern Europe or western Asia and conquered the
Indian subcontinent. The people they subdued descended from the
original inhabitants who had arrived far earlier from Africa and from
other parts of Asia.
During the genetic studies, in 1996 and 1997, researchers took blood
samples from hundreds of people in southern India. The analyses
compared the genes from 316 caste members and 330 members of tribal
populations, looking for signs of Asian, European and African
ancestry.
In the mitochondrial genes passed along by females, Jorde said, they
could see the clear background of Asian genes. ``All of the caste
groups were similar to Asians, the underlying population'' that had
originally been subdued.
But, he added, ``when we look at the Y chromosome DNA, we see a very
different pattern. The lower castes are most similar to Asians, and
the upper castes are more European than Asian.''
Further, ``when we look at the different components within the upper
caste, the group with the greatest European similarity of all is the
warrior class, the Kshatriya, who are still at the top of the Hindu
castes, with the Brahmins,'' Jorde said.
``But the Brahmins, in terms of their Y chromosomes, are a little bit
more Asian.''
So the genetic results are ``consistent with historical accounts that
women sometimes marry into higher caste, resulting in female gene flow
between adjacent castes. In contrast, males seldom change castes, so Y
chromosome'' variation occurs only as a result of natural mutations,
Jorde said.
CASTE SYSTEM STILL ALIVE
He added that even though India's ancient caste system was abolished
legally in the 1960s, it is still entrenched socially.
``People are very well aware of their caste membership,'' he said,
noting that in some cities the housing is still arranged along caste
lines. So ``one might argue, unfortunately so, that it (the caste
system) does exist in people's minds.''
In terms of who marries whom, the researchers described the Hindu
caste system as ``governing the mating practices of nearly one-sixth
of the world's population.''
The blood samples taken from tribal people in southern India are still
being analyzed, Jorde added.
But so far, ``the tribal populations are more similar to the lower
castes than to anyone else, similar to the original residents of
India,'' he said."
--
Visit the Cybermuseum of BBC War Crimes at:
http://users.bluecarrots.com/rbisto/BBC/BBC.html
Admission *FREE* - even for libruls!
Inger E
Inger E
"Honest Aryan" <honest...@volcanomail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:a913c2b1.0208...@posting.google.com...
grapheus
> In article <337ae51f.02083...@posting.google.com>,
> grapheus <grap...@www.com> wrote:
>
> > Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote in message
> > news:<3d6eba95$0$184$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>...
>
> > > So I'll just note that I *did* actually find a source in English on
> > > Italy's prehistory, and that this led me to a source in Italian;
> > > by various means, I've come gradually to the conclusion that the
> > > latter is, anyway, the most recent comprehensive discussion of the
> > > subject.
>
> > You are re-inventing the wheel !.. Of course, there are a lot of books
> > about Prehistoric Italy !..
>
> Well, I'm glad to hear it, and surprised that if you knew this you
> didn't tell me so when following up to my post *asking* about such
> books, which in case you've forgotten, was the main purpose of my
> post that you followed up to.
>
books".
Because you are right : I made a quick counting of the given
references concerning the Italian Paleolithic Period only, and I
found : Books in Italian : 18 -- in French : 16 -- in German : 14 --
in English : a pretty old one : T.E. PEET : "The Stone and Bronze Age
in Italy and Sicily", Oxford 1909 !..
But this does'n't change what I wrote :
> > But, as somebody already noticed in this
> > NG a few days ago, there is *in all of them* a lack of information
> > concerning the "Proto-Historical Period". There are lots of
> > information about the Balzi Rossi, the Monte Pellegrino, the Levanzo
> > island's grotto caves, or about the figurines from Savigno, Chiozza di
> > Scandiano and other locations... NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE concerning the
> > origin of the "pre-Roman peoples", how these ethnies have been
> > created, generally by mixing of older prehistoric peoples... Even for
> > the presence of the Etruscans in Central Italy, there are a lot of
> > contradictory hypotheses, more or less plausible !..
>
> I'm a little confused here. Are you saying these books don't *cover*
> the protohistorical period, or that they don't mention every single
> idea people have had?
Both. Very few pages are dealing with this period. And there is rarely
a discussion about the problems it presents !
> In the former case, I'd be *very* surprised,
> although I'm not going to see <Italia preistorica> Guidi et alii
> for a while yet so I don't have definite evidence.
>
Check by yourself, and you will see that my hereabove statement is
true.
> In the latter case, though, well, surveys like that aren't *supposed*
> to cover every single hypothesis; they don't have room. I would
> personally be quite satisfied with a survey that told me about
> material culture and ignored ethnicity altogether. Ethnicity is
> an interesting and worthwhile topic, and archaeology need not be
> silent on it; but ethnicity is so much the overwhelming focus of
> so much of what is written about the past that I routinely run into
> problems finding any other approach, and if your only reason for
> thinking that prehistories of Italy should not yet be written is
> that you think the questions of *proto*historic ethnicity have not
> yet been resolved, then frankly, I'd rather that prehistories of
> Italy just give ethnicity a vacation and proceed normally. There
> have been several syntheses of Indian archaeology in recent years,
> an area where as you may have heard ethnicity is a hot issue, and
> those are able to do just fine without talking about Aryans on every
> single page.
