Pelasgians
o8TY
Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku", which
were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name Pelasgian.
The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic) falaqa,
"to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan subgroup of
PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
northwestern branches had left it.
--
o8TY
tommy
Just to intrigue you further they might be called the 'people of the sea' as
inscribed in temples in Egypt. They're unsubstantiated guesses though.
"o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ruTx9.24471$Sr6.7...@ozemail.com.au...
Agamemnon
tommy <tro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dc89aff$0$20540$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> I'm Greek. Pelagos means sea in Greek. So Pelasgoi might mean seafarers.
Correct.
> Just to intrigue you further they might be called the 'people of the sea'
as
> inscribed in temples in Egypt. They're unsubstantiated guesses though.
They are not unsubstantiated. The Sea Peoples consisted of Greek tribes
including the Pelasgi (Pelast), Danai (Tanja), Achaeans (Ekwesh) and
Teukrians (Tjeker). There were also Spartans (Spat ?) referred to.
Agamemnon
> Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
>
> I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku", which
> were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name
Pelasgian.
The name Pelasgian is the same as the Egyptian word Pelast which gives
Palestinian.
The word Pelasgi is a corruption of the same root as the word Thallasa since
the Pelasgi were people of the sea. The Pelasgi were all descended from
Oceanus and their second or third cousins were the Aigialans which means
people of the sea shore.
Aigialans shares the same root as the name Enhelenes who were the people
that Cadmaus took with him to Illyria and this root is also the root of the
word Hellenes.
Before it was called Greece, Greece was known by the name of Pelasgia and
also by the name of Aigialea.
Now since Aigialan and Hellene are from exactly the same root it is obvious
that the name Ellada is another from of Aigialea and therefore Hellas also
derives form Aigialea.
If you take the name Hellas which since it derives from Aigialea means Land
by the Sea and compare it to Pelasgia which is the same as Thallasia it is
obvious that they are all the same word. Hellas is Thallasia the land by the
sea.
Therefore all the Greek tribal names including Achaeans, Aeolians,
Pelasgians, Pelast, Hellenes, Enhleens, Aigialeans, Ionians, Yunni, Ekewesh,
Akhiyawa can be see to derive from just one root as you would expect.
Even the name Greece or G/Ka-R/La-(s) as it would have been writtend in
Linear-B is from the same root as Hellas which in in Linear B "E-R/La-(s)".
Also the Kalesh tribe of Pakistan which were descended from Alexander troops
can be seen to be a corruption of G/Ka-R/La-(s) or Greece or Hellas or
Ekewesh or Pelast.
All the Greek tribal name follow a simple consonantal shift and phonetic
corruption law which existed since Mycenaean and Minoan times.
G <=> K <=> H
H then becomes TH and by Grimms law TH <=> T <=> D and also TH <=> F <=> P
<=> S
R <=> L <=> N
Therefore Pelast = Pe-Ra-s = THa-Ra-s = Thalas(-ia) = Ka-Ra-s = Ge-Ra-s =
Greece where ST <=> T <=> TH
Ge-Ra-(s) = A-Ge-La = A(i)Gia-L(i)a = Aigialea
or working the other way which is the most likely root
Aigialea = E-K/Ge-R/Le-(as) = Ge-Re-(s) = He-Re-(s) = He-La-(s)
> The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
>
> And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic)
falaqa,
> "to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan subgroup
of
> PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
> northwestern branches had left it.
More likely is that since Pelago means island the Arabic word for axe or "to
spilt" came from the Greek world meaning "to be separated" as were the Greek
islands. Remember the Arabs were under Greek rule for 1000 years.
>
> --
> o8TY
>
>
o8TY
news:aqacfm$b5u$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> o8TY <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ruTx9.24471$Sr6.7...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Does anyone here support the view that the Pelasgians originally came
from
> > Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
> >
> > I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku",
which
> > were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name
> Pelasgian.
>
> The name Pelasgian is the same as the Egyptian word Pelast which gives
> Palestinian.
>
> The word Pelasgi is a corruption of the same root as the word Thallasa
since
> the Pelasgi were people of the sea. The Pelasgi were all descended from
> Oceanus and their second or third cousins were the Aigialans which means
> people of the sea shore.
>
As the Greek word "pelago" (sea) does not contain an "s" before the "g", it
is debatable whether "pelago" and "thallassa" can be considered to have the
same root. Unless it can definitely be shown which of the two words came
first, one would merely be engaging in a circular argument as to the
association.
But as the Arkadians were supposed to be the descendents of the Pelasgoi yet
are said by Homer and many others to be almost totally nonconversant with
the sea, it would seem then that even Homer recognised the Pelasgoi as not
being a "sea-people".
However, by the argument (as given below) that "g" and "k" are
interchangable, then the name Pelasgoi could just as easily derive from
"peleku" (double-axe) as it could from "pelago" (sea).
As the double-axe was the principle tool used by the ancient (as well as
modern) Greeks to hew wood and stone for the making of boats and various
stone structures, and as most of the structures built on the mainland during
the Mukenaian period are attributed to the Pelasgians, who also built the
boat Argo, there seems greater scope in associating the name Pelasgian with
the double-axe.
The double-axe may also have been the principle weapon of the Pelasgians in
their conquests, its origins probably extending back into the neolithic -
well before the introduction of the sword - which could also be used to
account for the ancientness of the Pelasgians.
However a major problem SFAIK is that the double-axe has not been found on
the mainland in anywhere near the same quantities as it has on Krete, which
is basically why I raised the post. Whether the mainland Pelasgians
introduced the double axe to Krete seems worthy of further consideration.
The interchanging of "g" for "k" might also account for the introduction of
the "s" in the name Pelasgoi, though I do not quite know how to fully
explain this in linguistic terms, ie whether the "s" accompanies the "g" or
the "k".
I too suspect the word "peleku" was introduced to the Arabs by the
Mukenaians, possibly as early as 1600 BC, however I dispute the connection
of the Pelasgians with the sea.
The way I see the history of the Greek mainland is that, before the
Pelopians (1350-1150) were the true Mukenaians (ie 1600-1350), and before
them were the Kretans who ruled over most of the Aegean (ie 2200-1600 BC).
The physical issue of where the Pelasgians were during all this time needs
to be addressed, and with it their connection with the Arkadians.
> >
> > --
> > o8TY
grapheus
> Just to intrigue you further they might be called the 'people of the sea' as
> inscribed in temples in Egypt. They're unsubstantiated guesses though.
>
I fully agree.
If you can read French, I advise you to read the Chapter 7 of
J.Faucounau's book "Les Proto-Ioniens" (= "the Proto-Ionians"). You
may easily order it from ALAPAGE or AMAZON.FR
(<http://www.alapage.com> Just type the author's name).
Very enlightening !..
Regards
grapheus
Agamemnon
The word Pelagos is actually two words, Pela meanig "settlement" which is
from the same European root as "village" and "polis" and the Phoenician word
"beit" also derives from the same root, and "Ges" or "Gias" meaning land or
earth. Therefore Pelagos means "land that can be settled" and this is
exactly the same meaning as Aigialea which means "Land by the Sea" or
"Ai-gia-lea" from "Gialo" meaning coastal sea which is actual "Gia allo"
meaning "other kind of land" and "Ai" which in all likelihood a shortened
form of "Pela".
Therefore the only difference is the difference between between Pelago and
Pelasgi is the "s".
Because ancient Greece used to be called by the name of Pelasgia and also
Aigialea it is highly likely that these words are acutely the same word.
If the component parts of both words were written together in Linear-B it is
obvious where the "s" comes from since in Linear-B the final "s" was
inserted by the reader at the end of each word rather than being written
down, which is probably also the reason why Greek has two symbols for "s"
one which is used in the middle of words and another which is only used at
the end. Also with Linear-B all the ending infections of the words were
generated by the reader.
Thus Pelago, Pelasgia and Aigialea derive from
Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li
which gives
Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) = Pe-La-(s)-Gi-(a) = Pelasgia
Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) = Pe-La-Gi-(o) = Pelago
(...)-R/La G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li = (a)-Gi-a-Li-(a) = Agialea
>
> But as the Arkadians were supposed to be the descendents of the Pelasgoi
yet
> are said by Homer and many others to be almost totally nonconversant with
> the sea, it would seem then that even Homer recognised the Pelasgoi as not
> being a "sea-people".
The Egyptians said the Pelast or Pelasgi were sea peoples and it was the
Arcadians who colonised Cyprus.
The Arkadians were not the only Pelasgi. The Athenians were also Pelasgi.
>
> However, by the argument (as given below) that "g" and "k" are
> interchangable, then the name Pelasgoi could just as easily derive from
> "peleku" (double-axe) as it could from "pelago" (sea).
Then why would the Egyptians call them Sea Peoples ?
>
> As the double-axe was the principle tool used by the ancient (as well as
> modern) Greeks to hew wood and stone for the making of boats and various
> stone structures, and as most of the structures built on the mainland
during
> the Mukenaian period are attributed to the Pelasgians, who also built the
> boat Argo, there seems greater scope in associating the name Pelasgian
with
> the double-axe.
It was the Minyians who built the Argo.
>
> The double-axe may also have been the principle weapon of the Pelasgians
in
> their conquests, its origins probably extending back into the neolithic -
> well before the introduction of the sword - which could also be used to
> account for the ancientness of the Pelasgians.
>
> However a major problem SFAIK is that the double-axe has not been found on
> the mainland in anywhere near the same quantities as it has on Krete,
which
> is basically why I raised the post. Whether the mainland Pelasgians
> introduced the double axe to Krete seems worthy of further consideration.
>
> The interchanging of "g" for "k" might also account for the introduction
of
> the "s" in the name Pelasgoi, though I do not quite know how to fully
> explain this in linguistic terms, ie whether the "s" accompanies the "g"
or
> the "k".
Its easily explained in linguistic terms since K, G, Gh, H, are all
rotatable and once you get to Gh and H in the sequence a new sequence of
rotations which are H, Gh, TH and TH, F, S become possible.
The Arcadians were the same people as the Aigialeans. All you have to do is
look at the name Arkas who was the king Arkadia was named after. In Linear-B
K would be interchangeable with G therefore Arkas is the same name as Argas
or Argos thus the Arkadians were Argives and the Argives were also
Aigialeans since Phoroneus was the brother of Aigialeus.
If you the name Arkadia derives from the name Arkas then the "dia" in the
name has to mean "land" and must be a corruption of the word "gia",
therefore Arkadia is also Arga-gia which must be the same word as Aigialea.
The most likely scenario is that Arkadia was populated by the decedents of
two tribes, one of which was there originally and probably came from Crete
and the other which moved in later on.
Each tribe pronounced Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li in different ways
In fact the above suggest that there may have been three different tribes
which occupied the land since each of the words Pe-R/La-(s), G/Ki-(a) and
(a)-R/Li means HOME. Pe-R/La-(s) is "settlement", G/Ki-(a) is "land" and
"(a)-R/Li" is also the same word as Area meaning "open land" which can have
the meaning of Sea. So all the words meaning home were combined into the
name of the land.
In fact Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li may have also been the royal title of
the king of the land which was later shorted to Arcas, or Argus or Pelasgus,
or Aigialeus.
What we know is that Greece was not called Hellas until 776 BC about 200
years after Homer therefore Hellas has to be a corruption of "Pe-R/La-(s)"
meaning "settlement".
The land was only called Greece by the Greeks who colonised Italy and these
Greeks who were the first colonists were Arkadians led by Oenotrus the son
of Lycaon in about 1460 BC. Therefore Greece must be a corruption of the
phrase "G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li-(s)" meaning "land which is open" indicating it
was composed of islands surrounded by sea.
In fact "Pe-R/La-(s)" sounds so close to "G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li-(s)" that it is
most probably a corruption of that phrase which was made by one of the
tribes which colonised Greece who picked up the phrase from the first
settlers who were in Crete and Cyprus in 7000 BC whcih is when the Greek
language was born and out of Greek were born all the other European
languages and the Phoenician language.
It was not until between 1350 BC and 1100 BC that the distinction between R
and L and between K and G was made by the Greeks otherwise they would have
included extra letters in Linear-B. Nor was there a distinction between P
and B.
> > >
> > > --
> > > o8TY
>
>
>
Igor
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
How could they have the same root? dont sound even remotely simular to me
Unless it can definitely be shown which of the two words came
> > first, one would merely be engaging in a circular argument as to the
> > association.
>
Excuse me?
> The word Pelagos is actually two words, Pela meanig "settlement" which is
> from the same European root as "village" and "polis" and the Phoenician
word
> "beit" also derives from the same root, and "Ges" or "Gias" meaning land
or
> earth. Therefore Pelagos means "land that can be settled" and this is
> exactly the same meaning as Aigialea which means "Land by the Sea" or
> "Ai-gia-lea" from "Gialo" meaning coastal sea which is actual "Gia allo"
> meaning "other kind of land" and "Ai" which in all likelihood a shortened
> form of "Pela".
absolutely no meaning
>
> Therefore the only difference is the difference between between Pelago and
> Pelasgi is the "s".
how about "i"?
>
> Because ancient Greece used to be called by the name of Pelasgia and also
> Aigialea it is highly likely that these words are acutely the same word.
>
two different areas Pela and Aigi sound like two different words to me
etc.,etc.,.......... all nonesence, take your medicine
Agamemnon
Igor <igo...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:apmy9.1331$NI6.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Learn Greek first then start asking stupid questions.
>
>
> Unless it can definitely be shown which of the two words came
> > > first, one would merely be engaging in a circular argument as to the
> > > association.
> >
>
> Excuse me?
>
> > The word Pelagos is actually two words, Pela meanig "settlement" which
is
> > from the same European root as "village" and "polis" and the Phoenician
> word
> > "beit" also derives from the same root, and "Ges" or "Gias" meaning land
> or
> > earth. Therefore Pelagos means "land that can be settled" and this is
> > exactly the same meaning as Aigialea which means "Land by the Sea" or
> > "Ai-gia-lea" from "Gialo" meaning coastal sea which is actual "Gia allo"
> > meaning "other kind of land" and "Ai" which in all likelihood a
shortened
> > form of "Pela".
>
> absolutely no meaning
That's because you cant speak a word of Greek. What are you doing here
making stupid comments.
>
> >
> > Therefore the only difference is the difference between between Pelago
and
> > Pelasgi is the "s".
>
> how about "i"?
If you knew the basics of the Greek language and its inflections you would
not be asking that stupid question.
>
> >
> > Because ancient Greece used to be called by the name of Pelasgia and
also
> > Aigialea it is highly likely that these words are acutely the same word.
> >
>
> two different areas Pela and Aigi sound like two different words to me
You are an idiot. The "gialea" in Aigialea come from the Greek word "gialo".
What are you done discussing subjects involving a language you know nothing
about ?
o8TY
the original post]
From your previous assertion that Zeus was an early king of Lato on Krete,
and since the Pelasgians are said to have instititued the worship of Zeus on
the Greek mainland, ie at Dodona and on Mt Lukaon in Arkadia, I am surprised
that you do not support the idea that the Pelasgians originated in Krete,
nor with the association of "peleku" to their name, especially since the
cave at Arkaloxori, situated above and to the west of Lato, has yielded a
large find of double axes.After all Marinatos believed this cave to have
been where Zeus was said to have been reared on Krete, that is before this
cave collapsed and the worship of Zeus was shifted to the cave at Dikte,
which is much nearer to Lato.
While a Minyans or two may have been involved with building Argo, a major
component of her construction was a bough cut from the oak of Pelasgian Zeus
at Dodona, and which was no doubt shaped using an axe, still the favoured
tool used by Greek shipwrights today, but which in ancient times may have
been the double axe. Besides weren't the Minyans also related to the
Pelasgians.
Douglas G. Kilday
> Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
>
the Eteocretans "true Cretans" (Od. 19:175-7). He calls Argos Pelasgian (Il.
2:681) and refers to Pelasgians from Larisa (Il. 2:840-3). Other authors
mention Pelasgians in Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Arcadia, etc.
Whoever the Pelasgians were, there seems no reason whatever to suppose that
they originated in Crete.
> I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku", which
> were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name
Pelasgian.
>
The Greek ethnic name <Pelasgoi> probably results from *<pelag-> + *<-skoi>,
much as the verb <misgo:> 'I mix' results from *<mig-> + *<-sko:>. The
element *<pelag-> is found in the Illyrian tribal names <Pelagones> and
<Pelagi:tai>. The suffix appears in the Latinized names of Illyrian tribes
<Aravisci:>, <Scordisci:>, and <Taurisci:>. Hence the name <Pelasgoi> is
almost certainly of Illyrian origin. The meaning is probably 'ancient ones'
or the like (cf. Albanian <plag> 'old'; Epirote <peleiai> 'old men and old
women' according to Hesychius, 'priestesses of Dodona' wrongly derived from
'pigeons' by Herodotus). The name is thus best understood as the Greek form
of what the Epirote Illyrians called those who had come before them, and is
very unlikely to have any connection with <pelekus> 'axe'.
> The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
>
> And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic)
falaqa,
> "to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan subgroup
of
> PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
> northwestern branches had left it.
>
Akkadian <pilakku> 'axe' shows the antiquity of this word in Semitic. Its
distribution in IE languages (Greek <pelekus>, Sanskrit <paraçu->) suggests
an origin in Indo-Mediterranean substrate, not a late loan to PIE.
DGK
Agamemnon
> [While I appreciate your lengthy response, snip, to return to the essence
of
> the original post]
>
> From your previous assertion that Zeus was an early king of Lato on Krete,
> and since the Pelasgians are said to have instititued the worship of Zeus
on
> the Greek mainland, ie at Dodona and on Mt Lukaon in Arkadia, I am
surprised
> that you do not support the idea that the Pelasgians originated in Krete,
How could the Pelasgians have originated for Crete. How did they get there.
The Greeks all originated from Macedonia which is where the oldest
inscriptions are dating back 8000 years.
The Pelasgians and Aigialeans were part of the Inachid line which was part
of the Oceanid and originated from the Peloponnese which was originally
named after them Pelasgia and Aigialea.
Zeus was part of the Cronid line and even the name of Crete or Kriti is a
corruption of Zeus's title Kronidis.
Deukalion was part of the Iapetid line and he came from Phthiotis.
Phthiotis gets its name from Iapetus which in the bible is spelled Japheth
hence Phthio-tis.
The line of Troy the city of Illium worshiped Helios as it God and he was
the son of Hyperion which indicated that this line originated from Iberia or
once ruled there and Piraeus was probably one of his seats also hence the
historical link between Athens and Troy.
Coeus was from the island of Ceos or maybe Cos and Crius was from Chios.
As for the female Titans. Mnemosyne was from Lemnos, and Phoebe may have
been from Thebes, and the rest Themis, Tethys, Thea and Rhea and Phoebe as
well are all corruptions of the word Thammis meaning "queen"
> nor with the association of "peleku" to their name, especially since the
> cave at Arkaloxori, situated above and to the west of Lato, has yielded a
> large find of double axes.After all Marinatos believed this cave to have
> been where Zeus was said to have been reared on Krete, that is before this
> cave collapsed and the worship of Zeus was shifted to the cave at Dikte,
> which is much nearer to Lato.
According to Homer there were Pelasgians who lived in Crete but he gives the
impression that they were in the minority. The "Peleku" may have got it name
because it was used on the islands or Pelagos or to make ships or Ploia.
This implies that the Pelasgian must have come from the mainland and
colonised Crete.
Saiapis or Serapis was a Minoan king of Crete in 1625 BC and is recorded by
that name in Linear A inscriptions at Tiliss which is the location of the
Arkaloxori cave. Since Serapis was also Apis who was the brother of Pelasgus
the son of Niobe this indicates a colonisation of Crete by the Pelasgians.
All of the Peloponnese was called Apia after Apis but he only controls one
city in Crete.
>
> While a Minyans or two may have been involved with building Argo, a major
> component of her construction was a bough cut from the oak of Pelasgian
Zeus
> at Dodona, and which was no doubt shaped using an axe, still the favoured
> tool used by Greek shipwrights today, but which in ancient times may have
> been the double axe. Besides weren't the Minyans also related to the
> Pelasgians.
The Minyans were all descended from the daughters of Minyas the son of
Chryses who ruled at Orchomenos in Bootia not the one in Arkadia. Its not
perfectly clear where they came from since Chryses was descended from
Poseidon.
The question should not be where the Pelasagians came from since there is
every indication that all the tribes of mainland Greece were called Pelasgi
even the Aegialeans, the Hellenes and Enhelenes. Herodotus says that
Hellenic was originally a dialect of Pelasgic and I have already shown that
Hellas is a corruption of Pelas(gia). The question should be where did the
Cretans come from.
Agamemnon
"Douglas G. Kilday" <fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:PRwy9.1127$Hs2.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ruTx9.24471$Sr6.7...@ozemail.com.au...
> > Does anyone here support the view that the Pelasgians originally came
from
> > Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
> >
> Homer does not support this view. He clearly contrasts the Pelasgians with
> the Eteocretans "true Cretans" (Od. 19:175-7). He calls Argos Pelasgian
(Il.
That is NOT what Eteocretans means. The Eteocretans were Hittite Cretans
from Caria and Lycia who served king Minos. Before Minos I ruled (1420-1377
(or 62) BC) Crete Asterius the son of Anax rulled both Lycia and Crete. In
Linear B inscriptions Wanax is the title of the king.
> 2:681) and refers to Pelasgians from Larisa (Il. 2:840-3). Other authors
> mention Pelasgians in Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, Arcadia, etc.
> Whoever the Pelasgians were, there seems no reason whatever to suppose
that
> they originated in Crete.
>
> > I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku",
which
> > were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name
> Pelasgian.
> >
> The Greek ethnic name <Pelasgoi> probably results from *<pelag-> +
*<-skoi>,
There is no such Greek ending as ski. Ski is Slavic.
The only way Pelasgos can be broken up in Greek is into "Pelas" and "Gios"
where Gios can mean either "of the Earth" or Yios meaninf "Son of".
> much as the verb <misgo:> 'I mix' results from *<mig-> + *<-sko:>. The
> element *<pelag-> is found in the Illyrian tribal names <Pelagones> and
> <Pelagi:tai>.
Illyria was a colony of Cadmus and the Greek tribe of the Enhelenes. They
were Phoenician Greeks who were named after Illyrus the son of Cadmus and
Harmonia the daughter of Ares which was probably the generic title of all of
the kings of Thrace and a corruption of Tereus which is the same name as
Tegyrus and since Teucer was ruling Troy at this time (1460-1440 BC) this
may indicate that it was also colonised by Thracians and Teukrians.
In the biblcal line of decent form Japheth there is no mention of any
Illyrus, only Rhodus, Thrakos, and Elisa (Hellene) who are the sons of Javan
or Ion. In other words the Thracians were Aigialean Ionian Greeks who are of
the same decent as the Pelasgians.
The suffix appears in the Latinized names of Illyrian tribes
> <Aravisci:>, <Scordisci:>, and <Taurisci:>. Hence the name <Pelasgoi> is
There you go. The Taurisci are obviously descended from Teucer.
> almost certainly of Illyrian origin. The meaning is probably 'ancient
ones'
BULLSHIT. Illyria was a GREEK colony. All of its kings were Phoenician
Greeks.
The meaning of Pelasgi is PEOPLE OF THE SEA as is sated in Egyptian
inscriptions.
> or the like (cf. Albanian <plag> 'old'; Epirote <peleiai> 'old men and old
If you bothered to learn Greek or even basic English you would knew that
Palio pronocued "Bal-yo" is the GREEK word meaning old. The Albanians stole
the word from the Greeks.
> women' according to Hesychius, 'priestesses of Dodona' wrongly derived
from
> 'pigeons' by Herodotus). The name is thus best understood as the Greek
form
> of what the Epirote Illyrians called those who had come before them, and
is
The Epriots were GREEK. Why the hell would the most important centre of
Zeus cult be located in Epirus if it was not Greek.
> very unlikely to have any connection with <pelekus> 'axe'.
>
> > The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
> >
> > And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic)
> falaqa,
> > "to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan
subgroup
> of
> > PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
> > northwestern branches had left it.
> >
> Akkadian <pilakku> 'axe' shows the antiquity of this word in Semitic. Its
> distribution in IE languages (Greek <pelekus>, Sanskrit <paraçu->)
suggests
> an origin in Indo-Mediterranean substrate, not a late loan to PIE.
It also suggests extensive Greek colonisation of Syria-Palestine and
Mesopotamia before the emergence of the Sumerians. The oldest stone built
settlements in this region are NOT in Mesopotamia but in Anatolia and date
back 20,000 years.
The term Semitic should NEVER be used to describe the Afro-Asiatic language
group since Shem the son of Noah was an Indo-European by decent. Lud the
progenitor of the Lydians was a son of Shem and the Lydians were Europeans
that spoke and Greco-Hittite dialect. The Hittites were descended from Ham
the brother of Shem and were also Europeans and the Greeks and Thracians
were descended from Japheth or Iapetus. All of Noahs decedents were European
tribes and were NOTHING to do with the Afro-Asiatics which the bible clearly
differentiates from the sons of Noah as being pre-extant.
It is time to abandon the racist prejudice instituted by today Jews who
falsely claim decent from Noah in order to make political claim of Palestine
or Pelasgia. Today's Jews have no relation to any of the people of the bible
but are Maccabbee Bedouin Arabs. Their language is not Semitic but Akkadian
and its closed relative is Arabic. The name of Palestine alone indictes that
is was a European land.
>
> DGK
>
>
>
Igor
The question should be where did the
> Cretans come from.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I am sure you have the answer. Homer came to you in your dreams and
explained it to you.
Igor
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
Without Jews, you would not know about Noah, you kook
>
>
>
Agamemnon
The biblical Ioudai were EXTINCT when the bible was written by the GREEKS in
262 BC on the commission of Antiochus Theos as a history of Syria-Palestine
based on the Egyptian Annals and placed in the library of Alexandria where
it was plagiarised and systematically dissembled by Judas Maccabbee in 167
BC.
Less than one hundredth of the original Greek work survives today in the
form of an epitome, the so called Old Testament or Septuagint. Why do you
think that almost every single line begins with "And". All the background
description and geographic information was cut out and only the bare facts
were left in.
Greek is the only language where the names of the Assyrian and Egyptian
kings make any sense becue the Hebrew version is a tranlation of the Greek.
If the Hebrew version was the original then the names of the Assyrian and
Egyptians kings would be spelled exactly the same way the are in
inscriptions but the are not.
Igor
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
June R Harton
"Douglas G. Kilday" <fuf...@chorus.net> wrote in message
news:PRwy9.1127$Hs2.1...@kent.svc.tds.net...
*<-skoi>,
> much as the verb <misgo:> 'I mix' results from *<mig-> + *<-sko:>. The
> element *<pelag-> is found in the Illyrian tribal names <Pelagones>
Pelagonians were not an Illyrian tribe...assuming you are referring to
something that you refer to as non-Greek.
> and <Pelagi:tai>.
And that is Greek.
>The suffix appears in the Latinized names of Illyrian tribes
> <Aravisci:>, <Scordisci:>, and <Taurisci:>.
Different as obvious.
> Hence the name <Pelasgoi> is
> almost certainly of Illyrian origin.
No, no connection.
> The meaning is probably 'ancient ones'
> or the like (cf. Albanian <plag> 'old'; Epirote <peleiai> 'old men and old
> women' according to Hesychius, 'priestesses of Dodona' wrongly derived
from
> 'pigeons' by Herodotus).
But, it is Greek not Illyrian/Albanian.
>he name is thus best understood as the Greek form
> of what the Epirote Illyrians
The Epirotes are specifically identified as Greek speakers as far back
as Herodotos. The very text you are referring to 'pigeons' is but one
example.
from: Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
o8TY
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Yuuy9.25376$Sr6.7...@ozemail.com.au...
> > [While I appreciate your lengthy response, snip, to return to the
essence
> of
> > the original post]
> >
> > From your previous assertion that Zeus was an early king of Lato on
Krete,
> > and since the Pelasgians are said to have instititued the worship of
Zeus
> on
> > the Greek mainland, ie at Dodona and on Mt Lukaon in Arkadia, I am
> surprised
> > that you do not support the idea that the Pelasgians originated in
Krete,
>
> How could the Pelasgians have originated for Crete. How did they get
there.
The history of the region gets terribly murky before c.2200BC, the advent of
the Minoan civilisation. The Pelasgians may have been indiginous to Krete by
this stage, having floated across from the mainland centuries/millenia
before hand. A Pelasgian tribe on Krete may thus have returned to conquer
the mainland, and brought the worship of Zeus with them.
> The Greeks all originated from Macedonia which is where the oldest
> inscriptions are dating back 8000 years.
>
Pella, the name given to the capital of Makedonia, might also be a Pelasgian
name. This might go some way to explain the alliance between the Arkadians
and Makedonians in the fourth century.
> The Pelasgians and Aigialeans were part of the Inachid line which was part
> of the Oceanid and originated from the Peloponnese which was originally
> named after them Pelasgia and Aigialea.
>
> Zeus was part of the Cronid line and even the name of Crete or Kriti is a
> corruption of Zeus's title Kronidis.
>
> Deukalion was part of the Iapetid line and he came from Phthiotis.
> Phthiotis gets its name from Iapetus which in the bible is spelled Japheth
> hence Phthio-tis.
>
Deukalion founded the oracle of Zeus at Dodona after Pelasgos secured the
region
> The line of Troy the city of Illium worshiped Helios as it God and he was
> the son of Hyperion which indicated that this line originated from Iberia
or
> once ruled there and Piraeus was probably one of his seats also hence the
> historical link between Athens and Troy.
>
Yet Zeus was on the side of the Trojans in the Trojan War, as were the
Kretans and Sarpedon ("oak-foot?" - compare with Saronic Gulf said by Pliny
to named after the oaks which grew along its shores).
Perhaps Sarapis ("oak-bull" - see Sarpedon above) ruled on the mainland
while Pelasgos ruled on Krete. There were twenty or so cities on Krete with
Pelasgian/Arkadian names, including Aptera, Arkades, Arkaloxori, Gortyn, and
some of the cities around Phaistos, though when they were founded I don't
know. A full list of the cities would prove enlightening.
> >
> > While a Minyans or two may have been involved with building Argo, a
major
> > component of her construction was a bough cut from the oak of Pelasgian
> Zeus
> > at Dodona, and which was no doubt shaped using an axe, still the
favoured
> > tool used by Greek shipwrights today, but which in ancient times may
have
> > been the double axe. Besides weren't the Minyans also related to the
> > Pelasgians.
>
> The Minyans were all descended from the daughters of Minyas the son of
> Chryses who ruled at Orchomenos in Bootia not the one in Arkadia. Its not
> perfectly clear where they came from since Chryses was descended from
> Poseidon.
