Dean
Full Member
 
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Jan 14, 2005 22:39:06 GMT -5
I have read about Pelasgians inhabiting the Aegean area before waves of Greek-speakers migrated there, from the "north." From what I've read about recent theories of language and population genetics, it seems that the idea that Greeks migrating from the north is erroneous, and that the above theory is dated.
Is the Pelasgian language related to Indo-European or any of it's early formative languages? I have read that it's a non-Indo-European language or languages. Is it a Paleolithic language?
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Jan 15, 2005 16:48:52 GMT -5
The Pelasgians were non-Greek speakers. That is the only thing we can say with a degree of certainty. It appears that the name was often used as a blanket term by the ancient Greeks, to cover a number of ethne in the Helladic peninsula and the Aegean. They were considered to have been there before the Greeks. We do not know if they spoke a language that was related to IE languages, an ergatic Paleolithic language or something else. We can only speculate. Where is Artemisia? This is her subject. Must have gone digging again 
|
|
|
Post by Deinokratos on Jan 16, 2005 20:02:51 GMT -5
Am i mistaken in my understanding that there was a tablet found in Lesvos that contains a language that appears to be related to Etruscan, or is just in Etruscan-style Greek letters?
I found this on Wikipedia, kind of informative, it is tolerant enough (of nationalist based scholarship) not only to include Albanian-Pelasgian theories, but also the far more absurd Turkish-Pelasgian theories.
|
|
Nikos
New Member
Posts: 32
|
Post by Nikos on Feb 7, 2005 14:18:19 GMT -5
Indeed, the Pelasgians were non-Greek speakers. Also, it is true that the name was often used as a blanket term by the ancient Greeks, to cover a number of ethne in the Helladic peninsula and the Aegean.
However, we do know e.g. that the Cretans were not Pelasgians. Homer knows that at his time (or at the time of the Trojan war) the inhabitans of Crete were Achaeans and "Etewokrites". Etewos (or Eteos)=genuine, real.
We might also have some indications of the language they spoke: Names of places like "Lycabettus" is often attributed to them. In that name, I see the root "Lux" i.e. light (others say that the name is Greek and it seems "the passage of the wolves").
Some say that their name comes from two IE roots: *bhel (=bloom) and *osgho (=branch) Moreover, there is reason to believe that this was indeed the name they used themselves, not a name given to them by the Greeks. For one thing, the root *bhel has given words starting from "f" in Greek, not from "p" (for instance "fyllo" or "phyllo"=leef).
So, in my view there is the possibility that the Pelasgians spoke a non-Greek IE language, or at least a language close to IE. If we combine that with the existance of the Anatolian languages close by, which are also very archaic and are IE or related to IE, we might conclude that the whole Aegean - Anatolian region was the birthplace of the IE languages, rather than Central Europe.
I know this sounds like Greek propaganda, so have to clarify the following: - I know that I am not giving any conclusive argument. I am just proposing a possibility. Somebody else might be in a better position to comment on that. - I do not consider it as any particular privilige for a region to be the birthplace of any language fanily.
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Feb 10, 2005 20:26:23 GMT -5
No, I didn't go digging. I was in Rome for a month studying Roman history and archaeology. Mind you, I will start digging again in June (in Crete, of course!) It's alright for some  Actually I am taking the family to Italy for a week at the end of March but will only be in Rome for 2 1/2 days.
|
|
Dean
Full Member
 
Truth Before Ego
Posts: 245
|
Post by Dean on Feb 11, 2005 1:23:23 GMT -5
The Pelasgians were non-Greek speakers. That is the only thing we can say with a degree of certainty. It appears that the name was often used as a blanket term by the ancient Greeks, to cover a number of ethne in the Helladic peninsula and the Aegean. TEXT. We do not know if they spoke a language that was related to IE languages, an ergatic Paleolithic language or something else. We can only speculate. Where is Artemisia? This is her subject. Must have gone digging again  When I think about the way some Greeks look, I can't help feeling that they are descendants of people who have lived in the Greek peninsula since time immemorial and are descendants of the pre-Greek-speaking population. My second-grade Greek school teacher comes to mind--an older lady who said she was from a mountain village. This lady had a penchant for pulling ears and slapping faces to administer discipline.
|
|
Red
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by Red on Feb 11, 2005 7:46:35 GMT -5
The Pelasgians were nonGreek Indo-European,maybe Thracian or Celtic.
|
|
eugen
New Member
Posts: 30
|
Post by eugen on Mar 29, 2005 18:49:01 GMT -5
Pelasgians=Old ?aboriginal ?balkan people=old mediterranean people.That's better,because it seems that entire mediterana was a warm,good place for many either in glacial and wormer periods.At one past time all regions were inhabited.And good conditions for wandering and mixing.The problem is :density,number,how old/age,civilised.The population pressure centers were:Africa,South-Iberia,Balcan,Near-East....and India.My point of wiew is as folowing:To a point,Iberian-African and Balcan parts had the initial advantage in Europe.Some-how they were mixed,used same territories for gathering-fishing.They were located mainly in the south-eastern part of Europe.They were Balcano-Iberian.The "Old Europe" was theirs.As one can observe,the mezolitic cultures in "Vinca" area was inhabited by:tardonesian-centro-European &azilian&gravettian(of romanello-azilian aspect) cultures.As you can see the preponderent element was the proto-Iberian one,maybe they took advantage of an earlier starting.In this case I am naming the Old-Europeans,proto-B-Iberians.North of Black-Sea & Caucasus &near-East,proto-arians.the problem is as folows ;it seems that entire above regions were populated by:RA-ARA-ARI-HURI-ARIMI-ARIMANI-ARUMANI-RAMANI-ROMANI.There are only 3 regions for their origins:1.Africa/Sahara 2.Danubian/arimi 3.Armenian/proto-Arian=Iranians+Tu-ranians.What about do not question from where and who were first? As hunter-gatheres they were allready so mixed,they were shortage of animals,they were multiplying and expanding as agriculturalists.Is like the same people are making arches and circles on Euro-Asian map.The people "out of Africa" returning in great numbers to more hospitable climates than Saraswaty,Siberia,Central Asia,Sahara ,Near-East and Anatolia wich every of them are encountering tidal wawes (Sumer) and almost all, desication.Mediterranean-european area:mild,temperate climate;not ocean coast/tidal waves,reugulatory Mediterana "lake",regulatory Golf-Stream,plenty of rivers.So I am for a paleolithic-neolithic pelasgian proto-Iberian-euskara-type,non IE,and in Ner-East in the same time a proto-arian.After neolithic,and begining with,in Europe pelasgians were using an more +arian and more +indian language,wich at a point was something like PIE.But!!!!The PIE momentum was 1 second.After this second the languages derived,very early (4500BC).I am not for PIE in Anatolia or Thracia or other place ,I am for .....why not,an bifocal PIE area,and.....why not,on moove.I am interested about your coments and opinions.Remember:The austric (south-eastern asiatic),Uralic,arian and Indian languages,a v.v. old.They are not necessary mooving in areas in time as are wanting the scientists and chanhing their minds and theories.Remember :RA.....ROMANI.By short I am for an proto-Iberian origin of all those arian-like languages.
|
|