Subject: Re: Etruscans [was: Re: The Coming of the Greeks]
From: username@shore.net (Your Name)
Date: 8 Nov 1996 15:11:47 GMT
In article <55u7vu$l30@halley.pi.net>, mcv@pi.netÁ says...
>
>ayma@tip.nl wrote:
>
>>mcv@pi.net (Miguel Carrasquer Vidal) wrote:
>
>>>Etruscan...claims about its affiliations...that it is surely not IE.
>>...Woudhuizen, showing Etruscan to be a Luwian language,
>>rather akin to Lycian, very convincing. Not just in many nouns, names
>>and verbs but also in endings and lexical items.
>
>Well, I don't find it all that convincing myself.
My experience with Woudhuizen relates to his theory that Luwian
Hieroglyphics are related to the script of the Phaistoes Disk.
I found his work there unconvincing, but the larger idea that
there was a connection between languages across the seas as well
as over land may be plausible.
>
>>> ...similar to IE in general and Anatolian in particular
>>>(genitive endings in -s(i) and
>>>-l(a), pres. ptc. in -nth, some lexical items).
>>
>>**Which are not likely to be borrowings, i would feel.
>
>Indeed not. That's why I think there *is* a connection between Etruscan
>and IE, but it's much remoter than Woudhuizen thinks.
The issue is, if there is a relation, however faint it may be,
are time and distance the only variables to be considered, or
might we consider the size of the influential population as well.
A small population acting at a later date might have had the
same effect as a larger population acting at a much earlier date.
...snip...
>
>>... the Anatolian languages did have some oddities compaired to
>>other IEs, like f.e. the numeral 4 - Hittite meiu, Luwian mauwa, both
>>from an IE root *mei, also to be found in Greek meioon. Apparantly 4
>>carried in Anatolia the notion of 'one less of a full hand'? Well the
>>link between Luwian mauwa and Etruscan muvalch = 40 presents itself.
I think that concept, the notion of 4 as 'one less of a full hand'
is present in Egyptian as well as Roman numerals.
...
>
>huth can be derived from earlier *kut, and the IE labiovelar *kw (which
>was single sound, not k+w) may also be derived originally from k + u.
>But that's Pre-Indo-European, taking us back thousands of years:
Why is this necessarily something which takes us back thousands of years?
Allow for the sake of argument that Cardial pottery is found among
nearly all Neolithic groups in the western Mediterranean. Some common
language probably did arise as a part of the early trade associations
along the coast of the Adriatic, Italy Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia,
the south of France and Iberia.
You could try to make the case that your connection goes back
to this period, but I would not buy it.
What happens in this area is that a good part of the cultural
homogeneity arises from the trade in copper associated with
sea trade and trade up rivers after the third millenium BC
and that is associated with an increased appreciation of
how to build and navigate a boat after c 3000 BC.
This sea trade is connected to the Eastern Mediterranean by
the Mycenean Greeks, and to Egypt by the people of Crete.
Generally the Phoenicians gain control of trade routes along
the North African coast and the Greeks gain contol of routes
in the Black Sea, the Aegean, the Adriatic and the western
Mediterranean.
There is a bronze age connection between the people of
Sicily, Italy, Greece and Crete.
Iron age Greek colonization of Italys Adriatic coast and Sicily
occurs c 800 BC. The Etruscans emerge in central Italy associated
with the trade in metals coming down the Po river and with a large
number of Urnfield burials generally to the north of the Greek colonies
The Urnfield period provides the best connection between the
Etruscans and the sea trade with Anatolia c 1200-800 BC
>Anatolian had labio-velars, just like the rest of IE. If a relation
>with Etr. huth exists, it must date from very early days (early
>Neolithic, I'd guess). Etruscan kw- (E. wh-) words are absent: the
>relative and interrogative pronoun seems to have been ipa (Beekes: < in
>pa?). Etruscan *kw > p?
>
>>> It may not be too far-fetched to hypothesize that both are
>>>descended from a common "Indo-Tyrrhenian" proto-language.