>
An historian CANNOT ignore ethnicity. What has been done in the past
(and still sometimes to-day !) is confusing "ethnicity" with "race".
What is really stupid, because it has been proved that ALL europeans
are mongrels of some kind...
In this regard - I mean : understanding how the diverse Pre-Roman
ethnical groups have been formed - I maintain that my following remark
concerning the J.F.'s work is CRUCIAL :
> > This is not so surprising, in my opinion, as long as the NEW DATA
> > coming from J.Faucounau's work have not been fully integrated in the
> > History of the Mediterranean Peoples. Since years, I've tried to pass
> > this message, and to invite the readers of my posts to be aware of the
> > importance of these new data coming from the J.F.'s books and papers
> > about the Proto-Ionians, about the "Sea Peoples", about "mercenaries
> > in Pharaohs' time", etc.
>
> Personally, I'd be grateful if instead of posting the same things
> over and over, you'd do something like translate one of the books
> so I could draw some conclusions for myself.
If you have not read J.F.'s books (in French), did you read, at least,
the two SUMMARIES (in English!)
<http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v002.htm>
and <http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v013.htm>
that I mentioned ?..
Well, from the existence of the Proto-Ionian seamen in the Aegean
SINCE THE EARLY BRONZE AGE, one may guess that in the later period (
3000BC to 1000BC), there has been a pretty important process of
"cultural mixing" in the whole Mediterranean area, which has lead, in
fine, to the birth of "ethnical groups" like the ones known as
"Peoples of the Sea". J.Faucounau has shown (in several papers in
French) that some of these peoples were of almost pure Greek descent
(Akhaiusha, Pelesheta), some others were "Greek-Anatolian mongrels"
(Trojans), and others were mercenaries recruited by the Greeks (
Tursha, Shakalasha, Shardana, etc.). These last ones are too narrowly
linked to Italy, that it would be meaningless to ignore J.F.'s work in
trying to "reconstruct the Italian past".
That is what I wanted to say.
> I'm more than half
> inclined to think of Faucounau as a kook, if only because deciphering
> one ancient text should not logically be enough to justify a revolution
> in all of Mediterranean protohistory.
See hereabove !.. The revolution is in the *necessary abandon* of the
"Risch-Chadwick Theory" , replaced by the "Proto-Ionian Theory"...
> But I'd much rather be able to
> judge for myself without the amount of effort I need to put into
> reading French.
>
I wonder how you may believe that you will be able to "judge by
yourself", if you are limiting your knowledge to books in English !!!
Mainly about questions involving Italian peoples !..
> > But most of the time, the only answer I've received was like the
> > following one :
> >
> > > Oh, and one other thing. While I was scanning the last decade of
> > > the <AJA> looking, inter alia, for reviews of books like <Italia
> > > Preistorica>, I found a review of one of Faucounau's books, which
> > > was harsh, offered some details, and pointed to a long review
> > > elsewhere which offered more. Full references if wanted.
>
> > Why you don't mention it ?..
> SNIP
> > It's the Review by the Belgian
> > Mycenologist Y. Duhoux of the J.F.'s book about the decipherment of
> > the Phaistos Disk in A.J.A. 104.3 (July 2000).
>
> Thank you. This way if I ever decide to look into this topic, I
> can find that review again.
>
> > Any specialist in the
> > field knows that this review is full of inaccuracies and even
> > stupidities.
>
> Not being a specialist, I will happily continue not knowing this,
> however.
>
I call this attitude : voluntary blindness !..
> > unable to
> > find anything but a few criticisms WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES, like :
> > "J.F. has written that a Linear A tablet had been found NORTH of the
> > Disk. This is wrong". What is true : the tablet was found to the EAST
> > !... Surely a "killing criticism" for such a revolutionary book !!!
>
> I have to admit that this struck me as a rather picayune way of
> scoring points. But it did not strike me as the only thing in
> the review.
I already told you : the essential of this ridiculous review is a
MEANINGLESS calculation by the author. (What is pretty funny : a
non-mathematician linguist criticizing *with invalid mathematical
arguments* the work of a professional mathematician!!!)... BUT : NOT A
SINGLE WORD about the PROOFS that the book mentions !.. NOT A SINGLE
WORD about the recent M.Korfmann's excavations at Troy confirming
J.F.'s Proto-Ionian Theory !.. NOT A SINGLE WORD about J.F.'s previous
papers about the Peoples of the Sea, of which references may be found
in the book's bibliography !.. NOT A SINGLE WORD about the work
(mentioned in the book) of A.C.D.CROMMELIN and M.W. OVENDEN !.. But no
less than 9 lines are dedicated to the lapsus calami "North" instead
of "East" concerning the Linear A tablet found in the same layer as
the Disk's !.. I repeat it : What a "killing argument" for such a
revolutionary book !...