>
That the names are identical suggests some connection between the Minyans
and Arkadians. Poseidon was worshipped by the nearby Mantinaeans in the oak
forest sea between Tegea and Mantinea, and by other Arkadians. Some Minyans
are also said to have settled in the southwest region of Arkadia where they
managed to escape execution by the Spartans, while other Minyans were
restored to Boiotia by Alexander the Great. The original Minyans may have
come from Orchomenos in Arkadia, said to be founded by a descendent of
Pelasgos, shifted to Thessaly and then after draining Lake Kopais, built
another Orchomenos there. There were two Pelasgian cantons in Thessaly,
Pelasgiotis and Pelasgian Argos. Wherever Mukenaian tholos tombs were built
there seem to have been Pelasgians, ie throughout the Peloponnese, at
Boiotian Orchomenos, in Thessaly, and around Phaistos in Krete.
> The question should not be where the Pelasagians came from since there is
> every indication that all the tribes of mainland Greece were called
Pelasgi
> even the Aegialeans, the Hellenes and Enhelenes. Herodotus says that
> Hellenic was originally a dialect of Pelasgic and I have already shown
that
> Hellas is a corruption of Pelas(gia). The question should be where did the
> Cretans come from.
>
>
It has been suggested that the Selloi or Elloi, barefoot preists of Zeus at
Dodona, may provide the origin of the name Ellenes.
Slav Slayer
What geeks are you refering to? Maybe the triangular head mongoloids such as yourself you
pathetic slavophone.
Agamemnon
The dialects and variations of the generic tribal names which exist in
Greece indicate that the Greek language evolved 9000 years ago so would be
consistent with early Greek tribe migrating to Crete and Cyprus at that time
for which there is evidence for, but the way that Linear A is written
indicates that other tribes such as the Egyptians or Hurrians were there as
well. Half the names in Linear A sound Greek but the rest sound Egyptian.
If there were Pelasgians in Crete there were many more on the mainland and
it is from the mainland Pelasgains that all of the mainland Greek tribes
were descended. The archaeology indicates that the Greeks migrated south
from Macedonia and it must be Macedonia where the Greek mother language
proto-Pelasgian evolved which explains the similarities between Greek and
Phrygian/Armenian and Thracian. Greek writing is documented in Macedonia as
far back as 5000 BC.
According to the genealogy given in the bible the Hellenes, Thracians,
Cretans and Rhodians were all brothers, therefore the Cretens cannot have
been Pelasgians unless the Thracians were also Pelasgians.
In about 2200 BC there was a migration into Macedonia from Iberia of a M173
DNA linage tribe and this tribes DNA is present in the population of Armenia
which was a Phrygian colony. Therefore the easiest way to figure out who the
original Cretans were is to look at their Y Chromosome DNA, but
unfortunately I dont have any data specific the Crete.
The best bet is that is that the Cretans were already there long before the
M173 migration and that in 2200 BC the M173 linage migrated to Create and
southern Greece and became the ruling class. In about 1800 BC I suspect
either the Egyptians or Hurrians also migrated to Create and become another
ruling class and this was the time that Linear A was invented.
In 1600 BC there was another migration from Macedonia of another Greek tribe
which conquered the Cretans and replace their civilisation. It was from this
migration that the Arkadians came from since Pelasgus was the son of Niobe
the granddaughter of Inachus and Inachus was the cousin of Zeus the ruler of
Lato.
>
> > The Greeks all originated from Macedonia which is where the oldest
> > inscriptions are dating back 8000 years.
> >
>
> Pella, the name given to the capital of Makedonia, might also be a
Pelasgian
> name. This might go some way to explain the alliance between the Arkadians
> and Makedonians in the fourth century.
Pella has to be a Pelasgian name since Macedonia was where all the Greek
tribes originated from.
>
> > The Pelasgians and Aigialeans were part of the Inachid line which was
part
> > of the Oceanid and originated from the Peloponnese which was originally
> > named after them Pelasgia and Aigialea.
> >
> > Zeus was part of the Cronid line and even the name of Crete or Kriti is
a
> > corruption of Zeus's title Kronidis.
> >
> > Deukalion was part of the Iapetid line and he came from Phthiotis.
> > Phthiotis gets its name from Iapetus which in the bible is spelled
Japheth
> > hence Phthio-tis.
> >
>
> Deukalion founded the oracle of Zeus at Dodona after Pelasgos secured the
> region
This was Pelasgus the son of Palaichthon if he was around at the time of
Deukalion who Euripides makes the ruler of Argos insted of Gelanor at the
time that Danaus came to Greece.
>
> > The line of Troy the city of Illium worshiped Helios as it God and he
was
> > the son of Hyperion which indicated that this line originated from
Iberia
> or
> > once ruled there and Piraeus was probably one of his seats also hence
the
> > historical link between Athens and Troy.
> >
>
> Yet Zeus was on the side of the Trojans in the Trojan War, as were the
There is more that one Zeus being referred to by Homer. In the case of the
Zeus of Agamemnon's dream this was clearly a reference to Nestor.
Sarapis was probably the root of the name Serpadon. The Linear-A name
Nodamate was almost certainly the root of the name Radamathys.
> while Pelasgos ruled on Krete. There were twenty or so cities on Krete
with
> Pelasgian/Arkadian names, including Aptera, Arkades, Arkaloxori, Gortyn,
and
> some of the cities around Phaistos, though when they were founded I don't
> know. A full list of the cities would prove enlightening.
>
Dont forget that Tectemus the son of Dorus also invaded Crete at the time of
Minos I and Crete was depopulated three times, at the time of Deukalion,
after Minos II went to Italy and after the Trojan War.
> > >
> > > While a Minyans or two may have been involved with building Argo, a
> major
> > > component of her construction was a bough cut from the oak of
Pelasgian
> > Zeus
> > > at Dodona, and which was no doubt shaped using an axe, still the
> favoured
> > > tool used by Greek shipwrights today, but which in ancient times may
> have
> > > been the double axe. Besides weren't the Minyans also related to the
> > > Pelasgians.
> >
> > The Minyans were all descended from the daughters of Minyas the son of
> > Chryses who ruled at Orchomenos in Bootia not the one in Arkadia. Its
not
> > perfectly clear where they came from since Chryses was descended from
> > Poseidon.
> >
>
> That the names are identical suggests some connection between the Minyans
> and Arkadians. Poseidon was worshipped by the nearby Mantinaeans in the
oak
> forest sea between Tegea and Mantinea, and by other Arkadians. Some
Minyans
Poseidon could be a reference to whoever was sea lord and this would have
probably been the Cretans.
Also there was a Lycastus who ruled after Minos I in about 1362 BC which
could mean that he was the father of Chryses or that Minos I was the
grandfather of Chryses.
> are also said to have settled in the southwest region of Arkadia where
they
> managed to escape execution by the Spartans, while other Minyans were
> restored to Boiotia by Alexander the Great. The original Minyans may have
> come from Orchomenos in Arkadia, said to be founded by a descendent of
> Pelasgos, shifted to Thessaly and then after draining Lake Kopais, built
> another Orchomenos there. There were two Pelasgian cantons in Thessaly,
> Pelasgiotis and Pelasgian Argos. Wherever Mukenaian tholos tombs were
built
> there seem to have been Pelasgians, ie throughout the Peloponnese, at
> Boiotian Orchomenos, in Thessaly, and around Phaistos in Krete.
>
>
> > The question should not be where the Pelasagians came from since there
is
> > every indication that all the tribes of mainland Greece were called
> Pelasgi
> > even the Aegialeans, the Hellenes and Enhelenes. Herodotus says that
> > Hellenic was originally a dialect of Pelasgic and I have already shown
> that
> > Hellas is a corruption of Pelas(gia). The question should be where did
the
> > Cretans come from.
> >
> >
>
> It has been suggested that the Selloi or Elloi, barefoot preists of Zeus
at
> Dodona, may provide the origin of the name Ellenes.
>
I don't think so.
The similarities between the names Hellenes, Enhelenes and Aigaileans and
the location of these tribes makes it pretty certain that Hellenes was a
corruption of the name Aigaileans. The further north you go the more the
name is corrupted.
Aigaileans (north Peloponnesian tribe descended from Inachus) > Enhelenes
(Bootian tribe that served Cadmus) > Hellenes (tribe originating from
Phthiotis in Thessaly).
The name "Pelasgialeans" was probably the original name of all these tribes
and is probably the root of the name Palaichthon (Pel-Enhelene) the father
of Pelasgus.
Igor
"Slav Slayer" <Anonymous...@See.Comment.Header> wrote in message
news:689M9FMJ37571.8177662037@Gilgamesh-frog.org...
Xtes-00k
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message news:337ae51f.02110...@posting.google.com...
o8TY
I do not dispute that the Pelasgians were more prolific on the mainland, but
with Kretan culture dominating the Aegean between 2200 and 1600, one would
tend
to focus on Krete for guidance during this period. After all, stone
construction on the mainland, which were said to have been built by the
Pelasgians,
was nowhere near that of Krete until after 1600.
If you still maintain that Zeus was an early king on Krete in around 1600
BC, how else do you explain the worship of Zeus spreading to the mainland
after this date if it was not brought there by Pelasgians on Krete? (see
below **)
> According to the genealogy given in the bible the Hellenes, Thracians,
> Cretans and Rhodians were all brothers, therefore the Cretens cannot have
> been Pelasgians unless the Thracians were also Pelasgians.
>
That may well have been the case with the coastal Thrakians and Makedonians
but not necessarily those inland.
> In about 2200 BC there was a migration into Macedonia from Iberia of a
M173
> DNA linage tribe and this tribes DNA is present in the population of
Armenia
> which was a Phrygian colony. Therefore the easiest way to figure out who
the
> original Cretans were is to look at their Y Chromosome DNA, but
> unfortunately I dont have any data specific the Crete.
>
> The best bet is that is that the Cretans were already there long before
the
> M173 migration and that in 2200 BC the M173 linage migrated to Create and
> southern Greece and became the ruling class. In about 1800 BC I suspect
> either the Egyptians or Hurrians also migrated to Create and become
another
> ruling class and this was the time that Linear A was invented.
>
Would this have been an overland or oversea migration of Iberians? If
overseas they could have stayed awhile on Krete before heading off
northwards. But they seem not to have left a material trace. Likewise,
according to Herodotus, Egyptians also had traversed north to the Danube and
some are said to have settled in the Peloponnese.
> In 1600 BC there was another migration from Macedonia of another Greek
tribe
> which conquered the Cretans and replace their civilisation. It was from
this
> migration that the Arkadians came from since Pelasgus was the son of Niobe
> the granddaughter of Inachus and Inachus was the cousin of Zeus the ruler
of
> Lato.
>
> >
> > > The Greeks all originated from Macedonia which is where the oldest
> > > inscriptions are dating back 8000 years.
> > >
> >
> > Pella, the name given to the capital of Makedonia, might also be a
> Pelasgian name. This might go some way to explain the alliance between the
Arkadians
> > and Makedonians in the fourth century.
>
> Pella has to be a Pelasgian name since Macedonia was where all the Greek
> tribes originated from.
>
With the earlier capital of Makedonia known as Aigai before the 4th century
capital was built at Pella, I now sense this relationship. The new name
Pella, however, still seems to suggest a northwards migration of Pelasgians
(as evidenced by the Makedonians claiming their descent from Argive Herakles
and Tegean Phylakos), hence pointing to the southern formation of the
Pelasgians. The Pelasgian push northwards is also found in the settlement of
Mysia by Tegean Telephus. While the Pelasgians may well have descended from
the northern Aigai, they do not appear to have existed in name at the time
of the earlier southern migration of Aigai. Hence I am still advocating the
connection of the name Pelasgian with "peleku" on Krete.
They were all no doubt local variations of the same Zeus.
I can accept that "peleku" came with the Pelasgians to Krete. But then would
this not imply that Zeus existed on the mainland before 1600, before Zeus
became king on Krete. (see above **)
The Minyans may have been the descendents of the first wave of Pelasgian
settlers on Crete, perhaps named after Minos I , who then relocated to
Thessaly when Krete became too overcrowded, before moving onto Orchomenos in
Boiotia. The animosity directed against the Minyans in the Peloponnese by
the Spartans might have been due to an earlier crossing of paths in Thessaly
or Boiotia.
There was also Helen in Lakonia, the wife of Menelaos. Perhaps the Hellenes
etc reflect the northwards push by Herakles from the Peloponnese, first to
the northeast as far as Makedonia (hence the Larissa in these parts), then
to the northwest to as far as Dodona (hence the Argos in these parts).
o8TY
In the Homeric poems, pelekus denotes a "double-axe", usually deemed a weapon though it certainly was a regular tool, while in modern Greek pelekizo refers to a "stone cutter or mason". Whereas most construction in stone on the mainland during the Mukenaian period is attributed to the Pelasgians, the axe was the traditional and principal tool used by Greek shipwrights to build their timber boats, to bring down bulls in sacrifice, and possibly also to split rocks.
--
o8TY
"Xtes-00k" <christ...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:wPGA9.5290$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
grapheus
> palace of great antiquity, but we can look with more certainty on some
> of the ancient foundations of the fortress wall. This wall was called
> Pelargic or Pelasgic by the Athenians; and it seems likely that the word
> preserves the name of the ancient inhabitants of the place, the
> Pelasgoi......The most simple explanation of the name Pelargikon is that
> it was formed by popular etymology (with a suggestion of pelargos..
> pelargoV
> "stork" from Pelasgikon."
>
> From J. B. Bury. --History of Greece to the death of Alexander the
> Great.
The words "popular etymology" have a clear meanning !... Linguists use
these words for "false etymology". There is no example of R becoming
S. ONLY the CONTRARY, i.e. S becoming R is true (example : Latin).
For the rest, I invite again people interested in the SOLUTION of the
"Pelasgians' problem" to read J. Faucounau's book "Les Proto-Ioniens"
(References hereafter).
Regards
grapheus
o8TY
> "Xtes-00k" <christ...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:<wPGA9.5290$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > "On the Athenian Acropolis there are few stones suppose to belong to a
> > palace of great antiquity, but we can look with more certainty on some
> > of the ancient foundations of the fortress wall. This wall was called
> > Pelargic or Pelasgic by the Athenians; and it seems likely that the word
> > preserves the name of the ancient inhabitants of the place, the
> > Pelasgoi......The most simple explanation of the name Pelargikon is that
> > it was formed by popular etymology (with a suggestion of pelargos..
> > pelargoV
> > "stork" from Pelasgikon."
> >
> > From J. B. Bury. --History of Greece to the death of Alexander the
> > Great.
>
> The words "popular etymology" have a clear meanning !... Linguists use
> these words for "false etymology". There is no example of R becoming
> S. ONLY the CONTRARY, i.e. S becoming R is true (example : Latin).
>
Would you have any ideas for how the S got before the G in pelago to form
Pelasgos, or before the K in peleku for that matter.
tommy
Interesting. In modern Greek it is Paleoi the old. So far the name has the
following guesses
Axe, (building walls).
Stork, (Pelargoi).
Sea People,
Old (original people).
All have interesting explanations. It seems though they are discriptive
names, not their original ethnic name, most likely an ethnic slur (Like
calling the Jews by the ethnic name Stingy).
Oddly enough with a little stretch of logic all the above can be
assimilated. They were the original people in some areas of Greece, Mostly
sea people, that used the axes and build walls. Storks lived by the sea and
got the name Pelargoi from that, not the other way around.
Someone elses's opinion. He also states about 4-5 tribes that were Pelasgoi.
http://www.hostkingdom.net/gktrib.html
PELASGOI An Indo-European tribe, that came into the Hellenic region appr.
3000 BCE. They lived in western Thessaly and Epirus. Afterwards they
colonized not only Argolis and Arcadia, but also some of the Aegean islands,
Attica, Crete, Ionia, Achaea, Phocis, Phthiotis, Euboea, Kristonia and
Sicyon.
a.. Pelasgos
b.. Chloros
Most of them disappeared after the end of the Mycenean era, but some
Pelasgian communities survived till the beginning of the 5th century BCE in
Kristonia and Propontis.
grapheus
> "grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
> news:337ae51f.02111...@posting.google.com...
> > "Xtes-00k" <christ...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:<wPGA9.5290$vM1.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > > "On the Athenian Acropolis there are few stones suppose to belong to a
> > > palace of great antiquity, but we can look with more certainty on some
> > > of the ancient foundations of the fortress wall. This wall was called
> > > Pelargic or Pelasgic by the Athenians; and it seems likely that the word
> > > preserves the name of the ancient inhabitants of the place, the
> > > Pelasgoi......The most simple explanation of the name Pelargikon is that
> > > it was formed by popular etymology (with a suggestion of pelargos..
> > > pelargoV
> > > "stork" from Pelasgikon."
> > >
> > > From J. B. Bury. --History of Greece to the death of Alexander the
> > > Great.
> >
> > The words "popular etymology" have a clear meanning !... Linguists use
> > these words for "false etymology". There is no example of R becoming
> > S. ONLY the CONTRARY, i.e. S becoming R is true (example : Latin).
> >
>
> Would you have any ideas for how the S got before the G in pelago to form
> Pelasgos, or before the K in peleku for that matter.
>
I follow on this matter the explanation of the great Bulgarian
linguist Vl. Georgiev : *Pelag-skoi has given Pelasgoi. The
(diminutive) -SKOS suffix is well known in Ancient Greek : e.g.
neanias --> neaniskos.
grapheus
Agamemnon
The stone construction on the mainland was completely different to that of
Crete. Therefore the Pelasgians cannot have come from Crete. The Archaeology
show a gradual movement of Pelasgian stone cutting and pot making culture
moving from north to south and then moving into Crete.
>
> If you still maintain that Zeus was an early king on Krete in around 1600
> BC, how else do you explain the worship of Zeus spreading to the mainland
> after this date if it was not brought there by Pelasgians on Krete? (see
> below **)
OK. Good point.
Zeus was not the only God. Poseidon was also a God probably originating from
Libya according to Herodotus or Phoenicia which were the only place to have
such a cult. Hades was also a God and he was almost certainly Hattusilis I
the king of the Hittites since the routher Hades realm was supposed to a
cave on the black sea coast of Anatolia around Pontus.
The land meaning mainland Greece was common to all of the Gods so there is
no reason why Zeus could not have had his own vassals there. There is plenty
of evidence of Cretan culture in mainland Greece at this time.
After the Pelasgains came in 1600 BC the Cratan culture was subsumed but the
memory of Zeus was still there. There was no formal worship until the
Egyptians came at the time of Danuas and Aegyptus (Turmoses III) who were
supposed to be decended from Zeus via Io the daughter of Inachus who was the
Grandfather of Pelasgus.
>
> > According to the genealogy given in the bible the Hellenes, Thracians,
> > Cretans and Rhodians were all brothers, therefore the Cretens cannot
have
> > been Pelasgians unless the Thracians were also Pelasgians.
> >
>
> That may well have been the case with the coastal Thrakians and
Makedonians
> but not necessarily those inland.
>
> > In about 2200 BC there was a migration into Macedonia from Iberia of a
> M173
> > DNA linage tribe and this tribes DNA is present in the population of
> Armenia
> > which was a Phrygian colony. Therefore the easiest way to figure out who
> the
> > original Cretans were is to look at their Y Chromosome DNA, but
> > unfortunately I dont have any data specific the Crete.
> >
> > The best bet is that is that the Cretans were already there long before
> the
> > M173 migration and that in 2200 BC the M173 linage migrated to Create
and
> > southern Greece and became the ruling class. In about 1800 BC I suspect
> > either the Egyptians or Hurrians also migrated to Create and become
> another
> > ruling class and this was the time that Linear A was invented.
> >
>
> Would this have been an overland or oversea migration of Iberians? If
Over land and through the Balkans. I doubt the Iberians knew where Crete
was.
> overseas they could have stayed awhile on Krete before heading off
> northwards. But they seem not to have left a material trace. Likewise,
> according to Herodotus, Egyptians also had traversed north to the Danube
and
> some are said to have settled in the Peloponnese.
The sons of Danaus and Aegyptus.
>
> > In 1600 BC there was another migration from Macedonia of another Greek
> tribe
> > which conquered the Cretans and replace their civilisation. It was from
> this
> > migration that the Arkadians came from since Pelasgus was the son of
Niobe
> > the granddaughter of Inachus and Inachus was the cousin of Zeus the
ruler
> of
> > Lato.
> >
> > >
> > > > The Greeks all originated from Macedonia which is where the oldest
> > > > inscriptions are dating back 8000 years.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Pella, the name given to the capital of Makedonia, might also be a
> > Pelasgian name. This might go some way to explain the alliance between
the
> Arkadians
> > > and Makedonians in the fourth century.
> >
> > Pella has to be a Pelasgian name since Macedonia was where all the Greek
> > tribes originated from.
> >
>
> With the earlier capital of Makedonia known as Aigai before the 4th
century
Aigai = Aigaion = Aigialeon = Pelasgaileon
> capital was built at Pella, I now sense this relationship. The new name
> Pella, however, still seems to suggest a northwards migration of
Pelasgians
> (as evidenced by the Makedonians claiming their descent from Argive
Herakles
> and Tegean Phylakos), hence pointing to the southern formation of the
> Pelasgians. The Pelasgian push northwards is also found in the settlement
of
This migration was not until 735 BC.
> Mysia by Tegean Telephus. While the Pelasgians may well have descended
from
> the northern Aigai, they do not appear to have existed in name at the time
> of the earlier southern migration of Aigai. Hence I am still advocating
the
> connection of the name Pelasgian with "peleku" on Krete.
It was Minos who built the Sea Empire of Crete and he was descended from
Agenor who was descended from Inachus who was the grandfather of Pelasgus
which suggests the Pelasgians came to Crete in 1420 BC. Maybe the Cretans
had more use for the Peleku than the mainland Pelasgians since the
mainlanders did not need to build ships as frequently and Arkadia was in the
centre of the Pelopanese far from the sea. If the peleku was used in Crete
before 1600 BC and know by that name then where are the Linear A
inscriptions of that word.
Nestor was the son of Neleus the son of Cretheus the son of Aeolus the son
of Hellene.
Yes, sort of. The Cretan kings from 1700 BC onwards after Uranus was deposed
all came from the mainland since other Titans such as Iapetus (Japheth) who
was from Phthiotis came from the mainland. This is why Linear A is half
Greek and half some other language either Egyptian or Hurrian. At around
1700 BC Phthiotis would have been Pelasgian.
More like when Tectemus invaded Crete from the mainland and deposed Minos I.
> Boiotia. The animosity directed against the Minyans in the Peloponnese by
> the Spartans might have been due to an earlier crossing of paths in
Thessaly
> or Boiotia.
The animosity was caused when the Minyans came to Sparta after the were
evicted from Lemnos by the Pelasgians expelled from Athens in about 1090 BC.
The Hellenes came from Phthiotis. Herodotus give full details of their
migrations.
o8TY
--
o8TY
"tommy" <tro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3dd463e3$0$14053$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > or the like (cf. Albanian <plag> 'old'; Epirote <peleiai> 'old men and
old
>
> Interesting. In modern Greek it is Paleoi the old. So far the name has the
> following guesses
>
> Axe, (building walls).
> Stork, (Pelargoi).
> Sea People,
> Old (original people).
>
> All have interesting explanations. It seems though they are discriptive
> names, not their original ethnic name, most likely an ethnic slur (Like
> calling the Jews by the ethnic name Stingy).
>
> Oddly enough with a little stretch of logic all the above can be
> assimilated. They were the original people in some areas of Greece, Mostly
> sea people, that used the axes and build walls. Storks lived by the sea
and
> got the name Pelargoi from that, not the other way around.
>
>
I suppose if we could find a plant and the name of a star or constellation,
all with a similar name, we might just about cover all bases.
o8TY
to follow. Nonetheless...
--
o8TY
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:ar2jgs$d72$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Different in some ways but also similar in many others. For instance, the
introduction of the inverted column, and its round bun-shaped capital, as
found at Mukenai and Pylos, but which occur first on Krete.
See also comment below concerning the Iberians.
Much of the cyclopean stone constructions on Majorca, Sardinia-Corsica,
Malta, and Cyprus date back to before 3000BC, thereby predating that on
Krete, but which is very similar in style to that found on the mainland. I
thought your point of the Iberians was very valid in this regard and would
support an overseas migration.
Something interesting in this regard is a large (32m diameter) enigmatic
tholos built at Pella late in the fourth century to which was attached by
three smaller tholoi along its NE, NW and SW quadrants. In forming a
triangle, the three smaller tholoi point NW.
In comparison are the three tholoi at Delphi, Epidavros and Olympia, all
built in the thirty-five years before Alexander the Great, and all with
internal Corinthian columns, which form an isosecles triangle more or less
pointing northwards towards Pella. These I think were all Arkadian built.
> > capital was built at Pella, I now sense this relationship. The new name
> > Pella, however, still seems to suggest a northwards migration of
> Pelasgians
> > (as evidenced by the Makedonians claiming their descent from Argive
> Herakles
> > and Tegean Phylakos), hence pointing to the southern formation of the
> > Pelasgians. The Pelasgian push northwards is also found in the
settlement
> of
>
> This migration was not until 735 BC.
But Telephus was the son of Herakles by Auge, daughter of Tegean Aleus, and
therefore appears to date before the Trojan War.
>
> > Mysia by Tegean Telephus. While the Pelasgians may well have descended
> from
> > the northern Aigai, they do not appear to have existed in name at the
time
> > of the earlier southern migration of Aigai. Hence I am still advocating
> the
> > connection of the name Pelasgian with "peleku" on Krete.
>
> It was Minos who built the Sea Empire of Crete and he was descended from
> Agenor who was descended from Inachus who was the grandfather of Pelasgus
> which suggests the Pelasgians came to Crete in 1420 BC. Maybe the Cretans
> had more use for the Peleku than the mainland Pelasgians since the
> mainlanders did not need to build ships as frequently and Arkadia was in
the
> centre of the Pelopanese far from the sea. If the peleku was used in Crete
> before 1600 BC and know by that name then where are the Linear A
> inscriptions of that word.
>
Good point. Maybe the double-axe only exists in iconographic form.
Who drank the Pramian wine mixed by the daughter of Arsinous of Tenedos with
ingredients whose first letters spell out m-u-k-ai-t-a = "mushroom"
Yet Melampus means "black-foot" which AFAIK was a the term used for the
Egyptians and Ethiopians, who perhaps came to Messenia via Krete.
That's a good point.
Oddly enough by tracing Herodotus' route of the Dorians on a map one
discovers it forms a small "delta" or "d".
Agamemnon
> I don't know about you but I am finding this thread increasingly difficult
> to follow. Nonetheless...
>
> --
> o8TY
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:ar2jgs$d72$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > The stone construction on the mainland was completely different to that
of
> > Crete. Therefore the Pelasgians cannot have come from Crete. The
> Archaeology
> > show a gradual movement of Pelasgian stone cutting and pot making
culture
> > moving from north to south and then moving into Crete.
> >
>
> Different in some ways but also similar in many others. For instance, the
> introduction of the inverted column, and its round bun-shaped capital, as
> found at Mukenai and Pylos, but which occur first on Crete.
These Phallus shaped columns came from Egypt.
>
> See also comment below concerning the Iberians.
>
>
> > >
> > > Would this have been an overland or oversea migration of Iberians? If
> >
> > Over land and through the Balkans. I doubt the Iberians knew where Crete
> > was.
> >
>
> Much of the cyclopean stone constructions on Majorca, Sardinia-Corsica,
> Malta, and Cyprus date back to before 3000BC, thereby predating that on
> Krete, but which is very similar in style to that found on the mainland. I
> thought your point of the Iberians was very valid in this regard and would
> support an overseas migration.
If the cyclopean walls do not appear in Crete but are everywhere else then
it corroborates what I said about the Iberians not knowing where Crete was.
> > > With the earlier capital of Makedonia known as Aigai before the 4th
> > century
> >
> > Aigai = Aigaion = Aigialeon = Pelasgaileon
> >
>
> Something interesting in this regard is a large (32m diameter) enigmatic
> tholos built at Pella late in the fourth century to which was attached by
> three smaller tholoi along its NE, NW and SW quadrants. In forming a
> triangle, the three smaller tholoi point NW.
>
> In comparison are the three tholoi at Delphi, Epidavros and Olympia, all
> built in the thirty-five years before Alexander the Great, and all with
> internal Corinthian columns, which form an isosecles triangle more or less
> pointing northwards towards Pella. These I think were all Arkadian built.
>
Coincidence.
>
> > > capital was built at Pella, I now sense this relationship. The new
name
> > > Pella, however, still seems to suggest a northwards migration of
> > Pelasgians
> > > (as evidenced by the Makedonians claiming their descent from Argive
> > Herakles
> > > and Tegean Phylakos), hence pointing to the southern formation of the
> > > Pelasgians. The Pelasgian push northwards is also found in the
> settlement
> > of
> >
> > This migration was not until 735 BC.
>
>
> But Telephus was the son of Herakles by Auge, daughter of Tegean Aleus,
and
> therefore appears to date before the Trojan War.
When Herakles left the Pelopanese at the time he married Deianra he went to
Aetolia not Macedonia.
> >
> > > Mysia by Tegean Telephus. While the Pelasgians may well have descended
> > from
> > > the northern Aigai, they do not appear to have existed in name at the
> time
> > > of the earlier southern migration of Aigai. Hence I am still
advocating
> > the
> > > connection of the name Pelasgian with "peleku" on Krete.
> >
> > It was Minos who built the Sea Empire of Crete and he was descended from
> > Agenor who was descended from Inachus who was the grandfather of
Pelasgus
> > which suggests the Pelasgians came to Crete in 1420 BC. Maybe the
Cretans
> > had more use for the Peleku than the mainland Pelasgians since the
> > mainlanders did not need to build ships as frequently and Arkadia was in
> the
> > centre of the Pelopanese far from the sea. If the peleku was used in
Crete
> > before 1600 BC and know by that name then where are the Linear A
> > inscriptions of that word.
> >
>
> Good point. Maybe the double-axe only exists in iconographic form.
In which case we would not know what they called it.
Oh wait. Maybee it exists on the Phaistos Disc. Is the syllabic combination
for it known ?
Cue Grapheus......
> > > Boiotia. The animosity directed against the Minyans in the Peloponnese
> by
> > > the Spartans might have been due to an earlier crossing of paths in
> > Thessaly
> > > or Boiotia.
> >
> > The animosity was caused when the Minyans came to Sparta after the were
> > evicted from Lemnos by the Pelasgians expelled from Athens in about 1090
> BC.
>
> That's a good point.
>
> >
> > > There was also Helen in Lakonia, the wife of Menelaos. Perhaps the
> > Hellenes
> > > etc reflect the northwards push by Herakles from the Peloponnese,
first
> to
> >
> > The Hellenes came from Phthiotis. Herodotus give full details of their
> > migrations.
> >
>
>
> Oddly enough by tracing Herodotus' route of the Dorians on a map one
> discovers it forms a small "delta" or "d".
Yes it does. It also says that the Hellenes were moving around at the same
time that Cadmus was taking his army of Enhelenes to conquer Illyria. Its
inevitable that the Enhelenes and Hellenes were the same people.
