Post by Artemisia on May 20, 2004 17:33:10 GMT -5
Hi 
Instead of taking the origin theories at face value, I would rather find corresponding linguistic, contemporary annalistic, and physical (archaeological) evidence (if at all). If there is, or, if there is nothing in the physical, annalistic or linguistic data which contradicts the received tradition, then I can better except the tradition.
Remember, I am an archaeologist-in-training and I know how these people work. They provide some great stuff to support classical texts but if we didn't have the texts themselves, we'd come up with a whole different civilization in Greece.
Their theories get turned down every ten or twenty years.
Linguists are by far the worst. They think that EVERY place name or word must come from some unattested parent-language. I believe that there is a limited number of sound combinations a person can make and similarities between a few place names in certain regions does not necessarily mean that these regions are related. Of course, if most place names are the same in two or more languages, then there is definately a connection.
Herodotus states that they were originally from Crete until Minos banished Sarpedon and his party to the future Lycia. The Lycian language is derived from Luwian.
Actually, many linguists and archaeologists dispute that fact. They see Lycian as a separate Anatolian language.
It then follows that if they originated from Crete, then the Cretans spoke Luwian.
The Cretans were a combination of different peoples so perhaps the Eteo-Cretans spoke a language that was similar to or related to Lycian (or Mylian, if you want.) The interesting part is that Herodotus seems to imply that the Lycians came from Crete and settled in the land of an Anatolian people.
Yes, the interior of Caria does lack settlements. The Hittite records portray the Lukka of this region as being nomadic, although the sites of Alinda (perhaps Lukkan Iyalanda) and Alabanda (perhaps Lukkan Valivanda) has yet to be excavated.
Ummmm, I believe the word Alabanda is sited by a Greek author and means "horse victory" in Carian.
The Persian form of the name Caria, Karka, can be seen in the ancient Hittite name of an Anatolian people known as Karkiya or Karkisa. The Hittite evidence seems to imply that the Karkisa and the associated Masa were probably not where the Carians and Mysians would be found in the Classical Period but nevertheless, somewhere in western Asia "in the direction" of Wilusa. So, even in Hittite records, another alternative is implied - the Carians were present in Anatolia, but in another part of western Anatolia.
Yes, but maybe they were present in a place bordering western Anatolia....like the Aegean islands. After all, we are not exactly sure where Masa and Karkisa were located.
Lydian itself, although an Anatolian language, unlike the other western languages is actually more related to Hittite than to Luwian. Here, Herodotus may be correct in implying that they were indigenous to the region. If then, we shouldn't disregard this witness to the Lydians, why should we regard a Cretan origin of the Lycians who spoke a related language?
It all depends where the Lydians and Lycians came from in the first place. If they moved into Anatolia from the WEST, then it is plausible that some of them stayed in parts of Greece while other moved into Anatolia.
To me there is an inconsistency amongst the ancient authors. No, they must be secondary sources, only to add flesh to modern observations (until any of those observations is proved false).
I understand, but I bet that Herodotus, Strabo, Thucydides, Hecateus, and other knew these people better than we will ever know them. Just think about it: they were in constant contact with them.
I can at least agree that there was an Aegean influence in southwestern Anatolia.
OK, sure. All those myths about western Anatolian cities being founded by Greek heroes or settled by "Argives" must not be totally false after all.
Instead of taking the origin theories at face value, I would rather find corresponding linguistic, contemporary annalistic, and physical (archaeological) evidence (if at all). If there is, or, if there is nothing in the physical, annalistic or linguistic data which contradicts the received tradition, then I can better except the tradition.
Remember, I am an archaeologist-in-training and I know how these people work. They provide some great stuff to support classical texts but if we didn't have the texts themselves, we'd come up with a whole different civilization in Greece.
Their theories get turned down every ten or twenty years.
Linguists are by far the worst. They think that EVERY place name or word must come from some unattested parent-language. I believe that there is a limited number of sound combinations a person can make and similarities between a few place names in certain regions does not necessarily mean that these regions are related. Of course, if most place names are the same in two or more languages, then there is definately a connection.
Herodotus states that they were originally from Crete until Minos banished Sarpedon and his party to the future Lycia. The Lycian language is derived from Luwian.
Actually, many linguists and archaeologists dispute that fact. They see Lycian as a separate Anatolian language.
It then follows that if they originated from Crete, then the Cretans spoke Luwian.
The Cretans were a combination of different peoples so perhaps the Eteo-Cretans spoke a language that was similar to or related to Lycian (or Mylian, if you want.) The interesting part is that Herodotus seems to imply that the Lycians came from Crete and settled in the land of an Anatolian people.
Yes, the interior of Caria does lack settlements. The Hittite records portray the Lukka of this region as being nomadic, although the sites of Alinda (perhaps Lukkan Iyalanda) and Alabanda (perhaps Lukkan Valivanda) has yet to be excavated.
Ummmm, I believe the word Alabanda is sited by a Greek author and means "horse victory" in Carian.
The Persian form of the name Caria, Karka, can be seen in the ancient Hittite name of an Anatolian people known as Karkiya or Karkisa. The Hittite evidence seems to imply that the Karkisa and the associated Masa were probably not where the Carians and Mysians would be found in the Classical Period but nevertheless, somewhere in western Asia "in the direction" of Wilusa. So, even in Hittite records, another alternative is implied - the Carians were present in Anatolia, but in another part of western Anatolia.
Yes, but maybe they were present in a place bordering western Anatolia....like the Aegean islands. After all, we are not exactly sure where Masa and Karkisa were located.
Lydian itself, although an Anatolian language, unlike the other western languages is actually more related to Hittite than to Luwian. Here, Herodotus may be correct in implying that they were indigenous to the region. If then, we shouldn't disregard this witness to the Lydians, why should we regard a Cretan origin of the Lycians who spoke a related language?
It all depends where the Lydians and Lycians came from in the first place. If they moved into Anatolia from the WEST, then it is plausible that some of them stayed in parts of Greece while other moved into Anatolia.
To me there is an inconsistency amongst the ancient authors. No, they must be secondary sources, only to add flesh to modern observations (until any of those observations is proved false).
I understand, but I bet that Herodotus, Strabo, Thucydides, Hecateus, and other knew these people better than we will ever know them. Just think about it: they were in constant contact with them.
I can at least agree that there was an Aegean influence in southwestern Anatolia.
OK, sure. All those myths about western Anatolian cities being founded by Greek heroes or settled by "Argives" must not be totally false after all.