>
>>***Interesting alternative. Would that be:
>>Indo-Hittite a Indo-European
>> b Tyrrho- Anatolian
>> b1 Anatolian
>> b2 Tyrrhenian
>> b21 Etruscan
>> b22 Lemnian
>> b23 Raetian
>
>I'm thinking more of:
>
>Indo-Tyrrhenian a Indo-Hittite
> a1 Indo-European
> ...
> a2 Anatolian
> b Tyrrhenian
> b1 Etruscan
> b2 Lemnian
> b3 Raetian
>
>or maybe:
>
>Indo-Tyrrhenian a Indo-European
> ...
> b Anatolian
> c Tyrrhenian
> c1 Etruscan
> c2 Lemnian
> c3 Raetian
Try putting some dates next to each of the above groupings.
Archaeologically I would put 3000 BC next to Indo European
1200 BC next to Anatolia, and 800 BC next to Etruscan
The Tyrrhenian would spread across the entire range.
>
>>>clearly related to Etruscan, but since there is only one largish text
>>>(the Lemnos stele), it is hard to establish the closeness of the
>>>relation (e.g. there are no verbs ending in -ce on the Lemnos stele).
>
>>***The stele is small indeed, but even in that small sample there are
>>close similarities between Lemnian and Etruscan, like
>>avis/avils "years", naphoth/nefts "grandson", sialchveis/sialchls
>>"sixty", tavarsio/teverath "governor" [Anatolian tawa[r]na/tabarna].
>>From the different forms of the related words, it is obviously that
>>the two languages are not the same, must have been appart
>>for some time, but have a clear common origin. So this
>>really refutes the idea that the Lemnian stele is just some monument
>>from a Etruscan merchant, an idea advocated by those who want to deny
>>the legend that the Etruscans originated from the Aegean.
There is a much closer association of Urnfield artifacts
with the Etruscans than there is Greek. The Greek areas
are primarily to the south of the Etruscan. The Anatolian
connection is reminiscent of earlier discussions of wrecks.
>
>No, Lemnian was indeed the native lg. on Lemnos, as Herodotus confirms.
>Etruscan must have originated in the Aegean.
I don't see that this necessarily follows, but if it is the
point of origin it can't have been much before 1200 BC
judging by the date and distribution of Greek artifacts
in central Italy.
> The question is when, and
>unfortunately, Lemnian doesn't help to solve that question. The oldest
>Etruscan inscriptions date from 700 BC, most are from after 500 BC.
>The Lemnos stele is dated to the 6th c. BC. If the Etruscans came from
>the Aegean c. 1200 BC, as "Sea Peoples", that would only put between 500
>and 700 years of separation between Etruscan and Lemnian. Is that
>enough? Can the "Sea People" theory explain the presence of Rhaetian in
>the Italian Alps?
Yes, The Po River connected the lakes of the Italian Alps with
the Adriatic.
...
>interesting translations snipped
...
nice post Miquel
>==
>Miguel Carrasquer Vidal
steve
Subject: Re: Threatening (?) E-mail from Richard Schiller
From: Marc Line
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 16:32:24 +0000
On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, at 09:44:49, August Matthusen reports:
>I received some e-mail from Richard Schiller aka
>elijah@wi.net or elijah@execpc.com (and too many
>Usenet names to list). In which he cced his postmasters
>and mine. In it Richard Schiller queried how would I like it
>if he posted my name and other publicly available
>information to Usenet (although he did state this was not a
>threat). Quite frankly, I don't care if he does because as
>he indicates, it is available.
snipped some
>However, I do care about him lying about me to my ISP.
>Regards,
>August Matthusen
With a little poetic licence and some rhyming, the subject of this could
easily have been reminiscent of a fairly recent product of the film
industry, "Schindler's List!"
The thought that the obnoxious individual, responsible for such gems of
endearing prose as the rather tame example of the genre quoted below,
has the nerve to make any statements whatsoever in connection with
netiquette, leaves me speechless. Incredible!
I know that "it takes all sorts" by really, surely there is a limit?
Regards
Marc
(begin quote)
Like Satan who accused God of threatening fear of the fruit to Adam and
Eve, you demons against God's warning that the end is here this year now
tell lies again claiming this warning is a threat of fear rather than a
loving urge to get to safety.
You deserve death, you will get death, and you will bring death, and
catastrophicly increase CASUALTIES (the most stupid word you asses have
created for the word death).