Agamemnon
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:R67B9.28526$Sr6.8...@ozemail.com.au...
> > I don't know about you but I am finding this thread increasingly
difficult
> > to follow. Nonetheless...
> >
Here is the simple solution to this argument.
The original name of the Pelasgians was Pelasgaileans or Melachaileans and
meant either the People of the Lord or City Dwellers.
It is most likely to have meant City Dwellers with Pelas begin equivalent to
Polis and thus all people in Greece who dwelled in cities were Pelasgians.
In Linear B Pelasgians would have been
Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li
Settlement/City/Lord Land Wide Space
Pelasgians = "Settlement dwellers in the wide land".
It is also possible that Ari was the tribal name of Arians which is still
used as the tribal name of the Irish and the Iranians probalby meaning
dwellers in the wide land. Therefore the Pelasgians were the first European
settlers of Greece that dwelled in Cities. Problem solved. Find out where
the first Europeans evolved and there are your Pelasagians or Melachaileans
or Aigialeans or Melachairi or Makedni or Macedonians.
o8TY
--
o8TY
"o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ruTx9.24471$Sr6.7...@ozemail.com.au...
> Does anyone here support the view that the Pelasgians originally came from
> Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
>
> I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku", which
> were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name
Pelasgian.
>
> The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
>
> And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic)
falaqa,
> "to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan subgroup
of
> PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
> northwestern branches had left it.
>
>
> --
> o8TY
>
>
Further to the above, "peleku", "pelekus", and "pelekkus" seems to derive
from the Sumerian BALAG meaning "shaft", hence the Homeric "pelekus"
probably referred to the "axe handle" rather than the double-axe head, upon
which handle any head could have been installed.
But this also seems to fit in with the Arkadians being called as
"balanos-phagoi" or "acorn eaters", where "balanos" might also derive from
BALAG.
The question therefore becomes not one of where the Pelasgians came from, ie
their geographical origins, but rather where their name comes from.
Agamemnon
What were Sumerians doing in Greece. It is more likely that European tribes
were in Sumeria.
You are trying to tell me that the English word "Poll" derives from "Balag".
It is the other was around. The Sumerian "Balag" derives from the GREEK
"Phallus" which is where "Poll" also derives and of course Phallus derives
from the same root as "Belus" and "Baal" which both mean "Lord" but also
mean "City" and are therefore the same as the word "Polis".
>
> But this also seems to fit in with the Arkadians being called as
> "balanos-phagoi" or "acorn eaters", where "balanos" might also derive from
> BALAG.
>
> The question therefore becomes not one of where the Pelasgians came from,
ie
> their geographical origins, but rather where their name comes from.
>
Correct. Their name is European. It derives from the European root for the
number ONE which is the same as the Mycenaean Greek word "Wa-na-ka" =
"Balag" = "Melech". The word means King, Lord, City and everything
associated with kingship and being of High or Solitary Rank.
As I was saying elsewhere.
o8TY
Argonautika (1.168), though it is very late coming. Here Arkadian Ankaios,
dressed in the skin of a Meinalies bear (cf Arkas with arkos), carries
on-board a double-axe "pelekus", after his father Lukourgos had hidden his
regular armour in an "innermost recess" of his house! Ankaios was the
Arkadian equivalent of Herakles, both sitting beside each other in the
middle of the boat.
--
o8TY
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:ar5org$1rk$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
It is more likely that a common language was spoken throughout the eastern
mediterranean, as per before the tower of Babel. It should be recognised
that Sumerian existed in written form long before the Greek
> You are trying to tell me that the English word "Poll" derives from
"Balag".
> It is the other was around. The Sumerian "Balag" derives from the GREEK
> "Phallus" which is where "Poll" also derives and of course Phallus derives
> from the same root as "Belus" and "Baal" which both mean "Lord" but also
> mean "City" and are therefore the same as the word "Polis".
>
I got the BALAG derivation from John M Allegro, who was one of the first
philologists to work on the Dead Sea scrolls. As for the rest, though I am
no expert, I would agree that a relationship exists between these words, but
cannot say one way or another which came first.
> >
> > But this also seems to fit in with the Arkadians being called as
> > "balanos-phagoi" or "acorn eaters", where "balanos" might also derive
from
> > BALAG.
> >
> > The question therefore becomes not one of where the Pelasgians came
from,
> ie
> > their geographical origins, but rather where their name comes from.
> >
>
> Correct. Their name is European. It derives from the European root for
the
> number ONE which is the same as the Mycenaean Greek word "Wa-na-ka" =
> "Balag" = "Melech". The word means King, Lord, City and everything
> associated with kingship and being of High or Solitary Rank.
>
> As I was saying elsewhere.
>
> The original name of the Pelasgians was Pelasgaileans or Melachaileans and
> meant either the People of the Lord or City Dwellers.
>
> It is most likely to have meant City Dwellers with Pelas begin equivalent
to
> Polis and thus all people in Greece who dwelled in cities were Pelasgians.
>
> In Linear B Pelasgians would have been
>
> Pe-R/La-(s) G/Ki-(a) (a)-R/Li
>
> Settlement/City/Lord Land Wide Space
>
> Pelasgians = "Settlement dwellers in the wide land".
>
I agree, but suggest there are a whole lot of similar words connected in
myth, eg "polis", polos", "pileos", "polemis? = war", whatever the word for
foal (horse), etc etc.
Agamemnon
> I have found a link between the double-axe and the Pelasgians in the
> Argonautika (1.168), though it is very late coming. Here Arkadian Ankaios,
> dressed in the skin of a Meinalies bear (cf Arkas with arkos), carries
> on-board a double-axe "pelekus", after his father Lukourgos had hidden his
> regular armour in an "innermost recess" of his house! Ankaios was the
> Arkadian equivalent of Herakles, both sitting beside each other in the
> middle of the boat.
Yes I remember that. Later he uses the axe to strike into the neck of a
sacrifice while Herakles clubs his over the head.
> > > Further to the above, "peleku", "pelekus", and "pelekkus" seems to
> derive
> > > from the Sumerian BALAG meaning "shaft", hence the Homeric "pelekus"
> > > probably referred to the "axe handle" rather than the double-axe head,
> > upon
> > > which handle any head could have been installed.
> >
> > What were Sumerians doing in Greece. It is more likely that European
> tribes
> > were in Sumeria.
> >
>
> It is more likely that a common language was spoken throughout the eastern
> mediterranean, as per before the tower of Babel. It should be recognised
> that Sumerian existed in written form long before the Greek
Irrelevant. The Greeks were in Sumeria before the Sumerians. The Gods of the
Sumerians all have names which can be resolved in Greek. Anatolian
civilisation predates Sumerian civilisation by over 15,000 years
>
>
> > You are trying to tell me that the English word "Poll" derives from
> "Balag".
> > It is the other was around. The Sumerian "Balag" derives from the GREEK
> > "Phallus" which is where "Poll" also derives and of course Phallus
derives
> > from the same root as "Belus" and "Baal" which both mean "Lord" but also
> > mean "City" and are therefore the same as the word "Polis".
> >
>
> I got the BALAG derivation from John M Allegro, who was one of the first
> philologists to work on the Dead Sea scrolls. As for the rest, though I am
> no expert, I would agree that a relationship exists between these words,
but
> cannot say one way or another which came first.
European languages have more cognates than Mesopotamian ones and Greek has
the most.
Yes. There are hundreds of such cognates.
As I suggested about 2 or 3 years ago I suspect that the original word for
man at least in Europe and Mesopotamia was "WOW" which is the first sound a
baby makes and which is the root of all the above cognates Pe-R/La-(s) and
G/Ki-(a) and (a)-R/Li.
Eventually WOW took on specific meanings in different tribal communities and
was corrupted. When the tribes met up again during the ice ages or through
trade the new words derived from WOW were spread across the land.
The tribe which invented the word WOW eventually grouped together and
conquered Europe, Anatolia, and Mesopotamia and became its kings and
supplanted into the existent languages its word relating to kingship.
Other tribes invented other words describing other concepts in a similar
fashion. The idea of a single proto-indo-European root language is a myth.
PIE has a vocabulary of individual words which are not related. How can it
be a root language unless all the words in PIE derive from one word. It is
most probable that there were many root languages in Europe, and
Mesopotamia.
moderno1
> Does anyone here support the view that the Pelasgians originally came from
> Crete, or know of any reference supporting this view.
>
> I am intrigued by the closeness of the word for double-axe "peleku", which
> were very popular on Crete during the Minoan period, and the name Pelasgian.
>
> The following was obtained from a Google search for the wor peleku:
>
> And the word *peleku, "axe", apparently related to Semitic (Arabic) falaqa,
> "to split", is only attested in the Eastern Greek-Armenian-Aryan subgroup of
> PIE, possibly a later loan to that group in its homeland after the
> northwestern branches had left it.
Pelasgians and others are refered to here:
PELASGIANS, a name applied by Greek writers to a prehistoric people
whose traces were believed to exist in Greek lands. If the statements
of ancient authorities are marshalled in order of their date it will
be seen that certain beliefs cannot be traced back beyond the age of
this or that author. Though this does not prove that the beliefs
themselves were not held earlier, it suggests caution in assuming that
they were. In the Homeric poems there are Pelasgians among the allies
of Troy: in the catalogue, Iliad, ii. 840—843, which is
otherwise in strict geographical order, they stand between the
Hellespontine towns and the Thracians of south-east Europe, i.e. on
the Hellespontine border of Thrace. Their town or district is called
Larissa and is fertile, and they are celebrated for their
spearmanship. Their chiefs are Hippothous and Pylaeus, sons of Lethus
son of Teutamus. Iliad, x. 428—429, describes their camping
ground between the town of Troy and the sea; but this obviously proves
nothing about their habitat in time of peace. Odyssey, xvii.
175—177, notes Pelasgians in Crete, together with two apparently
indigenous and two immigrant peoples (Achaeans and Dorians), but gives
no indication to which class the Pelasgians belong. In Lemnos (Iliad,
Vii. 467; xiv. 230) there are no Pelasgians, but a Minyan dynasty. Two
other passages (Iliad, ii. 681—684; xvi. 233—235) apply
the epithet “ Pelasgic” to a district called Argos about
Mt Othrys in south Thessaly, and to Zeus of Dodona. But in neither
case are actual Pelasgians mentioned; the Thessalian Argos is the
specific home of Hellenes and Achaeans, and Dodona is inhabited by
Perrhaebians and Aenianes (Iliad, ii. 750) who are nowhere described
as Pelasgian. It looks therefore as if “ Pelasgian” were
here used connotatively, to mean either “ formerly occupied by
Pelasgian “ or simply “ of immemorial age.”
Hesiod expands the Homeric phrase and calls Dodona “seat of
Pelasgians” (fr. 225); he speaks also of a personal Pelasgus as
father of Lycaon, the culture-hero of Arcadia; and a later epic poet,
Asius, describes Pelasgus as the first man, whom the earth threw up
that there might be a race of men. Hecataeus makes Pelasgus king of
Thessaly (expounding Iliad, ~i. 681—684); Acusilaus applies this
Flomeric passage to the Peloponnesian Argos, and engrafts the Hesiodic
Pelasgus, father of Lycaon, into a Peloponnesian genealogy. Hellanicus
a generation later repeats this blunder, and identifies this Argive
and Arcadian Pelasgus with the Thessalian Pelasgus of Hecataeus. For
Aeschylus (Supplices I, sqq.) Pelasgus is earthborn, as in Asius, and
rules a kingdom stretching from Argos to Dodona and the Strymon; but
in Pronietheus 879, the “ Pelasgian” land simply means
Argos. Sophocles takes the same view (Inac/jus, fr. 256) and for the
first time introduces the word “ Tyrrhenian” into the
story, apparently as synonymous with Pelasgian.
Herodotus, like Homer, has a denotative as well as a connotative use.
He describes actual Pelasgians surviving and mutually intelligible (a)
at Placie and Scylace on the Asiatic shore of the Hellespont, and (b)
near Creston on the Strymon; in the latter area they have
“Tyrrhenian” neighbours. He alludes to other districts
where Pelasgian peoples lived on under changed names; Samothrace and
Antandrus in Troas are probably instances of this. In Lemnos and
Imbros he describes a Pelasgian population who were only conquered by
Athens shortly before 500 B.C., and in this connexion he tells a story
of earlier raids of these Pelasgians on Attica, and of a temporary
settlement there of Hellespontine Pelasgians, all dating from a time
“when the Athenians were first beginning to count as
Greeks.” Elsewhere “ Pelasgian” in Herodotus
connotes anything typical of, or surviving from, the state of things
in Greece before the coming of the Hellenes. In this sense all Greece
was once “ Pelasgic “; the clearest instances of Pelasgian
survival in ritual and customs and antiquities are in Arcadia, the
“lonian “ districts of north-west Peloponnese, and Attica,
which have suffered least from hellenization. In Athens itself the
prehistoric wall of the citadel and a plot of ground close below it
were venerated in the 5th century as “ Pelasgian”; so too
Thucydides (ii. 17). We may note that all Herodotean examples of
actual Pelasgi lie round, or near, the actual Pelasgi of Homeric
Thrace; that the most distant of these is confirmed by the testimony
of Thucydides (iv. 106) as to the Pelasgian and Tyrrhenian population
of the adjacent seaboard: also that Thucydides adopts the same general
Pelasgian theory of early Greece, with the refinement that he regards
the Pelasgian name as originally specific, and as having come
gradually into this generic use.
Ephorus, relying on Hesiodic tradition of an aboriginal Pelasgian type
in Arcadia, elaborated a theory of the Pelasgians as a warrior-people
spreading (like “Aryans “) from a “Pelasgian
home,” and annexing and colonizing all the parts of Greece where
earlier writers had found allusions to them, from Dodona to Crete and
the Troad, and even as far as Italy, where again their settlements had
been recognized as early as the time of Hellanicur, in close connexion
once more with “Tyrrhenians.”
The copious additional information given by later writers is all by
way either of interpretation of local legends in the light of
Ephorus’s theory, or of explanation of the name” Pelasgoi
“; as when Philochorus expands a popular etymology
“stork-folk” (ireXcuryoi—ireXapyoi) into a theory of
their seasonal migrations; or Apollodorus says that Homer calls Zeus
Pelasgian “because he is not far from every one of us,”
iITt xi-jc ‘yijc ~r~ac ~TTLV. The connexion with Tyrrhenians
which began with Hellanicus, Herodotus and Sophocles becomes confusion
with them in the 3rd century, when the Lemnian pirates and their Attic
kinsmen are plainly styled Tyrrhenians, and early fortress-walls in
Italy (like those on the Palatine in Rome) are quoted as
“Arcadian” colonies.
Modern writers have either been content to restate or amplify the
view, ascribed above to Ephorus, that “Pelasgian” simply
means “prehistoric Greek,” or have used the name Pelasgian
at their pleasure to denote some one element in the mixed population
of the Aegean—Thracian, Illyrian (Albanian) or Semitic. G. Sergi
(Origine e diffusione della stirpe inedilerranea, Rome, 1895; Eng.
trans. The Mediterranean Race, London, 1901), followed by many
anthropologists, describes as “ Pelasgian” one branch of
the Mediterranean or Eur-African race of mankind, and one group of
types of skull within that race. The character of the ancient citadel
wall at Athens, already mentioned, has given the name “Pelasgic
masonry” to all constructions of large unhewn blocks fitted
roughly together without mortar, from Asia Minor to Spain.
For another view than that here taken see ACHAEANS; also GREECE:
Ancient History, § 3, “Homeric Age.”
BIBLI0GRAPHY.—Besides sections on the subject in all principal
histories of Greece and bibliographies in G. Busolt, Gr. Geschichte,
ii (Gotha, 1893, 164—182); and K. F. Hermann (Thumser), Gr.
Staatsaltertljümer, § 6, see S. Bruck, Quae veteres de Pelasgis
tradiderint (Breslau, 1884); B. Giseke, Thra/fisch-pelasgische Stämme
auf der Balkanhalbinsel (Leipzig, 1858); F. G. Hahn, Albenesische
Sludien (Jena, 1854); P. Volkmuth, Die Petasger als Semiten
(Schaffhausen, 1860); H. Kiepert, Monatsbericht d. bert. Akademie
(1861), pp. 114 sqq.; K. Pauli, Pine vorgr-iechzsche Inschrfft auf
Lemnos (Leipzig, 1886); E. Meyer, “ Die Pelasger “ in
Forschungen 1. alten Geschichte (l-lalle, 1892), i. 124; W. Ridgeway,
Early Age of Greece (Cambridge, 1901), vol. i.; J. L. Myres, “ A
History of the Pelasgian Theory (in Journal of Hellenic Studies,
xxvii. 170); H. Marsh, Home pelasgicae (Cambridge, 1815); L. Benloew,
La Grice avant les Grecs
(Paris, 1877). (J. L. M.)
CRETE
History.
Ancient.
In the Homeric age the population of Crete was of a very mixed
character, and we are told in the Odyssey (xix. 175) that besides the
Eteocretes, who, as their name imports, must have been the original
inhabitants, the island contained Achaeans, Pelasgians and Dorians.
Subse~ quently the Dorian element became greatly strengthened by fresh
immigrations from the Peloponnesus, and during the historical period
all the principal cities of the island were either Dorian colonies, or
had adopted the Dorian dialect and institutions.
GREECE
Ii is possible that the diffusion of the Hellenic name was due to th
Dorian invaders
THRACE, a name which was applied at various periods to areas of
different extent. For the purposes of this article it will be taken in
its most restricted sense, as signifying the Roman province which was
so called after the thstnct that intervened between. the river Ister
(Danube) and the Haemus Mountains (Balkan) had been formed into the
separate provinces of Moesia, and theregion between the rivers Strymon
and Nestus, which included Philippi, had been added to Macedonia. The
boundaries of this were—-towards the N. the Haemus, on the E.
the Euxine Sea, on the S. the Propontis, the Hellespont and the
Aegean, and towards the W. the Nestus. The most distinguishing
features of the country were the chain of Rhodope (Despoto-dagh) and
the river Hebrus (Maritza). The former separates at its northernmost
point from the Haemus, at right angles, and runs southward at first,
nearly parallel to the Nestus, until it approaches the sea, when it
takes an. easterly direction (See Virg. Georg. uI. 351). Several of
the summits of this chain are over 7000 ft. in height. The Hebrus,
together with its tributaries which flow into it from the north, east
and west, drains almost the whole of Thrace. It starts from near the
point of junction of Haemus and Rhodope, and at first takes an
easterly direction, the chief town which lies on its banks in the
earlier part of its course being Philippopolis; but when it reaches
the still more important city of Hadrianopolis it makes a sharp bend
towards the south, and enters the sea nearly opposite the island of
Samothrace. The greater part of the country is hilly and irregular,
though there are considerable plains; but besides Rhodope two other
tolerably definite chains intersect it, one of which descends from
Haemus to Adrianople, ‘while the other follows the coast of the
Euxine at no great ‘distance inland. One district in the extreme
north-west of Thrace lay beyond the watershed separating the streams
that flow into the Aegean from those that reach the Danube: this was
the territory of Sardica, the modern Sophia. In the later Roman period
two main lines of road passed through the country One of these skirted
the southern coast, being a continuation of the Via Egnatia, which ran
from Dyrrhachium to Thessalonica, thus connecting the Adriatic and the
Aegean; it became of the first importance after the foundation of
Constantinople, because it was the direct line of communication
between that city and Rome. The other followed a north-westerly c@urse
through the interior, from Constantinople by Hadrianopolis and
Philippopolis to the Haemus, and thence by Naissus (Nish) through
Moesia in the direction of Pannonia, taking the same route by which
the railway now runs from Constantinople to Belgrade. The climate of
Thrace was regarded by the Greeks as very severe, and that country was
spoken of as the home of the north wind, Boreas.
INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES. The Indo-European (LE.)
To the salem-group belongs (I) Aryan or Indo-Iranian, including (a)
Sanskrit, with its descendants, (b) Zend, and (c) Old Persian, from
which is ultimately descended Modern Persian, largely modified,
however, by Arabic words. This group is often divided into two
sub-groups, 1n4 o-A ryan, including the languages of India, and
Iranian, used as a general title for Zend and Old Persian as the
languages of ancient Iran. Although the sounds of Indo-Aryan and
Iranian differ considerably, phrases of the earliest form of the one
can be transliterated into the other without change in vocabulary or
syntax. (2) To the west of these lies Armenian, which is so full of
borrowed Iranian words that only iii 1875 was it successfully
differentiated by Htibschmann as an independent language. It is
probably related to, or the descendant of, the ancient Phrygian, which
spread into Asia from Thrace by the migration of tribes across the
Hellespont. Of ancient Thracian unfortunately we know very little. (3)
North of the Black Sea, and widening its borders in all dir~tions,
comes the great Balto-Slavonic group. In this there are two branches
somewhat resembling the division between Indo-Aryan and Iranian. Here
three small dialects on the south-east coast of the Baltic form the
first group, Lithuanian, Lettish and Old Prussian, the last being
extinct since the 17th century. The Slavonic languages proper
themselves fall into two groups:
(a) an Eastern and Southern group, including Old Bulgarian, the
ecclesiastical language first known from the latter part of the 9th
century ~.o.; Russian in its varieties of Great Russian, White Russian
and Little Russian or Ruthenian; and Servian and Slovene, which extend
to the Adriatic. (b) The western group includes Polish with minor
dialects, Czech or Bohemian, also with minor languages in the group,
and Sorb. In the satem division is also included (4) Albanian, which
like Armenian is much mixed with foreign elements—Latin, Greek,
Turkish and Slavonic. The relation between it and the ancient Illyrian
is not clear.
Besides the languages mentioned there are many others now extinct or
of which little is known—e.g. Venetic, found in clearly written
inscriptions with a distinctive ‘alphabet in north-eastern
Italy; Messapian, in the heel of Italy, which is supposed to have been
connected with the ancient Illyrian; and possibly also the unknown
tongue which has been found recently on several inscriptions in Crete
and seems to have been the language of the
pre-Hellenic population, the finds apparently confirming the statement
of Herodotus (vii. 170) that the earlier population survived in later
times only at Praesos and Polichne.
The most mysterious people of antiquity, the Pelasgians, do not seem
to be in all cases the same stock, as their name appears merely to
mean “ the people of the sea,” llsXacryoi representing an
earlier ireXa’ys-,f°f, where 7r€Xa-yr is the weak form of the
stem of ~r~Xa-yoi, “sea,” and -sot the ending so frequent
in the names of peoples. A parallel to the sound changes may be seen
in ptr’yw, for 5ufry~o~°, by the side of ut-y-vvut. As time goes
on, evidence seems more and more to tend to confirm the truth of the
great migrations by sea, recorded by Herodotus, of Lydians to Etruria,
of Eteocretans both to east and west.
PHRYGIA
According to unvarying Greek tradition the Phrygians were most closely
akin to certain tribes of Macedonia and Thrace; and their near
relationship to the Hellenic stock is proved by all that is known of
their language and art, and is accepted by almost every modern
authority. The inference has been generally drawn that the Phrygians
belonged to a stock widespread in the countries which lie round the
Aegean Sea.
PAEONIA, in anciert geography, the land of the Paeonians, the
boundaries of which, like the early history of its inhabitants, are
very obscure. ‘The Paeonians are regarded as descendants of the
Phrygians of Asia Minor, large numbers of whom in early times crossed
over to Europe.
According to the national legend (Herodotus v. 16), they were Teucrian
colonists from Troy, and Homei (Iliad, Ii. 848) speaks of Paeonians
from the Axius fighting on the side of their Trojan kinsmen. Before
the reign of Darius Hystaspes, they had made their way as far east as
Perinthus in Thrace on the Propontis. At one time all Mygdonia,
together with CrestonIcë, was subject to them. When Xerxes crossed
Chalcidicë on his way to Therma (Thessalonica) he is said to have
marched “through Paeonian territory.” They occupied the
entire valley of the Axius (Vardar) as far inland as Stobi, the
valleys to the east of it as far as the Strymon (Struma), and the
country round Astibus and the river of the same name, with the water
of which they anointed their kings. Emathia, the district between the
Haliacmon (Bistritza) and Axius, was once called Paeonia; and Pieria
and Pelagonia were inhabited by Paeonians. In consequence of the
growth of Macedonian power, and under pressure from their Thracian
neighbours, their territory was considerably diminished, and in
historical times was limited to the N. of Macedonia from Illyria to
the Strymon.
A passage in Athenaeus (ix. p. 398) seems to indicate the affinity of
their language with Mysian. They drank barley beer and various
decoctions made from plants and herbs. The country was rich in gold
and a bituminous kind of wood (or stone, which burst into a blaze when
in contact with water) called t-nrivoc (or ts,rivos). The women were
famous for their industry. In this connexion Herodotus (v. I 2) tells
the story that Darius, having seen at Sardis a beautiful Paeonian
woman carrying a pitcher on her head, leading a horse to drink, and
spinning flax, all at the same time, inquired who she was. Having been
informed that she was a Paeonian, he sent instructions to Megabyzus,
commander in Thrace, to deport two tribes of the nation without delay
to Asia. At the time of the Persian invasion, the Paeonians on the
lower Strymon had lost, while those in the north maintained, their
independence. They frequently nade inroads into Macedonian territory,
until they were finally subdued by Philip, who permitted them to
retain their government by kings. The daughter of Audoleon, one of
these kings, was the wife of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus, and Alexander
the Great wished to bestow the hand of his sister Cynane upon
Langarus, who had shown himself loyal to Philip.
An inscription, discovered in 1877 at Olympia on the base of a statue,
states that it was set up by the community of the Paeonians in honour
of their king and founder Dropion. Another king, whose name appears as
Lyppeius on a fragment of an inscription found at Athens relating to a
treaty of alliance is no doubt identical with the Lycceius or Lycpeius
of Paeonian coins (see B. V. Head, Historia numorum, 1887, p. 207). In
280 the Gallic invaders under Brennus ravaged the land of the
Paeonians, who, being further hard pressed by the Dardani, had no
alternative but to join the Macedonians. whose downfall they shared.
After the Roman conquest, Paeonia east and west of the Axius formed
the second and third districts respectively of Macedonia (Livy xlv.
29). Under Diocletian Paeonia and Pelagonia formed a province called
Macedonia secunda or salutaris, belonging to the prefecture of
Illyricum.
See W. Tomaschek, “ Die alten Thraker” in Sitzungsberichte
der k. A/hid. der Wissenschaften, xxviii. (Vienna, 1893); Fl. F. 0.
Abel, Makedonien vor KOnig Phil’ipp (Leipzig, 1847); C. 0.
Muller, Uber die Wohnsitze, die A bstammung und die altere Geschichte
des makedonischen Volkes (Berlin, 1825); T. Desdevises-u-Dezert,
Geographie ancienne de la Macédoine (Paris, 1863); see also MACEDONIA.
PELLA, the capital of ancient Macedonia under Philip II. (who
transferred the seat of government hither from Edessa) and Alexander
the Great, who was born here.
MACEDONIA, the name generally given to that portion of European Turkey
which is bounded on the N. by the Kara-Dagh mountain range and the
frontier of Bulgaria, on the E.by the river Mesta, on the S. by the
Aegean Sea and the frontierof Greece, and on the W. by an ill-defined
line coinciding withthe mountain chains of Shar (ancient Scardus)
Grammus and Pindus.
The process of hellenization made greater progress in the towns than
in the rural districts of the interior, where the non-Hellenic
populations preserved their languages, which alone saved the several
nationalities from extinction.
With the exception of the southern and western districts already
specified, the principal towns, and certain isolated tracts, the whole
of Macedonia is inhabited by a race or The races speaking a Slavonic
dialect. If language is Slavonic adopted as a test, the great bulk of
the rural popula- Population. tion must be described as Slavonic.
Again, Slovene has occasional tl, dl (III. c), and its accent and
quantity are not quite southerly, but its many dialects shade across
to Croat and Servian, and they must all be classed together for the
fate of tj, dj (V. b) and 7, ç (IV.). The Sopcy and Macedonians, among
their numerous dialects, 'make a bridge between Servian and Bulgarian.
PAPHLAGONIA
Although the Paphlagonians play scarcely any part in history, they
were one of the most ancient nations of Asia Minor (Iliad, ii. 851).
They are mentioned by Herodotus among the races conquered by Croesus,
and they sent an important contingent to the army of Xerxes in 480
B.C. Xenophon speaks of them as being governed by a prince of their
own, without any reference to the neighbouring satraps, a freedom due,
perhaps, to the nature of the country, with its lofty mountain ranges
and difficult passes. At a later period Paphlagonia passed under the
Macedonian kings, and after the death of Alexander the Great it was
assigned, together with Cappadocia arid Mysia to Eumenes.
The ethnic relations of the Paphlagonians are very uncertain. It seems
perhaps most probable that they belonged to the same race as the
Cappadocians, who held the adjoining province of Pontus, and were
undoubtedly a Semitic race. Their language, however, would appear from
Strabo to have been distinct. Equally obscure is the relation between
the Paphiagonians and the Eneti or Heneti (mentioned in connexion with
them in the Homeric catalogue) who were supposed in antiquity to be
the ancestors of the Veneti, who dwelt at the head of the Adriatic.
l3ut no trace is found in historical times of any tribe of that name
in Asia Minor. -
The greater part of Paphiagonia is, a rugged mountainous country, but
it contains fertile valleys, and produces great abundance of fruit.
The mountains are clothed with dense forests, which are conspicuous
for the quantity of boxwood which they furnish. Hence its coasts were
from an early period occupied by Greek colonies, among which the
flourishing city of Sinope, founded from Miletus about 630 B.C., stood
pre-eminent. Amastris, a few miles east of the Parthenius, became
important under the Macedonian monarchs; while Amisus, a colony of
Sinope, situated a short distance east of the Halys, and therefore not
strictly in Paphlagonia as defined by Straho, rose to be almost a
rival of its parent city. The most considerable towns of the interior
were Gangra, in ancient times the capital of the Paphiagonjan kings,
afterwards called Germanicopolis, situated near the frontier of
Galatia, and Pompeiopolis, in the valley of the Amnias (a tributary of
the Halys), near which were extensive mines of the mineral called by
Strabo sandarake (red arsenic), which was largely exported from
Sinope.
VENETI, the name given to’ two ancient European tribes.
(2) The inhabitants of a district in the north of Italy (also called
‘Everot, Heneti, by the Greek,s). The extent of their territory
before their incorporation by the Romans is uncertain It was at first
included in Cisalpine Gaul, but under Augustus was known as the tenth
region of Italy (\Tenetia and Histria). It was bounded on the W. by
the Athesis (Adige), or, according to others, by the Addua (Adda); on
the N. by the Carnic Alps; on the E. by the Timavus (Timavo) or the
Formio (Risano); on the S. by the Adriatic Gulf. From the earliest
times the Veneti appear to have been a peaceful people, chiefly
engaged in commercial ‘pursuits. They carried ,on an extensive
trade in amber, which reached them overland from the shores of the
Baltic. They were especially famous fo~ their skill in ‘the
training and breeding of horses, attributed to their stay in Thrace,
whence they brought the cult of Diomede into their Italian home. Homer
(Ii. ii. 85) speaks of the’ Paphlagonian Heneti as breeders of
“, wild mules,” and their fondness for horses is regarded
as a proof of ‘their descent from the “horse-taming”
Trojans.