>
> Meanwhile, however, I'm currently reading about the Pliocene.
> Which means I'm still over a million years away from the first
> known humans in Italy, let alone Greece, and although I expect
> to cover that million years before I'm next online, it's still
> a *lot* of reading in, at last count, 74 books, before I get to
> the 2nd millennium BC.
OK ! You have a lot of books to read before arriving at the
Proto-Historical Period, which is the one I am interested in !...
grapheus
Marcello Fabretti
vehemently.
The Romans were Latins first and foremost. The Romans, as Latins were,
Italians. People seem to forget that.
They spoke an indo-european language which belonged to the Italic group of
languages and which seem to be (yes) more closely related to the Celtic
group. Italic, however, is far removed from Hellenic, or was until there
were major borrowings between the two groups since the 3rd century B.C. up
to this day. Latin belongs to the falisco-latinian sub-group of the Italic
languages. There is also another group called osco-umbrian or sabellian
which includes Umbrian (the language of the Iguvine Tables), Oscan (the
language of the Samnites et al.) and various dialects of cental Italy which
share characteristics of both major languages. They are very closely related
to Latin, yet significantly different. In fact it can be argued that Latin
is a more archaic language than other Italic dialects. It also seems further
removed from Greek than the other dialects of Italy. Eg. the Latin word for
"fire" being "ignis" while the Umbrian is "pir", and slightly more
Greek-sounding.
Your contention that we should look at the Patricians of early Rome and
their origins sounds like an act of futility. The very patrician gens the
"Claudii" were Sabine (and therefore Sabellic) in origin and were accepted
into Rome as Patricians back in the 5th century. So in effect you don't have
to be a "founding father" to become a patrician. It's more or less certain
that other families had a similar origin. Let us also not forget that the
first settlements on the seven hills of Rome were separate entities. There
is also a theory that these separate villages were populated by Latins AND
Sabines. The "Rape of the Sabine Women" gains more cred if we think of early
Roman settlement in this light. The Sabines almost certainly spoke a
Sabellic language related to Oscan and Umbrian and grew out of the earlier
Appennine culture like most of the hill tribes of Italy.
Why were the Patricians so very important in Roman politics and culture?
Show me an indo-european population that dosn't have something akin to
"patricians"! In an agricultural warrior society - which the indo-europeans
most probably were - you're always going to have class division. It's the
hall-mark of an indo-european population. It goes with the territory. A
minority of people exploiting the majority.
Rome was probably always settled way back into the depths of prehistory.
Look at the land: most impotant ford in the Tiber, rolling fertile hills,
metalliferous hills to the north, plain of Campania to the south. The region
was always going to become a place of importance. Why should we look to Asia
Minor for the origin of Rome when every man and his dog in Italy was trying
to get a piece of Latium? Etruscans, Sabines, Latins, Volsci, Aequi,
Hernici, Aurunci, Samnites and others all tried to take the lands of Latium
from those who held it earlier.
Hellas taught Rome, but she didn't give birth to her!
Marcello
Arjan
"Honest Aryan" <honest...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:a913c2b1.0208...@posting.google.com...
> Joe Bernstein <j...@sfbooks.com> wrote:
>
> > [1] Oh, India. Briefly, the Standard Wisdom up to about 1970 was
> > that the Aryans...
>
> ...invade...
> ...and invade...
> ..and INVADE.
> Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
>
> "San Francisco Chronicle, 26 May, 1999
>
> History of Ancient Indian Conquest Told in Modern Genes, Experts Say
> Robert Cooke, Newsday
>
> Like an indelible signature enduring through a hundred generations,
> genes that entered India when conquering hordes swooped down from the
> north thousands of years ago are still there, and remain entrenched at
> the top of the caste system, scientists report. Analyses of the male Y
> chromosome, plus genes hidden in small cellular bodies called
> mitochondria, show that today's genetic patterns agree with accounts
> of ancient Indo-European warriors' conquering the Indian subcontinent.
>
>
> The invaders apparently shoved the local men aside, took their women
> and set up the rigid caste system that exists today. Their descendants
> are still the elite within Hindu society.
>
>
in the egg and not in the sperm) so if the invaders took local wives their
descendants would have local mitochondria.
Compare with the "Black Eve" theory about humans coming from east
Africa, they are not talking about black Adam for a reason.
Arjan
Arjan
"Marcello Fabretti" <marcellu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d76e...@news.iprimus.com.au...
> I think you're championing Greece as the origin of Rome a little too
> vehemently.
>
> The Romans were Latins first and foremost. The Romans, as Latins were,
> Italians. People seem to forget that.
I tried to explain but he is so attached to the fairy tales.
<snip>
Katherine Tredwell
That's the part of the analysis that shows they married local women.
The mitochondria (according to the argument) are local; only the
Y-chromosones were brought in by invaders, making them all male.
Katherine Tredwell