(end quote - spelling corrected for clarity)
Subject: Yaws & syph (Was: Decimation of American Indian)
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:27:46 -0600
I have just found, quite by accident, what it was that I had read about
yaws and syphilis in Native Americans.
It is from the 1997 catalogue for Pictures of Record, a company that
sells slide sets on anthropological topics. Here's their speal:
"Pictures of Record, Inc., publishes scholarly slide sets of
archaeological sites and artifacts, techniques of archaeology, and
ehnographic subjects, as well as reproductions of stone tools. Designed
for classroom and archival use by museums and universities, these color
slides are photographed, edited and annotated by professional
photogaphers, anthropologists, archaeologists and art historians.
Picures of Record slide sets:....include an introduction, bibliography
and extensive notes for each slide;...."
The slide set in question is in the Physical Anthropology Series,
entitled "Origins of Treponemal Disease, Distinguished According to Variety."
Here's the description, in full:
"Syphilis, Yaws, and Bejel occur in more than 40 ancient populations.
Yaws and Bejel can be traced back more than 6,000 years in the New World,
possibly migrating with early Asian populations. Consistently
represented for thousands of years, replacement of Yaws by syphilis is
first documented 1800 years ago in the United States. The osseous record
suggests possible infection of Columbus' crew. Thus, syphilis appears to
be a New World disease, derived from Old World Yaws, and subsequently
transmitted back to the Old World. By Bruce M. Rothschild, M.D. and
Christine Rothschild."
As I am not a physical anthropologist, I am not about to spend $72 for
those slides, so I don't have the list of references that come with the
set. If anyone is interested in pursuing them, POR can be contacted at:
Pictures of Record, Inc.
119 Kettle Creek Road Tel: (203) 227-3387
Weston, CT 06883 FAX: (203) 222-9673
USA email: POR NANCYH@aol.com
Cheers,
Rebecca Lynn Johnson
Ph.D. stud., Dept. of Anthropology, U Iowa
Subject: Re: Do Basque farm animal names resemble Indo-European ones?
From: maguirre
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 08:57:01 +0100
Jonathan Adams wrote:
>
> Does anyone know if the Basque names for farm animals, crops and basic farm
> implements seem to resemble Indo-European ones? The similarity of the various
> Indo-European words for 'sheep', for example, is used to suggest that
> Indo-European speakers were farmers and herders, and that they moved into
> Europe replacing hunter-gatherer populations or cultures who spoke other
> language groups (such as the ancestor of Basque). But if indeed the ancestral
> Basque-speakers were hunter-gatherers when the Indo-Europeans first got to
> them, they must have learnt farming and herding from the new arrivals. So
> wouldn't we expect them to have picked up some basic words for animals and
> crops from the Indo-Europeans? Is there any evidence that this occurred? If
> not, does that imply that in fact the Basque-speakers were the early neolithics
> and that the Indo-European languages are more recent arrivals in Europe?
Her below my comments to text above
The situation is a little bit more complicated than that. There is the
following possibilities:
In the evolution of the population of Europe we have several
possibilities
a)
A community of hunter-gatherers lerns agriculture -or more probably
husbandry- and increases is number enough not to be numerically
submerged by the first wave of vawe of agriculturalist.This people could
be represented by the Basques, but also by the Iberians and other non
Indo-Europena speakers of old Europe
b)
A community of agriculturalist is overtaken by a second one. This is the
Gimbutas-Mallory theory of the peaceful old european agriculturalists
taken over by the more agresive Indoerupean
c)
There is no second wave and the lingusitic -and genetics- of Europe is
the result of the first wave of agriculturialist that was already
carrying Indoeuropena with them.
The linguistic of the Iberian peninsula could be useful to differentiate
between alternative theories above.
Basque is not Indoeuropean its origin could be:
1)
Latecomer with some invader wave. Almost impossible
2)
The relast remain of the pre-Indoeuropean agriculturalist (supporting
Gimbutas)
3)
The last remain of european hunter-gatherers that managed to surive the
arrival of agriculturalist (does support nor Gimbutas, neither Mallory)
If 2) were true Iberian and Basque should be related. This appears not
to be the case
The 3) should be the most probably. This is also supported by genetic
studies (see Cavalli-Sforza)
Nevertheless I guess that basque could provide some clue on the origin
on the first agriculturalist and it should allow to discriminate between
Gimbutas and Mallory. This will require
Make -as you said- a list of basque words with neolithic terms (plants,
animals, metals and
cultural items).