ALBANIA
History and legend afford no record of their Arrival in the Balkan
Peninsula. They are probably the descendants of the earliest Aryan
immigrants, who were represented in historical times by the kindred
Illyrians, Macedonians and Epirots; the Macedonians and Epirots are
believed by Hahn to have formed the core of the pre-Hellenic
Tyrrheno-Pelasgian population which inhabited the southern portion of
the peninsula and extended its limits to Thrace and Italy. The
Illyrians were also " Pelasgian," but in a wider sense. Of these
cognate races, which are described by the Greek writers as barbarous
or. non-Hellenic, the Illyrians and Epirots, he thinks, were
respectively the progenitors of the Ghegs, or northern, and the Tosks,
or southern, Albanians. The Via Egnatia, which Strabo (vii. fragment
3) describes as forming the boundary between the Illyrians; and
Epirots, practically corresponds with the course of the Shkumb, which
now separates the Ghegs and the Tosks. The same geographer (v. 2. 221)
states that the Epirots were also called Pelasgians; the Pelasgian
Zeus was worshipped at Dodona (Homer, II. xvi. 234), and the
neighbourhood of the sanctuary was called Pelasgia (Herodotus ii. 56).
The meaning of the term " Pelasgian " is, however, too obscure to
furnish a basis for ethnographical speculation; in the time of
Herodotus it may, have already come to denote a period rather than a
race. The name Task is possibly identical with Tuscus, Etruscus, while
the form Tyrrhenus perhaps survives in Tirana. The large number of
.Slavonic local names in Albania, even in districts where no trace of
a Slavonic population exists, bears witness to, the extensive Servian
and Bulgarian immigrations in the e^fly middle ages, but the original
inhabitants gradually ousted or assimilated the invaders.
GREECE,i an ancient geographical area, and a modern kingdom more or
less corresponding thereto, situated at the south-eastern extremity of
Europe and forming the most southerly portion of the Balkan Peninsula.
The modern kingdom is bounded on the N. by European Turkey and on the
E., S. and W. by the Aegean, Mediterranean and lonian seas. The name
Graecia, which was more or less vaguely given to the ancient country
by the Romans, seems not to have been employed by any native writer
before Aristotle; it was apparently derived
1 See also GREEK ART, GREEK LANGUAGE, GREEK LAw, GREE~ LITERATVaE.
GREEK R~LIGJO1~.
by the Romans from the Illyrians, who applied the name of an Epirote
tribe (I’paiKo’(, Graeci) to all their southern
neighbours. The names Hellas, Hellenes (“EXXas,
“EX)u~ees), by which the ancient Greeks called their country and
their race, and which are still employed by the modern Greeks,
originally designated a small district in Phthiotis in Thessaly and
its inhabitants, who gradually spread over the lands south of the
Cambunian mountains. The name Hellenes was not universally applied to
the Greek race until the post-Homeric epoch (Thucyd. i. 3).
The continental area of Hellas proper was no greater than that of the
modern Greek kingdom, which comprises but a small portion of the
territories actually occupied by the Greek race. The Greeks have
always been a maritime people, and the real centre of the national
life is now, as in antiquity, the Aegean Sea or Archipelago. Thickly
studded with islands and bordered by deeply indented coasts with
sheltered creeks and harbours, the Aegean in the earliest days of
navigation invited the enterprise of the mariner; its shores, both
European and Asiatic, became covered with Greek settlements and its
islands, together with Crete and Cyprus, became Greek. True to their
maritime instincts, the Greeks rarely advanced inland to any distance
from the sea; the coasts of Macedonia, Thrace and Asia Minor are still
mainly Greek, but, except for some isolated colonies, the hinterland
in each case lies outside the limits of the race.
Greece is inhabited by three races—the Greeks, the Albanians and
the Vlachs. The Greeks who are by far the most numerous,
have to a large extent absorbed the other races; the ,EthnO- process
of assimilation has been especially rapid since
the foundation of the Greek kingdom. Like most European nations, the
modern Greeks are a mixed race. The question of their origin has been
the subject of much learned controversy; their presumed descent from
the Greeks of the classical epoch has proved a national asset of great
value; during the period of their struggle for independence it won
them the devoted zeal of the Philhellenes, it inspired the enthusiasm
of Byron, Victor Hugo, and a host of minor poets, and it has furnished
a pleasing illusion to generations of scholarly tourists who delight
to discover in the present inhabitants of the country the mental and
physical characteristics with which they have been familiarized by the
literature and art of antiquity. This amiable tendency is encouraged
by the modern Greeks, who possess an implicit faith in their
illustrious ancestry. The discussion of the question entered a very
acrimonious stage with the appearance in 1830 of Falimerayer’s
History of tile Morea during the Middle Ages. Failmerayer maintained
that after the great Slavonic immigration at the close of the 8th
century the original population of northern Greece and the Morea,
which had already been much reduced during the Roman period, was
practically supplanted by the Slavonic element and that the Greeks of
modern times are in fact Byzantinized Slays. This theory was subjected
to exhaustive criticism by Ross, Hopf, Finlay and other scholars, and
although many of Falimerayer’s conclusions remain unshaken, the
view is now generally held that the base of the population both in the
mainland and the Morea is Hellenic, not Slavonic. During the 5th and
6th centuries Greece had been subjected to Slavonic incursions which
resulted in no permanent settlements. After the great plague of
746—747, however, large tracts of depopulated country were
colonized by Slavonic immigrants; the towns remained in the hands of
~he Greeks, many of whom emigrated to Constantinople.’ In the
T~Iorea the Slays established themselves principally in Arcadia and
the region of Taygetus, extending their settlements into Achaia, Elis,
Laconia and the promontory of Taenaron; on tbe mainland they occupied
portions of Acarnania, Aetolia, Doris and Phocis. Slavonic place-names
occurring in all these districts confirm the evidence of history with
regard to this immigration. The Slays, who were not a maritime race,
did not colonize the Aegean Islands, but a few Slavonic place-names
1 Including suburbs.
in Crete seem to indicate that some of the invaders reached that
island. The Slavonic settlements in the Morea proved more permanent
than those in northern Greece, which were attacked by the armies of
the Byzantine emperors. But even in the Morea the Greeks, or
“Romans” as they called themselves (‘Poiuai~ot), who
had been left undisturbed on the eastern side of the peninsula,
eventually absorbed the alien element, which disappeared after the
15th century. In addition to the placenames the only remaining traces
of the Slav immigration are the Slavonic type of features, which
occasionally recurs, especially among the Arcadian peasants, and a few
customs and traditions. Even when allowance is made for the remarkable
power of assimilation which the Greeks possessed in virtue of their
superior civilization, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that
the Hellenic element must always have been the most numerous in order
to effect so complete an absorption. This element~has apparently
undergone no essential change since the epoch of Roman domination. The
destructive invasions of the Goths in A.D. 267 and 395 introduced no
new ethnic’feature; the various races which during the middle
ages obtained partial or complete mastery in Greece—the Franks,
the Venetians, the Turks— contribu ted no appreciable ingredient
to the mass of the population. The modern Greeks may therefore be
regarded as in the main the descendants of the population which
inhabited Greece in the earlier centuries of Byzantine rule. Owing to
the operation of various causes, historical, social and economic, that
population was composed of many heterogeneous elements and represented
in a very limited degree the race which repulsed the Persians and
built the Parthenon. The internecine conflicts of the Greek
communities, wars with foreign powers and the deadly struggles of
factions in the various cities, had to a large extent obliterated the
old race of free citizens by the beginning of the Roman period.
How greatly the free citizen element had diminished by the close of
the 1st century AD. may be judged from the estimate of Plutarch that
all Greece could not furnish more than 3000 hoplites. The composite
population which replaced the ancient Hellenic stock became completely
Hellenized. According to craniologists the modern Greeks are
brachycephalous while the ancient race is stated to have been.
dolichocephalous, but it seems doubtful whether any such
generalization with regard to the ancients can. be conclusively
established. The Aegean islanders are more brachycephalous than the
inhabitants of the mainland, though apparently of purer Greek descent.
No general conception of the facial type of the ancient race can be
derived from the highly-idealized statues of deities, heroes and
athletes; so far as can be judged from portrait statues it was very
varied. Among the modern Greeks the same variety of features prevails;
the face is usually oval, the nose generally
long and somewhat aquiline, the teeth regular, and the eyes remarkably
bright and full of animation. The country-folk are, as a rule, tall
and well-made, though slightly built and rather meagre; their form is
graceful and supple in movement. The urban population, as elsewhere,
is physically very inferior. The women often display a refined and
delicate beauty which disappears at an early age. The best physical
types of the race are found in Arcadia, in the Aegean Islands and in
Crete.
The Albanian pop’ulation extends over all Attica and Megaris
(except the towns of Athens, Peiraeus and Megara), the greater part of
Boeotia, the eastern districts of Locris, the southern half of Euboea
and the northern side of Andros, the whole of the islands of Salamis,
Hydra, Spetsae and Poros, and part of Aegina, the whole of Corinthia
and Argolis, the northern districts of Arcadia and the eastern portion
of Achaea. There are also small Albanian groups in Laconia and
Messenia (see ALBANIA). The Albanians, who call themselves Shkyipetar,
and are called by the Greeks Arvanitae (‘Ap/3av~rai), belong to
the Tosk or southern branch of the race; their immigration took place
in the latter half of the i4th century. Their first settlements in the
Morea were made in 1347-13 55. The Albanian colonization was first
checked by the Turks; in 1454 an Albanian insurrection in the Morea
against Byzantine rule was crushed by the Turkish general Tura Khan,
whose aid had been invoked by the Palaeologi. With a few exceptions,
the Albanians in Greece retained their Christian faith after the
Turkish conquest. The failure of the insurrection of 1770 was followed
by a settlement of Moslem Albanians, who had been employed by the
Turks to suppress the revolt. The Christian Albanians have long lived
on good terms with the Greeks while retaining their own customs and
language and rarely intermarrying with their neighbours. They played a
brilliant part during the War of Independence, and furnished the
Greekswith many of their most distinguished leaders. The process of
their Hellenization, which scarcely began till after ‘the
establishment of the kingdom, has been somewhat slow; most of the men
can now speak Greek, but Albanian is still the language of the
household. The Albanians, who are mainly occupied with agriculture,
are less quick-witted, less versatile, and less addicted to politics
than the Greeks, who regard them as intellectually their inferiors. A
vigorous and manly race, they furnish the best soldiers in the Greek
army, and also make excellent sailors.
2. HIsToRY
a. Ancient; to 146 B.C.
I. Introductory.—It is necessary to indicate at the outset th
scope and object of the present article. The reader must no expect to
find in it a compendious summary of the chief event in the history of
ancient Greece. It is not intended to suppl:
an” Outlines of Greek History.” It may be questioned
whet1ne such a sketch of the history, within the limits of space which
ar necessarily imposed in a work of reference, would be of utilit:
to any class of readers. At any rate, the plan of the presen work, in
which the subject of Greek history is treated of in large number of
separate articles, allows of the narrative o events being given in a
more satisfactory form under the mor general of the headings (e.g.
ATHENS, SPARTA, PELOPONNESIA:
WAR). The character of the history itself suggests a further reason
why a general article upon Greek history should not be confined to, or
even attempt, a narrative of events. A sketch of Greek history is not
possible in the sense in which a sketch of Roman history, or even of
English history, is possible. Greek history is not the history of a
single state. \Vhen Aristotle composed his work upon. the
constitutions of the Greek states, he found it necessary to extend his
survey to no less that 158 states. Greek history is thus concerned
with more than Iso separate and independent political communities. Nor
is it even the history of a single country. The area occupied by the
Greek race extended from the Pyrenees to the Caucasus, and from
southern Russia to northern Africa. It is inevitable, therefore, that
the impression conveyed by a sketch of Greek history should be a
misleading one. A mere narrative can hardly fail to give a false
perspective. Experience shows that such a sketch is apt to resolve
itself into the history of a few great movements and of a few leading
states. What is still worse, it is apt to confine itself, at any rate
for the greater part of the period dealt with, to the history of
Greece in the narrower sense, i.e. of the Greek peninsula. For the
identification of Greece with Greece proper there may be some degree
of excuse when we come to the 5th and 4th centuries. In the period
that lies behind the year 500 B.C. Greece proper forms but a small
part of the Greek world. In the 7th and 6th centuries it is outside
Greece itself that we must look for the most active life of the Greek
people and the most brilliant manifestations of the Greek spirit. The
present article, therefore, will be concerned with the causes and
conditions of events, rather than with the events themselves; it will
attempt analysis rather than narrative. Its object will be to indicate
problems and to criticize views; to suggest lessons and parallels, and
to estimate the importance of the Hellenic factor in the development
of civilization.
2. The Minoan and Mycenaean Ages—When does Greek history begin?
Whatever may be the answer that is given to this question, it will be
widely different from any that could have been proposed a generation
ago. Then the question was, How late does Greek history begin? To-day
the question is, How early does it begin? The suggestion. made by
Grote that the first Olympiad (776 B.c.) should be taken as the
startingpoint of the history of Greece, in the proper sense of the
term “history,” seemed likely, not so many years ago, to
win genera] acceptance. At the present moment the tendency would seem
to be to go back as far as the 3rd or 4th millennium B.C. in order to
reach a starting-point. It is to the results of archaeological
research during the last thirty years that we must attribute s
startling a change in the attitude of historical science toward~ this
problem. In the days when Grote published the first volume~ of his
History of Greece archaeology was in its infancy. It~ results, so far
as they affected the earlier periods of Greek history were scanty; its
methods were unscientific. The methods hav been gradually perfected by
numerous workers in the field; bu the results, which have so
profoundly modified our conception~ of the early history of the Aegean
area, are principally due to thi discoveries of two men, Heinrich
Schliemann and A. J. Evans A full account of these discoveries will be
found elsewhere (se AEGEAN CIVILIZATION and CRETE). It will be
sufficient t
mention here that Schliemann’s labours began with the excava
tions on the site of Troy in the years 1870—1873; that he passe
on to the excavations at Mycenae in 1876 and to those at Tiryn in
1884. It was the discoveries of these years that revealei to us the
Mycenaean age, and carried back the history to th middle of the 2nd
millennium. The discoveries of Dr A. J. Evan
- in the island of Crete belong to a later period. The work o
excavation was begun in 1900, and was carried on in subsequen years.
It has revealed to us the Minoan age, and enabled u to trace back the
development and origins of the civilizatio:
for a further period of 1000 or 1500 years. The dates assigne’
by archaeologists to the different periods of Mycenaean an Minoan art
must be regarded as merely approximate. Eve the relation of the two
civilizations is still, to some extent, matter of conjecture. The
general chronological schegn
however, in the sense of the relative order of the various periods and
the approximate intervals between them, is too firmly established,
both by internal evidence, such as the development of the styles of
pottery, and of the art in general, and by external evidence, such as
the points of contact with Egyptian art and history, to admit of its
being any longer seriously called in question..
If, then, by “ Greek history “is to be understood the
history of the lands occupied in later times by the Greek race (i.e.
the Greek peninsula and the Aegean basin), the beginnings of the
history must be carried back some 2000 years before Grote’s
proposed starting-point. If, however, “ Greek history “is
taken to mean the history of the Greek people, the determination of
the starting-point is far from easy. For the question to which
archaeology does not as yet supply any certain answer is the question
of race. Were the creators of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilization
Greeks or were they not? In some degree the Minoan evidence has
modified the answer suggested by the Mycenaean. Although wide
differences of opinion as to the origin of the Mycenaean civilization
existed among scholars when the results of Schliemann.’s labours
were first given to the world, a general agreement had gradually been
arrived at in favour of the view which would identify Mycenaean with
Achaean or Homeric. In presence of the Cretan evidence it is no longer
possible to maintain this view with the same confidence. The two chief
difficulties in the way of attributing either the Minoan or the
Mycenaean civilization to an Hellenic people are connected
respectively with the script and the religion. The excavations at
Cnossus have yielded thousands of tablets written in the linear
script. There is evidence that this script was in use among the
Mycenaeans as well. If Greek was the language spoken at Cnossus and
Mvcenae, how is it that all attempts to decipher the script have
hitherto failed? The Cretan excavations, again, have taught us a great
deal as to the religion of the Minoan age; they have, at the same
time, thrown a new light upon the evidence supplied by Mycenaean
sites. It is no longer possible to ignore the contrast between the
cults of the Minoan and Mycenaean ages, and the religious conceptions
which they imply, and the cults and religious conceptions prevalent in
the historical period. On the other hand, it may safely be asserted
that the argument derived from the Mycenaean art, in which we seem to
trace a freedom of treatment which is akin to the spirit of the later
Greek art, and is in complete contrast to the spirit of Oriental art,
has received striking confirmation from the remains of Minoan art. The
decipherment of the script would at once solve the problem. We should
at least know whether the dominant race in Crete in the Minoan age
spoke an Hellenic or a non-Hellenic dialect. And what could be
inferred with regard to Crete in the Minoan age could almost certainly
be inferred with regard to the mainland in the Mycenaean age. In the
meanwhile, possibly until the tablets are read, at any rate until
further evidence is forthcoming, any answer that can be given to the
question must necessarily be tentative and provisional. (See AEGEAN
CIvILIzATIoN.)
It has already been implied that this period of the history of Greece
may be subdivided into a Minoan and a Mycenaean age. ‘Whether
these terms are appropriate is a question of comparatively little
importance. They at least serve to remind us of the part played by the
discoveries at Mycenae and Cnossus in the reconstruction of the
history. The term “ Mycenaean,’ it is true, has other
associations than those of locality. It may seem to imply that the
civilization disclosed in the excavations at Mycenae is Achaean in
character, and that it is to be connected with the Pelopid dynasty to
which Agamemnon belonged. Iii its scientific use, the term must be
cleared of all such associations Further, as opposed to “
Minoan” it must be understood in a more definite sense than that
in which it has often been employed It has come to be generally
recognized that two different periods are to be distinguished in
Schliemann’s discoveries at Mycena itself. There is an earlier
period, to which belong the object~ found in the shaft-graves, and
there is a later period, to whicl belong the beehive tombs and the
remains of the palaces. L
is the latter period which is “ Mycenaean “ in the strict
sense; i.e. it is “ Mycenaean” as opposed to “
Minoan.” To this period belong also the palace at Tiryns, the
beehive-tombs discovered elsewhere on the mainland of Greece and one
of the cities on the site of Troy (Schliemann’s sixth). The
pottery of this period is as characteristic of it, both in its forms
(e.g. the ‘ stirrup “ or “false-necked “ form
of vase) and in its peculiar glaze, as is the architecture of the
palaces and the beehive-tombs. Although the chief remains have been
found on the mainland of Greece itself, the art of this period is
found to have extended as far north as Troy and as far east as Cyprus.
On the other hand, hardly any traces of it have been discovered on the
west coast ‘of Asia Minor, south of the Troad. The Mycenaean
age, in this sense, may be regarded as extending from 1600 to 1200
B.C. The Minoan age is of far wider extent. Its latest period includes
both the earlier and the later periods of the remains found at
Mycenac. This is the period called by Dr Evans “Late
Minoan.” To this period belong the Great Palace at Cnossus and
the linear system of writing. The “ Middle Minoan “
period, to which the earlier palace belongs, is characterized by the
picto— graphic system of writing and by polychrome pottery of a
peculiarly beautiful kind. Dr Evans proposes to carry back this period
as far as 2500 B.C. Even behind it there are traces of a still earlier
civilization. Thus the Minoan age, even if limited to the middle and
later periods, will cover at least a Lhousand years. Perhaps the most
surprising result of the excavations in Crete is the discovery that
Minoan art is on a higher level than Mycenaean art. To the scholars of
a generation ago it seemed a thing incredible that the art of the
shaft-graves, and the architecture of the beehive-tombs and the
palaces, could belong to the age before the Dorian invasion. The most
recent discoveries seem to indicate that the art of Mycenae is a
decadent art; they certainly prove that an art, hardly inferior in its
way to the’ art of the classical period, and a civilization
which implies the command of great material resources, were
flourishing in the Aegean perhaps a thousand years before the siege of
Troy.
To the question, “ What is the origin of this civilization? Is
it of foreign derivation or of native growth?” it is not
‘possible to give a direct answer. It is clear, on the one hand
that it was developed, by a gradual process of differentiation, from a
culture which was common to ~e~• the whole Aegean basin and
extended as far to the west as Sicily. It is equally clear, on the
other hand, that foreign influences contributed largely to the process
of development. Egyptian influences, in particular, can be traced
throughout the” Minoan “and” Mycenaean
“periods. The developed art, however, both in Crete and on the
mainland, displays characteristics which are the very opposite of
those which are commonly associated with the term
“oriental.” Egyptian work, even of the best period, is
stiff and conventional; in the best Cretan work, and, in a less
degree, in Mycenaean work we find an originality and a freedom of
treatment which remind one of the spirit of the Greek artists. The
civilization is, ir many respects, of an advanced type. The Cretan
architects could design on a grand scale, and could carry out their
designs with no small degree of mechanical skill. At Cnossus we find I
system of drainage in use, which is far in advance of anythinf known
in the modern world ‘before the v9th century. If the art of the
Minoan age falls short of the art of the Periclean age, it is hardly
inferior to that of the age of Peisistratus. It is a civiliza tion,
too, which has long been familiar with the art of writing But it is
one that belongs entirely to the Bronze Age. Iron is not found until
the very end of the Mycenaean period, and ther only in small
quantities. Nor is this the only point of contrasi between the culture
of th~ earliest age and that of the historica period in Greece. The
chief seats of the early culture are to bi found either in the island
of Crete, or, on the mainland, at Tiryn~ and Mycenae. In the later
history Crete plays no part, am Tiryns and Mycenae are obscure. With
the great names of later age, Argos, Sparta and Athens, no great
discoveries ar connected. In northern Greece, Orchomenos rather than
Thebe is the centre of influence. Further points of contrast readil~
suggest themselves. The so-called Phoenician alphabet, in use amongst
the later Greeks, is unknown in the earliest age. Its systems of
writing, both the earlier and the later one, are syllabic in
character, and analogous to those in vogue in Asia Minor and Cyprus.
In the art of war, the chariot is of more importance than the
foot-soldier, and the latter, unlike the Greek hoplite, is lightly
clad, and trusts to a shield large enough to cover the whole body,
rather than to the metal helmet, breastplate and greaves of later
times (see ARMS AND ARMOUR: Greek). The political system appears to
have been a despotic monarchy, and the realm of the monarch to have
extended to far wider limits than those of the “ city-states
“ of historical Greece. It is, perhaps, in the religious
practices of the age, and in the ideas implied in them, that the
contrast is most apparent. Neither in Crete nor on the mainland is
there any trace of the worship of the” Olympian “deities.
The cults in vogue remind us rather of Asia than of Greece. The
worship of pillars and of trees carries us back to Canaan, while the
double-headed axe, so prominent in the ritual of Cnossus, survives in
later times as the symbol of the national deity of the Carians. The
beehivetombs, found on many sites on the mainland besides Mycenae, are
evidence both of a method of sepulture and of ideas of the future
state, which are alien to the practice and the thought of the Greeks
of history. It is only in one region—in the island of
Cyprus—that the culture of the Mycenaean age is found surviving
into the historical period. As late as the beginning of the 5th
century B.C. Cyprus is still ruled by kings, the alphabet has not yet
displaced a syllabary, the characteristic forms of Mycenaean vases
still linger on, and the chief deity of the island is the goddess with
attendant doves whose images are among the common objects of Mycenaean
finds.
3. The Homeric Age.—Alike in Crete and on the mainland the
civilization disclosed by excavation comes abruptly to an end. In
Crete we can trace it back from c. 1200 B.c. to the Neolithic period.
From the Stone Age to the end of the Minoan Age the development is
continuous and uninterrupted.1 But between the culture of the Early
Age and the culture of the Dorians, who occupied the island in
historical times, no connexion whatever can be established. Between
the two there is a great gulf fixed. It would be difficult to imagine
a greater contrast than that presented by the rude life of the Dorian
communities in Crete when it is compared with the political power, the
material resources and the extensive commerce of the earlier period.
The same gap between the archaeological age and the historical’
exists on the mainland also. It is true that the solution of
continuity is here less complete. Mycenaean art continues, here and
there, in a debased form down to the 9th century, a date to which we
can trace back the beginnings of the later Greek art. On one or two
lines (e.g. architecture) it is even possible to establish some sort
of connexion between them. But Greek art as a whole cannot be evolved
from Mycenaean art. We cannot bridge over the interval that separates
the latter art, even in its decline, from the former. It is sufficient
to compare the “dipylon “ ware (with which the process of
development begins, which culminates in the pottery of the Great Age)
with the Mycenaean vases, to satisfy oneself that the gulf exists.
What then is the relation of the Heroic or Homeric Age (i.e. the age
whose life is portrayed for us in the poems of Homer) to the Earliest
Age ? It too presents many contrasts to the later periods. On the
other hand, it presents contrasts to the Minoan Age, which, in their
way, are not less striking. Is it then to be identified with the
Mycenaean Age? Schliemann, the discoverer of the Mycenaean culture,
unhesitatingly identified Mycenaean with Homeric. He even identified
the shaft-graves of Mycenae with the tombs of Agamemnon and
Clytemnestra. Later inquirers, while refusing to discover so literal a
correspondence between things Homeric and things Mycenaean, have not
hesitated to accept a general correspondence between the Homeric Age
and the Mycenaean. Where it is a case of
1 It would be more accurate to say to the year 1500 B.C. At Cnossus
the palace is sacked soon after this date, and the art, both in Crete
and in the whole Aegean area, becomes lifeless and decadent.
comparing literary evidence with archaeologi’cal, an exact
coincidence is not of course to be demanded. The most that can be
asked is that a general correspondence should be established. It may
be conceded that the case for such a correspondence appears prima
facie a strong one. There is much in Homer that seems to find
confirmation or explanation in Schliemann’s finds. Mycenae is
Agamemnon’s city; the plan of the Homeric house agrees fairly
well with the palaces at Tiryns and Mycenae; the forms and the
technique of Mycenaean art serve to illustrate passages in the poems;
such are only a few of the arguments that have been urged. It is the
great merit of Professor Ridgeway’s work (The Early Age of
Greece) that it has demonstrated, once and for all, that Mycenaean is
not Homeric pure and simple. He insists upon differences as great as
the resemblances. Iron is in common use in Homer; it is practically
unknown to the Mycenaeans. In place of the round shield and the metal
armour of the Homeric soldier, we find at Mycenae that the warrior is
lightly clad in linen, and that he fights behind an oblong shield,
which covers the whole body; nor are the chariots the same in form.
The Homeric dead are cremated; the Mycenaean are buried. The gods of
Homer are the deities of Olympus, of whose cult no traces are to be
found in the Mycenaean Age. The novelty of Professor Ridgeway’s
theory is that for the accepted’ equation, Homeric = Achaean =
Mycenaean, he proposes to substitute the equations, Homeric = Achaean
= post-Mycenaean, and Mycenaean = pre - Achaean = Pelasgian. The
Mycenaean civilization he attributes to the Pelasgians, whom he
regards as the indigenous population of Greece, the ancestors of the
later Greeks, and themselves Greek both in speech and blood. The
Homeric heroes are Achaeans, a fair-haired Celtic race, whose home was
in the Danube valley, where they had learned the use of iron. In
Greece they are newcomers, a conquering class comparable to the Norman
invaders of England or Ireland, and like them they have acquired the
language of their subjects in the course of a few generations. The
Homeric civilization is thus Achaean, i.e. it is Pelasgian (Mycenaean)
civilization, appropriated by a ruder race; but the Homeric culture is
far inferior to the Mycenaean. Here, at any rate, the Norman analogy
breaks down. - Norman art in England is far in advance of Saxon. Even
in Normandy (as in Sicily), where the Norman appropriated rather than
introduced, he not only assimilated but developed. In Greece the
process must have been reversed.
The theory thus outlined is probably stronger on its destructive side
than on its constructive. To treat the Achaeans as an immigrant race
is to run counter to the tradition of the Greeks themselves, by whom
the Achaeans were regarded as indigenous (cf. Herod. Viii. 73). Nor is
the Pelasgian part of the theory easy to reconcile with the Homeric
evidence. If the Achaeans were a conquering class ruling over a
Pelasgian population, we should expect to find this difference of race
a prominent feature in Homeric society. We should, at least, expect to
find a Pelasgian background to the Homeric picture. As a matter of
fact, we find nothing of the sort. There is no consciousness in the
Homeric poems of a distinction of race between the governing and the
subject classes. There are, indeed, Pelasgians in Homer, but the
references either to the people or the name are extraordinarily few.
They appear as a people, presumably in Asia Minor, in alliance with
the Trojans; they appear also, in a single passage, as one of the
tribes inhabiting Crete. The name survives in “ Pelasgicon
Argos,” which is probably to be identified with the valley of
the Spercheius,2 and as an epithet of Zeus of Dodona. The population,
however, of Pelasgicon Argos and of Dodona is no longer Pelasgian.
Thus, in the age of Homer, the Pelasgians belong, so far as Greece
proper is concerned, to a past that is already remote. It is
inadmissible to appeal to Herodotus against Homer. For the conditions
of the Homeric age Homer is the sole authoritative witness. If,
however, Professor Ridgeway has failed to prove that ‘
Mycenaean” equals “ Pelasgian,” he has certainly
proved that much that is Homeric is post-Mycenaean. It is possible
2 See T. W. Allen in the Classical Review, vol. xx. (1906), No. 4
(May).
that different strata are to be distinguished in the Homeric poems.
There are passages which seem to assume the conditions of the
Mycenaean age; there are others which presuppose the conditions of a
later age. It may be that the latter passages reflect the
circumstances of the poet’s own times, while the former ones
reproduce those of an earlier period. If so, the substitution of iron
for bronze must have been effected in the interval between the earlier
and the later periods.
It has already been pointed out that the question whether the makers
of the Minoan and Mycenaean civilizations were
Greeks must still be regarded as an open one.
In the Greek dialects the great distinction is that between the Doric
and the rest.
It is a commonplace that Homer was the Bible of the Greeks. On the
poJitical side, Greek constitutional development would be
unintelligible without Homer. When Greek histOry, in the proper sense,
begins, oligarchy is almost universal. Everywhere, however, an
antecedent stage of monarchy has to be presupposed. In the Homeric
system monarchy is the sole form of government; but it is monarchy
already well on the way to being transformed into oligarchy. In the
person of the king are united the functions of priest, of judge and of
leader in war. He belongs to a family which claims divine descent and
his office is hereditary. He is, however, no despotic monarch. He is
compelled by custom to consult the council (boule) of the elders, or
chiefs. He must ask their opinion, and, if he fails to obtain their
consent, he has no power to enforce his will. Even when he has
obtained the consent of the council, the proposal still awaits the
approval of the assembly (agora), of the people.
Thus in the Homeric state w~ find the germs not only of the oligarchy
and democracy of later Greece, but also of all the
various forms of constitution known to the Western
If omerk
~ world. And a monarchy such as is depicted in the
Homeric poems is clearly ripe for transmutation
into oligarchy. The chiefs are addressed as kings (flcunXi3€s), and
claim, equally with the monarch, descent from the gods. In Homer,
again, we can trace the later organization into tribe (~vXi7), clan
(yevos), and phratry, which is characteristic of Greek society in the
historical period, and meets us in analogous forms in other Aryan
societies. The ‘y~voc corresponds to the Roman gens, the 4uX,~
to the Roman tribe, and the phratry to the curia. The importance of
the p/iratry in Homeric society is illustrated by the well-known
passage (Iliad iX. 63) in which the outcast is described as “one
who belongs to no phratry” (ci4ps~rwp). It is a society that is,
of course, based upon slavery, but it is slavery in its least
repulsive aspect. The treatment which Eumaeus and Eurycleia receive at
the hands of the poet of the Odyssey is highly creditable to the
humanity of the age. A society which regarded the slave as a mere
chattel would have been impatient of the interest shown in a swineherd
and a nurse. It is a society, too, that exhibits many of the
distinguishing traits of later Greek life. Feasting and quarrels, it
is true, are, of more moment to the heroes than to the contemporaries
of Pericles or Plato; but “music” and
“gymnastic” (though the terms must be understood in a more
restricted sense) are as distinctive of the age of Homer as of that of
Pindar. In one respect there is retrogression in the historical
period. Woman in Homeric society enjoys a greater freedom, and
receives greater respect, than in the Athens of Sophocles and
Pericles.
4. The Growth of the Greek States.—’The Greek world at the
beginning of the 6th century B.C. presents a picture in many respects
different from that of the Homeric Age. The Greek race is no longer
confined to the Greek peninsula. It occupies the islands of the
Aegean, the western seaboard of Asia Minor, the coasts of Macedonia
and Thrace, of southern Italy and Sicily. Scattered settlements are
found as far apart as the mouth of the Rhone, the north of Africa, the
Crimea and the eastern end of the Black Sea. The Greeks are called by
a national name, Hellenes, the symbol of a fully-developed national
self-consciousness. They are divided into three great branches, the
Dorian, the lonian and the Aeolian, names almost, or entirely, unknown
to Homer. The heroic monarchy has nearly everywhere disappeared. In
Greece proper, south of Thermopylae, it survives, but in a peculiar
form, in the Spartan state alone.
It is less easy to account for the name Hellenes. The Greeks were
profoundly conscious of their common nationality, and of the gulf that
separated them from the rest of mankind. They themselves recognized a
common race and language, and a common type of religion and culture,
as the chief factors in this sentiment of nationality (see Herod.
viii. 144 To ‘EXXfl1’ucOv ~ ~uatuOv m Kai
OuO’/Xwiitrov Kill Oec~~ iBp6j.iarci T€ KOLPI~L Ka~ OvoLcu 4~Oe&
r€ Oj.thrpo7ra). “Hellenes” was the name of their common
race, and “Hellas” of their common country. Ia Homer there
is no distinct consciousness of a common nationality, and consequently
no antithesis of Greek and Barbariar (see Thuc. i. 3). Nor is there a
true collective name. There an indeed Hellenes (though the name occurs
in one passage only Iliad ii. 684), and there is a Hellas; but his
Hellas, whatever it~ precise signification may be, is, at any rate,
not equivalent eithei to Greece proper or to the land of the Greeks,
and his Hellenes an the inhabitants of a small district to the south
of Thessaly. Ii is possible that the diffusion of the Hellenic name
was due to th Dorian invaders. Its use can be traced back to the first
half o. the 7th century. Not less obscure are the causes of the fall 0
monarchy. It cannot have been the immediate effect of th
1 History of Greece (Eng. trans., i. 32 if.); cf. the same
‘writer’~ loner von den ionischen Wanderung.
Donian conquest, for the states founded by the Dorians were at first
monarchically governed. It may, however, have been an indirect effect
of it.
At Athens it is clear that the real authority was exercised by the
archons;2 in many states the magistrates were probably subordinate to
the council (cf. the relation of the consuls to the senate at Rome).
And it is clear that the way in which the oligarchies used their power
varied also. The cases in which the power was abused are naturally the
ones of which we hear; for an abuse of power gave rise to discontent
and was the ultimate cause of revolution. We hear little or nothing of
the cases in which power was exercised wisely. Happy is the
constitution which has no annals! We know, however, that oligarchy
held its ground for generations, or even for centuries, in a large
proportion of the Greek states; and a government which, like thc
oligarchies of Elis, Thebes or Aegina, could maintain itself for three
or four centuries cannot have been merely oppressive.
2 If the account of early Athenian constitutional history given ii the
Athenalon Politeia were accepted, it would follow that th archons were
inferior in authority to the Eupatrid Boule, th Areopagus. -
The period of the transition from monarchy to oligarchy is the period
in which commerce begins to develop, and trade-
routes to be organized. Greece had been the centre of
Trade, an active trade in the Minoan and Mycenaean epochs.
The products of Crete and of the Peloponnese had found their way to
Egypt and Asia Minor. The overthrow of the older civilization put an
end to commerce. The seas became insecure and intercourse with the
East was interrupted. Our earliest glimpses of the Aegean after the
period of the migrations disclose the raids of the pirate and the
activity of the Phoenician trader. It is not till the 8th century has
dawned that trade begins to revive, and the Phoenician has to retire
before his Greek competitor. For some time to come, however, no clear
distinction is drawn between the trader and the pirate. The pioneers
of Greek trade in the West are the pirates of Cumae (Thucyd. vi. 4).
Competing routes were organized at an early date under their
influence, and their trading connexions can be traced from the heart
of Asia Minor to the north of Italy. Miletus, Sybaris and Etruria were
members of the Eretrian league; Samos, Corinth, Rhegium and Zancle
(commanding the Straits of Messina), and Cumae, on the Bay of Naples,
of the Chalcidian. The wool of the Phrygian uplands, woven in the
looms of Miletus, reached the Etruscan markets by way of Sybaris;
through Cumae, Rome and the rest of Latium obtained the elements of
Greek culture. Greek trade, however, was confined to the Mediterranean
area. The Phoenician and the Carthaginian navigators penetrated to
Britain; they discovered the passage round the Cape two thousand years
before Vasco da Gama’s time. The Greek sailor dared not
adventure himself outside the Black Sea, the Adriatic and the
Mediterranean.
Closely connected with the history of Greek trade is the history of
Greek colonization. The period of colonization, in its narrower sense,
extends from the middle of the
Colon ha8th to the middle of the 6th century. Greek coloniza- ~ tion
is, however, merely a continuation of the process which at an earlier
epoch had led to the settlement, first of Cyprus, and then of the
islands and coasts of the Aegean.
The races amongst whom the Greeks planted
1 The dates before the middle of the 7th century are in most cases
artificial, e.g. those given by Thucydides (book vi.) for the earlier
Sicilian settlements. See J. P. Mabaffy, Journal of Hellenic Studies,
ii. 164ff.
themselves were in some cases on a similar level of culture. Where the
natives were still backward or barbarous, they came of a stock either
closely related to the Greek, or at least separated from it by no
great physical differences. We need only contrast the Carian, the
Sicel, the Thracian or even the Scythian, with the native Australian,
the Hottentot, the Red Indian or the Maori, to apprehend the advantage
of the Greek. Amalgamation with the native races was easy, and it
involved neither physical nor intellectual degeneracy as its
consequence. Of the races with which the Greeks came in contact the
Thracian was far from the highest in the scale of culture; yet three
of the greatest names in the Great Age of Athens are those of men who
had Thracian blood in their veins, viz. Themistocles, Cimon and the
historian Thucydides. In the absence of any distinction of colour, no
insuperable barrier existed between the Greek and the hellenized
native. The demos of the colonial cities was largely recruited from
the native population,f nor was there anything in the Greek world
analogous to the “mean whites” or the “ black
belt.” Of hardly less importance were the climatic conditions.
In this respect the Mediterranean area is unique. There is no other
region of the world of equal extent in which these conditions are at
once so uniform and so favourable. Nowhere had the Greek settler to
encounter a climate which was either unsuited to his labour or
subversive,of his vigour. That in spite of these advantages so little,
comparatively speaking, was effected in the work of Hellenization
before the epoch of Alexander and the Diadochi, was the effect of a
single counteracting cause. The Greek colonist, like the Greek trader,
clung to the shore. He penetrated no farther inland than the
sea-breeze. Hence it was only in islapds, such as Sicily or Cyprus,
that the process of Hellenization was complete. Elsewhere the Greek
settlements formed a mere fringe along the coast.
Ii is possible that the diffusion of the Hellenic name was due to th
Dorian invaders.
HELLENISM (from Or. iXX~p’L~ew, to imitate the Greeks, who were
known as “EXXfpies, after ‘EXXi~1’, the son of
Deucalion). The term” Hellenism “is ambiguous. It may be
used to denote ancient Greek culture in all its phases, and even those
elements in modern civilization which are Greek in origin or in
spirit; but, while Matthew Arnold made the term popular in the latter
connexion as the antithesis of” Hebraism,” the German
historian
1 For the microscopical characters and for figures of transverse
sections of the rhizome, see Lanessan, Hist. des drogues, i. 6 (1878).
J. G. Droysen introduced the fashion (1836) of using it to describe
particularly the latter phases of Greek culture from the conquests of
Alexander to the end of the ancient world, when those over whom this
culture extended were largely not Greek in blood, i.e. Hellenes, but
peoples who had adopted the Greek speech and way of life, Hellenistai.
Agamemnon
> I have found a link between the double-axe and the Pelasgians in the
> Argonautika (1.168), though it is very late coming. Here Arkadian Ankaios,
> dressed in the skin of a Meinalies bear (cf Arkas with arkos), carries
> on-board a double-axe "pelekus", after his father Lukourgos had hidden his
> regular armour in an "innermost recess" of his house! Ankaios was the
> Arkadian equivalent of Herakles, both sitting beside each other in the
> middle of the boat.
>
I've changed my mind. I agree with you, the Pelasgians must have come from
Crete.
Pelasgus was the son of Niobe and his father must have been Zeus who was the
king of Crete, but this is not the reason why I agree.
According to Herodotus the menacing of the word Aigialean Pelasgi was
Pelasgians of the Sea Shore. The Hittite form of Aigialean is Akhi-Yawa,
where Yawa is the same as YHWH and Gialon mening Sea, and thus Akhi is the
same as Akri and Edge meaning Coast.
Thus Pelasgi are Sons of the City and Aigialea is the Sea Edge.
The Aigialeans, Hellenes and Enhelenes were all dwellers of the coast. The
Pelasgi were everyone who dwelled in cities and since the first cities were
founded in Crete the Pelasgi must have come from there. The Hellenes
according to Herodotus were nomadic so would not have qualified as Pelasgi
except for the Ionians who were the Aigialean Pelasgi.
The Akhaiwoi or Achaeans of Homer were descended from the sons of Achaeus
who marred the daughters of Danaus and settled around Argos.
Both the Cretan and Cypriot dialects share similarities and Cypriot is
related to Arcadian dialect thus the Pelasgi either came to Crete or came
from Crete.
o8TY
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wHJB9.29120$Sr6.8...@ozemail.com.au...
> > I have found a link between the double-axe and the Pelasgians in the
> > Argonautika (1.168), though it is very late coming. Here Arkadian
Ankaios,
> > dressed in the skin of a Meinalies bear (cf Arkas with arkos), carries
> > on-board a double-axe "pelekus", after his father Lukourgos had hidden
his
> > regular armour in an "innermost recess" of his house! Ankaios was the
> > Arkadian equivalent of Herakles, both sitting beside each other in the
> > middle of the boat.
> >
>
> I've changed my mind. I agree with you, the Pelasgians must have come from
> Crete.
>
excellent.
> Pelasgus was the son of Niobe and his father must have been Zeus who was
the
> king of Crete, but this is not the reason why I agree.
>
> According to Herodotus the menacing of the word Aigialean Pelasgi was
> Pelasgians of the Sea Shore. The Hittite form of Aigialean is Akhi-Yawa,
> where Yawa is the same as YHWH and Gialon mening Sea, and thus Akhi is the
> same as Akri and Edge meaning Coast.
>
> Thus Pelasgi are Sons of the City and Aigialea is the Sea Edge.
>
> The Aigialeans, Hellenes and Enhelenes were all dwellers of the coast. The
> Pelasgi were everyone who dwelled in cities and since the first cities
were
> founded in Crete the Pelasgi must have come from there. The Hellenes
> according to Herodotus were nomadic so would not have qualified as Pelasgi
> except for the Ionians who were the Aigialean Pelasgi.
>
> The Akhaiwoi or Achaeans of Homer were descended from the sons of Achaeus
> who marred the daughters of Danaus and settled around Argos.
>
> Both the Cretan and Cypriot dialects share similarities and Cypriot is
> related to Arcadian dialect thus the Pelasgi either came to Crete or came
> from Crete.
>
As Pelasgos was the eponymous ancestor of the Pelasgians, the Pelasgians
must have been known by another name before his time. When this took place
is certainly wide open to speculation, however, in attributing the worship
of Zeus on the mainland to not before the sixteenth century, or to whichever
date fits the children of Niobe, then we could say that before this time the
Pelasgians were simply not known as Pelasgians.
Another kind of axe was the "pelux", which is a lot closer to the "sg" in
Pelasgian. Since the double-axe is thought to have been a symbol of a Cretan
goddess, your mention of Ge (or Gaia) sounds most appropriate, wherefore
Pelux-Ge = double axe of Ge. I am very happy with this.
Furthermore, Zeus of Labraunda (whatever or wherever that is) and
Labyrinthos (the Labyrinth) seem both to be connected to the Lydian word
"labrus" meaning "double axe".
Agamemnon
The problem with that is that there were two Pelasgus's
The son of Niobe dates to 1600 BC but the Arkadian Pelasgus dates to 1520
BC.
The Athenians were also Pelasgians and since Ogygus was their king in 1628
BC the Palasgus who was son of Niobe must have succeeded him since in 1520
Actaeus or Colaenus would have been king.
Pausanius says that Pelasgus must have either brought people with him or
people were already there when he came to Arkadia.
Since the word Pelasgia means Land of Cites I think that when Pelasgus built
the first cities in Arkadia he took the name Pelasgus and because they now
lived in cities the people became Pelasgians.
The Athenians built cities so they were Pelasgians.
The technology to build these cities obviously came from Crete and it was
not untill 1450 BC that the Hellenes, Achaeans and Danai came.
The Aigialeans predate these Pelasgians by two generations and date to 1650
BC but they were coastal dwellers and Herodotus also calls them Pelasgi so
their name cannot have originated from any eponymous ancestor called
Pelasgus. Aigialeus father was Inachus.
What all this points to is that the Cretans spoke Greek as did all the tribe
which occupied Greece since all knew that Pelas meant City, Gi meant land
and Gialon meant Sea and Akri meant Edge since all used combination of this
words as their tribal names.
>
> Another kind of axe was the "pelux", which is a lot closer to the "sg" in
> Pelasgian. Since the double-axe is thought to have been a symbol of a
Cretan
> goddess, your mention of Ge (or Gaia) sounds most appropriate, wherefore
> Pelux-Ge = double axe of Ge. I am very happy with this.
I dont go with this axe thing anymore. Pelas as well as meaning City also
meant Lord and its also means Pole. The work Axe is itself a corruption of
the word Akri as is the word Edge.
Thus the word Pelux is quite simply as "pole with an edge" or "Pela Akri" or
"Pela Aks".
What this shows is that the Cretans were Greeks.
>
> Furthermore, Zeus of Labraunda (whatever or wherever that is) and
> Labyrinthos (the Labyrinth) seem both to be connected to the Lydian word
> "labrus" meaning "double axe".
>
And "labrus" is exactly the same word as "leaver" whcih is nothing more than
a long pole. It is also the same as the word "labour" so probably was also
used as another name for a "plough" which in itself is a corruption of the
word for Pole and Earth, "Pela Gi" or "Earth pole".
Douglas G. Kilday
>
> [...]
>
> Further to the above, "peleku", "pelekus", and "pelekkus" seems to derive
> from the Sumerian BALAG meaning "shaft", hence the Homeric "pelekus"
> probably referred to the "axe handle" rather than the double-axe head,
upon
> which handle any head could have been installed.
>
> But this also seems to fit in with the Arkadians being called as
> "balanos-phagoi" or "acorn eaters", where "balanos" might also derive from
> BALAG.
>
Greek <balanos> is of Indo-European origin. It is cognate with Latin
<glans>. The reconstructed PIE root is */gwelH-/.
DGK
o8TY
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:POLC9.30458$Sr6.8...@ozemail.com.au...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:arebjg$efj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:wHJB9.29120$Sr6.8...@ozemail.com.au...
> > > > I have found a link between the double-axe and the Pelasgians in the
> > > > Argonautika (1.168), though it is very late coming. Here Arkadian
> > Ankaios,
> > > > dressed in the skin of a Meinalies bear (cf Arkas with arkos),
carries
> > > > on-board a double-axe "pelekus", after his father Lukourgos had
hidden
> > his
> > > > regular armour in an "innermost recess" of his house! Ankaios was
the
> > > > Arkadian equivalent of Herakles, both sitting beside each other in
the
> > > > middle of the boat.
> >
was
> > the
> > > king of Crete, but this is not the reason why I agree.
> > >
> > > According to Herodotus the menacing of the word Aigialean Pelasgi was
> > > Pelasgians of the Sea Shore. The Hittite form of Aigialean is
Akhi-Yawa,
> > > where Yawa is the same as YHWH and Gialon mening Sea, and thus Akhi is
> the
> > > same as Akri and Edge meaning Coast.
> > >
> > > Thus Pelasgi are Sons of the City and Aigialea is the Sea Edge.
> > >
> > > The Aigialeans, Hellenes and Enhelenes were all dwellers of the coast.
> The
> > > Pelasgi were everyone who dwelled in cities and since the first cities
> > were
> > > founded in Crete the Pelasgi must have come from there. The Hellenes
> > > according to Herodotus were nomadic so would not have qualified as
> Pelasgi
> > > except for the Ionians who were the Aigialean Pelasgi.
> > >
> > > The Akhaiwoi or Achaeans of Homer were descended from the sons of
> Achaeus
> > > who marred the daughters of Danaus and settled around Argos.
> > >
And Argos was brother of Pelasgos and a son of Niobe.
Except that it was Lukaion, son of Pelasgos, who is said to have built the
first city in Greece at Lukosovra, from which the others on the mainland
learned how to build cities. The Arkadians may therefore have been the first
"architects" of Greece (arxi-tekton = Arkas' stonemasons).
All Pelasgos appears to have done was establish sanctuaries of Zeus, during
which the time, all of his people were eating oak-fruit, and like the
Selloi, probably slept on the bare ground beneath oaks while going about
with unwashed feet.
> >
> > Another kind of axe was the "pelux", which is a lot closer to the "sg"
in
> > Pelasgian. Since the double-axe is thought to have been a symbol of a
> Cretan
> > goddess, your mention of Ge (or Gaia) sounds most appropriate, wherefore
> > Pelux-Ge = double axe of Ge. I am very happy with this.
>
> I dont go with this axe thing anymore. Pelas as well as meaning City also
> meant Lord and its also means Pole. The work Axe is itself a corruption of
> the word Akri as is the word Edge.
>
I think you should stay with the double-axe theory awhile, at least until we
thrash out this thing with Lukaion and the Arkadians.
> Thus the word Pelux is quite simply as "pole with an edge" or "Pela Akri"
or
> "Pela Aks".
>
> What this shows is that the Cretans were Greeks.
>
It probably shows that the Kretans were Pelasgians before they were Minoans,
and before they became Greek, and who only became Greek after the mainland
Pelasgians, perhaps as Arkadians, returned to conquer Krete.
The real problem that we have is in labelling the Kretans as Minoans from
ca. 2200 - 1400 BC. Immediately before Minos (a son of Pelasgian Zeus)
Pelasgos probably ruled on Krete from which he then expanded to the
mainland, first capturing the Peloponnese before heading northwards.
> >
> > Furthermore, Zeus of Labraunda (whatever or wherever that is) and
> > Labyrinthos (the Labyrinth) seem both to be connected to the Lydian word
> > "labrus" meaning "double axe".
> >
>
> And "labrus" is exactly the same word as "leaver" whcih is nothing more
than
> a long pole. It is also the same as the word "labour" so probably was also
> used as another name for a "plough" which in itself is a corruption of the
> word for Pole and Earth, "Pela Gi" or "Earth pole".
>
This fits in well with the pillar-worship of the Kretans, later adopted by
the Mukenaians, hence the introduction of columns and capitals to the
mainland in previous posts.
According to Cook, the double axe was later transformed into the thunderbolt
of Zeus.
Agamemnon
The city of Argos was built long before that.
According to Pausanius [8.1.4] is was Pelasgus who was to introduce the
building of Huts into Greece and without huts there can be no cities.
> learned how to build cities. The Arkadians may therefore have been the
first
> "architects" of Greece (arxi-tekton = Arkas' stonemasons).
Arcas was born 2 generations after Lycaon.
>
> All Pelasgos appears to have done was establish sanctuaries of Zeus,
during
It was Lycaon who brought in the worship of Zeus at the same time as Cecrops
introduced it to Athens.
> which the time, all of his people were eating oak-fruit, and like the
> Selloi, probably slept on the bare ground beneath oaks while going about
> with unwashed feet.
Considering that they had just arrived in the region what else would you
expect. It took at least 2 generations until the time of Nyctimus for all of
Arkadia to be settled and over 50 cities to be built, hence the name
Pelasgians or City Dwellers.
>
> > >
> > > Another kind of axe was the "pelux", which is a lot closer to the "sg"
> in
> > > Pelasgian. Since the double-axe is thought to have been a symbol of a
> > Cretan
> > > goddess, your mention of Ge (or Gaia) sounds most appropriate,
wherefore
> > > Pelux-Ge = double axe of Ge. I am very happy with this.
> >
> > I dont go with this axe thing anymore. Pelas as well as meaning City
also
> > meant Lord and its also means Pole. The work Axe is itself a corruption
of
> > the word Akri as is the word Edge.
> >
>
> I think you should stay with the double-axe theory awhile, at least until
we
> thrash out this thing with Lukaion and the Arkadians.
>
> > Thus the word Pelux is quite simply as "pole with an edge" or "Pela
Akri"
> or
> > "Pela Aks".
> >
> > What this shows is that the Cretans were Greeks.
> >
>
> It probably shows that the Kretans were Pelasgians before they were
Minoans,
Minoans is a inaccurate term to describe the people of Crete. Minos I lived
over 300 after the Cretan Palace civilisation was founded.
The Cretan Palace Civilisation was almost certainly Greek and mixed with
Hurrian or Egyptian elements.
> and before they became Greek, and who only became Greek after the mainland
> Pelasgians, perhaps as Arkadians, returned to conquer Krete.
The Cretan Palace Civilisation was already dominated by the Greeks at the
time that Uranus was dethroned in 1700 BC. Cronos of Satur I of Knossos
(Kronosos) was the brother of Iapetus who was the ancestor of all the
Hellenes, and also the brother of Oceanuns who was the ancestor of the
Argives, Lacodamians, and Pelasgians.
>
> The real problem that we have is in labelling the Kretans as Minoans from
> ca. 2200 - 1400 BC. Immediately before Minos (a son of Pelasgian Zeus)
> Pelasgos probably ruled on Krete from which he then expanded to the
> mainland, first capturing the Peloponnese before heading northwards.
Nope. The The Cretan Palace Civilisation has no similarity with the
civilisation of Pelasgus which again is inaccurately termed Mycenaean.
Pelasgus was in mainland Greece in 1500 BC and at this time Crete was still
rulled by the Palace Civilisation. It is not until 1400 BC that this Palace
Civilisation is destroyed, probably by Minos I, but Minos I rebuilds the
palaces but they are destroyed again by Tectemus the son of Dorus in about
1380 BC. This is when Crete becomes fully Greek. It is around this time that
Cadmus conquers Illyria after driving the Hellenes from their homes in the
north.
Agamemnon
There is no such language as Indo-European and never was. If Indo-European
exited as a root language then all of its words should derive from one word
alone. Since you cannot find this one word it is blatantly obvious that the
words you call Indo-European were introduced from a dozen of more
independent languages that were spoken in Europe and Mesopotamia.
>
> DGK
>
>
>
o8TY
It seems to be a dual play, where the axe-head is also the glans of the
shaft, pelekus, as much as acorns themselves are half-covered by a shell
(whatever it is called). The acorn with its husk intact partly explains the
shape of the omphalos at Delphi. There are however further plays involved,
and not just limited to language.
Agamemnon
More likely the shape of the Acorn looks like the head of a penis with the
foreskin pulled back, hence balanos or phallus.
o8TY
Without roofs there can be no cities. polis = pileos
>
> > learned how to build cities. The Arkadians may therefore have been the
> first
> > "architects" of Greece (arxi-tekton = Arkas' stonemasons).
>
> Arcas was born 2 generations after Lycaon.
>
OK second-generation architects then. The poor rural economy of Arkadia
forced many of its males to seek a living as foreign mercenaries, and when
there was no war they turned to building in stone in order to maintain their
fighting fitness. Hence the Persians liking the Greek (Arkadian) mercenaries
because when they were not fighting wars they were happy to build their
palaces, eg Persepolis. And it seems they inherently knew how to build.
> >
> > All Pelasgos appears to have done was establish sanctuaries of Zeus,
> during
>
> It was Lycaon who brought in the worship of Zeus at the same time as
Cecrops
> introduced it to Athens.
>
> > which the time, all of his people were eating oak-fruit, and like the
> > Selloi, probably slept on the bare ground beneath oaks while going about
> > with unwashed feet.
>
> Considering that they had just arrived in the region what else would you
> expect. It took at least 2 generations until the time of Nyctimus for all
of
> Arkadia to be settled and over 50 cities to be built, hence the name
> Pelasgians or City Dwellers.
>
But this is exactly my point that before the Pelasgians built cities in
Greece they must already have had the tools and technology to construct
buildings of stone, which they most probably acquired on Krete in building
its 100 or so cities. But where did they get the bronze from and what did
they trade to get it. Please do not say they simply attacked the Kuprians
and stole the copper, because they must have had boats before the could do
this. Their tool was essentially the double axe, which was primarily a
timber cutting tool by which they could build boats, but also their
principal weapon, and then simply by swapping the head over to that of a
mattock or makella (cf mukes) they began to "split" rock and build out of
stone. When stood upright on their butts in the open, these tools could also
have acted as lightning conductors, hence, the association of the
thunderbolt with Zeus. The lightning may even have flash-hardened the
bronze, as it have done later with the iron heads. In ancient Greece, the
city or polis was probably named after the Pelasgians, not the other way
around, which takes us back to all those words with P_L_S. Even polion or
the light grey colour may derive from the Pelasgian workers being covered in
the stone dust from white limestone.
wrt your query above concerning Kastor and Pollux, Pollux also fits in with
the P_L_S play.
The further back the better. We should be aiming to before the moon!
> >
> > The real problem that we have is in labelling the Kretans as Minoans
from
> > ca. 2200 - 1400 BC. Immediately before Minos (a son of Pelasgian Zeus)
> > Pelasgos probably ruled on Krete from which he then expanded to the
> > mainland, first capturing the Peloponnese before heading northwards.
>
> Nope. The The Cretan Palace Civilisation has no similarity with the
> civilisation of Pelasgus which again is inaccurately termed Mycenaean.
>
As the most advanced neighbours of the mainlanders, I bet the Pelasgians
learnt a great deal from the Kretans. Compare the Mexican natives to before
and after the arrival of the European settlers.
o8TY
That is one of the plays. Essentially what needs to be found is the
phallic-shaped object beneath the oak tree.
Agamemnon
> "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> news:arj6j7$o0l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > >
> > > Except that it was Lukaion, son of Pelasgos, who is said to have built
> the
> > > first city in Greece at Lukosovra, from which the others on the
mainland
> >
> > The city of Argos was built long before that.
> >
> > According to Pausanius [8.1.4] is was Pelasgus who was to introduce the
> > building of Huts into Greece and without huts there can be no cities.
> >
>
> Without roofs there can be no cities. polis = pileos
Of course the huts had roofs otherwise they would not be huts. The had round
roofs with a hole for the chimney like the ones Herodotus describes the
Macedonians and Illyrians built..
> >
> > > learned how to build cities. The Arkadians may therefore have been the
> > first
> > > "architects" of Greece (arxi-tekton = Arkas' stonemasons).
> >
> > Arcas was born 2 generations after Lycaon.
> >
>
> OK second-generation architects then. The poor rural economy of Arkadia
> forced many of its males to seek a living as foreign mercenaries, and when
> there was no war they turned to building in stone in order to maintain
their
> fighting fitness. Hence the Persians liking the Greek (Arkadian)
mercenaries
> because when they were not fighting wars they were happy to build their
> palaces, eg Persepolis. And it seems they inherently knew how to build.
The Arkadians were not mercenaries but colonisers and kings. By the time of
Lycaon and his sons the Arkadians had already colonised Italy.
>
> > >
> > > All Pelasgos appears to have done was establish sanctuaries of Zeus,
> > during
> >
> > It was Lycaon who brought in the worship of Zeus at the same time as
> Cecrops
> > introduced it to Athens.
> >
> > > which the time, all of his people were eating oak-fruit, and like the
> > > Selloi, probably slept on the bare ground beneath oaks while going
about
> > > with unwashed feet.
> >
> > Considering that they had just arrived in the region what else would you
> > expect. It took at least 2 generations until the time of Nyctimus for
all
> of
> > Arkadia to be settled and over 50 cities to be built, hence the name
> > Pelasgians or City Dwellers.
> >
>
> But this is exactly my point that before the Pelasgians built cities in
> Greece they must already have had the tools and technology to construct
> buildings of stone, which they most probably acquired on Krete in building
> its 100 or so cities. But where did they get the bronze from and what did
When the Arkadians came the built huts out of wood and straw. It was not
until 1350 that the Mycenae of Perseus was built out of stone.
Before the Arkadians arrived Pelasgians from Crete had already colonised
parts of Greece including Athens and Argos hence Pelasgus was the son of
Niobe. There is plenty of evidence of the Minoan Palace Civilisation there.
When Tectemus the son of Dorus invaded Crete in 1380 BC it was the end of
the Cretan Palace Civilisation.