Clean the list to eliminate modern contamination by Indoeuropean terms
Check the remainder against:
-Indoeuropean in general
-Afroasiatic (mainly berber)
-Oh God protect us! non Indoeuropean languages (Iberian Etruscan, Lineal
A, Luwita, Pelasgan, you name it). If something comes out of it perhaps
we have found the old European of Gimbutas.
This is a very complicated and long tasks and probably it will arrive
nowhere but it could be rewarding.
BTW I have enjoy very much your WWW page on paleoecology I have
downloaded and printed the situation in Europe 18000 years ago. I have
printed on it the following text: See impact of faillure of conveyor
belt! Invest on global ocean circulation research!
Subject: Re: New Study Supports Man Hunting Mammoth to Extinction
From: rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 14:10:20 -0600
On 7 Nov 1996, Franz Gerl wrote:
> rejohnsn@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu wrote:
> :
> : It makes intuitive sense that the mammoths may have been hunted to
> : extinction. But evidence simply of hunting cannot be taken as evidence
> : of hunting-to-extinction. The environment was a lot different ten
> : thousand years ago; there are a lot of non-human variables that need to
> : be controlled for before we say that humans caused the extinction.
>
> Lots of variables is quite vague. The other possible culprit is the
> climate change at the end of the ice age. The evidence now is, that
> mammoths were not starving, but reproducing vigorously. So what
> did push them towards extinction, and the rest of the megafauna
> like glyptodonts and giant sloths as well. Any suggestions for these
> "variables"?
Unless you define climate change very broadly, it is *not* the only other
possible culprit. We assume that late Pleistocene/early Holocene biomes
were the same as they are now, just pushed further south by the
glaciers. This is apparently not the case. Early holocene small-mammal
faunas in North America show a greater degree of sympatry than exists
today. The only comparable modern small-mammal faunas that even approach
the diversity of those early Holocene ones are found in southern
Wisconsin, at the junction of three biomes (conifer/hardwood, grassland,
and eastern deciduous forest). What this suggests is that the early
Holocene wooded areas were not identical to any extant biome. The
megafauna may have been supported by the diversity of the early Holocene
three-biomes-in-one; the differentiation into three distinct biomes may
have streched resource availability to a point where megafauna could no
longer be supported.
> : humans hunted the mammoths to extinction is a half-truth at best, because
> : it suggests sustained concentrated hunting of a large population that
> : would have survived but for that hunting. This only has precedent in the
> : industrial exploitation of various animals in the past two or three
> : hundred years.
>
> This certainly is not true. Dwarf elephants on Cyprus and Crete,
> giant makis and elephant birds on Madagascar, Moas on New Zealand,
> wherever prehistoric man arrived the large animals were the first
> to go. This is only a matter of scale, the pattern remains unchanged:
> The large and easily accessible animals disappear.
I stand corrected about the precedence; but I don't think you can support
your claim that "wherever prehistoric man [sic] arrived the large animals
were the first to disappear" -- how come mammoths managed to hang on for
more than 2,000 years in the old world? If humans cause extinction, it
should be a global phenomenon. I think the isolated incidents you
describe are special cases since they are on islands -- essentially
closed ecosystems, from the perspective of large animals. The appearance
of humans was a new element in an environment to which the small
populations of large animals had not had to adapt. I would argue that
although humans were a new element in the New World, the ecosystem, being
on the scale of a continent that wasn't 90% desert, can't be thought of
as a closed system.
> : Of course, the hunting hypothesis assumes that people arrived in the New
> : World only 10 or 12 kya, a date which is being challenged harder every day.
>
> More often than not these claims seem to have an agenda beyond simple science.
*Simple science*....what is that? What dreamland are you living in?
> I am not holding my breath until a real convincing site shows up.
Look at the most recent issue of *American Antiquity*. The site
reported therein (I don't have my copy handy) meets ALL of Griffin's
hardass requirements for such a site