> they trade to get it. Please do not say they simply attacked the Kuprians
> and stole the copper, because they must have had boats before the could do
> this. Their tool was essentially the double axe, which was primarily a
> timber cutting tool by which they could build boats, but also their
> principal weapon, and then simply by swapping the head over to that of a
> mattock or makella (cf mukes) they began to "split" rock and build out of
> stone. When stood upright on their butts in the open, these tools could
also
This is not how you split stone. You need a hammer and chisel.
> have acted as lightning conductors, hence, the association of the
I don't think so.
> thunderbolt with Zeus. The lightning may even have flash-hardened the
> bronze, as it have done later with the iron heads. In ancient Greece, the
More likely when the axe head hit a rock or another axe head it produced
sparks hence the association with lightening.
> city or polis was probably named after the Pelasgians, not the other way
Nope. The Pelasgians were named after the Polis. The Greeks already had the
word Polis and its variants otherwise they would not have called the
Aigialeans Pelasgians.
Pelasgian means city dweller and Aigialean meant someone who dwelled on the
coast.
> around, which takes us back to all those words with P_L_S. Even polion or
> the light grey colour may derive from the Pelasgian workers being covered
in
> the stone dust from white limestone.
You can also add Brown and Black and Blanc as derivatives of Polis or Melech
or Phallus, or Wa-na-ka-s. All of these colours had something to do with
kingship and kingship did not exist until cities were built. The white
limestone would give the derivation of Blanc, the soil of the land that was
worked on Brown, and Black was the colour of soot which was the product of
making bronze. Even the word Bronze or Halkaion is a derivative of Melakaion
or king.
>
> wrt your query above concerning Kastor and Pollux, Pollux also fits in
with
> the P_L_S play.
How. Why were Castor and Polyduces still worship by the Dorian's ?
> >
> > > and before they became Greek, and who only became Greek after the
> mainland
> > > Pelasgians, perhaps as Arkadians, returned to conquer Krete.
> >
> > The Cretan Palace Civilisation was already dominated by the Greeks at
the
> > time that Uranus was dethroned in 1700 BC. Cronos of Satur I of Knossos
> > (Kronosos) was the brother of Iapetus who was the ancestor of all the
> > Hellenes, and also the brother of Oceanuns who was the ancestor of the
> > Argives, Lacodamians, and Pelasgians.
> >
>
> The further back the better. We should be aiming to before the moon!
Greek Mythology goes back as far as 1800 BC which is when Linear A was
defviesed.
The story of Atlantis might go back as far as 2200 BC which is when the
first Achaeans migrated to Macedonia.
>
> > >
> > > The real problem that we have is in labelling the Kretans as Minoans
> from
> > > ca. 2200 - 1400 BC. Immediately before Minos (a son of Pelasgian Zeus)
> > > Pelasgos probably ruled on Krete from which he then expanded to the
> > > mainland, first capturing the Peloponnese before heading northwards.
> >
> > Nope. The The Cretan Palace Civilisation has no similarity with the
> > civilisation of Pelasgus which again is inaccurately termed Mycenaean.
> >
>
> As the most advanced neighbours of the mainlanders, I bet the Pelasgians
> learnt a great deal from the Kretans. Compare the Mexican natives to
before
> and after the arrival of the European settlers.
The Pelasgians that lived from 1600 to 1500 BC were intermixed with the
Cretans but the Pelasgians that came after them were a different
civilisation that came from the north and destroyed the Cretan Pelasgian
civilisation. They were still all Greeks since both civilisations used the
name Pelasgain to describe themselves as city dwellers.
There is also the Danai who came from Egypt in about 1480 BC and must have
been descended from the Greek Hyksos which is a corruption of Akhaiwoi or
Akhiyawa or Ekwesh. This would make the Danai Aigialeans or coastal dwellers
descended from Io who was the daughter of Inachus and the sister of
Aigialeus.
o8TY
>
> "o8TY" <o8...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:PerD9.31546$Sr6.8...@ozemail.com.au...
> > "Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:arj6j7$o0l$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
>
> > > >
> > > > Except that it was Lukaion, son of Pelasgos, who is said to have
built
> > the
> > > > first city in Greece at Lukosovra, from which the others on the
> mainland
> > >
> > > The city of Argos was built long before that.
So far as I know, Lukosovra and many other Arkadian cities have yet to be
fully or properly investigated, while ancient Argos may never be properly
excavated since it sits directly beneath the modern town. The remains on the
summit of Mt Lukiaon are exceedingly ancient, while Dodona is thought to
date to the third millenium BC.
> > >
> > > According to Pausanius [8.1.4] is was Pelasgus who was to introduce
the
> > > building of Huts into Greece and without huts there can be no cities.
> > >
> >
> > Without roofs there can be no cities. polis = pileos
>
> Of course the huts had roofs otherwise they would not be huts. The had
round
> roofs with a hole for the chimney like the ones Herodotus describes the
> Macedonians and Illyrians built..
>
We probably also need one big mother-of-all-huts in the centre of a town.
The house of tiles at Lerna, named after its roof tiles, is believed to date
very early in the second millenium BC, maybe even to the third millenium BC.
There were also terracotta roof tiles on Kupris. The story of the
Corinthians inventing roof tiles in the seventh century BC therefore seems a
nonsense.
> > >
> > > > learned how to build cities. The Arkadians may therefore have been
the
> > > first
> > > > "architects" of Greece (arxi-tekton = Arkas' stonemasons).
> > >
> > > Arcas was born 2 generations after Lycaon.
> > >
> >
> > OK second-generation architects then. The poor rural economy of Arkadia
> > forced many of its males to seek a living as foreign mercenaries, and
when
> > there was no war they turned to building in stone in order to maintain
> their
> > fighting fitness. Hence the Persians liking the Greek (Arkadian)
> mercenaries
> > because when they were not fighting wars they were happy to build their
> > palaces, eg Persepolis. And it seems they inherently knew how to build.
>
> The Arkadians were not mercenaries but colonisers and kings. By the time
of
> Lycaon and his sons the Arkadians had already colonised Italy.
>
I was referring to the first millenium BC, after the rise of the Spartan
Dorians.
Do you know about the relationship between the Epikouri and Arkadian
mercenaries? I am looking for info - so far hard to find.
I do not consider Mukenai to have been the first city built of stone in
Greece. If Pavsanias is correct, Lukosovra was built beforehand, as were
most probably many of the other cyclopean structures in Greece, ie all those
built by the Kuklopes under Lukaion, son of Pelasgos.
> Before the Arkadians arrived Pelasgians from Crete had already colonised
> parts of Greece including Athens and Argos hence Pelasgus was the son of
> Niobe. There is plenty of evidence of the Minoan Palace Civilisation
there.
> When Tectemus the son of Dorus invaded Crete in 1380 BC it was the end of
> the Cretan Palace Civilisation.
>
> > they trade to get it. Please do not say they simply attacked the
Kuprians
> > and stole the copper, because they must have had boats before the could
do
> > this. Their tool was essentially the double axe, which was primarily a
> > timber cutting tool by which they could build boats, but also their
> > principal weapon, and then simply by swapping the head over to that of a
> > mattock or makella (cf mukes) they began to "split" rock and build out
of
> > stone. When stood upright on their butts in the open, these tools could
> also
>
> This is not how you split stone. You need a hammer and chisel.
>
One digs a narrow trench in the top of a cliff face using a makella, and
then using a wedge or two, splits away the rock, by which limestone and
marbles can be split to yield at least one smooth face.
> > have acted as lightning conductors, hence, the association of the
>
> I don't think so.
>
You should try it sometime. It is very loud and can be very dangerous if the
metal fractures.
> > thunderbolt with Zeus. The lightning may even have flash-hardened the
> > bronze, as it have done later with the iron heads. In ancient Greece,
the
>
> More likely when the axe head hit a rock or another axe head it produced
> sparks hence the association with lightening.
>
That too.
> > city or polis was probably named after the Pelasgians, not the other way
>
> Nope. The Pelasgians were named after the Polis. The Greeks already had
the
> word Polis and its variants otherwise they would not have called the
> Aigialeans Pelasgians.
>
> Pelasgian means city dweller and Aigialean meant someone who dwelled on
the
> coast.
>
I think we will have to agree to disagree over the former here. You have
still to establish the symbols of power and religion of your city-dwellers.
> > around, which takes us back to all those words with P_L_S. Even polion
or
> > the light grey colour may derive from the Pelasgian workers being
covered
> in
> > the stone dust from white limestone.
>
> You can also add Brown and Black and Blanc as derivatives of Polis or
Melech
> or Phallus, or Wa-na-ka-s. All of these colours had something to do with
> kingship and kingship did not exist until cities were built. The white
> limestone would give the derivation of Blanc, the soil of the land that
was
> worked on Brown, and Black was the colour of soot which was the product of
> making bronze. Even the word Bronze or Halkaion is a derivative of
Melakaion
> or king.
>
Mostly stone of red or white colour was sought, eg at Mukenai and Tiruns,
mostly red conglomerate and whitish limestone were used. The same on Kupris,
especially at Old Paphos and Kition. Of course other coloured rock was used
but only in suppliment. This was continued later with the use of terracotta
tiles and white marble, and later with Pentelic marble which, because of its
iron content, stains red. Parian marble was no doubt selected because of its
redness. Hence, at these places the stonemasons would have been mostly
covered in red (Milton, Miltiades, Miletus etc) or white (polion, lueke)
dust.
> >
> > wrt your query above concerning Kastor and Pollux, Pollux also fits in
> with
> > the P_L_S play.
>
> How. Why were Castor and Polyduces still worship by the Dorian's ?
>
>
My guess is because it was part of the deal in joining the Arkadians to rule
the Peloponnese. The Dioskouri seem to be connected with the oak-fruit
eating ritual of the Arkadians. Also with the axe head and shaft, where one
rules above while the other rules below. Also with the dokana. Also as twin
cities, as with Mukenai and Amuklai, and Diduma. (Please fell free to add
any other "twin" city names here) Also Pavsanias' description of how the
Messenian youths dressed as the Dioskouri in their attack on the Spartans.
Also with Apollo and Hyakinthos.
I still think the Pelasgian expansion mostly came from the southern Aegean.
Unless I am confusing this expansion with that of the Arkadians from around
1600 BC. But then this pushes the Pelasgians even further back in time,
which is what we want.
hippo
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
> "o8TY" wrote in message
> > "Agamemnon" wrote in message
> > > "o8TY" wrote in message
No it doesn't. The non-Indo-European nature of Linear A proves without
question that the original Cretans were not Greeks. A Greek (mainland)
ruling stratum is indicated by the introduction of Linear B at a later date,
but only a ruling stratum. The local population probably remained non-Greek
even though it came to speak the language over time. Pelasgoi probably was
the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the first
or second waves to the indigenous non-Greek mainland population. It need not
have been a term in existence before that in the pre-Greek language.
Differentiating them as 'city people' makes perfect sense for invading
herdsmen. Invading Hebrew tribesmen had a similar view of the city dwelling
Canaanites. The Spanish called the indigenous population of the New World
collectively 'Indians' which had nothing whatever to do with what they
called themselves, if indeed there was as accepted collective word for them
in any local language, or what they truly were.
-snip-
> And "labrus" is exactly the same word as "leaver" whcih is nothing more
than
> a long pole. It is also the same as the word "labour" so probably was also
> used as another name for a "plough" which in itself is a corruption of the
> word for Pole and Earth, "Pela Gi" or "Earth pole".
You may be right there since the first 'plow' was a simple digging
stick. -the Troll
Agamemnon
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:8eWdnWXOo8n...@comcast.com...
WRONG. Half of the names of the Cretan kings named in Linear A inscriptions
are Indo-European, including several Satur's, which is the same as the Latin
Saturn and the Mittani Saturna, and EXACTLY the same spelling as the Greek
Satyr.
> question that the original Cretans were not Greeks. A Greek (mainland)
RUBBISH. The inscriptions prove that the Cretan Palace Civilisation was
mostly Greek and mixed with Hurrians or Egyptians who were probably the
people who initially built the palaces and invented Linear A. The indigenous
Cretans were always GREEK but between 1900 and 1700 BC their rulers were
foreigners.
> ruling stratum is indicated by the introduction of Linear B at a later
date,
> but only a ruling stratum. The local population probably remained
non-Greek
> even though it came to speak the language over time. Pelasgoi probably was
> the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
first
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. According to the Indo-European theory the evidence of the
Hittite, Phrygian and Armenian civilisations languages shows that Greeks
must have already been in Macedonia in 5000 BC otherwise the distinction
between their languages would not exist.
It was the people that came to Greece in 2200 BC who spoke a foreign
language, probably Basque and learned Greek from the people who were already
there.
>Pelasgoi probably was
> the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
first
> or second waves to the indigenous non-Greek mainland population. It need
not
WRONG. According to Herodotus Pelasgoi was a generic term for speakers of an
so-called Indo-European language which was the language that Greek evolved
form, which is most probably Proto-Greek given Herodotus description of
where the Pelasgi lived and that they were not Italic, Illyrian or Thracian
speakers but clearly distinct and most closely related to Greek and
certainly not Armenian.
> have been a term in existence before that in the pre-Greek language.
> Differentiating them as 'city people' makes perfect sense for invading
> herdsmen.
RUBBISH. The Arkadians were Pelasgians and Arkadia was NOT inhabited until
1500 BC. NO CITIES were built there until 1460 BC apart from Lycosoura.
Pelasgian was the Greek term for city dweller and applied to all city
dwellers who were GREEKS. The Greeks had a special name for foreigners and
the name means people who could not speak Greek. The Arcadian dialect is
directly related to the Cypriot and the Cypriot to the Cretan. These
Pelasgians were clearly GREEK speakers.
>Invading Hebrew tribesmen had a similar view of the city dwelling
> Canaanites. The Spanish called the indigenous population of the New World
BOLLOX. The were NO SUCH THINGS as Hebrews. The Egyptian term Apiru is a
generic term for horses, riders, and bandits, and its root is the same root
as the Greek word Hippos and the Cypriot Aparos.
> collectively 'Indians' which had nothing whatever to do with what they
> called themselves, if indeed there was as accepted collective word for
them
> in any local language, or what they truly were.
The Greek collective term of foreigners was BARBARIANS.
Since Herodotus says that Greek derived from Pelasgain, and he was in the
best position to know, the Pelasgians were clearly Proto-Greeks and at the
very least so-called Indo-Europeans.
hippo
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > or
> > > "Pela Aks".
> > >
> > > What this shows is that the Cretans were Greeks.
> > No it doesn't. The non-Indo-European nature of Linear A proves without
>
> WRONG. Half of the names of the Cretan kings named in Linear A
inscriptions
> are Indo-European, including several Satur's, which is the same as the
Latin
> Saturn and the Mittani Saturna, and EXACTLY the same spelling as the Greek
> Satyr.
We can not read linear A, only imperfectly sound out syllables common to
both Linear A and B which only comprise about one third of the total symbols
known. What we can say without question is that Linear A is *not* an
Indo-European language from it's inflection. We can also say that the sounds
in the Linear A syllabulary are *not* found in Greek or linear B would have
not needed to have been invented to express new sound values required for
Greek. Our knowledge of the actual sound values in Linear B is also
imperfect as philologists know there are regular sound shifts in all
languages over time.
Similarities in a few kings names would not change any of this.
> > question that the original Cretans were not Greeks. A Greek (mainland)
>
> RUBBISH. The inscriptions prove that the Cretan Palace Civilisation was
> mostly Greek and mixed with Hurrians or Egyptians who were probably the
> people who initially built the palaces and invented Linear A. The
indigenous
> Cretans were always GREEK but between 1900 and 1700 BC their rulers were
> foreigners.
Absolute nonsense. There were no 'Greeks' until the third millennium BCE at
the earliest as the Indo-European 'invasions' did not begin until the
fourth. Crete was already populated long before that. Linear A is also known
not to have been Egyptian and no inscriptions in Egyptian of a housekeeping
nature have been found in Crete. The indigenous population was undoubtedly
part of what is sometimes called the Mediterranean race which had developed
long before an Indo-European laid foot out of the steppes.
> > ruling stratum is indicated by the introduction of Linear B at a later
> date,
> > but only a ruling stratum. The local population probably remained
> non-Greek
> > even though it came to speak the language over time. Pelasgoi probably
was
> > the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
> first
> ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. According to the Indo-European theory the evidence of
the
> Hittite, Phrygian and Armenian civilisations languages shows that Greeks
> must have already been in Macedonia in 5000 BC otherwise the distinction
> between their languages would not exist.
There are several Indo-European theories BTW not one and Indo-European
remnants in Hittite have nothing whatever to do with Macedonia. The
Indo-European civilization was patricentric and patrifocal. The civilization
of the Balkans in 5000 BCE was matrifocal and matricentric.
> It was the people that came to Greece in 2200 BC who spoke a foreign
> language, probably Basque and learned Greek from the people who were
already
> there.
Also ridiculous. There has been no success in linking Basque with any known
language spoken in the Aegean, although it wouldn't surprise me if it were.
Still it would have been related to the pre-Greek language not after.
> >Pelasgoi probably was
> > the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
> first
> > or second waves to the indigenous non-Greek mainland population. It need
> not
>
> WRONG. According to Herodotus Pelasgoi was a generic term for speakers of
an
> so-called Indo-European language which was the language that Greek
evolved
> form, which is most probably Proto-Greek given Herodotus description of
> where the Pelasgi lived and that they were not Italic, Illyrian or
Thracian
> speakers but clearly distinct and most closely related to Greek and
> certainly not Armenian.
Herodotus had no written sources upon which to base his early history of the
Greeks, only several thousands of years of orally transmitted folk
tradition. While I tend to give oral tradition more credence than most
historians, I understand it must be carefully sifted before use. Linear B is
a form of proto-Greek. Greek of the fifth century BCE was quite different in
vocabulary, syntax and grammar.
> > have been a term in existence before that in the pre-Greek language.
> > Differentiating them as 'city people' makes perfect sense for invading
> > herdsmen.
> RUBBISH. The Arkadians were Pelasgians and Arkadia was NOT inhabited until
> 1500 BC. NO CITIES were built there until 1460 BC apart from Lycosoura.
Which does not mean it was not inhabited, only that it's social culture was
pre-urban. Greece was inhabited from the Paleolithic. It makes perfect sense
that Arcadia would be one of the last areas in Greece to developed given the
ruggedness of the terrain. I've been lost in the mountains there myself.
> Pelasgian was the Greek term for city dweller and applied to all city
> dwellers who were GREEKS. The Greeks had a special name for foreigners and
> the name means people who could not speak Greek. The Arcadian dialect is
> directly related to the Cypriot and the Cypriot to the Cretan. These
> Pelasgians were clearly GREEK speakers.
Barbaros was a later word for foreigners and would not have applied to
people living in their midst with a superior culture. It is not used in the
Iliad to describe any of the peoples of Asia Minor who were not Greek
speakers.
> >Invading Hebrew tribesmen had a similar view of the city dwelling
> > Canaanites. The Spanish called the indigenous population of the New
World
> BOLLOX. The were NO SUCH THINGS as Hebrews. The Egyptian term Apiru is a
> generic term for horses, riders, and bandits, and its root is the same
root
> as the Greek word Hippos and the Cypriot Aparos.
Ummmm, the Hebrews called themselves Hebrews. I can use the term if they
felt they could. It is highly likely Egyptian equestrian terms were similar
or derived from the East as that is from where they learned to use horses.
In all probability very many ancient languages used a similar word for
'horse' for the same reason.
> > collectively 'Indians' which had nothing whatever to do with what they
> > called themselves, if indeed there was as accepted collective word for
> them
> > in any local language, or what they truly were.
> The Greek collective term of foreigners was BARBARIANS.
It was Barbaros and was often used only where the actual name of the people
was not known. It was also a sliding scale which included and excluded
peoples depending upon the political climate. Before the time of Philip, the
Greeks called Macedonians even though Macedonian was a Greek dialect. After
his military victories the practice stopped.
> Since Herodotus says that Greek derived from Pelasgain, and he was in the
> best position to know, the Pelasgians were clearly Proto-Greeks and at the
> very least so-called Indo-Europeans.
Oddly he was in less better position to tell than we are. Herodotus is
filled with mistakes even about times nearer his own. Greek is an
Indo-European language. According to the latest evidence, the first
Indo-Europeans to cross the Danube did so about 4000 BCE and in very small
numbers. It would have taken a very long time indeed for this small
beginning to change the culture and speech of the peoples of the Balkans.
Greece and Crete were inhabited long before that time by a race of small
gracile people we call Mediterranean for the lack of any other. They were
not Greek because they did not speak Greek or proto-Greek or any other form
of Indo-European language. -the Troll
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
> > > or
> > > > "Pela Aks".
> > > >
> > > > What this shows is that the Cretans were Greeks.
>
> > > No it doesn't. The non-Indo-European nature of Linear A proves without
> >
> > WRONG. Half of the names of the Cretan kings named in Linear A
> inscriptions
> > are Indo-European, including several Satur's, which is the same as the
> Latin
> > Saturn and the Mittani Saturna, and EXACTLY the same spelling as the
Greek
> > Satyr.
>
> We can not read linear A, only imperfectly sound out syllables common to
Who is we ?
> both Linear A and B which only comprise about one third of the total
symbols
> known. What we can say without question is that Linear A is *not* an
> Indo-European language from it's inflection. We can also say that the
sounds
RUBBISH. You are not we and you only talk for yourself.
There is not such language as Proto-Indo-European and never was. The term
Indo-European can only be used as a generic term to describe languages which
are intelligible to people who live in India and Europe. By that definition
Japanese is now an Indo-European langue since virtually all of the technical
terms are derived from Greek and Latin and English.
The languages of Europe evolved through the ASSIMILATION of at least a dozen
unrelated language over the course of time. They did NOT derive from one
common root language.
Now as someone who can read ancient Greek I know perfectly well that Linear
A is GREEK because I can understand the pro-nouns. It is also Indo-Europe
because Greek is classified as Indo-European.
Other people (Faucounau) have identified Linear A as a hybrid of Greek and
Hurrian.
> in the Linear A syllabulary are *not* found in Greek or linear B would
have
> not needed to have been invented to express new sound values required for
> Greek. Our knowledge of the actual sound values in Linear B is also
Not so. Linear B is a simplified version of Linear A. Chinese script exists
in two forms one of which is simplified alphabetic and the other one
pictorial. Linear A itself is a simplified form of an earlier pictorial
script.
> imperfect as philologists know there are regular sound shifts in all
> languages over time.
> Similarities in a few kings names would not change any of this.
You are deliberately ignoring the surrounding evidence and the historical
background. When those factors are taken into consideration along with the
fact that the names have similarities with other Indo-European names there
is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to back up your argument that the Greeks did
not inhibit Crete at this time.
>
> > > question that the original Cretans were not Greeks. A Greek (mainland)
> >
> > RUBBISH. The inscriptions prove that the Cretan Palace Civilisation was
> > mostly Greek and mixed with Hurrians or Egyptians who were probably the
> > people who initially built the palaces and invented Linear A. The
> indigenous
> > Cretans were always GREEK but between 1900 and 1700 BC their rulers were
> > foreigners.
>
> Absolute nonsense. There were no 'Greeks' until the third millennium BCE
at
CRAP. That INSANE and IDIOTIC agreement was used by Anglo-Saxon RACISTS in
the 19th century to deny that there were even any Greeks inhabiting Greece
until after 700 BC. This MORONIC and RACIST way of thinking was demolished
when Linear B was proven to be Greek and 800 years of recorded Greek history
had to be reinstated. Another 300 years of recorded Greek history still has
to be reinstated to cover the Cretan Palace Civilisation period and there is
NO rational argument against its reinstatement.
> the earliest as the Indo-European 'invasions' did not begin until the
> fourth.
RUBBISH.
Indo-European is NOT a race.
2200 BC is way too early for Indo-Iranian languages to have differentiated
from Greek and Hittite. The differentiation must have happened in 5000 BC at
the latest and that means that the Iranians must have already been in Persia
and the Hittites in Anatolia at this time, meaning also that the Greeks must
also have been in Greece.
Going by the DNA evidence its is pretty obvious that the one DNA linage that
Greeks, Hittites and Iranians share in common is M172 which originated in
Anatolia.
The M173 DNA linage which originated in Iberia/Ukraine is completely devoid
in Iraq.
Now a study of the DNA of Greeks shows that M173 is present in almost 1/3 of
the population there (another 1/3 is M172 and another 1/3 is M35 which
originated in Egypt) so it is pretty obvious that the people who came to
Greece in 2200 BC were from Iberia and must have spoken something similar
Basque since the Indo-European speaking people who moved to Iraq do NOT
contain the M173 linage and must have moved there before them. Therefore the
M173's must have acclimated the Greek language from the people already in
Greece.
In fact it gets a bit more complicated than that since the M173's also
contributed to the existing proto-Greek language already spoke in Greece
since there was NEVER one root language for all of the languages termed
"Indo-European".
>Crete was already populated long before that. Linear A is also known
> not to have been Egyptian and no inscriptions in Egyptian of a
housekeeping
RUBBISH. DNA research proves that 1/3 of the ancient Greeks came form Egypt
10,000 yuear ago. Therefore 1/3 of the linguistic terms in Greek must have
come form Egypt also and have been transmitted from the proto-Greeks to the
Indo-Iranian Indo-Europeans when they were still in the Balkans..
> nature have been found in Crete. The indigenous population was undoubtedly
> part of what is sometimes called the Mediterranean race which had
developed
> long before an Indo-European laid foot out of the steppes.
RUBBISH. DNA research proves no such thing. The DNA shows that M172 was in
Greece first 20,000 years ago and then M35 came along 10,000 years ago. M173
may have reach the northern Balkans 5000 years ago but they dint reach
Greece until 2200 BC otherwise the Iranians would carry the M173 linage as
well, which the don't..
>
> > > ruling stratum is indicated by the introduction of Linear B at a later
> > date,
> > > but only a ruling stratum. The local population probably remained
> > non-Greek
> > > even though it came to speak the language over time. Pelasgoi probably
> was
> > > the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
> > first
>
> > ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. According to the Indo-European theory the evidence of
> the
> > Hittite, Phrygian and Armenian civilisations languages shows that Greeks
> > must have already been in Macedonia in 5000 BC otherwise the distinction
> > between their languages would not exist.
>
> There are several Indo-European theories BTW not one and Indo-European
> remnants in Hittite have nothing whatever to do with Macedonia.
The
> Indo-European civilization was patricentric and patrifocal. The
civilization
> of the Balkans in 5000 BCE was matrifocal and matricentric.
ABSOLUTE BOLLOX. There was NEVER an Indo-European race and there is NO SUCH
THING and a matriarchal civilisation in recorded history. Matriarchies are
figments of the perverted 19th century RACIST imagination.
According to Herodotus the Phrygians (aka. Brygians) were once neighbours of
the Macedonians before they moved to Anatola in about 1600 BC and the
Armenians were a Phrygian colony. From DNA analysis it is clear that the
Armenians are an M173 DNA linage and therefore the Phrygians must have
originated from Macedonia as Herodotus said. So you would not expect Hittite
to be directly related to Armenian. The Armenians and Phrygians came AFTER
the Greeks had split for the Hittite's and Iranians. The thing that links
the Greeks with the Armenians and Phrygians is the M173 linage, and the
thing that links the Greeks to the Iranians and Hittites is the M172 linage.
>
> > It was the people that came to Greece in 2200 BC who spoke a foreign
> > language, probably Basque and learned Greek from the people who were
> already
> > there.
>
> Also ridiculous. There has been no success in linking Basque with any
known
> language spoken in the Aegean, although it wouldn't surprise me if it
were.
> Still it would have been related to the pre-Greek language not after.
WRONG. You are forgetting that 90% of the language called Basque is falsely
attributed to Latin. The fact is that the Basques were already speaking a
so-called Italic language LONG before the Romans came as were the Gauls.
The STUPIDITY with the proto-Indo-Europen theory is that it thinks that
Latin and Greek-Anatolian-Iranian languages evolved from one root which it
has not eve been able to prove. The REALITY is that there was NEVER
proto-Indo-European langauge. The Iberian (Latin/Gallic/Italic) branch
evolved separately and merge with PRE-EXISTING the Balkan branch 5000 years
ago after that last ice age when M173 reached the Blakans.
>
> > >Pelasgoi probably was
> > > the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of the
> > first
> > > or second waves to the indigenous non-Greek mainland population. It
need
> > not
> >
> > WRONG. According to Herodotus Pelasgoi was a generic term for speakers
of
> an
> > so-called Indo-European language which was the language that Greek
> evolved
> > form, which is most probably Proto-Greek given Herodotus description of
> > where the Pelasgi lived and that they were not Italic, Illyrian or
> Thracian
> > speakers but clearly distinct and most closely related to Greek and
> > certainly not Armenian.
>
> Herodotus had no written sources upon which to base his early history of
the
BOLLOX. Herodotus clearly STATES his written sources as the Annals of the
Egyptians, Persians and others which were kept by the priests.
> Greeks, only several thousands of years of orally transmitted folk
> tradition. While I tend to give oral tradition more credence than most
BULL FUCKING SHIT.
There is NO SUCH THING as an oral tradition. This is another PATHETIC RACIST
19th century myth.
Homer wrote the Illaid in 940 BC as a TEXT. All historical references call
it a WRITTEN TEXT.
The fact that Linear B exists in the period of Perseus, Herakles and the
Trojan War is more than ample evidence to show that the histories of the
event were WRITTEN. Homer catalogue of ships in book 2 of the Iliad was
almost certainly base on a Linear B text. The story of the Heraklids attacks
on the Peloponnese and the Isthmus of Corinth is even recorded in EXISTING
Linear B inscriptions referring to the fortifications that were built to
stop these attack in the palaces they occurred.
> historians, I understand it must be carefully sifted before use. Linear B
is
> a form of proto-Greek. Greek of the fifth century BCE was quite different
in
> vocabulary, syntax and grammar.
TWADDLE. The ONLY thing different between 5th C and 13th C Greek was the
script used to write it. Linear B deliberately suppresses consonants because
the people who invented it knew of the existence of Greek dialects which
rotated the values of certain consonants such as R and L and G and K. The
easiest way to make the dialect of one part of Greece intelligable in
written form to a speaker form another part which speak a different dialect
which switched R with L was to use one symbol to represent both letters. The
Greeks cold have easily created new symbols if they wanted to just as the
Phoenicians could have just as easily used vowels but they deliberately
chose not to. Vowels were suppressed in Phoenician script because the
dialects of Palestine rotated all the values around so much that
representing the same words with vowels would have made them unintelligible.
When Phoenician script replaced Linear B in 1100 BC after the Greeks
inserted vowels into Cadmian script they consonants were already there so
the distinctions in dialects were made known in the spelling of words. This
spelling distinction is what caused these words which were exactly the same
in Linear B to have divergent meanings.
>
> > > have been a term in existence before that in the pre-Greek language.
> > > Differentiating them as 'city people' makes perfect sense for invading
> > > herdsmen.
>
> > RUBBISH. The Arkadians were Pelasgians and Arkadia was NOT inhabited
until
> > 1500 BC. NO CITIES were built there until 1460 BC apart from Lycosoura.
>
> Which does not mean it was not inhabited, only that it's social culture
was
> pre-urban. Greece was inhabited from the Paleolithic. It makes perfect
sense
> that Arcadia would be one of the last areas in Greece to developed given
the
> ruggedness of the terrain. I've been lost in the mountains there myself.
It makes perfect sense that the people who originally inhabited Greece spoke
GREEK. The is NO evidence whatsoever of any mass extinctions.
>
> > Pelasgian was the Greek term for city dweller and applied to all city
> > dwellers who were GREEKS. The Greeks had a special name for foreigners
and
> > the name means people who could not speak Greek. The Arcadian dialect is
> > directly related to the Cypriot and the Cypriot to the Cretan. These
> > Pelasgians were clearly GREEK speakers.
>
> Barbaros was a later word for foreigners and would not have applied to
> people living in their midst with a superior culture. It is not used in
the
> Iliad to describe any of the peoples of Asia Minor who were not Greek
> speakers.
TWADDLE. ALL the people who fought in the Trojan War were GREEKS even the
Trojans. Even Teucer the cousin of Achilles had a Trojan mother.
>
> > >Invading Hebrew tribesmen had a similar view of the city dwelling
> > > Canaanites. The Spanish called the indigenous population of the New
> World
>
> > BOLLOX. The were NO SUCH THINGS as Hebrews. The Egyptian term Apiru is a
> > generic term for horses, riders, and bandits, and its root is the same
> root
> > as the Greek word Hippos and the Cypriot Aparos.
>
> Ummmm, the Hebrews called themselves Hebrews. I can use the term if they
RUBBISH the was NO SUCH THINGS as Hebrews and NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to
support their existence.
RUBBISH. There are NO mistakes in Herodotus. Obviously you have it read it
properly.
> Indo-European language. According to the latest evidence, the first
> Indo-Europeans to cross the Danube did so about 4000 BCE and in very small
There was NO SUCH THING as an Indo-European race.
> numbers. It would have taken a very long time indeed for this small
> beginning to change the culture and speech of the peoples of the Balkans.
> Greece and Crete were inhabited long before that time by a race of small
> gracile people we call Mediterranean for the lack of any other. They were
RUBBISH. The DNA proves otherwise. see above.
> not Greek because they did not speak Greek or proto-Greek or any other
form
> of Indo-European language. -the Troll
HOGWASH.
These people were GREEK because they language they spoke still exists today
in the language spoken by every other Greek.
hippo
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > We can not read linear A, only imperfectly sound out syllables common
to
>
> Who is we ?
'We' is the scientific community of philologists and others who's business
is to decipher lost languages.
> > both Linear A and B which only comprise about one third of the total
> symbols
> > known. What we can say without question is that Linear A is *not* an
> > Indo-European language from it's inflection. We can also say that the
> sounds
> RUBBISH. You are not we and you only talk for yourself.
If you can decipher Linear A then you had better run out and publish because
no one has learned of it except, presumably, yourself.
> There is not such language as Proto-Indo-European and never was. The term
> Indo-European can only be used as a generic term to describe languages
which
> are intelligible to people who live in India and Europe. By that
definition
> Japanese is now an Indo-European langue since virtually all of the
technical
> terms are derived from Greek and Latin and English.
>
> The languages of Europe evolved through the ASSIMILATION of at least a
dozen
> unrelated language over the course of time. They did NOT derive from one
> common root language.
You are half right. Modern European languages are of four unrealted root
groups. Each has learned something from the others. Hungarian is a
Finno-Ugrian root language. It is not now nor has it ever been
Indo-European.
> Now as someone who can read ancient Greek I know perfectly well that
Linear
> A is GREEK because I can understand the pro-nouns. It is also Indo-Europe
> because Greek is classified as Indo-European.
As I said you will be famous as soon as you get to print since you are
refuting all scientific opinion on the subject.
> Other people (Faucounau) have identified Linear A as a hybrid of Greek and
> Hurrian.
There are as many theories about Linear A as there are people who have
looked into it. The only point of agreement is that it is definitely *not*
Greek or an Indo-European language because it lacks the inflection that is
the essential element of all Indo-European languages.
> > in the Linear A syllabulary are *not* found in Greek or linear B would
> have
> > not needed to have been invented to express new sound values required
for
> > Greek. Our knowledge of the actual sound values in Linear B is also
> Not so. Linear B is a simplified version of Linear A. Chinese script
exists
> in two forms one of which is simplified alphabetic and the other one
> pictorial. Linear A itself is a simplified form of an earlier pictorial
> script.
I agree that Linear A is probably a simplified form of glyphs, but not that
Linear B is a simplified form if Linear A. There are almost an equal number
of symbols in both approximately a third of which are the same. It is quite
clear to researchers that Linear A and B are different languages.
> > imperfect as philologists know there are regular sound shifts in all
> > languages over time.
> > Similarities in a few kings names would not change any of this.
> You are deliberately ignoring the surrounding evidence and the historical
> background. When those factors are taken into consideration along with the
> fact that the names have similarities with other Indo-European names there
> is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to back up your argument that the Greeks did
> not inhibit Crete at this time.
You claim the indigenous population and language of Crete was Greek. All the
evidence of history and research say that is impossible.
No, it is a language group. The original invaders into Europe who spoke it
were a race.
> 2200 BC is way too early for Indo-Iranian languages to have differentiated
> from Greek and Hittite. The differentiation must have happened in 5000 BC
at
> the latest and that means that the Iranians must have already been in
Persia
> and the Hittites in Anatolia at this time, meaning also that the Greeks
must
> also have been in Greece.
It means nothing of the kind. There is no archaeological evidence of
Indo-Europeans in western Europe before 4000 BCE and then only a very few
find sites in the Roumanian Dobruja representing a very small population.
> Going by the DNA evidence its is pretty obvious that the one DNA linage
that
> Greeks, Hittites and Iranians share in common is M172 which originated in
> Anatolia.
> The M173 DNA linage which originated in Iberia/Ukraine is completely
devoid
> in Iraq.
>
> Now a study of the DNA of Greeks shows that M173 is present in almost 1/3
of
> the population there (another 1/3 is M172 and another 1/3 is M35 which
> originated in Egypt) so it is pretty obvious that the people who came to
> Greece in 2200 BC were from Iberia and must have spoken something similar
> Basque since the Indo-European speaking people who moved to Iraq do NOT
> contain the M173 linage and must have moved there before them. Therefore
the
> M173's must have acclimated the Greek language from the people already in
> Greece.
>
> In fact it gets a bit more complicated than that since the M173's also
> contributed to the existing proto-Greek language already spoke in Greece
> since there was NEVER one root language for all of the languages termed
> "Indo-European".
The Indo-European 'invaders' of Europe were never in large numbers. They
imparted very little to the racial stock of Europe including DNA. Their
impact was in converting the non-Indo-European population to their culture
and language. Anatolia in the sixth millennium BCE produced and exported the
Neolithic to Europe. Their culture was totally different from that of the
Indo-Europeans.
> >Crete was already populated long before that. Linear A is also known
> > not to have been Egyptian and no inscriptions in Egyptian of a
> housekeeping
> RUBBISH. DNA research proves that 1/3 of the ancient Greeks came form
Egypt
> 10,000 yuear ago. Therefore 1/3 of the linguistic terms in Greek must have
> come form Egypt also and have been transmitted from the proto-Greeks to
the
> Indo-Iranian Indo-Europeans when they were still in the Balkans..
It's you talking total rubish. Language has nothing to do with DNA or race.
Modern Portugal speaks an Indo-European language but racially has absolutely
nothing to do with them except by superficial contact with a Roman,
Celtiberian or Goth now and again.
> > nature have been found in Crete. The indigenous population was
undoubtedly
> > part of what is sometimes called the Mediterranean race which had
> developed
> > long before an Indo-European laid foot out of the steppes.
>
> RUBBISH. DNA research proves no such thing. The DNA shows that M172 was in
> Greece first 20,000 years ago and then M35 came along 10,000 years ago.
M173
> may have reach the northern Balkans 5000 years ago but they dint reach
> Greece until 2200 BC otherwise the Iranians would carry the M173 linage as
> well, which the don't.
Again, language has nothing to do with race.
Matriarchal societies inlude your Basques which may be a remnant of the
ancient neolithic population of Europe and American Indian tribes which are
recorded as recently as three hundred years ago. You need to do some
homework.
> According to Herodotus the Phrygians (aka. Brygians) were once neighbours
of
> the Macedonians before they moved to Anatola in about 1600 BC and the
> Armenians were a Phrygian colony. From DNA analysis it is clear that the
> Armenians are an M173 DNA linage and therefore the Phrygians must have
> originated from Macedonia as Herodotus said. So you would not expect
Hittite
> to be directly related to Armenian. The Armenians and Phrygians came AFTER
> the Greeks had split for the Hittite's and Iranians. The thing that links
> the Greeks with the Armenians and Phrygians is the M173 linage, and the
> thing that links the Greeks to the Iranians and Hittites is the M172
linage.
To be honest I have little interrest in DNA researches since race has little
to do with history.
> > > It was the people that came to Greece in 2200 BC who spoke a foreign
> > > language, probably Basque and learned Greek from the people who were
> > already
> > > there.
> >
> > Also ridiculous. There has been no success in linking Basque with any
> known
> > language spoken in the Aegean, although it wouldn't surprise me if it
> were.
> > Still it would have been related to the pre-Greek language not after.
> WRONG. You are forgetting that 90% of the language called Basque is
falsely
> attributed to Latin. The fact is that the Basques were already speaking a
> so-called Italic language LONG before the Romans came as were the Gauls.
No one thinks there is a Latin or Italic base for Basque. It is a totally
unique language as far as anyone knows but definitely not Indo-European.
> The STUPIDITY with the proto-Indo-Europen theory is that it thinks that
> Latin and Greek-Anatolian-Iranian languages evolved from one root which it
> has not eve been able to prove. The REALITY is that there was NEVER
> proto-Indo-European langauge. The Iberian (Latin/Gallic/Italic) branch
> evolved separately and merge with PRE-EXISTING the Balkan branch 5000
years
> ago after that last ice age when M173 reached the Balkans.
The common root of all Indo-European languages is adequately proven. It is
the only way such a family group could exist. There is no argument they
probably cross pollinated one another and were influenced by other
non-Indo-European languages.
> > > >Pelasgoi probably was
> > > > the generic name initially given by the invading Indo-Europeans of
the
> > > first
> > > > or second waves to the indigenous non-Greek mainland population. It
> need
> > > not
> > >
> > > WRONG. According to Herodotus Pelasgoi was a generic term for speakers
> of
> > an
> > > so-called Indo-European language which was the language that Greek
> > evolved
> > > form, which is most probably Proto-Greek given Herodotus description
of
> > > where the Pelasgi lived and that they were not Italic, Illyrian or
> > Thracian
> > > speakers but clearly distinct and most closely related to Greek and
> > > certainly not Armenian.
> >
> > Herodotus had no written sources upon which to base his early history of
> the
>
> BOLLOX. Herodotus clearly STATES his written sources as the Annals of the
> Egyptians, Persians and others which were kept by the priests.
Herodotus was a very fine historian for his time but records did not exist
for Europe in the fourth contury BCE in Egypt, or Persia, or anywhere else.
> > Greeks, only several thousands of years of orally transmitted folk
> > tradition. While I tend to give oral tradition more credence than most
>
> BULL FUCKING SHIT.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as an oral tradition. This is another PATHETIC
RACIST
> 19th century myth.
There is now and has been oral tradition since humans first learned to
speak. There is even oral tradition within your own family and mine. I
seldom make snap judgments but I came to this ng with the idea to learn. If
it is populated by arrogant, bad mannered, uneducated fools like you who
have far more to lean than to teach I can spend my time more profitably
eating a ham sandwich. -the Troll
grapheus
> Other people (Faucounau) have identified Linear A as a hybrid of Greek and
> Hurrian.
>
This is wrong. You have not read correctly what J. Faucounau has
written : he considers that diverse languages have been written in the
Linear A script. Most of the inscriptions, he wrote, are
"Proto-Greek". But one is pure Greek (Proto-Ionian), et a few are
written in a "pre-Greek" language.
Have a better look at <http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v011.htm>
I must add that, like myself, J. Faucounau is a strong follower of the
"Proto-IE Theory" of the deceased German linguist Paul Kretschmer (who
was living in Vienna), with "three linguistic European layers" :
Pre-IE, Proto-IE (in a Kretschmerian sense !) and "IE stricto sensu".
As for the "Pelasgian Problem", why you don't read J.F.'s book
(unhappily in French !) : "Les Proto-Ioniens". You may easily get it
at the e-bookshop Alapage or Amazon.fr :
<http://www.alapage.com> (Just type the author's name).
Regards
grapheus
Agamemnon
>
> "Agamemnon" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
>
>
> > > We can not read linear A, only imperfectly sound out syllables common
> to
> >
> > Who is we ?
>
> 'We' is the scientific community of philologists and others who's business
> is to decipher lost languages.
NOPE. There is NO common we and no common viewpoint in the said community.
>
> > > both Linear A and B which only comprise about one third of the total
> > symbols
> > > known. What we can say without question is that Linear A is *not* an
> > > Indo-European language from it's inflection. We can also say that the
> > sounds
>
> > RUBBISH. You are not we and you only talk for yourself.
>
> If you can decipher Linear A then you had better run out and publish
because
> no one has learned of it except, presumably, yourself.
Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v011.htm
>
> > There is not such language as Proto-Indo-European and never was. The
term
> > Indo-European can only be used as a generic term to describe languages
> which
> > are intelligible to people who live in India and Europe. By that
> definition
> > Japanese is now an Indo-European langue since virtually all of the
> technical
> > terms are derived from Greek and Latin and English.
> >
> > The languages of Europe evolved through the ASSIMILATION of at least a
> dozen
> > unrelated language over the course of time. They did NOT derive from one
> > common root language.
>
> You are half right. Modern European languages are of four unrealted root
> groups. Each has learned something from the others. Hungarian is a
> Finno-Ugrian root language. It is not now nor has it ever been
> Indo-European.
I was not talking about Hungarian. There were two types of Huns, the white
Huns and the Mongol Huns. The White Huns were DNA linage M17 and are the
same race as the Slavs. The Slavs were not originally Indo-European speaks
but evolved in Asia and would have spoken and Altaic-Ugric language until
they came into contact with Europeans in 200 AD. The Slavs who moved to the
Ukraine derived their language from contact with the Germanic race, M170
which is why M170 is one of the main lineages in the population of Russia
as well as M17.
>
> > Now as someone who can read ancient Greek I know perfectly well that
> Linear
> > A is GREEK because I can understand the pro-nouns. It is also
Indo-Europe
> > because Greek is classified as Indo-European.
>
> As I said you will be famous as soon as you get to print since you are
> refuting all scientific opinion on the subject.
Faucounau has already deciphered it and I can clearly read the Lineanr-A
texts as Greek.
>
> > Other people (Faucounau) have identified Linear A as a hybrid of Greek
and
> > Hurrian.
>
> There are as many theories about Linear A as there are people who have
> looked into it. The only point of agreement is that it is definitely *not*
> Greek or an Indo-European language because it lacks the inflection that is
> the essential element of all Indo-European languages.
RUBBSIH. The came crap came out from the same racists about Linear B and
everyone now knows that it is GREEK.
>
> > > in the Linear A syllabulary are *not* found in Greek or linear B would
> > have
> > > not needed to have been invented to express new sound values required
> for
> > > Greek. Our knowledge of the actual sound values in Linear B is also
>
> > Not so. Linear B is a simplified version of Linear A. Chinese script
> exists
> > in two forms one of which is simplified alphabetic and the other one
> > pictorial. Linear A itself is a simplified form of an earlier pictorial
> > script.
>
> I agree that Linear A is probably a simplified form of glyphs, but not
that
> Linear B is a simplified form if Linear A. There are almost an equal
number
> of symbols in both approximately a third of which are the same. It is
quite
> clear to researchers that Linear A and B are different languages.
WRONG. It is quite clear that RACISTS wish to demean the Greek civilsation.
The Cretan palace civilisation was Greek and all the evicdece indieat that
Linear A was a Greece script. Why else would a derivative of Linear A be
used in the archaic Cypriot alphabet mixed with Phoenicians script. Greeks
were using Linear A all the long.
>
> > > imperfect as philologists know there are regular sound shifts in all
> > > languages over time.
> > > Similarities in a few kings names would not change any of this.
>
> > You are deliberately ignoring the surrounding evidence and the
historical
> > background. When those factors are taken into consideration along with
the
> > fact that the names have similarities with other Indo-European names
there
> > is NOT ONE SHRED of evidence to back up your argument that the Greeks
did
> > not inhibit Crete at this time.
>
> You claim the indigenous population and language of Crete was Greek. All
the
> evidence of history and research say that is impossible.
WRONG. ALL the archaeological, anthropological, DNA and historical and
linguistic evidence show that its was GREEK. What evidence its there left to
substantiate the opposing argument, NOTHING but systemic RACISM.
RUBBISH. Indo-European was NOT as spoke language and NO race spoke it.
Indo-European is an interpolation and it is based on a false problem which
had been comply demolished by DNA research.
Indo-European can only be used a a generic term to describe the modern
peoples of Europe and India who speak languages which are intelligible to
their close neighbours.
This language did NOT originate from a single root but were made up of
several independent languages which were combined by migrations,
enslavement, and conquest of many thousands of years.
>
> > 2200 BC is way too early for Indo-Iranian languages to have
differentiated
> > from Greek and Hittite. The differentiation must have happened in 5000
BC
> at
> > the latest and that means that the Iranians must have already been in
> Persia
> > and the Hittites in Anatolia at this time, meaning also that the Greeks
> must
> > also have been in Greece.
>
> It means nothing of the kind. There is no archaeological evidence of
> Indo-Europeans in western Europe before 4000 BCE and then only a very few
> find sites in the Roumanian Dobruja representing a very small population.
UTTER RUBBISH.
Firstly there are "Greek" inscriptions at burial sites dating back to 5000
BC which have been found in Macedonia.
Secondly there is NO SUCH THING as the "Indo-Europeans". Indo-European is
NOT a race.
>
RUBBISH. There was NEVER an Indo-European race and there certainly was NO
invasion.
> imparted very little to the racial stock of Europe including DNA. Their
They imparted NOTHING on the racial stock of Europe Bruce the did NOT exist.
> impact was in converting the non-Indo-European population to their culture
> and language. Anatolia in the sixth millennium BCE produced and exported
the
> Neolithic to Europe. Their culture was totally different from that of the
> Indo-Europeans.
RUBBISH. It was in Anatolia where the Greek-Hittite-Iranian languages
evolved in 20,000 BC. In 5000 BC there was a migration to the Balkans and
another migration to Mesopotamia of M172 tribes.
>
> > >Crete was already populated long before that. Linear A is also known
> > > not to have been Egyptian and no inscriptions in Egyptian of a
> > housekeeping
>
> > RUBBISH. DNA research proves that 1/3 of the ancient Greeks came form
> Egypt
> > 10,000 yuear ago. Therefore 1/3 of the linguistic terms in Greek must
have
> > come form Egypt also and have been transmitted from the proto-Greeks to
> the
> > Indo-Iranian Indo-Europeans when they were still in the Balkans..
>
> It's you talking total rubish. Language has nothing to do with DNA or
race.
WRONG. It has EVERYTHING to do with DNA especially when at the time its was
supposed to have evolved ALL the tribes of Europe were racially distinct and
from single DNA lineages.
> Modern Portugal speaks an Indo-European language but racially has
absolutely
> nothing to do with them except by superficial contact with a Roman,
> Celtiberian or Goth now and again.
ABSOLUTE CODSWALLOP. You clearly know NOTHING about the subject.
3/4 of the people of modern Portugal as from the M173 DNA linage, 3/4 of the
people of Spain are also of that linage as are 2/3 of the people Italy.
The modern Italians originated from Iberia 5000 years ago.
Therefore the proto-Latin-Italic langue evolved separately form the
proto-Greek-Hittite-Iranian language and from about 5000 BC these
proto-Languages merged over a period of 3000 years. In fact there were many
proto-Greek language each incorporating elements of different language
groups that came to Greece including M35, M172 and M173 at different points
in time.
>
> > > nature have been found in Crete. The indigenous population was
> undoubtedly
> > > part of what is sometimes called the Mediterranean race which had
> > developed
> > > long before an Indo-European laid foot out of the steppes.
> >
> > RUBBISH. DNA research proves no such thing. The DNA shows that M172 was
in
> > Greece first 20,000 years ago and then M35 came along 10,000 years ago.
> M173
> > may have reach the northern Balkans 5000 years ago but they dint reach
> > Greece until 2200 BC otherwise the Iranians would carry the M173 linage
as
> > well, which the don't.
>
> Again, language has nothing to do with race.
WRONG.
BALONEY. The is NO SUCH THING as a Matriarchy unless you believe in 19th
century and early 20th century Mythology which tries to pass itself of as
science.
> ancient neolithic population of Europe and American Indian tribes which
are
> recorded as recently as three hundred years ago. You need to do some
> homework.
This is RACIST MYTHOLOGY designed to demean the native Americans.
>
> > According to Herodotus the Phrygians (aka. Brygians) were once
neighbours
> of
> > the Macedonians before they moved to Anatola in about 1600 BC and the
> > Armenians were a Phrygian colony. From DNA analysis it is clear that the
> > Armenians are an M173 DNA linage and therefore the Phrygians must have
> > originated from Macedonia as Herodotus said. So you would not expect
> Hittite
> > to be directly related to Armenian. The Armenians and Phrygians came
AFTER
> > the Greeks had split for the Hittite's and Iranians. The thing that
links
> > the Greeks with the Armenians and Phrygians is the M173 linage, and the
> > thing that links the Greeks to the Iranians and Hittites is the M172
> linage.
>
> To be honest I have little interrest in DNA researches since race has
little
> to do with history.
WRONG. Race has everything to do with history otherwise there would be no
sates.
>
> > > > It was the people that came to Greece in 2200 BC who spoke a foreign
> > > > language, probably Basque and learned Greek from the people who were
> > > already
> > > > there.
> > >
> > > Also ridiculous. There has been no success in linking Basque with any
> > known
> > > language spoken in the Aegean, although it wouldn't surprise me if it
> > were.
> > > Still it would have been related to the pre-Greek language not after.
>
> > WRONG. You are forgetting that 90% of the language called Basque is
> falsely
> > attributed to Latin. The fact is that the Basques were already speaking
a
> > so-called Italic language LONG before the Romans came as were the Gauls.
>
> No one thinks there is a Latin or Italic base for Basque. It is a totally
> unique language as far as anyone knows but definitely not Indo-European.
WRONG. 90% of modern Basque is attributed to a Latin origin. In reality the
attribution should be the other way around. In 5000 BC a tribe of M173
Basques who migrated to the Balkans invented Latin by a combination of their
language and the language of the M172 and M35 tribes already there.
>
> > The STUPIDITY with the proto-Indo-Europen theory is that it thinks that
> > Latin and Greek-Anatolian-Iranian languages evolved from one root which
it
> > has not eve been able to prove. The REALITY is that there was NEVER
> > proto-Indo-European langauge. The Iberian (Latin/Gallic/Italic) branch
> > evolved separately and merge with PRE-EXISTING the Balkan branch 5000
> years
> > ago after that last ice age when M173 reached the Balkans.
>
> The common root of all Indo-European languages is adequately proven. It is
NO IT IS NOT. Half the linguistic community does not accept the PIE theory
at all.
Unless PIE can resolve ALL the words in every European language to JUST ONE
SINGLE root word they it cannot possibly be a root language.
What the research shows is that PIE itself must have been made of other
languages that existed before it. Therefore the theory disproves itself. A
new theory is need to explains the origins of all the other languages and
that theory has to fit in with the DNA evidence of population movements.
> the only way such a family group could exist. There is no argument they
> probably cross pollinated one another and were influenced by other
> non-Indo-European languages.
I keep on telling you there was NO SUCK THING as an Indo-European race.
The languages that are now generically termed Indo-European originated from
about a dozen independent languages spoke in Europe which were NOT related
to each other or to any other language groups.
RUBBISH. Record for Greece existed in the Greek temples and the state
libraries and all you have to do is go to Egypt and Persians to see Greece
mentioned in inscription made in STONE. The Greek tribe the Danai are even
mentioned by Turmoses III at the EXACT time when this tribe made its
appearance in Greece in about 1450 BC. The Achaeans are also mentioned by
both Egyptians, Hittites and even the Assyrians in 1200 to 1100 BC as is
Herakles who the Assyrians describe as a God in 1110 BC which was the time
of the Heraklid invasion of the Pelopanese.
>
> > > Greeks, only several thousands of years of orally transmitted folk
> > > tradition. While I tend to give oral tradition more credence than most
> >
> > BULL FUCKING SHIT.
> >
> > There is NO SUCH THING as an oral tradition. This is another PATHETIC
> RACIST
> > 19th century myth.
>
> There is now and has been oral tradition since humans first learned to
> speak. There is even oral tradition within your own family and mine. I
That kind of tradition goes back NO FURTHER than to you grandparents.
The is NO SUCH THING a an oral tradition that goes back 8000 or 1200 year
which is as afar as Greek history goes. Greek history has ALWAYS bee a
WRITTEN tradition.
> seldom make snap judgments but I came to this ng with the idea to learn.
If
> it is populated by arrogant, bad mannered, uneducated fools like you who
> have far more to lean than to teach I can spend my time more profitably
> eating a ham sandwich. -the Troll
Your current education is base in RACIST BIGOTRY which seek to demean
ancient civilisations. Get a proper education as open you mind.
Agamemnon
"grapheus" <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.02113...@posting.google.com...
I stand corrected.
>
> Regards
> grapheus
hippo
"Agamemnon" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > > > We can not read linear A, only imperfectly sound out syllables
common
> > to
> > >
> > > Who is we ?
> >
> > 'We' is the scientific community of philologists and others who's
business
> > is to decipher lost languages.
>
> NOPE. There is NO common we and no common viewpoint in the said community.
>
> >
> > > > both Linear A and B which only comprise about one third of the total
> > > symbols
> > > > known. What we can say without question is that Linear A is *not* an
> > > > Indo-European language from it's inflection. We can also say that
the
> > > sounds
> >
> > > RUBBISH. You are not we and you only talk for yourself.
> >
> > If you can decipher Linear A then you had better run out and publish
> because
> > no one has learned of it except, presumably, yourself.
>
> Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
>
> http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v011.htm
Your reference says exactly the opposite and agrees with me. There is no
definitive understanding of Linear A either to its language group or
meaning. The article admits it is only conjecture, exactly the
substitution-for-value that has been ongoing for seventy years as one known
language after another has been tried. Conjecture is not fact. I repeat, we
can not read Linear A. -the Troll
-snip-
Inger E
"hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:1JidnaVjN_M...@comcast.com...
I suggest that you read the book Graphaus have refered you to, if you can
read French that might otherwise be a major problem for you to understand
the book
Faucounau Jean,
Le Déchiffrement du disque de Phaïstos.
or you could at least start by reading:
http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/phaistos/
before you make your claim that Linear A hasn't been read.
Inger E
hippo
"Inger E" wrote in message
> "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
> > "Agamemnon" wrote in message
> > > Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
> > >
> > > http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v011.htm
> >
> > Your reference says exactly the opposite and agrees with me. There is no
> > definitive understanding of Linear A either to its language group or
> > meaning. The article admits it is only conjecture, exactly the
> > substitution-for-value that has been ongoing for seventy years as one
> known
> > language after another has been tried. Conjecture is not fact. I repeat,
> we
> > can not read Linear A. -the Troll
> >
>
> I suggest that you read the book Graphaus have refered you to, if you can
> read French that might otherwise be a major problem for you to understand
> the book
> Faucounau Jean,
> Le Déchiffrement du disque de Phaïstos.
> or you could at least start by reading:
> http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/phaistos/
> before you make your claim that Linear A hasn't been read.
>
> Inger E
I can't read French unfortunately but the article he referred me to was
admittedly conjectural. Before Ventris cracked Linear B there were thousands
of attempts to decipher the language using the substitution method used to
break codes. Some of them were actually helpful but none won the prize until
Ventris discovered Linear B was an early form of Greek using the same
method. Linear A has been tried far oftener and over a far longer period of
time without definitive result. Many before Ventris claimed to have cracked
Linear B but were later proven wrong. Agamemnon is either a linguistic
genius or a self deluded braggart. From the rest of his posts I tend to the
later. The first mark of a fool is to insult those disagreeing with you. The
second is to label everyone a bigot like a petulant child. -the Troll
Inger E
Well Linear A is as solved as solved can be. The fact that there aren't so
many English translations dealing with it might be due to the fact that we
are only a few non-French people who have had the advantage to study French
and the fact that Linear A mainly have been looked upon from older
English-speaking studies up to this day the French and German studies in the
subject seem to have been non-existing in English studies about the subject.
Inger E
Agamemnon
RUBBISH. You are reading your own racist bigotry into the article.
Faucounau says that Linear A is proto-Greek and predates any so-called
"Indo-European" language. The Indo-European thery has no credibility at all.
Linear A proves that Greek is older than proto-Indo-European.
>
> -snip-
>
>
Agamemnon
And they all failed because the RACIST BIGOTS who formed the linguistic
community NEVER considered Greek as even a possibility.
> Ventris discovered Linear B was an early form of Greek using the same
> method. Linear A has been tried far oftener and over a far longer period
of
> time without definitive result. Many before Ventris claimed to have
cracked
Wrong. RACIST BIGOTRY in the linguistic community refuses to accept it as
Greek eventhough Greek is the language it makes most scene in because it
puts another nail in the coffin of the proto-Indo-European theory.
> Linear B but were later proven wrong. Agamemnon is either a linguistic
> genius or a self deluded braggart. From the rest of his posts I tend to
the
> later. The first mark of a fool is to insult those disagreeing with you.
The
> second is to label everyone a bigot like a petulant child. -the Troll
>
You are an IGNORANT BIGOT.
Agamemnon
"Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:ofqG9.7310$1r1.3...@newsc.telia.net...
There are almost no English studies in the filed of linguistics. Everything
is either written in German or in Slavic. All the German studies make
Germanic the closest language to proto-Indo-European and when the Communists
Slavs took up the subject they made Slavic into the closest language to
proto-Indo-European. The whole filed of linguists is based on nationalist
propaganda.
>
> Inger E
>
>
grapheus
> > > Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
> > >
> > > http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v011.htm
> >
> > Your reference says exactly the opposite and agrees with me. There is no
> > definitive understanding of Linear A either to its language group or
> > meaning. The article admits it is only conjecture, exactly the
> > substitution-for-value that has been ongoing for seventy years as one
> known
> > language after another has been tried. Conjecture is not fact. I repeat,
> we
> > can not read Linear A. -the Troll
> >
>
> I suggest that you read the book Graphaus have refered you to, if you can
> read French that might otherwise be a major problem for you to understand
> the book
> Faucounau Jean,
> Le Déchiffrement du disque de Phaïstos.
> or you could at least start by reading:
> http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/phaistos/
> before you make your claim that Linear A hasn't been read.
>
> Inger E
I am sorry, Inger, but I have to agree this time with "Hippo" !..
You are confusing the Phaistos Disk, which has been deciphered, with
the Linear A inscriptions. The J.F.'s book you quoted is related to
the Phaistos Disk only.
As for the Linear A inscriptions, they have not been fully
"deciphered", except the one which was written in proto-ionic (= "the
Ring from Knossos" KN Zf13).
They can approximately be read, but understanding the language is a
tricky problem !..
Regards
grapheus
hippo
"Inger E" wrote in message
> "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
> > I can't read French unfortunately but the article he referred me to was
If Linear A had been deciphered it would have hit the scholarly world like a
storm, French or no. When the Frenchman Champollion deciphered Egyptian
hieroglyphs the word was out in a flash all over the world once it was
accepted. There might be many people who *think* they have solved Linear A,
but the scholarly world has yet to pass on any of them as far as I know. I
may be wrong and will research it and get back to you. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "Inger E" wrote in message
> > "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
> > > > Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
Thanks, I thought perhaps I had slept for a decade and missed something and
the mails had stopped delivering my journals. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "Inger E" wrote in message
> > "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
Marcello Fabretti
entire NG has ever listened to word he's had to say. In Agamemnons ideal
world everyone is a Graeculus.
Marcello Fabretti
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "Inger E" wrote in message
> > "hippo" skrev i meddelandet
> > > > Linear A has already been deciphered. See Graphaus post.
I did some fishing around and am now certain I haven't been sleeping. The
Plaistos disk hasn't been deciphered either. There have been at least four
major attempts within the last several decades, each claiming to have
deciphered the disk, all of which disagree as to it's meaning because each
assigns different syllabic values to the glyphs. One translates it as a
curse, another a geometric proof of parallel lines for presumably
astronomical purposes, and another as a call to arms. An ancient form of
writing and language is not counted as cracked until there is fundamental
agreement within the scholarly community that it is so as with Ventris and
Linear B. The only things agreed with linear B are:
1) About a third of the syllabic sound values from Linear B where the
symbols are the same.
2) That, like Linear B it is a syllabulary.
3) That it is *not* in an Indo-European language and therefore *not* Greek.
4) That it not simply an earlier or evolutionary form of Linear B.
5) That the purpose and likely format for which it is used, palace records
and the like, is similar to Linear B.
That's all folks, the King of Mycenae not withstanding. -the Troll
hippo
"Marcello Fabretti" wrote in message
I gathered that from his posts but don't like to jump to hasty conclusions.
Thanks for the advice. BTW I'm new here. I'm no classical scholar, only a
daub, but willing to listen and learn, and hope you can do with me while I
look around. -the Troll
Marcello Fabretti
I'm no classical scholar either, but I've done enough units at uni to know
what's based on sound investigation and what should be relegated to bed-time
stories. For the most part this NG can be pretty good, especially if you
have some questions that need answering, but every now and again some wierdo
tries to push an agenda. Agamemnon's should be pretty obvious...
Marcello
hippo
"Marcello Fabretti" wrote in message
-snip-
> I'm no classical scholar either, but I've done enough units at uni to know
> what's based on sound investigation and what should be relegated to
bed-time
> stories. For the most part this NG can be pretty good, especially if you
> have some questions that need answering, but every now and again some
wierdo
> tries to push an agenda. Agamemnon's should be pretty obvious...
>
> Marcello
I see he thinks the Greeks invented everything from the beginning. They
invented quite a lot, in fact, such that claiming more is silly. I'll hang
around then if you don't mind. I am full of questions and have the odd
answer or two. Thanks again. -the Troll
hippo
"hippo" wrote in message
The only things agreed with linear B are:
This should read 'Linear A'.
grapheus
> "grapheus" wrote in message
> >
> > I am sorry, Inger, but I have to agree this time with "Hippo" !..
> > You are confusing the Phaistos Disk, which has been deciphered, with
> > the Linear A inscriptions. The J.F.'s book you quoted is related to
> > the Phaistos Disk only.
> > As for the Linear A inscriptions, they have not been fully
> > "deciphered", except the one which was written in proto-ionic (= "the
> > Ring from Knossos" KN Zf13).
> > They can approximately be read, but understanding the language is a
> > tricky problem !..
>
> I did some fishing around and am now certain I haven't been sleeping. The
> Plaistos disk hasn't been deciphered either. There have been at least four
> major attempts within the last several decades, each claiming to have
> deciphered the disk, all of which disagree as to it's meaning because each
> assigns different syllabic values to the glyphs. One translates it as a
> curse, another a geometric proof of parallel lines for presumably
> astronomical purposes, and another as a call to arms. An ancient form of
> writing and language is not counted as cracked until there is fundamental
> agreement within the scholarly community that it is so as with Ventris and
> Linear B.
You are *very badly* informed about the Phaistos Disk !..
There are not 4 "major" attempts, but at least 10 attempts considered
as" pretty serious, but unproved", plus about 30 more, considered as
"obviously false".
And the two you quoted, i.e. the A. Kaulis' and Steven Fischer's ones
are to be put in the "obviously false" category !...
What you have forgotten is THE ONLY PROVED ONE, i.e. J.Faucounau's one
!!!
This decipherment has been too recently published for being
universally recognized as THE solution of the enigma. But there is
enough evidence for any unprejudiced scholar to be SURE that it is
indeed THE solution !.. And up to now, NOBODY has found anything to
criticize in the c.30 proofs which have been brought in in favor of
it. If you have any one to make after being aware of what these PROOFS
are, please be my guest : I'll be glad to point out your mistake or
misunderstanding !..
grapheus
Agamemnon
BULLSHIT.
I don't need any agreement form any scientific community to prove the
solution to quadratic equations. The solution stands on its own merits and
that is how science works.
Given that fact that only one of these explanations stands on its own merits
and that is Faucounau's, Faucounau's decipherment is corrtect.
> Linear B. The only things agreed with linear B are:
>
> 1) About a third of the syllabic sound values from Linear B where the
> symbols are the same.
> 2) That, like Linear B it is a syllabulary.
> 3) That it is *not* in an Indo-European language and therefore *not*
Greek.
RUBBISH. There is NO SUCH THING as Indo-European.
Greek is a GREEK language and OLDER than the non-existent
proto-Indo-European more correctly designated psudo-Indo-European.
Agamemnon
"Marcello Fabretti" <mfab...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:3deae3a2$0$22327$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
You are an anti-Hellenic INSANE RACIST BIGOT.
grapheus
> The only things agreed with linear B are:
>
To be read : with Linear A !..
> 1) About a third of the syllabic sound values from Linear B where the
> symbols are the same.
More than that : c. 50 % at least.
> 2) That, like Linear B it is a syllabulary.
Yes
> 3) That it is *not* in an Indo-European language and therefore *not* Greek.
Totally UNPROVEN !.. And there are serious reasons to think the
contrary !
> 4) That it not simply an earlier or evolutionary form of Linear B.
Yes.
> 5) That the purpose and likely format for which it is used, palace records
> and the like, is similar to Linear B.
>
Not true. Besides tablets similar indeed to the ones in Linear B as
palace records, there are other inscriptions in Linear A, which are
not of accounting kind !..
grapheus
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "grapheus" wrote in message
I hope you are right. It would be of tremendous value if the disk were able
to be read. I will see if I can locate the study and report back. It would
still be your opinion and mine, if convinced, against the scholarly world
which takes time to agree even in the obvious. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo"wrote in message
> > The only things agreed with linear B are:
> >
>
> To be read : with Linear A !..
> > 1) About a third of the syllabic sound values from Linear B where the
> > symbols are the same.
>
> More than that : c. 50 % at least.
That may be. Ventris put it in his book at a third.
> > 2) That, like Linear B it is a syllabulary.
>
> Yes
>
> > 3) That it is *not* in an Indo-European language and therefore *not*
Greek.
>
> Totally UNPROVEN !.. And there are serious reasons to think the
> contrary !
The argument I have heard is that the I-E languages were the first tried and
about which we most know. They were the first discarded because of the lack
of inflection which is the common denominator of I-O languages. That is not
to say it could not be a mixed language with I-O components like Hittite
where the I-O method of inflection was dropped or altered. Yet another
argument is the existence of Linear B which may have been developed to
supply I-E (Greek) phonetic sounds where they were not required for the
language in Linear A.
> > 4) That it not simply an earlier or evolutionary form of Linear B.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 5) That the purpose and likely format for which it is used, palace
records
> > and the like, is similar to Linear B.
> >
>
> Not true. Besides tablets similar indeed to the ones in Linear B as
> palace records, there are other inscriptions in Linear A, which are
> not of accounting kind !..
Right, they were also used on seals, as personal identifiers and the like as
were Linear B which is what I meant. It is important because it makes it
possible to predict much of the vocabulary and syntax if one knows the
possible purposes the script is used for. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > "grapheus" wrote in message
OK, I have done my homework. So you are *that* grapheus? I have no problems
with proto-Ionic and particularly like the idea than it was foreign and
introduced as a trophy since there seems to be no reasonable explanation for
its finding in complete isolation at Phaistos. I agree too that it is
clearly Aegean from the symbols themselves. I am unable to comment on his
methodology since I have not read his book, but like what little I have seen
especially his admission of luck. What most impresses me is the translation
which is totally in keeping with the spirit of Bronze Age Kingship. On the
negative side I disagree strongly with Kretchmer's proto-I-E language group
theory and his disavowal of a unique I-E homeland. His work was done before
recent archaeological discoveries in Eastern Europe which indicate I-E
intrusion into the Balkans beginning by about 4000 BCE which could easily
have resulted in a proto-Ionic in Asia Minor by 2000 BCE. In other words the
I-E influence would have been from the Balkans to Asia Minor not the other
way around, but that takes nothing from Faucounau. Finally, although I like
what I see, the experts have clearly not accepted the disk as having been
definitively deciphered, so neither can I who am neither a philologist nor
an expert. Your turn. -the Troll
grapheus
Yes, the scholarly world takes time to agree about an important
discovery. But there are already several specialists who are
convinced, against only one, which made a fool of himself with a
ridiculous review of J.F.'s book : in a 2 page-report, he dedicated 9
lines to an obvious "lapsus calami" without any consequences, but kept
silent about the c. 30 PROOFS which had been presented !!!
If you want to be fully informed about the decipherment and its
consequences, you have to read at the minimum the two J. Faucounau's
books (unhappily in French !) that you will be able to find at
<http://www.alapage.com> (Type the author's name). If you want to get
*just an idea* of the "Proto-Ionian Solution", have a look at :
<http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v002.htm> and
<http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/phaistos/>
but none of these links gives the detail of the most important : THE
EVIDENCE in favor of the proto-ionic decipherment... (You will find in
my old posts a few details about some of the proofs).
regards
grapheus
grapheus
> "grapheus" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo"wrote in message
>
> > > The only things agreed with linear B are:
> > >
> >
> > To be read : with Linear A !..
>
>
> > > 3) That it is *not* in an Indo-European language and therefore *not*
> Greek.
> >
> > Totally UNPROVEN !.. And there are serious reasons to think the
> > contrary !
>
> The argument I have heard is that the I-E languages were the first tried and
> about which we most know. They were the first discarded because of the lack
> of inflection which is the common denominator of I-O languages. That is not
> to say it could not be a mixed language with I-O components like Hittite
> where the I-O method of inflection was dropped or altered. Yet another
> argument is the existence of Linear B which may have been developed to
> supply I-E (Greek) phonetic sounds where they were not required for the
> language in Linear A.
>
This argument is only valid in the frame of a non-Kretschmerian
approach of the I-E languages. What it is the case of most linguists,
I must say !.. Only a few, like J.Faucounau and myself, are defending
the Kretschmerian thesis : there have been TWO "waves" concerning the
spreading of the I-E languages. The fist wave (Lycian, Etruscan, etc.)
was not using inflection, and did'n't know "true declensions" : You
have to read the entlightning papers of J.F. about Lycian, published
in the B.S.L. It's a pity that the Kretschmerian Theory has been
"ignored" by linguists for such a long time ! (P. Kretschmer
enunciated it in 1925 !!!).
Regards
grapheus
Marcello Fabretti
grapheus <grap...@www.com> wrote in message
news:337ae51f.02120...@posting.google.com...
> "hippo" <hi...@southsudan.net> wrote in message
news:<x2SdnWsY7sq...@comcast.com>...
> > "grapheus" wrote in message
> This argument is only valid in the frame of a non-Kretschmerian
> approach of the I-E languages. What it is the case of most linguists,
> I must say !.. Only a few, like J.Faucounau and myself, are defending
> the Kretschmerian thesis : there have been TWO "waves" concerning the
> spreading of the I-E languages. The fist wave (Lycian, Etruscan, etc.)
> was not using inflection, and did'n't know "true declensions" : You
Etruscan IS inflected which is why there's a theory about indo-european and
Tyrrenian once being a united group. Etruscan has a nominative, genitive,
dative (more of a double genitive) and a locative from what we can gather.
Sounds pretty inflected to me...
Marcello
Hagen
>>
>> What you have forgotten is THE ONLY PROVED ONE, i.e. J.Faucounau's one
>> !!!
>> This decipherment has been too recently published for being
>> universally recognized as THE solution of the enigma. But there is
>> enough evidence for any unprejudiced scholar to be SURE that it is
>> indeed THE solution !.. And up to now, NOBODY has found anything to
>> criticize in the c.30 proofs which have been brought in in favor of
>> it. If you have any one to make after being aware of what these PROOFS
>> are, please be my guest : I'll be glad to point out your mistake or
>> misunderstanding !..
>>
>> grapheus
You and I have already drawn the consequence; That we are walking the
same pair of shoes, following the same goal. For my part I've sprayed
out the luminol, and painted a picture of the scenario, so that the
thoughts of the constructor of the disk inscription is almost speaking
out loud. (Allow me those metaphores; I'm not implying that a blood
spreading murderer is on the loose).
Now it is up to other researchers to verify our decipherments, but
they seem to halt too long?
Naturally you and I are off the game. In my case, by having shown
forward my decipherment, and being obstructed instead in a publication
for more than a decade, the theoretical situation of a fraud
(that hundreds of scholars were already for many years competiting me
on my inspiration instead of saluting my discovery )
This is just as undermining for my forward efforts, as if it was
actually the reality.
Never-the-less I've saved more material from the past, and perhaps my
book " The Phaistos disc alias the Minoan calendar" becomes a trilogy.
By the way, why not buy it now, giving yourselves a wonderfull
occupation in the dark winter days up till Christmas "A real
nutcracker riddle" it is! Who knows? my discovery might even be the
same model as the one of the biblical calendar's.
http://www.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/phaistos.htm
http://www.gvdnet.dk/~hagen/prototype.gif
Sincerely yours
Ole Hagen
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > SNIP
> > The argument I have heard is that the I-E languages were the first tried
and
> > about which we most know. They were the first discarded because of the
lack
> > of inflection which is the common denominator of I-O languages. That is
not
> > to say it could not be a mixed language with I-O components like Hittite
> > where the I-O method of inflection was dropped or altered. Yet another
> > argument is the existence of Linear B which may have been developed to
> > supply I-E (Greek) phonetic sounds where they were not required for the
> > language in Linear A.
> >
>
> This argument is only valid in the frame of a non-Kretschmerian
> approach of the I-E languages. What it is the case of most linguists,
> I must say !.. Only a few, like J.Faucounau and myself, are defending
> the Kretschmerian thesis : there have been TWO "waves" concerning the
> spreading of the I-E languages. The fist wave (Lycian, Etruscan, etc.)
> was not using inflection, and did'n't know "true declensions" : You
> have to read the entlightning papers of J.F. about Lycian, published
> in the B.S.L. It's a pity that the Kretschmerian Theory has been
> "ignored" by linguists for such a long time ! (P. Kretschmer
> enunciated it in 1925 !!!).
>
> Regards
> grapheus
I think the most accepted modern theory is that there were continuous I-E
incursions into the Balkans from about 4000 BCE and south into eastern
Turkey where it influenced Hittite and other languages. The problem with
Kretschmer is his insistence that there was no common I-O homeland which we
now know is wrong, quite apart from the unlikelihood such similar languages
could simultaneously arise in different places. I can accept the idea that
Etruscan (if it proves to have an I-O component)and other radically altered
languages may have resulted from the southern migration, but not
proto-Ionian which must, like Greek and the other I-O European group, have
evolved in the Balkans where the cultural resistance was less. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
-snip-
> > I hope you are right. It would be of tremendous value if the disk were
able
> > to be read. I will see if I can locate the study and report back. It
would
> > still be your opinion and mine, if convinced, against the scholarly
world
> > which takes time to agree even in the obvious.
> Yes, the scholarly world takes time to agree about an important
> discovery. But there are already several specialists who are
> convinced, against only one, which made a fool of himself with a
> ridiculous review of J.F.'s book : in a 2 page-report, he dedicated 9
> lines to an obvious "lapsus calami" without any consequences, but kept
> silent about the c. 30 PROOFS which had been presented !!!
> If you want to be fully informed about the decipherment and its
> consequences, you have to read at the minimum the two J. Faucounau's
> books (unhappily in French !) that you will be able to find at
> <http://www.alapage.com> (Type the author's name). If you want to get
> *just an idea* of the "Proto-Ionian Solution", have a look at :
> <http://users.hol.gr/~ianlos/v002.htm> and
> <http://www.robotwisdom.com/science/phaistos/>
> but none of these links gives the detail of the most important : THE
> EVIDENCE in favor of the proto-ionic decipherment... (You will find in
> my old posts a few details about some of the proofs).
>
> regards
> grapheus
Regrettably I can't read French. I did some reading on what is available and
answer you elsewhere, but I am no scholar and no one would care what I
think. The problem with sound substitution is that one can come up with just
about any result one wants by making 'adjustments'. Ventris was helped by a
picture of a three-legged pot after the word which cracked Linear B. In the
end the only proof without a picture is if the whole scans and if other
classical linguists who have equal facility with I-O languages can be
convinced. One possible idea is to have the books translated into English
and German. That seems to be your major problem. -the Troll
Agamemnon
NOT IT COULD NOT.
DNA research proves otherwise.
The inhabitants of Greece prior to 200 BC (the time of the end of Greek
colonisation of Sicily) were of 3 DNA lineages. M35 from Egypt, M172 from
Anatolia and M173 from Iberia.
There is NO evidence of any DNA lineages from Asia.
The proto-Indo-European is a RACIST theory invented by the predecessors of
the NAZI's and by the Communist Slavs. NO other linguistic community accepts
or perpetuates this theory. All the "research" is accredited to Germans and
Slavs and is not surprising that that in the German papers Germans is the
root language, and in the Slavic papers Slavonic is the root. If Italians
took up the theory then no doubt Latin would be made into the root language.
> I-E influence would have been from the Balkans to Asia Minor not the other
There was NOT indo-European race.
The Archaeology shows that the first cites were built in eastern Anatolia
20,000 years ago and DNA shows that 10,000 years ago framers crossed over
into Europe from Egypt and Palestine and according to the archaeology were
in to Cyprus 9,000 years ago.
Were these city dwellers and framers mute. NO of course not. They had a
language of their own and that language was GREEK.
It was not until 2200 BC that Iberian migrants came to southern Greece and
since the Cretan Palace Civilisation was there since 3000 BC it is blatantly
obvious that these migrants assimilated the language of the Cretan Palace
Civilisation which was GREEK.
All the terms used in farming, city building and kingship would have come
form City Dwellers NOT nomads. How could a nomad who had never seen bread
before have a word for bread. How could they have a word for vase when they
made no vases. How could they have a word for cow when they had never
domesticated a cow.
So lets make this clear. The word of Cow in Hebrew is Alef which is the same
as the English word Calf yet the Slavic and Germanic RACISTS claim these
words to be part of the FAKE proto-Indo-European.
Even the word Cow itself is a corruption fo the root "Kagg" or "Kang" which
links it to Calf and to Alef but not only those words but also to the Latin
Canus, and the Hebrew Caleb meaning dog. On top of that the same word Kagg
is the root of the Greek word Galos meanidn chicken using the Linear-B
concurrence of G and K. Further still the word is also the same and the word
Gala, which is milk which comes form Cows but also from Goats and YES the
word Goat is also from the root Kagg. And that is not even the end of it.
The Greek word Arni or Arnaki meaning sheep too is from the root Kagg or
Kang which in Linear-B would have been written Ka-Na-Gi meaning small cow.
It is blatantly obvious that all of these words meant and animal that was
domesticated and domestication took place in CITIES and FARMING communities
NOT tribes of Hunter Gathers.
The proto-Indo-European cannot explain the existence of common Greek and
Hebrew word root and thefore it is completely invalid. And its not just cow
and sheep that Greek and Hebrew share in common but ALL the words of
Kingship such as Baal, Polis, Belus, Melech, Melquart and Monarch derive
from the root Wanakas which is found written in Linear-B and this is also
the same word as the FAKE proto-Indo-European root for mthe number "one" or
"ekas" and "une". What is this word doing in Phoenician and Hebrew. The FACT
is that the word is GREEK and it was spread throughout Europe and Palestine
by the Cretan Palace Civilisation through trade and conquest NOT by the FAKE
proto-Indo-Europeans.
Agamemnon
"Agamemnon" <agam...@hello.to.NO_SPAM> wrote in message
news:asj61a$tco$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
I also forgot the Greek word Gatos or Cat which again is from the root Kagg
which covers just about every domesticated animal depicted in Greek wall
paintings from the 18th to 12th centuries BC.
grapheus
Although this matter has nothing to do with the Proto-Ionic
decipherment of the Phaistos Disk, there is nothing wrong with the P.
Kretschmer's Theory. On the contrary !..
The "unique homeland" for the "Indoeuropeans" is a fallacy. In fact,
the *linguistical history* of Europe is a continuum, with several
stages : Paleolithic Pre-IE , Neolithic Proto-IE, Bronze Age "IE
stricto sensu". On a purely linguistical point of view, one cannot
dismiss that easily the testimonies of Lycian and Etruscan, for
instance. (And probably : Minoan). You should better learn the
Kretschmerian Theory : You would see that there is no "spreading of IE
stricto sensu" from Anatolia to the Balkans !.. As for the
"Proto-Ionians", J.Faucounau considers that they came from the
Danube's mouth (See his book).
> Finally, although I like
> what I see, the experts have clearly not accepted the disk as having been
> definitively deciphered,
Wrong !.. ALL the philologists who have seriously looked at the
decipherment, but ONE, agreed that it must be correct !.. And as I
said, the only dissenter made a fool of himself by insisting about a
"lapsus calami" with no consequences at all, but NOT COMMENTING the
evidence !!!
grapheus
grapheus
This has been shown to be wrong. YES, there are a kind of
"declensions" in Lycian and Etruscan. But the endings are NOT truly
"grammatical". They are just "markers". These endings will become
grammatical LATER, in the "IE stricto sensu languages".
The better proofs of this fact can be found in Lycian, where one may
find a "dative" which is subject of the verb !!! See J.Faucounau's
papers in the B.S.L. 1982 and 1987. Very enlightening !..
Regards
grapheus
grapheus
This is maybe "the most accepted theory", but it does'n't mean that it
is the correct one !.. It does'n't take into account that Europe has
been populated long before 4000 BC, without drastic changes into the
populations !..
> The problem with
> Kretschmer is his insistence that there was no common I-O homeland which we
> now know is wrong, quite apart from the unlikelihood such similar languages
> could simultaneously arise in different places.
You have MISUNDERSTOOD the Kretschmerian theory !.. There is no ONE
"IE homeland", but two : one for the "Proto-IE" (at the End of
Paleolihic), another one for the "IE stricto sensu" (at the End of
Neolithic).
> I can accept the idea that
> Etruscan (if it proves to have an I-O component)and other radically altered
> languages may have resulted from the southern migration, but not
> proto-Ionian which must, like Greek and the other I-O European group, have
> evolved in the Balkans where the cultural resistance was less. -the Troll
Well, WHERE is the problem ?.. Of course, Etruscan came from an (old)
migration from the Danubian area, and Proto-Ionic, like the other
GreeK dialects, from another (more recent, i.e. c.3000 BC) migration
from the Balkans !..
grapheus
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
Agreed.
there is nothing wrong with the P.
> Kretschmer's Theory. On the contrary !..
> The "unique homeland" for the "Indoeuropeans" is a fallacy. In fact,
> the *linguistical history* of Europe is a continuum, with several
> stages : Paleolithic Pre-IE , Neolithic Proto-IE, Bronze Age "IE
> stricto sensu". On a purely linguistical point of view, one cannot
> dismiss that easily the testimonies of Lycian and Etruscan, for
> instance. (And probably : Minoan). You should better learn the
> Kretschmerian Theory : You would see that there is no "spreading of IE
> stricto sensu" from Anatolia to the Balkans !.. As for the
> "Proto-Ionians", J.Faucounau considers that they came from the
> Danube's mouth (See his book).
I can't read his book and am depending upon you to help me out. I agree
proto-Ionic came from the Danube area. It is Kretchmer's theory I disagree
with.
> > Finally, although I like
> > what I see, the experts have clearly not accepted the disk as having
been
> > definitively deciphered,
>
> Wrong !.. ALL the philologists who have seriously looked at the
> decipherment, but ONE, agreed that it must be correct !.. And as I
> said, the only dissenter made a fool of himself by insisting about a
> "lapsus calami" with no consequences at all, but NOT COMMENTING the
> evidence !!!
>
> grapheus
If that is the case they have been very quiet about it. The literature talks
about the various ongoing and recently published interpretations *without*
agreement. Until I read your post I was totally unaware of Faucounau's
study. I have to agree, without the real expertise to pass judgment, that it
makes the best sense of any I have read from both the historic and
geographic perspectives. Thanks for your time. -the Troll
hippo
"grapheus" wrote in message
> "hippo" wrote in message
> > > > SNIP
> > I think the most accepted modern theory is that there were continuous
I-E
> > incursions into the Balkans from about 4000 BCE and south into eastern
> > Turkey where it influenced Hittite and other languages.
> This is maybe "the most accepted theory", but it does'n't mean that it
> is the correct one !.. It does'n't take into account that Europe has
> been populated long before 4000 BC, without drastic changes into the
> populations !..
Yes it does. It has been established that I-E incursions, you notice they
are no longer called invasions, took place over a long period but involved
very small numbers and therefore had a minimum influence genetically on the
existing population. It did change the language and the culture almost
completely because the I-Es were a society organized for war against which
the relatively peaceful Neolithic agriculturalists had little capacity to
resist. It is believed they set up as a ruling stratum and went on to
transform Europe from a sedentary matristic non-I-O speaking agricultural
culture to one of mobile warlike patristic herders speaking I-O dialects
which changed depending upon the date of influence.
> > The problem with
> > Kretschmer is his insistence that there was no common I-O homeland which
we
> > now know is wrong, quite apart from the unlikelihood such similar
languages
> > could simultaneously arise in different places.
> You have MISUNDERSTOOD the Kretschmerian theory !.. There is no ONE
> "IE homeland", but two : one for the "Proto-IE" (at the End of
> Paleolihic), another one for the "IE stricto sensu" (at the End of
> Neolithic).
>
> > I can accept the idea that
> > Etruscan (if it proves to have an I-O component)and other radically
altered
> > languages may have resulted from the southern migration, but not
> > proto-Ionian which must, like Greek and the other I-O European group,
have
> > evolved in the Balkans where the cultural resistance was less. -the
Troll
>
> Well, WHERE is the problem ?.. Of course, Etruscan came from an (old)
> migration from the Danubian area, and Proto-Ionic, like the other
> GreeK dialects, from another (more recent, i.e. c.3000 BC) migration
> from the Balkans !..
Yes, that would make sense. Etruscan may have come from the southern route
through Asia Minor, again *if* it is proved to have had an I-E component
which is not agreed yet. There was still an I-E homeland and we now know
where it was. -the Troll
grapheus
> "grapheus" wrote in message
>
> > "hippo" wrote in message
> > > Finally, although I like
> > > what I see, the experts have clearly not accepted the disk as having
> > > been definitively deciphered,
> >
> > Wrong !.. ALL the philologists who have seriously looked at the
> > decipherment, but ONE, agreed that it must be correct !.. And as I
> > said, the only dissenter made a fool of himself by insisting about a
> > "lapsus calami" with no consequences at all, but NOT COMMENTING the
> > evidence !!!
>
> If that is the case they have been very quiet about it. The literature talks
> about the various ongoing and recently published interpretations *without*
> agreement. Until I read your post I was totally unaware of Faucounau's
> study. I have to agree, without the real expertise to pass judgment, that it
> makes the best sense of any I have read from both the historic and
> geographic perspectives. Thanks for your time. -the Troll
What literature ?.. The Proto-Ionic decipherment has been published
(in French), with the needed linguistical apparatus, only in the
middle of year 2001. Therefore, any literature published or written
BEFORE Jan. 2002 cannot be trusted concerning THIS particular
decipherment !..
grapheus
grapheus
> "grapheus" wrote in message
>
> > SNIP
> > Well, WHERE is the problem ?.. Of course, Etruscan came from an (old)
> > migration from the Danubian area, and Proto-Ionic, like the other
> > GreeK dialects, from another (more recent, i.e. c.3000 BC) migration
> > from the Balkans !..
>
> Yes, that would make sense. Etruscan may have come from the southern route
> through Asia Minor, again *if* it is proved to have had an I-E component
> which is not agreed yet.
>
It is not agreed because of the errors spread around by the
"Pallottino School" and denounced by the Kretschmerians !.. But not in
scholarly journals dedicated to Etruscan : they are ALL controled by
the "Pallottino School" !..
One of the most blatant errors concerns the figures from 1 to 6, with
MAKH = 5, instead of its real value 1, as *definitely demonstrated*
(once again !) by J.Faucounau in a KADATH 90 (1998) (Kadath is a
Belgian journal, which has published several papers from J.F. during
these last years)
grapheus
Marcello Fabretti
I'm sorry, Grapheus, but you're sliding into the fruitloop mire that your
buddy Aggie inhabits. Firstly, Lycian is not a kin of Etruscan, and unless
you can show conclusively that it is I'm not about to stop believing those
with the PhDs. Etruscan is still considered an isolate, even though Lemnian
appears to be related. Lemnos could have been colonised by Etruscans from
Italy for all we know, even though this is unlikely.
Secondly, Etruscan most certainly is inflected. eg.: Genitive in -s/-l
apa gen. apa-s rasna gen. rasna-l
suthi gen. suthi-s suthi gen. suthi-l
There is also a nominative, dative, ablative and locative. Get your hands on
"Der Etrusken Spreken" by R.S.P Beekes, or better yet visit this web-site:
http://www.geocities.com/jackiesixx/caere/languagepage.htm
Marcello
> Regards
>
> grapheus